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

April 22, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

STATUS OF ANNUAL REPORTS

ACCESS TO HEALTH COUNCILS

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FISH TESTING PROGRAM

JOB CREATION PROGRAM

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT LAYOFFS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PLANT LAYOFFS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONCLUDED)

FUEL CONVERSION PROGRAM

HOSPITAL CHARGES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PUBLIC SERVANTS' RIGHTS

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT

MINIMUM WAGE

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SUCCESSION LAW ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE ACT (CONTINUED)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MAIL DELIVERY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the seventh annual report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses for the year 1981.

STATUS OF ANNUAL REPORTS

Mr. Speaker: Last week, Mr. Shymko, the member for High Park-Swansea, as chairman of the social development committee, questioned the validity of the petition tabled on March 30 by Mr. R. F. Johnston, the member for Scarborough West, under standing order 33(

b) to refer the annual report of the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, to the standing committee on social development.

Mr. Shymko pointed out that standing order 33(

b) applies only to reports required by statute, and this is correct, as it is clearly stated in the standing order. However, Mr. Johnston mentioned that he understood there had been some precedents for petitions being accepted respecting reports which were not statutory.

I have had this matter looked into very carefully, and I find that 23 petitions under this standing order have been filed prior to the one under consideration. Of those 23, 19 concerned statutory reports, while four were for reports not required by statute; three of the four having been presented in the previous Parliament and one in the first session of this Parliament on April 27, 1981. Obviously, this places me in something of a dilemma.

As no objection was taken to the previous four, it might be considered that some precedent had been established, despite the clear wording of the standing order. However, the more reasonable

interpretation, and one to which I have given a great deal of thought, I might add, is that the lack of objection amounted to unanimous consent in those instances.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that the most reasonable way of disposing of this present difficulty is to allow this reference to stand, but at the same time advise the House that the table officers have now been furnished with a list of all reports required by statute, and henceforward when such petitions are tabled they will be checked against that list and not accepted if the report in question is not required by statute.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, for some guidance and ask you to look into the following matter related to this. In view of the fact some of the ministries have reports which are statutory by nature and others have annual reports that are not statutory, could you attempt to find out if it is possible to make all annual reports statutory so we do not have to be concerned whether they are or not? It seems to me most of the annual reports are statutory and, if there is a good reason for that, we should be proceeding to ensure all annual reports from the ministries are statutory so they can be given consideration by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I must respectfully point out to the member for Sudbury East that decision would lie with the government, not with me.

ACCESS TO HEALTH COUNCILS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 18, which deals with members' privileges. It involves a directive that emanates from the Ministry of Health. I am sorry to see that the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) is not here to hear the point of privilege but I gather from all the notes on his desk he will be here shortly. I trust he will be available on such an important day.

Apparently there is a directive from the Ministry of Health whereby public bodies such as local or district health councils are prohibited from making representations to or speaking with opposition members. Yesterday some of my colleagues, under the chairmanship of the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), this party's Health critic, were present in Ottawa and apparently the local district health council wanted to make submissions to this committee. They were prohibited from making such submissions by the Ministry of Health.

Such councils or public bodies are supported by public funds. In this particular case, health councils receive something like $6 million in public funds for their operations and are prohibited from speaking to not only opposition members but to other committees like union committees and even to committees as important as the Hall commission.

Not only does this affect the status, the standing and the credibility in the community of the local health councils but, as you know from your experience, it is very important to know what is going on locally in the health process. Opposition members are interested in what is going on in health in this province.

If they are not allowed to get submissions or to speak to bodies as important as health councils, it undermines the whole democratic process. I trust the minister will be advised by the chair and by this House that we take a dim view of the fact such a directive exists. It is unfair if the health council is put in a straitjacket.

I trust the minister will not take the approach that if one speaks to Tories in this province that is good government, but if one speaks to the opposition that is politics. That is unfair. That undermines the process and it affects the privileges of all of us.

Mr. Wrye: May I speak on the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker? As a member of the Liberal health task force who attended the hearings in Ottawa yesterday, as I have attended them at all of the stops along the way, I want to rise in support of my friend the member for Ottawa East and the concerns he raised.

I find it a matter of great concern that the Ministry of Health would take it upon itself to call a district health council, which is supposedly an independent advisory body to the government of Ontario and not to the Tory party, and tell the health council it would be improper for it to attend. It seems to me an independent advisory body could have made its own choice of whether in fulfilling its community mandate, as certain members of that committee wish to do, it wished to appear before a committee.

2:10 p.m.

I might point out quite specifically that the effect of the ministry's directive to the health council was such that on a number of occasions when we wished to learn what stage the matters that had been sent to the health council for consideration had reached in terms of its decisions on requests for funding, we were unable to do so because we had no representations from the health council. I hope, Mr. Speaker, through you and the House we can put an end to this practice, which appears to turn district health councils into nothing more than an arm of the government and an arm of the Tory party.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, speaking briefly to the same point of privilege, I would point out to the attention of you and the House that if this is a new policy directive it is recent, which is a cause for considerable concern. I can recall a health tour conducted by the New Democratic Party prior to the last provincial election and it had deputations from a number of district health councils.

If there is a new policy directive it is obviously in line with the new realities of March 19, 1981, which seem to add up to gagging the opposition parties, hamstringing them and preventing them from performing their parliamentary functions. It is a matter of enormous importance to the opposition that this abrogation of our privileges be looked into by you, Mr. Speaker, and a report be brought back to this assembly.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Minister of Health will take notice of your remarks and respond.

Mr. McClellan: I just want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, that you will report back with respect to what appears to be an abrogation of the privileges of opposition members.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be some doubt on that and I would like to take a look at it before I obligate myself. Clearly it is not my responsibility to report back to the House on matters that lie within government jurisdiction.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, this is an important point for all members, not just opposition members. Traditionally, the members of this Legislature have had the privilege of visiting provincial institutions and organizations for purposes of getting information. I would suggest that after some deliberation, Mr. Speaker, you really have to take this as a point of privilege for each and every member of this Legislature. It is our obligation to find out information about situations which, particularly in this instance, are being handled by district health councils.

I know I am, and I imagine most of the members of this House are, regularly invited to meet with our local district health councils. We use them regularly to elicit information about proposals that have been made to the ministry. To shut off that communication link between providers of service, the health councils and their properly elected representatives is, to me, quite a serious abrogation of my privileges.

I would encourage you most sincerely to look into this situation very deeply and to make a ruling on the rights of members of this Legislature to meet with and talk to people who are purportedly members of the public appointed to do a specific job, in this instance looking after the co-ordination of health care facilities, which is a most important aspect of government in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have had numerous contacts with the district health council in Ottawa. I am very concerned over the events of yesterday, because effectively there has been an attempt to provincialism a council that has always been seen as being part of the Ottawa community rather than just an arm of the Ministry of Health.

That district health council includes representatives who have given a great deal of time and concern to it on a voluntary basis, people from the local community and people from local government. They have never seen themselves as working for the provincial government. They see their role as providing advice about the ways in which district health needs may best be met.

If they now are told they are to be muzzled by order of the provincial Ministry of Health or because the ministry threatens to withdraw funds if they do not shape up, I think it is a sad and sorry episode in the development of means of obtaining independent advice on a local or regional basis.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the same point of privilege. I am shocked to hear what the government is doing, apparently under directives from the Minister of Health. I am wondering how this is consistent with the principle of freedom of information that the government has espoused in the past and now is trying to back away from.

Mr. Speaker: As I assured all honourable members earlier, I will take this into consideration and give it serious thought.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise again under standing order 81(d). As you will recall, I have raised this a number of times. I tabled a number of questions on March 31, which should have been answered by April 15, with at least an interim answer.

I received yesterday, delivered by hand, the answers to questions 19, 20, 22 and 23. I have as yet still not received an answer to question 21. I raised this problem once before because the cabinet ministers involved were not complying with the rule. The Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), to whom question 21 was directed, has not yet not complied with the rule. As far as I am concerned, the other minister, who submitted answers which I received yesterday, did not either. He supplied answers but they were late.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you discuss this with the government House leader to determine when and if the Solicitor General intends to answer my question and what can be done to assure that these questions are answered, at least on an interim basis, for all members who table written questions according to the rules of the House. There obviously is some backup, some problem in the cabinet office, if the ministers submit written answers and they are not then tabled in this House. What is the problem? Please investigate it and report back.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I just remind all honourable members that the standing orders regulate the operation of this House and nobody is exempt from compliance. I am pleased to urge a quick compliance.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FISH TESTING PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional at this time of year, just prior to the opening of the 1982 spring trout season this Saturday, that the Ministry of the Environment update members of the Legislature, Ontario anglers and consumers on the results of Ontario's fish testing program.

Ontario has pioneered the testing of sport fish for possible contamination and the recommendation of guidelines for the safe consumption of fish based on our test results and the advice of our environmental health specialists.

For the past six years we have provided this information to the public in convenient, easily read booklet form available at no charge. We have also issued supplementary bulletins as new tests were completed through the year.

Today, I am pleased to inform the members that copies of the 1982 editions of our bilingual publications for southern and northern Ontario, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, are now being released and will be available to the public generally throughout the province as of April 26.

2:20 p.m.

Members have a set a booklets available to them in their post boxes at the present time and more will be available on request, if any members require them.

These 1982 editions provide test results from more than 70,000 fish taken from over 1,100 lakes, rivers and selected areas of the Great Lakes. Analysis of the data continues to indicate that the majority of sport fish from these waters are free from contamination and may be eaten safely in unrestricted amounts.

Accumulated results to date show that in well over 1,000 of the waters tested, some or all sizes and species of fish were found to be suitable for unrestricted consumption. In only two of the water bodies tested do our advisers recommend no consumption of any fish tested. These two locations continue to be the Saigon River below Dryden and nearby in Clay Lake. A federal-provincial task force is investigating possible remedial measures to counteract the mercury problem which has persisted in those areas for many years.

As a further convenience to anglers, this year's fish guides have been revised and streamlined to include information on 2,3,7,8-TODD -- dioxin -- in addition to analyses for mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, Murex and DDT.

The guides are available without charge from offices of the Ministries of the Environment, Natural Resources and Northern Affairs. In addition, the booklets will also be available at vacation area outlets of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Brewers' Retail stores during late spring and the summer months as long as supplies last.

JOB CREATION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Pope: Today, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a new federal-provincial job creation program to assist unemployed workers in the Ontario mining industry. The program, which I presented to federal Employment and Immigration Minister Lloyd Axworthy, is similar in concept to one introduced earlier this year for forest industry workers.

The program was initially developed in conjunction with the Ontario Ministry of Labour and is a bridging measure that allows companies, municipalities or other organizations to rehire skilled workers now receiving unemployment insurance and to keep them working until local economies recover. Provision will be made to create job opportunities for permanently laid-off workers until they are able to find other work in the community.

Preliminary discussions with the regional municipality of Sudbury, Inco Ltd. of Sudbury, Pamour Porcupine Mines Ltd. of Timmins, Madawaska Mines Ltd. of Bancroft and Umex Mines of Pickle Lake have yielded encouraging results. We anticipate that contracts with these groups and others will be signed very shortly.

Groups qualifying for the program will be able to offer unemployed workers an enhanced pay package. Under a special provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act, workers can receive 25 per cent more than their allowable benefit. In addition, Ontario, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, will contribute $60 per week plus a benefit package including 100 per cent of the Ontario health insurance plan, the Workmen's Compensation Board and the Canada pension plan.

Projects allowable under the program will include fencing and capping of abandoned mine openings, mine tailings rehabilitation and other projects related to land reclamation. As well, my ministry would entertain other project areas that meet the criteria of retaining skilled workers in the community and providing other long-term benefits to the industry. For instance, we are currently looking at another project that would employ geologists and draftsmen.

The program provides an opportunity for a significant reduction to the backlog of rehabilitation work, thus eliminating potential safety hazards.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that we must maintain the health of our many small, resource-dependent communities and ease their hardship in these difficult times.

It is my firm belief that retaining skilled workers within the communities and providing companies with short-term programs that will have long-term benefits assures some measure of wellbeing until the economic prognosis is better; it is to be hoped within the next six months.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker: I wanted to know if the minister had inadvertently left out a

section of his speech which would have also employed workers at a research project at the Creighton Mines, which he promised?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) had a statement planned and intended to be here, but he will be 15 or 20 minutes. Perhaps we could proceed to question period and then, with the consent of the House, revert to his statement when he is here. He is just preparing it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on that point: Obviously we were expecting a statement today. I am quite disappointed the minister is not here. He was seen ambling about the building about two o'clock and his briefing books are here with all the answers to our questions. In view of the gravity of the situation I would like your permission, sir, to stand down my questions until we hear the minister's statement so we can question him thereupon.

Mr. Speaker: I would just remind all honourable members that this is Thursday afternoon, private members' afternoon, and there are very specific rules governing what goes on. I just point that out for the benefit of all members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition suggests would be perfectly agreeable to us. The minister is here. He is preparing a statement that he wants to make. It is a statement which he wants to be sure is written out and available and the words are as he wishes them.

Mr. Speaker: The decision will be made by the House.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if each party has a question from the leader with respect to health, maybe we could allow the leaders to go back to their question and take a first leadoff --

Mr. Speaker: I do not have any objection to that. The Leader of the Opposition, with his second question first.

Mr. Nixon: He has two health questions.

Mr. Peterson: The emergency in this province today is the question of health. If the minister is not here to answer the questions I do not think we should be diverted into less important matters. You may want to use your discretion to adjourn the House for 10 or 15 minutes until the minister comes so we can ask him about the relevant issues of the day. Maybe that is a good suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: I did say I would revert. That is no problem. You are not going to lose an opportunity to ask your questions, but I will go immediately to the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Let me go back. Maybe my friend did not understand what I was suggesting. If he has one question for the minister -- both are for the Minister of Health?

Mr. Peterson: Yes. The minister obviously has a very important statement. I think we should have the opportunity to question him thereon, and I would like to reserve my right to exercise my privileges as Leader of the Opposition when he arrives. In view of the gravity, as I said, Mr. Speaker, if you would like to use your discretion to adjourn the House for a few minutes until he arrives, that would be fine with us, so we could preserve the integrity of the entire question period.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is not on health matters. If you would like us to proceed I would be quite prepared to do so.

Mr. Speaker: We can reserve the two questions for the Leader of the Opposition and go immediately to the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Martel: We will do the same and start with health thereafter.

Mr. Speaker: Then we will come back here to the private members and recognize the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT LAYOFFS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, and I had an opportunity to give him at least some notice that the question would be asked. It has to do with the three-week layoff of 925 employees at White Farm Equipment.

My question to the minister has to do with the validity of the layoff. Since there was no economic reason for these people to be put out of their jobs for three weeks -- they could not apply for unemployment insurance for two of those weeks, or a considerable period of time, and they were simply being held hostage by the American shareholder of the previous corporation to apply unnatural financial pressure and political pressure to the minister here in Ontario, Mr.

Gray in Ottawa and to the Canadian shareholder who was forced to sell out, taking a $1.5 million profit in only one year based largely on government guarantees -- will the minister tell the House what he feels about this circumstance?

If no law controls such an unconscionable layoff, will he at least contact the new 100 per cent United States owner and controller of White Farm Equipment and tell him that we feel his actions are immoral and unconscionable?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the figures as I understand them coincide with what the honourable member has brought forward: 740 hourly rated employees and 185 out of 285 salaried employees.

As I understand it, there was a cash flow problem; the company could not finance its inventory while it was negotiating with the people in the United States and therefore it had to stop production. The Ministry of Labour investigated immediately. In fact, it had been monitoring the situation for some months, because the company had been in trouble prior to these latest developments.

Under the terms of the Employment Standards Act, the layoff was temporary and if these people returned prior to 13 weeks, notice was not required. However, if any of them were not taken back prior to the end of the 13-week period, they would be entitled to regular notice or pay in lieu of notice.

The member has asked if I would be prepared to get in touch with the comptroller of the company in the United States. I certainly would. I am not sure I would be able to make the accusations the member has asked me to make. These are opinions he is expressing and I do not have any knowledge of their validity. However, I certainly would be prepared to contact the comptroller of the American company.

Mr. Nixon: I do not mean "comptroller" in the sense the minister is referring to it. I mean the American person who now controls the company.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am aware of all the points the honourable member has raised. If what he tells me is correct, and I have no reason to distrust what he is telling me, then I certainly share his level and measure of concern.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Industry and Trade himself has admitted that this was a squeeze play by the American partners to gain full control, are the minister and the government considering changes to the act to protect workers and prevent them from being used as hostages, as my friend calls them, in this kind of squeeze play, so we do not see workers' employment used as a way of pressuring governments and companies into accepting foreign ownership?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the member for Algoma has raised an excellent point. The Employment Standards Act is under constant review by our ministry. That is one of the items that has been looked at and discussed.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food in regard to the farm adjustment assistance program.

The minister will recall that under delightful circumstances the night before last, he informed me that the number of farmers who have now received assistance under this program is 188. Listening to his deputy speak to the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association at the Ontario Food Terminal yesterday morning, I was a little surprised when he informed them that 300 farmers now have received successful applications. Can the minister reconcile this rather remarkable escalation of figures over a 12-hour, overnight period?

My second question with regard to the same program is that the minister will be aware --

Mr. Speaker: You only have one question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the figures I gave the member at supper were the figures at the close of business last Friday. They were prepared for the answer to question 76 standing in the name of the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), which answer will be tabled today. I think my deputy was talking about an anticipated figure. The decision committee has been meeting daily since that time and they anticipate a further 100 cases will be approved this week alone, bringing the total at the close of business today to almost 300 applications approved.

Mr. MacDonald: May I suggest to the minister that since the public has a great deal of interest in it, surely the daily updated figures should be available from his office so that, if people call, they will not think something is being hidden?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: They are available. We have the figures available. Anyone who calls my office can get them --

Mr. Speaker: Let us not get into a debate.

May we hear the supplementary?

Mr. MacDonald: Yesterday morning the farmers were once again putting a moratorium as their top priority item. Since the government itself has conceded the need for some breathing space for farmers to come to grips with their difficulty by a six-month deferral on interest payments, why is the minister so adamantly against granting a moratorium? Why is he using excuses that it is illegal, unconstitutional and things of that nature?

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture task force is headed by a former deputy minister and has on its membership Del O'Brien, a leading eastern Ontario Tory lawyer, expert in the law, who said that should be done. So why is the minister stalling?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not going to get into arguments about whether or not a province can do it. The honourable member knows that opinions have been given to us that we do not have the right to do it.

Having received the report, the administration looked at that recommendation, first in terms of agriculture and second in terms of the broader economy, and concluded with respect to agriculture that we would be better to institute a program like the farm adjustment assistance program, targeted to individual operations, helping those who can be viable to be viable again, rather than a having a moratorium, which would have to apply to the whole of the province and which in the long run would be quite counterproductive.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I understand the figures given at the dinner meeting which the minister had with the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) showed that 188 farmers had been assisted and that $2 million had been given out of the $60 million that was put into the fund.

I understand the figure of $2 million was given by the minister or his deputy as the amount that had been given to the farmers in this assistance program. If that is the case, does the $2 million include the government-guaranteed line of credit, or does it simply include the five per cent subsidy interest part of the program?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for my copy of the answer to be tabled today, but I do not see it. Looking at my report to the end of last week, I am not sure where the figure of $2 million comes from; and I referred to 185 the other night, not 188. Again, that was at the close of business last Friday afternoon.

I remind the honourable member that there are three options. One option is the deferral of interest guarantee, and one of the 185 there is involved for $58,000. On the second option, which is the interest reduction grants, the total amount of the loans eligible in 181 instances where that option has been used is almost $40 million; that is the number of the loans eligible for the interest reduction grants. On the additional line of guaranteed credit, there are 65 applications where that option has been applied; there is a further $4 million of credit involved there.

I do not have with me the amount of the $60 million that is now absolutely committed. A lot of that, I suppose, would be contingent on whether there are any business failures among those we have approved for these supports.

2:40 p.m.

PLANT LAYOFFS

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade.

When the provincial government, through its Ontario Development Corp. or Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, is making decisions on loan assistance to companies with manufacturing proposals, do these government agencies not have an obligation to study the impact of such assistance to these new companies on the competitiveness of existing, established companies?

If they do, is the minister aware that Jarvis Clark, the largest single manufacturing employer in North Bay, a very innovative company manufacturing mine machinery equipment, has just announced the layoff of more than one third of its workers because of a drastic slowdown in national and worldwide sales?

Is the minister aware that at the same time a large consortium of very well-heeled companies is applying to the federal and provincial governments for assistance in establishing what I understand to be a similar operation in Sudbury? I understand the consortium includes such needy companies as Inco, Falconbridge and Noranda as well as Jack Clark, the man who started Jarvis Clark, sold out, moved with his money to the United States and now wants to come back in competition with Jarvis Clark.

I would like to know, as would the management and owners, and most important the laid-off workers of Jarvis Clark would like to know, whether the ministry is planning to assist these international giants to compete with a very well managed, existing company in northern Ontario which this week announced layoffs of more than one third of its work force because of the lack of markets for its products?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question. Yes, there certainly is an obligation on the part of the Ontario government and the Ontario Development Corp. to ensure that they are not going to jeopardize jobs of other people within the province.

I am aware of the Jarvis Clark situation. I am also aware of the consortium that is attempting to put together a package that ultimately will establish a centre for mining equipment manufacture in Sudbury. I am aware of that and that there is likely to be provincial participation, as well as federal participation plus participation of a number of large companies, if that is all to come together. As yet, it has not been formally set down and has yet to properly get established.

In the case of Jarvis Clark versus this particular consortium, it is my understanding that there is no relationship between the two. As the member knows, 70 per cent of the mining manufacturing equipment that comes into this province is imported. The reason this particular consortium was set up in the first place was to provide an alternative to the imported goods. So it is my understanding that there will be no relationship between the two.

If there is any competition, I would be very surprised. I cannot imagine there being any competition between the two. I suppose it is possible there might be the slightest amount of overlap but, generally speaking, I could give some assurance to the member that there will be covenants in whatever agreement is established, if one is established, to ensure that they do not provide that area of competition that is causing some concern.

Mr. Harris: The minister mentioned figures in terms of the amount of imports. Does he know that in 1971 Canada imported virtually 100 per cent of the specialized underground mining equipment vehicles? Today, in addition to exporting, Jarvis Clark supplies 70 per cent of the Canadian market, which I suggest to the minister is pretty good.

I would also like to ask whether the minister is aware that when Jarvis Clark last expanded in 1979-80, it was told by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion that it was too prosperous to qualify for DREE funding.

Will the minister now assure this House and the laid-off employees of Jarvis Clark that he will look into this matter further? If the Sudbury consortium of Inco, Falconbridge, Noranda and Jack Clark is planning to manufacture specialized underground mining equipment to compete with Jarvis Clark in North Bay, will the minister agree that public funds ought not to be used and that the Sudbury consortium is large enough to finance this project itself?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member has asked a number of questions. I am certainly aware of the stellar performance of Jarvis Clark since 1971 in being able to replace the underground mining machinery. It has done a phenomenal job in that way. It is regrettable, and I think it is a concern for all of us, that the state of the market today is such there would have to be layoffs.

We want to provide any assurance we can to the people in North Bay that if that consortium goes ahead, it will not have as part of its covenants, so to speak, that which would allow competition in direct competition to it. We would intend that import substitution be the only clarion call of that consortium if it ever goes ahead.

I regret that DREE, which is a federal operation, saw fit in 1979 to reject any application made by Jarvis Clark at the time, but there is not very much we can do about that at this moment. However, I will give the member those assurances, and I will be pleased to invite him to meet me in the next few days to be sure those assurances are written in.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell his colleague from North Bay as well as all the people in North Bay that, given the level of imports of mining machinery in this country, he could establish a consortium or a crown corporation to build mining machinery in every mining community in this country and they still would not be competing with one another?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much to tell as to that point; the honourable member has already told him.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has appeared. Do we have unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, first, I apologize to the House for the fact that I have been late in arriving today. Second, I understand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has indicated that my briefing books here contain the answers to all the questions he has asked; he is correct: all the answers are here.

I do apologize to the House for my late arrival, but I have been involved for some time over the past three or four hours in personal discussions with representatives of the Ontario Medical Association.

As a result of those discussions in an attempt to resolve our differences with the physicians of Ontario, some important proposals have been exchanged. Negotiations have been quite encouraging. As a result, the Ontario Medical Association has agreed to call a special board meeting this Saturday afternoon to consider the proposals. Therefore, I am hopeful this matter will be resolved shortly.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extraordinary circumstances, I ask the permission of the House to make a brief statement as well. Because of the nature of the discussions today on this question --

Mr. Foulds: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You don't make statements; you ask questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Obviously we do not have unanimous consent. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is about the debate this afternoon which I think is relevant. If you prefer, it can be a

preamble to a question that will not arise.

2:50 p.m.

I listened to the minister's statement with interest, and I want him to know that our paramount concern in this party has always been the state of the health care system and the health of the patients in the province. It has never been our intention to interfere with the negotiating process, because we have always preferred a negotiated settlement.

That being said, I am going to withdraw my motion this afternoon. It is not our intention to further complicate the negotiations. I take the minister at his word that he is close to a settlement. It is our intention to try to assist in that and not to try to bring any more pressure to bear than is necessary in the circumstances. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to withdraw that motion today. It can stand for Monday, if it should be necessary on that day.

We are prepared to take the minister at his word that progress is being made. Obviously, it is in the collective best interests of the patients of this province, the doctors and everyone else to have a negotiated settlement.

It is also my intention not to ask the minister any questions about the negotiations today so that he will have as clear and free a hand as he can to solve this crisis in our province.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is the privilege of the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his motion. I hope the progress that is being made is genuine, and I hope the minister will see his way clear to make a statement to the House before we adjourn for the weekend to give us a clearer idea of where the parties stand.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: Now we will revert to question period and the first question of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect: We are just going to proceed with the rotation as it was. My leader's questions were directed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) about the negotiations, and he has indicated he is not going to ask them at this time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions that I can ask.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I recognize the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not put all my eggs in one basket.

Mr. Riddell: Where do you put your marbles?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have been accused of laying eggs before.

Mr. Foulds: There are other matters of urgent public importance in this province, I assume.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don't doubt that.

Mr. Riddell: If only Bob Rae were looking down from the heavens now.

Mr. Breaugh: At least you know where to look for him, Jack.

Mr. Ruston: Where is he?

Mr. Breithaupt: He has gone to see Napoleon again.

Mr. Nixon: He's the only one we have met who has any brains.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Port Arthur resume his seat, please.

We frequently have complaints about the use of question period. I just point out to the honourable members that they themselves are abusing it. Having said that, I recognize the member for Port Arthur.

FUEL CONVERSION PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Is the minister aware of the program of the Ministry of Energy to convert automobiles from gasoline to propane, in which 300 government cars and about 13,000 privately owned automobiles in the province have been converted?

If that is the case and if the minister is supportive of that program, can he tell us what standards and procedures his ministry has in place to ensure that the conversion from gasoline to propane takes place safely and soundly?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the program. As a matter of fact, it is my ministry that has been carrying that program, and not the Ministry of Energy, although it is a joint program between the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

We have been working with propane as an alternative fuel for the off-oil program for a considerable period of time. I believe the member is correct in saying that we have approximately 300 vehicles converted at this time. In the current fiscal year, we are proposing to convert approximately another 300. As a matter of fact, my government car is a propane Mercury Cougar; so I am very familiar with that.

I am not a mechanic and I have not inspected the conversions personally, but to my knowledge there has not been a problem with any safety-related aspects of the conversions.

Mr. Foulds: Has the minister not been made aware of an internal Ministry of Labour report, dated March 15, 1982, with a covering memo from a J. I. Whiting to a Mr. P. B. McCrodan in the mining, health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour in which he says: "The cars examined in the Ministry of Labour following conversion under the existing purchase orders are vehicles that will be likely to endanger us or any other occupants.

Further, we have removed our vehicles from Monarch Propane and their subcontractors." Further, he says, "I also feel you should make our concerns known to the assistant deputy minister, as I am sure the division would be embarrassed if an employee were seriously injured in a propane-related mishap."

In the report on the cars examined a number of flaws were indicated. For example, the container is attached to the sheet metal and not to the main frame of the vehicle; valves, hoses and fittings in the luggage compartment are exposed and not protected against physical damage; the luggage compartment is not sealed from the passenger carrying space; and in a vehicle that my colleagues the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) travelled in there was an additional hazard of the propane container becoming a projectile within the passenger compartment.

If those serious flaws are found in the government's own cars, does the minister not think it is his responsibility as Minister of Transportation and Communications to have a standard for all of the vehicles converted on the roads of Ontario to protect the safety of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am very shocked and annoyed that I have not heard anything about this memo, which apparently originated in the Ministry of Labour. I have not heard anything of that type or any criticism whatsoever of the conversions that are being done.

As to the standards for the manufacture or conversion of an automobile, I believe those come under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of the Department of Transport. Certainly the new vehicles do; I would have to look into the matter of the conversions. But if the honourable member will please send me a copy of that memo, I will have it looked into immediately.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, following the line of the conversion to propane from gasoline in vehicles and the building of new cars that contain the conversion kit already manufactured, can the minister assure the House that the road tax now exempt on this type of energy will remain so?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, in no way is that a supplementary to the question; I am sure you can understand that. In any case, I am not in a position to answer.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, first, is the minister aware that the Ford Motor Co. does not recommend conversions at all? Second, now that the minister has been made aware of this report, will he institute some form of recall and testing program for those thousands of vehicles currently on the road to protect the motorists of Ontario who have not got propane as well as those who do?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the honourable member's question. Will he kindly repeat it?

Mr. Speaker: Just before he does, may I please have the co-operation of all honourable members by not carrying on private conversations?

Mr. Samis: Is the minister aware that the Ford Motor Co., makers of his own propane car, do not recommend the conversion of existing cars to propane at all, and neither do some of his ministry officials? In view of the information revealed by my colleague, will he institute a program of testing and recall of those cars that have been converted to protect those drivers as well as motorists who do not use propane but who may be affected by any serious incident?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Obviously, I cannot give that commitment. I am not aware of the first two items the honourable member mentioned. No one has ever suggested that to me.

I have met personally with the officials of the Ford Motor Co. who are in charge of their propane program. I will admit that to my knowledge Ford is the only manufacturer that has come out with a factory-manufactured propane car. My ministry car and the one I have at home were two of the first ones to be made. They are working very satisfactorily although they were both recalled about a month ago for some minor adjustment with which I am not familiar. They went back to the dealer for one day for some adjustment.

I do not know if there is any way we could initiate a recall of every car on the road or whether it would be wise to do so.

HOSPITAL CHARGES

Mr. Foulds: I had a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) but he seems to have disappeared. I will therefore ask it of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Does the minister recall the statement of the former Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) when he offered his private bed sale and told hospitals they would be allowed to charge extra for private beds and preferred accommodation? In that statement, the then minister said: "Many people are covered by private insurance for preferred accommodation. Nevertheless, as this is a new idea, the hospitals and the ministry must monitor the situation closely to ensure this concept creates no difficulty."

Now that there has been an application and there will be an implementation of a 65 per cent increase in Blue Cross premiums for almost 200,000 senior citizens in Ontario, does the minister not believe that this policy and this increase in premiums makes the people who are most vulnerable in our society even more vulnerable? Is it not the government's responsibility to ensure either that people can get that coverage or that premiums should not be increased?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not propose to comment on the Ministry of Health's policy with respect to semiprivate and private accommodation. It is true that Blue Cross has submitted evidence to us that an increase in their premium rate is justified. As the member knows, Blue Cross is a nonprofit organization and the information they have provided to the ministry relates to increased costs they have incurred over a recent period of time. We will be reviewing those to make certain that the increases are justified and then we will make a decision.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister very carefully scrutinize the categories that are established by Blue Cross which make this coverage, not insurance, because the premiums vary so greatly, depending on the category or pool? Will the minister examine the whole way in which Blue Cross establishes its premiums, especially senior citizens' premiums, which are in excess of those of any other category and for which it has been brought to our attention they are asking the 65 per cent increase?

Can the minister ensure that the application for increases of 46 per cent, 36 per cent and 29 per cent in three other categories are also thoroughly justified? Will he table that information in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already indicated we are reviewing the information provided to us. I will not commit myself to tabling the information in the House.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, given the inappropriateness of directing this to the minister, but also given the absence of the Minister of Health who really should be fielding these questions, I have to try to supplement the question from the third party.

I wonder if the minister might not respond to the House and indicate to us if the government will do anything at all to look at the effect of the increases as they apply to seniors and as that effect relates to the availability of ward beds? Because the conclusion one has to draw from looking at these increases is that the seniors simply will not be able to afford semiprivate or private coverage, and therefore will have to go back to the wards. The wards have been or will have been reduced, yet there will be an extra demand put on them. Will the minister ask his colleagues to consider that in the overall bed allotment and the concern they should have for ward coverage?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will see that the comments made by the member are brought to the attention of the Minister of Health.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a woman in Toronto whose identity I am not able to disclose, but the letter says: "I recently had a baby in Toronto General and was billed for a semiprivate room. At no point did I ask for a semiprivate room, nor did I see any other type of room on the floor."

My question to the minister is, will he undertake through his good offices an investigation to determine whether this is an isolated incident or whether hospitals are using the new beds-for-sale policy in a way that imposes preferred accommodation on patients regardless of their indicated preferences and then sending them the bill after the fact? Will he do that before the superintendent of insurance gives his necessary approval to the implementation of this whole unfortunate scheme?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I do not see that the two issues of whether we will give approval to the Blue Cross request and the incident the member has spoken about are completely related. Let me say that I will draw the member's points of interest to the minister, but it is my personal view that either someone should be advised of and agree to semiprivate accommodation or should not be required to pay for it, and neither should the plan.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue our earlier line of questioning with the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The minister is aware of another demonstration yesterday by Ontario farmers. I might say this is the only recourse left to them to manifest their feelings of utter frustration over the government's lack of adequate and urgently needed financial assistance against spiralling interest rates, which have forced another 47 of them into bankruptcy in the first three months of this year.

Considering the inadequacies .of this program, and the tremendous delays in approving the farm adjustment assistance program for the farmers, how meaningful are the assistance programs to the farmers who require operating capital now that seeding is going to start at the end of this week?

Is the minister aware that the banks will not give farmers a line of credit until they receive a response from his decision committee, which is a long time coming and will be a long time coming yet, and in some cases takes up to two months? Is he not aware that suppliers will not give credit on supplies to the farmers for seeding until they establish that a farmer has a line of credit with his bank? Farmers need help now. What is the minister going to do to get this assistance to them so they can buy their seed, their fertilizer, their fuel and all the rest of it, to put their crops in this spring?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, after nine weeks in this portfolio and after scouring all the records, including the latest issue of Farm and Country and the talk the honourable member gave to some farmers in Huron, I have yet to determine what specific programs or improvements to the existing program he thinks would be of more help than those we have already implemented.

The lead-off question by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) illustrates how well the program is working. The increase in applications to the farm adjustment assistance program, since last Friday alone about 100 more applications have been approved, I think speaks very well for the program.

The answer to question 76 on the Order Paper will be tabled today. It is really a two-part question. First of all, the member asked the average time from the filing of an application with the lender -- the bank, the credit union, the trust company -- until a decision is reached by the provincial decision committee. The answer to that question is four weeks.

Secondly, he asked the average time from submission of the recommendation by the local case committee until a decision is rendered by the decision committee. The answer is two weeks, not two months.

He asks how many applications have been turned down. We have rejected only one. Compared to the Farm Credit Corp. or to any other program in the country, the member will find that this one is working extremely well in the numbers of people being assisted, and in the work members of my staff, and those of the banks and other lending institutions, are putting in to help individual farmers return their operations to viability.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister, meeting with the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association yesterday, indicated that 25 applications are being processed every day. There are 7,000 farmers who, according to the information we have, require assistance. The minister should figure that out. It means more than 200 days will be required to process these loans. These farmers cannot wait any longer for the assistance they need to put in their crops.

Has the minister given any consideration to the request by the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association for a rebate of 50 per cent of the interest they paid in 1981? This would give them the capital they require now to buy their seed, fertilizer and other ingredients.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to another question and I still do not know where the member stands or what kind of a program he would propose. He was on both sides of the question when he spoke to his own constituents. He was trying to be all things to all people.

The program is aimed at helping individual farmers meet their problems in 1982. We have said repeatedly to requests from various organizations that we are not going to have a program that would rebate interest from 1981. To be fair, if one was going to look at that kind of a program one would have to look at it from the point of view of all segments of society. We could not single out just one.

We have engaged additional staff for this program because of the increase in volume. With the end of classes at the five agricultural colleges, we are reassigning our top economists to work with our staff in the field to expedite the process. We will assign as many staff members as necessary to maintain the quick turnaround time. I think the member can compare that to any other lending institution. We are processing applications as quickly as possible.

The most important feature is that the program is based on individual evaluations so that we can ensure that the individual farmer receives from the program the maximum individual benefit under its terms.

PUBLIC SERVANTS' RIGHTS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Now that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been proclaimed by Her Majesty the Queen, is the Attorney General aware of the provisions of

section 14 of the Public Service Act of Ontario which makes Ontario public servants liable to be fired if they speak in public, or if they publish an

article or letter on any matter forming part of the platform of a provincial or a federal political party?

Does that provision of the Public Service Act not conflict with the guarantee of freedom of speech contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights proclaimed on the weekend? What steps will the government take to amend Ontario's law and ensure that civil servants get the freedom of speech the Canadian Charter of Rights intended them to have?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that

section of the Ontario legislation in recent months. I would like to say to the former leader of the New Democratic Party that I personally support the principle of that legislation. Not having read it recently, I am not in a position to offer a legal opinion at this time.

I would like to say this: I think that the former leader of the New Democratic Party has missed, in this ongoing debate, a very important principle, which is that legislation exists for the protection of the individual civil servant so that no government can bring pressure on an individual civil servant to support the party that happens to be forming the government. I think it is unfortunate that in this debate the member has overlooked this very important protection for the civil service of our province.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister seems to be taking a position contrary to his federal colleagues who came to the defence of Neil Fraser, the Revenue Canada employee who was fired because he expressed his views on the subject of metrication. Does the minister not think it is an intolerable situation when a public servant who happens to disagree with a minister, and happens to believe that civil servants should have political rights, can be fired for expressing that view in public because it happens to be part of the platform of the Ontario New Democratic Party?

What rights of free expression do public servants in Ontario have if they cannot even debate whether or not they should have political rights?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not going to embroil myself in the particular issue involving this federal civil servant. I have, of course, read some press reports of that situation. But, without turning this into a debate, this is an issue about which no one can be a total absolutist because I am sure that on the one hand, we all pay or give some importance to the right of every citizen to be heard on a political issue. That is a right that has to be respected.

On the other hand, I happen to believe at this time, until I am persuaded otherwise, that the more compelling right is the right of the individual civil servant to be protected from the government in power putting political pressure on him to go out and support that particular government in a partisan manner for fear of losing, for example, some opportunity for promotion. These are the competing rights.

I also happen to believe that while I agree to this point it is difficult to be an absolutist on either side, we have achieved in this country, despite the imperfections of government, of which we are all aware, we have managed to protect the civil service from the types of political pressures that we have seen, for example, south of the border. In our view, such political pressures, if allowed to occur, could undermine the effectiveness of the civil service in a manner that would be detrimental to the rights of all citizens. That happens to be my view at the present time.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the Attorney General by way of supplementary, and by way of

preamble agree with him that until there has been some

interpretation in the courts it is very difficult to say which laws may or may not offend the principles as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I wonder, in responding to the question of the member for Ottawa Centre, if the Attorney General has addressed his mind to

section I of the charter which says all rights under the charter are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." That is the first principle.

The second question is simply this: Does the minister have a working group within his ministry now which is reviewing provincial laws in the light of the new charter to see whether there is any obvious conflict between provincial legislation and some of the principles as set out in the charter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the member for Ottawa East has directed the assembly's attention to the fundamental issue as to what will be supportable as reasonable in a free and democratic society, and I think that is the very question the courts may have to address in this issue. I agree that

section I is very relevant. I am not going to attempt to predict at this time what the result will be because obviously a good deal of legislation will have to be reviewed by the courts in the context of that section.

3:20 p.m.

As far as a review of the legislation is concerned, we have undertaken a review of all our legislation by law officers of the crown to see, as the member for Ottawa East has pointed out, that there are no obvious conflicts. There will also be issues about which reasonable people can disagree.

Unlike the federal government, we have decided to do this internally because we think it is very important that our law officers of the crown, the people responsible for the administration of these statutes -- of course, it involves the people who are most familiar with the legislation -- become familiar with the issues that may be raised under the Charter of Rights. I can assure the member for Ottawa East that this important review is now under way.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Since the Attorney General has had the report of Professor Mewett on justices of the peace for more than a year, when can we expect to receive a new Justices of the Peace Act to give our JPs proper tenure and security? When will the pay increase promised for February I be processed by the ministry?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are you going to get rid of some of them before you do it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to answer that last question.

The report is an important one, as the member appreciates, and covers a significant area of concern. I cannot predict when legislation will be introduced. We are hearing the views of a number of interested groups, particularly the views of the JPs themselves. I hope, and I have been assured, that the pay increase which was recommended is "in the works." I am sorry I cannot tell the honourable member at this moment when it will come through. I would have hoped it would have happened before now. I will try to obtain more up-to-date information for the member and advise him accordingly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Part of the difficulty is that the present legislation does deal with tenure and security and with who is responsible for paying the salaries of the justices of the peace. Will the minister advise whether the salaries of those who have been suspended are to be continued in the same manner as the precedents for Judge Docherty and Judge Henrikson? There seems to be a difficulty under the system now of some very severe hardship occasioned by several JPs who have been suspended and who are really in limbo pending certain charges being dealt with or, indeed, after those charges have been dismissed.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think this is an important issue. There has not been any final decision as to what future policies should be in respect to JPs who regrettably from time to time find themselves facing criminal charges.

It is an issue that has come up recently. Several JPs were tried and acquitted. I do not want to say much more about it now because I think we are close to a resolution of the outstanding matters as far as these JPs are concerned. They are represented by counsel and I think their negotiations have almost reached a satisfactory conclusion.

The issue of suspension with or without pay when people are facing criminal charges is one I have found to be very difficult. In the context of the JPs, it is one that concerns me greatly. We will perhaps have to set a more definite policy in the future rather than just dealing with these matters on an individual case-by-case basis.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the House and the working poor of Ontario what he intends to do to ensure that the minimum wage in the province will mean that a working person will earn at least enough to be above the poverty line in our metropolitan areas? A recent report from the National Council of Welfare indicates that whether it is a single person or two people working, both of them would be below the poverty line in Ontario and we would be the only major province in Canada to have such a situation.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minimum wage was raised on two occasions last year and at present it is equivalent to the federal minimum wage. It is also my understanding that it is in the mid-range of the minimum wages across Canada. Most important from one perspective, not from the perspective the member is bringing forward, it is competitive with the jurisdictions close to Ontario in which the industries and businesses of the province have to compete.

Mr. Samis: Could the minister tell the people in Ontario who have to work at the minimum wage why they have to work for a lower wage level than a worker in Quebec and why they have to work for a lower wage level than people in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia? In view of the inflation rate, what commitment is the minister prepared to make this year to do something to adjust the minimum wage upwards; first, to be competitive and second, to compensate for the inflation rate?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am hesitating only because I appreciate the point that the member is making. I find no quarrel with that point at all. In answer to his question, I would say at this time there is no movement afoot to raise the minimum wage.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. In these very difficult economic times the Attorney General is aware that a number of individuals are losing their residential properties, and sometimes commercial properties, as a result of defaults on mortgage payments. I understand the Mortgages Act is a statute within the minister's jurisdiction. If I am wrong, perhaps my question could be put to another legal expert, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). No; he wants to stick to medicine?

Mr. T. P. Reid: As a doctor, he was a good lawyer; as a lawyer, he was a good doctor.

Mr. Roy: My question to the Attorney General is this: Is the Attorney General aware that more and more individuals, financial institutions and others who default mortgages are not proceeding by way of foreclosure, under which a person who has difficulty sometimes has remedies, such as notice of desire of redemption, 60 days or six months to delay or to do some refinancing? What most financial institutions and individuals are doing these days is proceeding by way of power of sale under the mortgage. Under that procedure, as the Attorney General will be aware, there are very few remedies under the law, the process is quite

summary and in a period of 30 days a property is sold with very little guarantee to the person who may be in default.

Would the Attorney General undertake to review this process and see to it that the provisions, the guarantees and certain remedies that are given to certain individuals under the Mortgages Act are not continually and systematically circumvented by people proceeding by way of what we call power of sale?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my information may not be totally accurate, but so far as most financial institutions are concerned, given these very difficult economic times they are demonstrating considerable reluctance to proceed with either foreclosure procedures or under the power of sale provisions.

I appreciate the importance of the question. I am told the number of financial institutions that have actually moved under power of sale or under foreclosure against individuals is very few. It has happened very infrequently because they are demonstrating a certain degree of sensitivity.

3:30 p.m.

Where the problem exists to a greater extent is with respect to individual mortgages because, although we tend to think of mortgagees often in the context of large or significant financial institutions, as the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) appreciates as well as I do, there are many tens of thousands of mortgages held by individuals.

I do not know, since I do not have any figures with respect to the number of powers of sales that have been exercised under those mortgages, but the alternative is to rewrite these contracts by legislation, and I would be reluctant -- obviously that is something that would have to be thought through very carefully before taking such legislative initiative.

It would be helpful to us -- and perhaps there is some information kicking around government that might tell us -- to know just how many people are losing their homes through this route. I agree with the member it is an important issue.

Mr. Roy: I do not know if the Ontario Law Reform Commission has had occasion to review this problem, but this may be a good area for it to look at in the future. I appreciate what the Attorney General has said about some financial institutions having stated publicly that they will not move either by way of foreclosure or power of sale against defaulting mortgagors.

Nevertheless, I wonder if the Attorney General would look at the Mortgages Act, because apparently one of the reasons that so many individuals are moving by way of power of sale is that, in foreclosure proceedings, by the time one really gets to a point where one can proceed and take over the property it is at least nine months by the time the notice of desire of redemption is put down.

That may be one of the problems, this circumventing of the process through proceeding by way of power of sale, where there are very few rights for the mortgagors. I suggest maybe the Attorney General could look at this, that he might review the process and have legislation by way of which there is a happy medium between no rights at all under power of sale and undue delay under foreclosure proceedings.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We will take a look at it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SUCCESSION LAW ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 87,

An Act respecting the Succession to Estates of Deceased Persons in Ontario who have Beneficiaries Residing in Designated Countries.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that payments made from the estates of persons domiciled in Ontario at the time of death are not made to foreign beneficiaries who are unlikely to receive, for their whole benefit or use substantially, the full value of any payments made under the estate and who reside in certain countries designated by regulation.

The bill provides for an application to be made to a court for an order permitting payments to a foreign beneficiary. The court may also order that no payment be made to a foreign beneficiary, in which case the court shall make an order disposing of the estate in accordance with the rules of succession contained in the Succession Law Reform Act with necessary modifications.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answer to question 21 standing on the Notice Paper. I would also like to table the answers to questions 15, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73, 76 and 82 and the interim answers to questions 53, 56, 57, 64 and 70, all standing on the Notice Paper (see Hansard for Friday, April 23).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, with the consent of the House, I might indicate to you the kind gesture of the Leader of the Opposition in not putting his motion for an emergency debate today, which you would have been considering.

Recognizing that you have not considered it, and of course we do not know whether you would have decided to rule in favour of that motion, but knowing that all three parties would have supported it if it had been put, certain other arrangements were made by members who believed their business, which was coming up under private members' business today, perhaps would not have been considered.

With the consent of the House, we have agreed that private ballot item 5 would not be dealt with today, but I will put the appropriate motion so it can be dealt with next week. Ballot item 6 will be dealt with at 4:30 p.m., the regular time it would be considered at.

With the consent of the House, I would like to call the 22nd order, consideration of the second reading debate on Bill 36,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, which would proceed until 4:30 p.m., and then the item of the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) would be considered.

Mr. Speaker: Just to make it clear, do we have unanimous consent or concurrence? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 36,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

Mr. Di Santo: I was really reluctant, Mr. Speaker, but since everybody else agrees, I will.

Last Tuesday night we started debating Bill 36,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. I was explaining the reasons we oppose this bill. I mentioned that when the Ministry of Culture and Recreation was finally set up in 1974, after a long period of labour, the Premier (Mr. Davis) set up the guidelines and the framework within which the new ministry would operate.

3:40 p.m.

The other night I read the statement the Premier made on December 17, 1974. It is extremely puzzling that while at that time the Premier thought recreation and culture, being two elements of what is the total perception of a person, should be in one ministry because it is essential for the development of the human person, today we are faced with a bill that says for the exact same reasons there should be two different ministries, or rather that recreation should be chopped out of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation and the former ministry should become the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

But we know that citizenship was very much one of the goals of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. In

section 6 of the act that set up the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, we can see that the government at that time set the same goals it is now telling us are the goals of the mutilated ministry.

Subsection 6(1) says: "It is the function of the ministry to advance and encourage responsible citizenship through the process of cultural and recreational development, including:

"(

a) preserving and maintaining the cultural heritage of residents of Ontario with full recognition of their diverse traditions and backgrounds;

"(

b) promoting access to the benefits of citizenship and of active involvement in the cultural and recreational life of the province; and

"(

c) stimulating the development of new forms of cultural expression and promoting the concept of individual and community excellence."

Today in Bill 36, these are the objectives of the ministry:

"4(

a) to encourage full, equal and responsible citizenship among the residents of Ontario;

"(

b) recognizing the pluralistic nature of Ontario society, to stress the full participation of all Ontarians as equal members of the community, encouraging the sharing of cultural heritage while affirming those elements held in common by all residents;

"(

c) to ensure the creative and participatory nature of cultural life in Ontario by assisting in the stimulation of cultural expression and cultural preservation;

"(

d) to foster the development of individual and community excellence, enabling Ontarians to better define the richness of their diversity and the shared vision of their community."

What the government is telling us today is that with the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture it can achieve exactly the same goals and objectives that in 1974 the Premier thought were extremely important to reach with a ministry that comprehended not only culture but also recreation. That is regrettable.

In personal terms, I am sure the minister will do an excellent job because we know his commitment and we know his dedication and his intelligence, but because of engineering problems within the cabinet the Premier chopped a very important part from the previous ministry. If the government is serious about a policy for recreation, if the government is serious about a policy for culture, then we would have better results than we had in the past.

My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) conducted extensive research throughout the province and found that the organization involved in the field of recreation, the parks and recreation associations, were shocked when they heard that recreation all at once had been lumped together with tourism.

In fact, they thought that recreation in Ontario would never have prominence, since we know that tourism will take an important role, if nothing else for economic reasons, and that the recreation factor once again will be put on the back burner. Those organizations are anxious to know now what their destiny is.

We know, and I mentioned this the other night, that since 1974 there has been a long process in the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, and just lately, after 1980, you will remember that the then Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) commissioned an investigation by Douglas Fisher. The report came out, and we asked the minister if he was going to implement its numerous recommendations. The minister finally started moving in this area.

At that time we thought something concrete was happening in the Ministry of Culture and Recreation because the ministry was starting to take the lead role that the Fisher report had recommended and that had been lacking during the seven years since the ministry was created.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that one of the results that was quite constant throughout the Fisher report was the disappointment of the local organizations, organizations that are operating especially in the area of recreation but also in the area of fitness and amateur sports. One of the disappointments was the fact that, apart from the lack of adequate funding from the government, apart from the fragmented way in which those sectors were financed and funded, there was a lack of communication between the local organizations and the ministry.

In fact, Douglas Fisher made a series of recommendations that centred on two important principles: one, that the ministry develop a strategy for recreation; and two, that coordination be created between the local parties and the ministry.

At the very moment when some results were becoming apparent the Premier, for reasons that have nothing to do with policy, for reasons that have nothing to do with the delivery of services in this area, decided that the ministry should be chopped up and that a new position should be created to keep the former Minister of Culture and Recreation in cabinet. We know what a disaster this minister was, because in the history of mankind I think only a few people have been able to create problems by handing out money, and that minister was able to do it.

I think the decision of the Premier was, to say the least, short-sighted, and even if it is expedient for the government at this point to create a new position in cabinet we know there will be problems because it is not clear where regulation 200 will be; under the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture or the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

The municipalities that apply will be in a dilemma because there will be many projects that are both recreational and cultural, and the people in charge will not know which ministry to apply to. Therefore there will be more bureaucracy and more disappointment for the people who are working in this area. Most of these people are volunteers who devote their time especially to the fields of amateur sports and fitness.

3:50 p.m.

We also oppose this bill for another reason. We do not think this government is serious when it talks about multiculturalism. We on this side of the House have been convinced for many years that unless we create structures in our society that will allow all persons to feel at home regardless of their background and culture and to feel that they have equal opportunities, then we are creating a society with inequalities and the possibility of disruption for cultural and racial reasons. We know we have those problems right now.

I want to emphasize what a coincidence it is that we are debating Bill 36, which establishes the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, at the very time when the most popular sport in town is ethnic-bashing through what is happening at the Toronto Board of Education. You have certainly read in the media, Mr. Speaker, what poison is being written on those supposed attempts to destroy the most important segments of this society. If you had listened to any radio station yesterday or today you would have heard about delegation after delegation going to the Toronto Board of Education to protest against the teaching of a third language during school hours.

I can understand that there are people who are not satisfied with the teaching of third languages as part of the regular curriculum in Ontario schools. I understand that above all because I know that most of those people speak out of ignorance rather than out of bigotry or bias. Most of those people do not understand that the teaching of third languages is not an attempt to emasculate the school program or lower its level.

That has been one of the major achievements in the city of Toronto: an achievement that is the confirmation of examples that we know, examples that we had in other jurisdiction outside Canada; in the United States for instance and also in Europe, where there is a very large movement of migrants from one country to another.

It was disgraceful that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) the other day, in commending the report that is debated, in this case by the board of education of the city of Toronto, made comments that I think were inappropriate. The fact that she was impressed by the report is understandable, but she said, and I think this is very serious, instituting language classes during school hours would, and I quote, "create the possibility that you would be ghettoizing children. That defeats the major purpose of the public school system. I find the proposal worrisome."

This is the Minister of Education of Ontario who in 1977, for strictly electoralistic purposes, announced that this province would institute the heritage programs in Ontario. This is the Minister of Education who supposedly will vote for this bill, Bill 36, a bill that among other objectives is to encourage full, equal, responsible citizenship among residents of Ontario and a bill that recognizes the pluralistic nature of Ontario society.

The Deputy Speaker: This ties in with Bill 36, I presume?

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, it is on Bill 36, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the Minister of Education because I think unless this government is serious about multiculturalism or a cultural policy towards all citizens and residents of Ontario then it is useless to have a Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

If the minister does not understand that by learning another language we do not create worse citizens but that ignorance is the base of some of the malfunctions of our society, ignorance is the base of racism, ignorance is the base of discrimination and not the fact that citizens become more knowledgeable, then I think we have a very serious problem in Ontario. This government would have changed its attitude a long time ago if it had watched what was happening outside of Ontario.

4 p.m.

It is not fair to watch south of the border only when we are talking about the minimum wage, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) did today. Every time we talk about the minimum wage, the Minister of Labour or the Premier says, "We cannot compete with South Carolina, with Texas or with states south of the border."

It is also valuable for the government to look south of the border when we are dealing with problems like culture or multiculturalism. In fact, we have proposed many instances to the government of models that have been implemented in southern California, Texas and Massachusetts, where the school systems are being revamped with the purpose of accommodating children who speak different languages.

Apart from the social advantages that the program has produced, the government should look at the report that appraised the program and it would see that there has been a dramatic drop in juvenile delinquency, because the number of drop-outs in the schools was dramatically reduced. After three years, the Spanish-speaking children finally became competitive with the other children. They could match them and make those academic achievements that they could not make before.

The same will happen in the city of Toronto. It has been happening since 1977 in the separate school boards. Nobody is forcing anyone to take a course that he does not want to take.

I am raising this issue because it is relevant to the bill we are discussing. If the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), while supporting this bill that encourages the cultural diversity of the province and recognizes the multicultural and multiracial setup of this province, at the same time clamps down on a program and defines that program as worrisome, I think not only that there is a contradiction in the policies of the government but also that the government is not serious about the policy of multiculturalism.

That the government is not serious about the policy of multiculturalism is perceived by the people who belong to the minorities in our society. These people are the visible and invisible minorities. In fact, last October, when we were celebrating the 10th anniversary of multiculturalism, many people were asked to think about what had happened in our society in 10 years with regard to multiculturalism. The response was not very enthusiastic.

Many people 10 years ago had thought multiculturalism was an excellent idea which would create a better society in Canada, especially because we were looking at what had happened in the United States, where the results of the melting pot were in front of us. The failures of the melting pot were an admonition to Canada, which faced the same problems the United States had faced a long time ago.

In Canada, the concept of multiculturalism was based on the idea that all of us could be good Canadians while preserving our heritages. The second aspect of multiculturalism was that by preserving our heritages and by exchanging the values of our heritages with all other Canadians, we would be able to do two things: One, make people who had come from other countries and from other cultures feel at home in Canada; and two, share the richness of the different cultures among Canadians; and by doing that create a more vital and vibrant society.

4:10 p.m.

I said before, and perhaps the Minister of Education should learn this, that it is not because of learning that people become more ignorant or biased or discriminatory; it is because of ignorance that they become worse people. Therefore, we thought that by sharing the richness of cultures, which in many instances go back thousands of years and of which all human beings are proud, we would have created a richer and more vibrant Canada.

But after 10 years of that policy, what happened? In the Toronto Star of October 8, 1981, several people were interviewed and asked what they thought about multiculturalism.

"For many immigrants, especially nonwhites," the newspaper says, "multiculturalism in Canada has accomplished little or nothing. They feel 'unaccepted' and their children, although born in Canada, are often regarded as foreigners by mainstream society."

"'As far as helping visible minorities, they haven't done a thing,' said Audi Dharmalingam, executive director of the University Settlement House on Grange Ave., serving a predominantly Chinese neighbourhood.

"'Until minorities who are qualified are in decision-making positions in the institutions, we have achieved nothing,' he said.

"'The focus should be on acceptance -- that regardless of colour, we're all Canadians,' he added. Multiculturalism programs by both the federal and the Ontario governments have promoted the diversity of cultures 'but have done nothing to harness these cultures as part and parcel of the Canadian identity.'"

That is exactly the problem I think this ministry is faced with if the ministry is really serious about recognizing what the bill says about the pluralistic nature of Canadian society and about the full participation of all Ontarians as equal members of the community.

Unless we come to a point where, through the policies of the government and through a collective effort in our society, we are able to make the different culture each of us brings to Canada a part of this society, then multiculturalism will be ineffective.

The second point, on which I will speak later --

Mr. Nixon: How much later?

Mr. Di Santo: I am supposed to speak until 4:30.

The other point I will entertain later is: "Until minorities who are qualified are in decision-making positions in the institutions, we have achieved nothing," as Audi Dharmalingam said. I will discuss this point because it is very important.

If we have a Minister of Culture and Citizenship and at the same time a report from the task force on equal opportunities -- upon which I am sure the new minister has not had time to work, but I am sure he will consider it seriously -- until we have this kind of report, multiculturalism will be meaningless in Ontario and in Canada.

After almost eight years of the existence of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, and after 10 years of multiculturalism to which this government theoretically subscribes, we have results that are lamentable and we are faced with failure. That is probably the most important reason we speak against this bill.

If the government is serious about encouraging the type of pluralistic society that all of us recognize, then the government should have policies directed towards that purpose.

Audi Dharmalingam was not the only one who had reservations about the achievements of multiculturalism. In the same

article Beverley Folkes, a West Indian community worker, is quoted.

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Will you check to see if we have a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): We do have a quorum. The honourable member may proceed. In my opinion, there is a quorum.

Mr. Di Santo: Do we have a real quorum?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Downsview may continue to speak to the quorum.

Mr. Di Santo: "Beverley Folkes, a West Indian community worker, said multiculturalism is a 'noble gesture' that, when misinterpreted, divides Canadians.

"'The intent was quite good, but we need to rethink our goals,' she said.

"'The way I see it, it's keeping us divided. There's too much stereotyping of blacks. We need more than songs and dances. People must be educated to think of Canadians instead of West Indian-Canadians, Italian-Canadians and other hyphenated Canadians,' she said.

"'In the US, Italians, Polish and others identify themselves as Americans,' she added. 'We don't have the same national pride as Canadians. Trouble is that many believe to be really Canadian one must be white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant.'"

The incredible member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) was given the job of chairman of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship when he lost his federal seat, and even that product of patronage had to say that multiculturalism for many Canadians is perceived as "something for the ethnics." If the member for High Park-Swansea came to that conclusion, that is really a commentary on the policies of this government.

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Will you check for a quorum, please.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

4:24 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Downsview may continue. We have a quorum.

Mr. Di Santo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If even the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), who has been given the cosy job of chairman of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, was forced to recognize that after 10 years of multiculturalism and after seven years of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, multiculturalism was still perceived by Canadians as something for the ethnics, that is a very sad commentary on the policies of this government and on the failure of the policies of this government along with those of the federal government.

We have indulged too long in considering multiculturalism as something that is related to folklorist expressions of the ethnic groups such as choirs, dances and colourful dresses. It is about time we start thinking seriously about this important policy aspect of the government.

As I said before, the government has failed not only in establishing the right policies so that people can understand what the government wants to do in this area but also in implementing the policies it had set for itself when the Ministry of Culture and Recreation was established.

I said before that one of the complaints expressed by the people who were interviewed on the 10th anniversary of the establishment of multiculturalism was the fact that today in our society there is still a perception that nothing has changed within the power structure of this society or, as the late John Porter said, within the vertical mosaic that is Canada.

If we look at the report I mentioned before, the report of the task force on equal opportunity commissioned by the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, there were some repercussions in the media because the people who were part of the task force, who were members of the advisory council on multiculturalism and citizenship, felt for reasons that escape my mind that they should not even mention the ethnic groups, most likely because they did not want to embarrass the government. In fact, they lumped them under the expression "others."

If we look at the report, which took into consideration the public agencies, advisory, regulatory or operational, there are some striking conclusions. Of the 272 existing agencies, they considered 84 public agencies, and what came out is quite revealing. Of 877 members of the boards of directors of the commissions and boards, 677 were British, 45 French and 155 others, which means belonging to ethnic groups.

I do not know if the 155 also included the members of the advisory council on multiculturalism and citizenship, because then, the number of "others" would be inflated. The advisory council on multiculturalism and citizenship has been increased from 32 members to the present 60 members. If that is the case, the percentage would be 77 per cent of British origin, 5.1 per cent French and, instead of 17.1 per cent, we would have 10.8 per cent "others."

4:30 p.m.

On motion by Mr. Di Santo, the debate was adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MAIL DELIVERY

Mr. Rotenberg, seconded by Mr. McLean, moved resolution 13:

That this House urge the federal government to rescind provisions under

section 14 of the Canada Post Corp. Act which prohibit the efficient delivery by businesses and public organizations of their own mail, and, further, that the federal government rescind provisions under

section 15 of the Canada Post Corp. Act which control the prices charged by private delivery services and have the effect of giving the post office a monopoly on the delivery of mail in Ontario.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: We have been aware now for some time that the member for Wilson Heights was going to bring in this resolution. I have been giving this matter quite a bit of thought today, ever since I received the Order Paper as to what the business of the House would be today.

I have come to the firm conclusion that this resolution the member is putting before the House today is completely out of order. We, in Ontario, have jurisdiction over all of the agencies, boards and commissions which operate under the jurisdiction of this Legislature by statute. We have jurisdiction and control over all the laws we pass which affect all the ministries and the agencies, boards and commissions, but I submit to you this Legislature has no legal legislative authority to deal with Canada Post.

I think this member is using this resolution simply as some type of political ploy. It has nothing to do with anything on which any member or cabinet minister in this House can have any kind of impact.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member has caused me to reflect on the motion and on the validity thereof. Having listened closely --

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order?

The Acting Speaker: I have the floor. As I see it the motion talks about urging the federal government. It is

an act that is not going to affect funds from this House, but the motion itself has an intention --

Mr. Ruston: It is a resolution.

The Acting Speaker: It is a resolution and a recommendation. I do not accept the honourable member's point of privilege.

Mr. Mancini: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not finished.

The Acting Speaker: I listened to you long enough to get the intent and we are in private members' hour. If what you are going on to say is not going to change what I have said, it is affecting the time limit available to those members who want to participate in this debate.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House who holds a seat in this chamber, I resent our spending time when there are all kinds of issues and problems in our jurisdiction on which we can have an impact. I frankly resent it. I consider it a breach of my privileges that this government allows one of its members to introduce this type of resolution when we all know that we can have absolutely no impact on Canada Post.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has had his say and I do not accept it as a point of privilege. It being private members' hour, the member for Wilson Heights will proceed.

Mr. Rotenberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assume my 20 minutes starts from now and not from when the point of order was raised.

Mr. Kerrio: We could have a few more points of order.

Mr. Rotenberg: I thank the member for Essex South for his point and I respect his opinion but, as you said, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter urging the federal government to do certain things. I think it has a great impact on members of this House and certainly, as I will explain in a few minutes, on the municipalities within our jurisdiction. Municipal government is a matter for the province of Ontario and we certainly do want to help our municipalities.

I also think this has been a rather strange day because I was informed yesterday that there was a possibility, and at noon today it was a certainty, that this debate would not take place this afternoon. There was going to be an emergency debate and as such, I did not complete the final draft remarks I was going to make.

During the question period, the Minister of Health announced that things were progressing well, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his request for an emergency debate and suddenly this was thrust upon us again. I will proceed and we can discuss the matter which I think is quite relevant to all the people of Canada.

We took up some resolutions here urging the federal government to take certain acts in respect to the Constitution. It may be that matter was considerably more important than what we have before us today, but at that time nobody suggested that we could not urge the federal government to do something.

There are two related parts in my motion and the first deals with those who want to deliver their own letters. The second deals with those who want to hire someone other than the post office to deliver their letters.

The Canada Post Corp. Act, which was passed last year, says in

section 14(1), "Subject to

section 15, the corporation has the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting and delivering letters to the addressees thereof within Canada."

Section 15(1)(

a) suggests this does not apply to letters carried incidentally and delivered to the addressee thereby by a friend of the sender or the addressee. How far does "letters carried incidentally…by a friend" go? What does "incidentally" really mean?

As an example, let us say there is a young couple out there who want to get married and they want to send invitations to about 100 of their friends. Instead of putting them in the mail, because some people do not have too much faith in the mail, they ask one of their friends to go around and deliver 100 wedding invitations to their friends. Is this incidental, because certainly those people would not be going to visit the addressee anyway, or would this be in violation of the Canada Post Corp. Act? Would they be allowed to do it? The act exempts friends, but the act says nothing about a person doing it himself.

The act is silent on this but the act could certainly be interpreted to mean that anybody can walk around and deliver their own letters. The act says that the corporation has the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting and delivering letters, with the exception of friends carrying them. Using this young couple as an example, would they be allowed to go out and deliver their own wedding invitations or would they be in violation of the act and have to spend 30 cents and hope the post office would get them there in time?

What about small businessmen, such as a gardener who works on a number of streets in Toronto and other places, a gardener who may work in the gardens of a couple of dozen homes on a street and who sends out his bills once a month? The gardener who works on my street comes around once a month and personally delivers the bills to all the home owners he services. This is not incidental to a visit; this is a delivery of mail. Is that self-employed, one-man-firm gardener prohibited from walking around and delivering his monthly bills to his customers?

Can he have one of his employees, if he has a helper, someone he pays, go around once a month and deliver the bills to his customers who are all on the same street; or does he have to spend 30 cents on each and hope they get there?

Mr. Boudria: What does that have to do with this Legislature?

Mr. Rotenberg: We are trying to tell the federal government, my friend, that the legislation is a little bit wrong and I think we can do that.

What about the insurance agent or the travel agent who likes to give personal service and deliver the insurance policy or airline tickets to his client? He does so on a regular basis, not casually or incidentally. Is he in violation of the law? Is he not allowed to do this any more?

Logic dictates that anyone can deliver his own mail, but can this insurance agent or travel agent do it himself or have one of his regular employees deliver the insurance policy or the tickets? Logic says, "Sure, of course we can do this sort of thing," but since when has the post office been logical? Because if a gardener, an insurance agent, a travel agent or any of their employees can deliver these matters as a special service to their valued clients, why cannot larger businesses deliver bills or have them delivered by their employees?

4:40 p.m.

I think a case can be made for this. The case to be made is that it goes beyond just the post office trying to make a living or having a monopoly; I think it gets into the area of human and civil rights, denying the civil right of a person to deliver his own mail or have his employees deliver his mail. Why should he have to go to the post office?

We should look at the new Constitution. I do not know if anyone has discovered this or not, but I think a basic right is being infringed in this situation. Why should any government or government agency be able to tell any person, or business, that he cannot deliver his own mail?

This leads into an area of current controversy. One of the members from the Kitchener area is with us, but the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) is not. The city of Kitchener, a corporation, is now delivering its own utility bills, and the post office is saying to the city of Kitchener, "You cannot deliver your own utility bills because of this

section in the act."

Why should the post office, as a public corporation, have the right to tell the city of Kitchener, another public corporation, that it cannot deliver its own utility bills, which Kitchener is doing for eight cents apiece? Why should the post office say it is going to do it for the city of Kitchener at its very special rate of 21 cents apiece? It is not 30 cents; they have a special rate for things like bills that go to every house.

Why should the taxpayers of Kitchener, who are paying for it, have to subsidize the federal treasury, through the Canada Post Corp., by 13 cents for each utility bill delivered in Kitchener? Why should the taxpayers of Kitchener have to pay thousands of dollars each year because of the post office's inefficiency and excessive costs?

The post office has about 24,000 inside workers, who are now getting about $23,000 a year plus fringe benefits for doing what is really unskilled labour. Before anyone opposite jumps on me, I am not saying the problems are exclusively with labour or with the unions; I am not saying the unions should not be out there fighting for their members and getting as much as they can.

What I am saying is that when the employees of the post office are getting much higher wages for doing the same work as similar employees in our provincial government -- granted, there are far fewer people doing our mail, and they get about $15,000 a year -- or employees in private industry, who are getting far less per hour or per year than the employees of the post office, we can see why the post office has such high rates and why it cannot compete with the city of Kitchener.

If you add these much higher labour costs, resistance to automation and the legendary inefficiency of the post office management -- because a lot of the problem is with the management of the post office, and this has not been corrected by the new management in the post office -- we can see what the problem is.

The city of Kitchener is already, in effect, challenging the post office and saying, "We are going to deliver our bills anyway," and it does it at eight cents.

The city of Guelph, which has not done it yet, says it can do it for nine cents. The borough of York -- and I am glad to see one of the members from the borough of York here -- wanted to do this. But they thought they might be in violation of the law and decided not to. Many other municipalities are looking into it.

To get back to the original point of order, which was what this has to do with this Legislature, I am making a case on behalf of the municipalities, which are the creatures of this province and are under our jurisdiction; I am making this case so that the municipalities of this province will be able to deliver their own utility bills. They can do it for less than half the cost the post office is charging.

This is just one minor reason we are not only not wrestling inflation to the ground but are not even making a dent in inflation. The federal government and others are imposing these extra costs on municipalities, and they reflect on the whole system. Their inefficiency, and pushing these costs on to other people are reasons -- not the only reasons -- that inflation is still over 11 per cent in this country.

The new genius who is now running the post office, our old friend Michael Warren, said in a recent speech, "Of course, financial self-sufficiency is the bottom line of any sound business." He was talking about his own post office. "It provides a discipline to all that the corporation does. It provides the incentive to meet the needs of customers and to challenge the competition." That is what Mr. Warren said about the post office: it should be able to challenge the competition.

This brings me to the second part of the motion,

section 15(1)(e), which says, in effect, that any person other than the post office delivering letters of an urgent nature transmitted by messenger must set a fee equal to an amount at least three times the regular postage rate. In other words, a courier must charge a minimum of 90 cents to deliver a letter which the post office delivers a few days later for 30 cents. Where, I say, does this fit into Mr. Warren's request for competition?

Moreover, why should the post office or any governmental agency be allowed unilaterally to set fees for someone else doing a similar job? Why should they be able unilaterally to set fees for their competition, be able to say, "We will deliver it at 30 cents; a courier must charge 90 cents"?

Why should rates be established by the post office? At least if they want to do this -- and I must say, there is some merit in the post office trying to regulate the courier, far more merit than in trying to prevent Kitchener from delivering its own mail -- if they want to do it, why do they not do it in a similar way to Hydro rates and other rates being set? Why should they not have to go to an agency, like the National Energy Board or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission? Why should the post office, in setting rates for couriers, not have to go to a body like the CRTC or the Ontario Energy Board or all those others which regulate rates where there is competition?

Why should the post office not have to face a hearing? In the post office they say, "We charge 30 cents, the courier must charge 90 cents." Why should they not be required to open their books to reveal their costs and explain why they are so high?

What I am saying is that the post office is taking two directions in their latest act, one of which prevents individuals, businesses and municipalities from delivering their own mail and makes them pay much extra money. The second allows the post office to set rates for their competition without hearings and without the competition being heard.

I think both of these approaches are wrong. I suggest we say to the federal government that we, as a provincial Legislature, wish, first, to protect our small businessmen and our municipalities; and second, to provide a degree of fair competition to courier services. I suggest we say to the federal government: "Come on, fellows, have another look at this. Be fair, allow people to deliver their own mail and allow competition at least a fair chance in a proper hearing."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve my time left over.

The Acting Speaker: You have seven minutes left.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was invited to speak briefly to this important federal matter raised by the member for Wilson Heights. I am surprised that the member did not choose to run in a federal by-election at some time or even in the last federal general election.

It is interesting to note that the party that member represents spent most of the time prior to the last federal election bashing its own federal counterpart of the same political persuasion to ensure it would not be re-elected federally.

Now we see these same people, the Conservative Party in this province and some members of that particular caucus, spending time again today, fed-bashing. Fed-bashing is not just an individual policy of some members of the Legislature sitting on the government side. It appears to be policy of the Progressive Conservative Party of this province to fed-bash when it is opportune to do so.

Let us reflect on a time prior to the last provincial election. At that time they were not fed-bashing. They were 100 per cent with the federal government because it was politically expedient for the people of that party to be so.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, objectively, any person in a position of neutrality in this House, such as yourself, would undoubtedly agree that this is exactly what is going on. I am sure you, in your most nonpartisan way, will agree with what I am saying.

Let us remember what went on in the last few weeks. On this side of the House, we have seen members contributing to private members' hour with excellent private members' bills on excellent provincial issues, very important things that go on in this province.

4:50 p.m.

One can recollect the resolution of last week moved by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), on a very important topic. One can think of the resolution of the previous week from the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), again on an issue that people of this province are legitimately concerned about. That, of course, was the issue of whether the government of this province should use the hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to purchase an executive jet.

Mr. Kerrio: To deliver mail.

Mr. Boudria: Maybe not for delivering mail, but for delivering members of that particular political party.

Here we have the member for Wilson Heights discussing a federal issue. Could it be he does not see that this government has a responsibility? Does he think the exclusive job of his particular party is to bash the federal government, because doing that may happen to have votes in it at that particular time? That is all we are witnessing.

What I was saying a few minutes ago is that members on this side of the House of both political parties provide excellent --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Wilson Heights has a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, in the last several minutes, the member for Prescott-Russell has accused me on three or four occasions of backing the federal Liberal Party in the last federal election. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I would ask him to withdraw that remark, because I find it insulting to me to indicate that I backed the federal government in the last election.

Mr. Boudria: If I can respond to that point, Mr. Speaker, and you obviously did not recognize it as being very valid because you did not stand up, I did not say that. If the member had listened, I accused him of bashing his own federal party prior to the last federal election, not the Liberals. Now he is bashing now the federal Liberals as a political party every single day in this House, and he just did so less than 10 minutes ago in his speech. I do not think the member can deny that, because that is exactly what he was doing.

Let us get to some of the important matters that the member discussed. He discussed the fact that the post office has an exclusive right to deliver mail. How unique for a federal post office to have the exclusive right to deliver mail. That is supposed what we are considering in the provincial Legislature at this time.

Maybe the member does not consider there are any other problems in this province right now. Maybe there is total employment in his constituency. Maybe there are no welfare cases. Maybe the one or two welfare cases there are receive more than the welfare cases in my area, who are receiving 67 per cent of what is the poverty line. Maybe there are no people waiting for public housing in the member's constituency.

I can only gather there are no such problems in that riding and that is why the member, having nothing better to do, has decided to raise federal issues in this Legislature. Otherwise, what possible logical reasoning could there be for doing such a thing?

In any case, I want to discuss the business of these monopolies in this great country we have. We know the post office has a monopoly to deliver mail. After all, the post office is designed to do just that, deliver mail. We have a government in this province that has a monopoly on the distribution of electricity to most of the province. How much competition does Ontario Hydro have? It is not even required to justify to anybody what it is doing. It is becoming obvious to each and every one of us that Ontario Hydro does not even have a boss. It does what it likes, and whenever it bloody well feels like doing it.

We also have in this province an outfit known as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Although one may argue that we should not have 15 different companies criss-crossing all over the place with hydro wires, it is very difficult to rationalize the same kind of thinking when it comes to selling a case of Labatt's 50. Surely that is not so difficult to do, but it is a regulated monopoly. It is a private one in that particular case, but a regulated monopoly to sell beer. I suppose because it is such a complicated thing, nobody except the government should have a stranglehold on that particular industry. Because it is such a difficult thing, nobody else could possibly do it right.