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

October 29, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

INTEREST RATES

USE OF DEPO-PROVERA

DAY CARE

PLANNING LEGISLATION

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

ROYAL WINTER FAIR

ASSISTANCE TO POLISH PEOPLE

INTEREST RATES

DAY CARE

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

MASSEY-FERGUSON LAYOFFS

RAILWAY SERVICE

CONSTITUTIONAL PACKAGE

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

NURSING HOME INFORMATION

USE OF DEPO-PROVERA

MAJOR REALTY

UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 54

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BARRIE-INNISFIL ANNEXATION ACT

MUNICIPAL LICENSING ACT

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

PLANNING ACT

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

ARBOUR DAY ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRESERVATION OF PARLIAMENT BUILDING

MINISTRY EXAMINATION

PRESERVATION OF PARLIAMENT BUILDING

MINISTRY EXAMINATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members know, there is considerable concern in Whitchurch-Stouffville about the operation and proposed expansion of the York sanitation landfill site in that community. My ministry has been conducting extensive samplings since 1976 involving more than 18,000 analyses of more than 1,600 samples from on-site observation wells, private wells adjacent to the site and the municipal water supply. The results indicate clearly that no significant contaminants are escaping from the site.

Unfortunately, the evidence from this substantial monitoring is apparently not sufficient to allay the concerns of the citizens now organized in opposition to this landfill. As members are probably aware the group has taken independent samples from five locations in the community and released information on analysis for total organic halides conducted by an independent laboratory.

This is an indicator test, which provides no specific information on any compounds, toxic or innocuous, that may be present. We prefer in situations like this to deal with specifics so that we can deal with any problems that may be detected.

So far the citizens have refused to name their laboratory. Therefore, we cannot check on the methodology used in the analysis. As a result, our scientists find it difficult to assess the data they have produced. However, we have begun regular sampling of those five locations in addition to those we are already sampling on a regular basis. These locations, which are four private wells and the Stouffville municipal supply, were sampled on October 19 and analysed by ministry staff for volatile organohalides, PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides, triazines and dioxin.

All of these samples were taken to the limits of detection using the best technology now available in North America. No traces of pesticides, PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, triazines or dioxin were found in any of the drinking waters. All drinking water samples were free of volatile organohalides with the exception of the chlorinated municipal water supply which, as expected, contained the low levels of trihalomethanes commonly found in chlorinated drinking water.

The ministry's analyses covered the full spectrum of organohalides from the nonvolatile pesticides to the very volatile haloforms and results confirmed these compounds are not present in private wells tested by the local residents group.

Two water quality problems were detected unrelated to the landfill. One private well supply located downhill from a barn showed a nitrate level above the provincial drinking water objective from sources on the farm. Other wells tested for five years between this farm and the landfill site had no nitrate problems. The York Regional Medical Officer of Health has been advised of this result. The well is being retested by the local health unit and they will advise the owners on the safe use of the water.

Another of the private well supplies which is located at a main road intersection contained a high concentration of chlorides from road salting. The level measured indicates there could be taste problems. However, the resident said he had experienced no problem with that water supply.

I regret that some members of this community have been led to question the validity of our sampling and analysis. However, I am prepared to do anything in my power to remove the least doubt from their minds and assure them their interests are well protected by my ministry.

To this end I have made an offer to the area municipality of Whitchurch-Stouffville. I have invited them to appoint an expert of their choice to accompany my staff on a sampling program, to accompany the samples to our laboratory and to witness impartially the analysis of these samples and the resulting data. It goes without saying we will make all information from this ongoing sampling available on a continuing basis in accordance with our normal practices.

Apart from continuing monitoring activity, there are some decisions to be taken on this landfill operation. There is a request for expanded use of additional landfill capacity on the site. The Environmental Assessment Board is considering the information dealt with in recent public hearings and is preparing recommendations for the director of environmental approvals in my ministry.

There is also the renewal of the certificate of approval for the existing operation. This certificate expires October 30. At this stage I have no evidence which justifies withdrawal of approval from the existing site operations. At the same time I recognize there is considerable concern about the site within the community and I do not want to issue any long-term approval without the best possible assurance that community health is fully protected.

Therefore the ministry is issuing a 90-day interim certificate of approval for the existing operations on the site. When the members receive copies of this statement, they will find attached the conditions of approval for this temporary certificate. Quite simply, my intention is to provide continuing protection through those conditions of the present certificate which are still valid, and to provide for action if our intensive sampling program does show any migration of a hazardous contaminant.

During the 90-day term of this certificate, we will continue to evaluate fully all available ground water data to determine whether there is any cause for concern.

While extensive testing indicates clearly that no hazardous contaminants are migrating from the landfill site, we want to be absolutely certain that local water supplies continue to be safe and that the concerns of the area residents can be answered.

2:10 p.m.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to rise on a point of privilege today to criticize the Premier (Mr. Davis) for not responding to a letter I directed to his office, dated January 28, 1981.

My office made several phone calls to the Premier's office after Labour Day, inquiring why he had not responded to my letter of July 28, which dealt with interest rates. We were given several different reasons as to why the Premier would not respond. Finally, on October 26 we were informed by Mr. Ferdinand that the Premier was not going to respond to my letter because it was an open letter. Surely the members of this Legislature have a right to inform the people of Ontario as to what activity --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Why don't you send it to Trudeau. That's where it should go.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Mancini: -- we are undertaking in this House. We have a right to find out why he is not making an attempt to assist farmers, home owners --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your privileges have not been abused.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, surely as members we should have the right to direct --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, surely those rights cannot --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Will the member resume his seat, please.

If you are not going to resume your seat --

Mr. Smith: The Premier has answered open letters in the past. That is for sure.

Mr. Mancini: I do not know why I cannot get my letters answered, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is not any concern of mine.

Mr. Mancini: It should be.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it is not.

Mr. Mancini: It should be.

USE OF DEPO-PROVERA

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in June last year, my predecessor informed this House of his decision to launch a full review of the use of the drug Depo-Provera within Ontario's facilities for the mentally retarded.

Depo-Provera is an injectable synthetic progesterone, which has been used since 1964 in some of Ontario's facilities for the mentally retarded to suppress menstruation in severely and profoundly retarded women where personal hygiene represents a significant problem. The drug has been used only in selected cases under the direction and supervision of medical staff.

The review was commissioned by the Minister of Community and Social Services as a result of concerns raised in this House and in the media about reports linking various adverse reactions to the use of the drug. Completion of this review has been delayed because of the need for more research than originally thought and because of the illness of the chief investigator, Dr. Donald Zarfas, professor of psychiatry and paediatrics at the University of Western Ontario.

I would like to inform the House today that Dr. Zarfas's report, entitled The Utilization of Depo-Provera in the Ontario Government Facilities for the Mentally Retarded: A Pilot Project, has now been received and reviewed by myself and my senior staff. It is my decision, based on this review, to accept all the recommendations in this report, and I have directed my staff to begin implementation as soon as possible.

As a first step I have asked that the author, Dr. Zarfas, meet with doctors in our facilities for the mentally retarded to discuss the report's findings and recommendations. This is being done at the moment. I have also directed that a copy of the report be forwarded to the Health Protection Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa.

Due to the relatively small sample size of Dr. Zarfas's study and the inconclusiveness of the report's findings, I am requesting that federal authorities carry out further research in this area.

Since the report deals with highly technical matters and the results are somewhat inconclusive, I have arranged for the author of the report, Dr. Zarfas, to join me in the media studio at the conclusion of question period to answer any questions about this report. Copies of the report will be available there or can be obtained by contacting my ministry.

DAY CARE

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying for a number of days to answer a question that was asked of me by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) on October 19, and decided that this may be the most appropriate manner.

I wish to advise the House today on the status of a series of day care initiatives announced by my ministry last December. In the process, I want to remind members that the province enjoys the best and broadest day care system in Canada and that there is a clear-cut commitment to expand and enhance the network of formal and informal care.

This statement is necessitated by a number of questions raised in this House only last week -- long on speculation but short on fact -- that may have left members and the public with an inaccurate understanding of the status quo.

Ten months ago my predecessor announced we were providing an additional 30 per cent in the provincial commitment to day care in the current fiscal year to enable expansion of subsidized spaces and enhancement of different types of day care arrangements. These commitments are being kept, and I would now like to describe briefly the progress to date of each.

Of the approximately $10 million in initiatives announced last December, $3.75 million was allocated to provide for 1,500 subsidized spaces in licensed or unlicensed day nursery programs. Those funds are flowing and have been since the beginning of the fiscal year. We also announced that $430,000 were being provided to expand day nursery services for handicapped children. We are now consulting with district working groups across the province and this process of identifying needs and establishing priorities will allow us to subsidize spaces where they are most needed.

An additional $1.4 million was provided to enable development of demonstration and pilot projects at the local level. These projects ranged from private home care programs to informal care pilot projects and family group care demonstration proposals. Guidelines were developed and distributed with respect to these projects, and our area offices are currently receiving and reviewing proposals. We wanted to give all concerned groups and individuals an opportunity to prepare proposals and this has been done. We will shortly be in a position to evaluate all proposals on a comparative basis and begin the allocation of funds.

We do not intend to rush into these matters without giving all citizens the opportunity to come to us with proposals and projects. The same holds true for the $1.3 million we will be providing in capital assistance and operating costs for nonprofit day care programs operated by parent-boards or employee-employer organizations. Again, guidelines had to be developed. These have been completed, following extensive consultation, and we will shortly be receiving proposals and selecting projects.

Last year's announcement also provided for an additional $2.4 million to help municipalities deal with inequities in funding subsidized spaces in private day care centres. As of today, more than $1.4 million of that money has been allocated. Other initiatives contained in the day care package, such as the development of a service plan for Metro Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton and a rationalization of subsidy levels among all municipalities, are well under way, consistent with a pace that ensures proper planning and consultation.

The final initiative, an $850,000 public education program, is now in the research and development stage. I might add that, in a question he asked, the honourable member recently accused us of planning a $750,000 television campaign as a component of this particular initiative. I do not know where he got his information, but an expensive television advertising campaign has never been considered in this regard and will not be done.

While I am on the subject of misinformation, I want to clear up some confusion. The honourable member implied that Metro Toronto, which provided spaces for 20 handicapped children this year, has yet, to use his phrase, to receive one red cent from my ministry to enable this program to proceed. That is grossly inaccurate. In fact, we provided by September 30 more than seven million red cents, pennies or coppers, for a total of more than $70,000. In addition, we are working with Metro Toronto to provide for an additional eight spaces for handicapped children.

I would think this would set straight the record regarding our $10 million in day care initiatives. Every initiative is under way -- some more advanced than others.

PLANNING LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, after many years, to introduce the first reading of a new planning act for Ontario. This new act is the culmination of an extensive review of planning in Ontario that has involved repeated consultation with municipalities and various other organizations and the submission of briefs and comments on three separate occasions.

The review began in 1975 with the appointment by the former Minister of Housing, Don Irvine, of the Planning Act Review Committee, chaired by Professor Eli Comay of York University. This external committee undertook a complete study of Ontario's planning legislation and practices and sought submissions from municipalities, planning boards and other organizations. During this process, more than 75 meetings were held with municipal bodies and interested groups across the province.

The committee's report, published in June 1977, was distributed widely throughout the province and more than 350 submissions were received and evaluated by my ministry. On the basis of the responses to the PARC report and my ministry's own studies, the white paper on the Planning Act was published in May 1979. The white paper was sent to municipalities and other organizations involved in planning and was followed by the publication of a proposed new planning act for Ontario in December 1979.

2:20 p.m.

The draft act was also distributed for public comment. More than 350 submissions from municipalities, planning agencies, conservation authorities, school boards and private interest groups were received and evaluated by my ministry.

Revisions were made to the draft act and the act being introduced today is the culmination of the total review process. We have found, from this wide-ranging review of the act, that many sections of the existing planning legislation are working well even though the current act is some 35 years old. As a result many of its previous provisions reappear in the new act. However there are several important changes and these are outlined in the briefing material accompanying the bill.

The repeated participation in the preparation of this act by municipalities, planners, lawyers and special interest groups has been unprecedented. As a result we believe the new act retains the time-proven features of the existing legislation which are still working well, while introducing new provisions which will have been well thought out by the various committees. And we think it goes a long way towards achieving this government's objective of giving municipalities as much planning authority and decision-making as possible.

This new act clearly demonstrates this government's commitment to deregulation and to the strengthening of the role of local government in Ontario.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my predecessors, the honourable Don Irvine and the late John Rhodes, who initiated and gave direction to the review of planning in Ontario. I think we should also extend our thanks to the municipal associations and to all those who participated in the process by submitting briefs and comments throughout the review.

Special thanks must go to my ministry staff, particularly our legal counsel. I also would like to point to two individuals -- Mr. Keith Bain and Milt Farrow -- from the planning policy branch of the community planning wing of the ministry. They devoted much time and effort to the entire planning review and developed this very important new legislation for our province.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my appreciation to Wojciech Wronski, the assistant deputy minister of community planning in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, for his leadership in the preparation of the new planning act. I would also extend appreciation for his seven and a half years of service in our ministry directly to the people of the province. I am sure most people know Mr. Wronski will be retiring from the ministry shortly. He has made a very important contribution to community planning in this great province. I want to wish Mr. Wronski well in his future endeavours in his retirement.

Later this afternoon I shall be introducing bills relating to the Barrie-Innisfil annexation, the Municipal Licensing Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which have been in the process of development for some years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege, really to correct the record, and I think it might be understandable when I read the problem.

I raised a question with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) relating Niagara River pollution concerns of mine particularly to the Hyde Park dump which contains a great amount of dioxin. I pointed out that representatives of the ministry did not involve themselves in this hearing nor did they fund anyone who was over there acting on behalf of all the citizens of Canada and Ontario.

I will not read the total answer the minister gave me but one point is very appropriate and should be read into the record. The minister's response ended by saying, "It is true we did not provide funding to any intervention group but we have offered technical assistance and have done so, I understand from my staff, on more than one occasion. To date, to the best of my knowledge, the offer of technical assistance has not been taken up by the participating agencies who are intervening. That offer still stands and we have staff available to assist them if they wish to take advantage of the expertise of our staff."

We were dealing particularly with Pollution Probe out of the University of Toronto and I must read this letter into the record -- it is very short. It is dated July 27, 1981, and directed to the minister:

"Dear Mr. Norton:

"I am writing to you in order to clear up some of the confusion arising out of my original request to your ministry for support in our legal action on the Hyde Park landfill site. The degree of our concern over Hyde Park has intensified over the last two months, during which time we have spent considerable effort studying the settlement agreement and its implications for the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Because of our concern and the problems that we anticipate in the future, we are still anxious to have your support and your goodwill in our endeavours.

"However, we have had conflicting signals on the extent to which your ministry will cooperate with us on this particular issue. First of all, despite a verbal commitment on the phone from Janet Ecker indicating that the ministry would give us selective help and that a letter would be forthcoming, no reply to my letter has ever arrived.

"Secondly, support that was promised by certain individuals never materialized. For example, a legal opinion on certain aspects of the agreement and a letter detailing the Mirex contamination of Lake Ontario fish were both promised but never delivered, nor was any explanation ever offered to us why this information failed to arrive.

"Thirdly, although we were advised to solicit help from the Stoney Creek offices of the ministry, the technical expertise that we needed in hydrology, biology and law were not available from those offices.

"Therefore, I feel that you should be aware that although your intention seems to have been to help us in this difficult case, no support ever materialized from the Ministry of the Environment, much to our disappointment.

"I would not like to close the door on the possibility of future co-operation between your ministry and Pollution Probe. I cannot stress forcefully enough how complex and serious the pollution problems emanating from the American side of the Niagara River are, and as Canadians we should all be working to muster as much strength as we possibly can to convince the United States that cleaning up the Niagara River must be given the highest priority, particularly in negotiating these settlement agreements.

"Although I realize that you may have heavy demands on your time I would like to request a meeting with you in the near future to discuss the Niagara River situation in general and the Hyde Park dilemma in particular. A meeting would be the most appropriate means for conveying the technical and legal complexities of the Niagara problem. I will be phoning you within the next week or so to see if you are available and willing to attend such a meeting."

It is signed by Anne Wordsworth, who is from Pollution Probe. I have been advised that no such meeting has been arranged.

Mr. Speaker, you must realize the gravity of the situation. I would appeal to the minister that if he intends to clean up the very serious pollution of our Niagara River we are going to need all the help we can get. I think organizations like Pollution Probe that give so unstintingly of their time and effort should be encouraged and indeed helped considerably by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not offhand recall having seen the letter the honourable member has read into the record. I will certainly check to see if it was received in my office.

I also would advise him there was, as I think the letter confirms, a communication with respect to offering technical assistance. I was not aware that in the opinion of Pollution Probe this assistance had not been provided. It was my understanding there would have been a lack of follow-up on the part of Pollution Probe. But I assure the member I will check into that with the staff who were engaged in that communication.

ROYAL WINTER FAIR

Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Public funds are used to provide information to the people of Ontario about events that are either sponsored or partially assisted by this government. Therefore I think it is regrettable that in this release put out by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism entitled "'The Royal' -- World's Biggest Indoor Agriganza," the Queen's Guineas 4-H Competition was not given any mention, even though it is the highlight of the Royal Winter Fair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

ASSISTANCE TO POLISH PEOPLE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, in response to questions, the Premier said a statement would be forthcoming on our government's stance on the question of Polish self-exiles. In meeting this commitment, and in order to provide this House with the most up-to-date and accurate report possible, I have personally contacted during the last 48 hours Mr. Paul Hartling, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva; the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Employment and Immigration, Ottawa; the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva; the Austrian Red Cross; and the Canadian Red Cross.

From these contacts the story emerges in the following way: A large number of Polish citizens have left their homeland during the past year because of political and social unrest in their country. I am told that in the last few months alone, Polish authorities have issued 285,000 exit permits. Although the self-exiles have moved to many countries in Western Europe, by far the largest group has gone to Austria. The Ministry of the Interior of Austria has made no attempt to block the flow into that country and is not planning a change in that policy.

2:30 p.m.

Many of the Polish citizens who have gone to Austria have been able to support themselves, either with reserves they took with them from Poland or by finding employment. Those who have not been able to sustain themselves have been accepted into settlement camps. It is estimated that at this moment there are about 18,000 Polish men, women and children in those camps, with the largest number in Camp Traiskirchen.

For a number of reasons these self-exiles are not regarded as bona fide refugees and do not fall within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Included in these reasons are that they have left Poland on exit permits and of their own volition. It is also generally thought by close observers that they could return to Poland without fear of reprisal.

The Austrian Red Cross has confined its activities to assisting individuals outside camps with food, clothing and small cash grants. I think it is very important to point out that the people who have come out of Poland have come out in good health and that, up to this moment at least, there have been no requests for international material assistance in this situation from either the Austrian government or the Austrian Red Cross Society.

As members know, in the past the government of Ontario generally has supplied material assistance through the International Red Cross, but this government has always supplied such assistance in response to a request. In keeping with that policy, we will not offer material aid in this situation unless or until we have had a request.

While there have been no requests for international material assistance, the government of Austria has asked other countries to allow Polish citizens staying in that country to resettle. So far, only Canada and West Germany have responded positively. I think Canada's response is very much in keeping with this country's humane record in this field.

Last summer the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration increased the quota of government-assisted East European refugees who would be admitted to Canada in 1981 to 5,000 from 4,000. Most of this increased quota is being filled by Polish self-exiles living in Austria. On Tuesday of this week the minister announced substantial new initiatives that would accommodate the immigration of Polish self-exiles to Canada. Among these initiatives, I think one of the most important is a provision that would encourage greater family reunification of Polish self-exiles, as well as Poles still living in Poland, with their relatives here in Canada.

It has been our experience that about half the members of any immigrant group to Canada tend to settle in this province. Although it is impossible to estimate precisely how many Polish immigrants conceivably could be coming to Ontario as a result of these new federal measures, the potential is in the thousands.

Since 1957 approximately 19,300 people have come to Ontario from Poland. Many of them still have relatives in Poland today. Under federal provisions which open up substantially the sponsorship of members of the extended family, there could be significant movement.

The branch of the Ontario government that is responsible for receiving and helping these newcomers to settle is the newcomer services branch of my ministry. We meet new arrivals at Toronto International Airport. At Ontario Welcome House our counsellors, working in the newcomers' own language, help with guidance and referrals to community organization and other agencies. Documents newcomers need for employment or for continuing their education are translated free of charge. Language training is made available. We also produce a variety of practical materials designed to help both the newcomers and the volunteers working with them.

In anticipation of an increased flow, we have added to the number of staff with a Polish language capability. We will also be publishing updated print and audio-visual materials that will help the new arrivals become acquainted with life in our province. All of these services are in addition to all provincial government services that are available to all residents of the province.

I think it is vitally important to note that while my staff provides these services to newcomers directly, most of the province's newcomer services are carried forward by the outstanding voluntary agencies in the community with financial assistance from the province. In the past when a major influx of immigrants has placed unusual demands on the services of these voluntary organizations, the government, through my ministry, has made additional resources available. We will continue to monitor the Polish situation closely. Should the need arise, I know that this government will be able to respond in the same humane and effective way.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since the Premier is here, I would like to know why he refuses to answer my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: He has no right to block the other members of the House. I think I have a right to have my letters answered.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Essex South resume his seat?

DAY CARE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), I would like to rise on a matter of privilege concerning the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) accusing the member for Scarborough West of being long on speculation but short on fact with reference to the question of day care.

The facts that the member for Scarborough West brought out in this Legislature on Monday of last week are in fact substantiated in the statement --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. That is not a matter of privilege.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The standing orders on page 18 say, "On days when private members' public business is taken up, except as provided in standing order 63, the time allotted to ministerial statements shall not exceed 30 minutes without agreement from a majority of the members." It now being 23 minutes to the hour, I would suspect that rule is being violated.

Mr. Mancini: We deserve to have our letters answered. What kind of nonsense are you talking about?

Mr. Martel: Will you shut up?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Mancini: We deserve to have our letters answered.

Mr. Riddell: Is that parliamentary procedure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Amateur time continues.

The member for Sudbury East has raised a valid point and he is indeed correct to a point. Nine minutes of the statement time have been taken up by points of privilege and I was extending the period for ministerial statements by nine minutes to compensate for the --

Mr. Roy: Have you been doing the same thing on question period?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have.

Mr. Martel: May I ask the Speaker at what time he is starting to add that -- from the time of the opening exercise to what time he intends to allow this fiasco to continue?

Mr. Speaker: The time will expire at 2:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I appreciate the ruling you have just given us with regard to extending the time for ministerial statements because of points of order and privilege raised during that time. I assume, therefore, you will consider extending question period when points of privilege and order are raised during question period. I would assume further, in view of the rule that has been established about the half hour with regard to ministerial statements on Thursday, that you will be extending the debate on the private members' matters by the nine minutes you have indicated.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. As I have indicated before, I have always used discretion in extending question period when I have felt time has been unnecessarily taken up.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling, and taking into consideration the realities of March 19, you will now give more questions to the official opposition in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:40 p.m.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to provide to the honourable members a progress report on the processing of 1981 Ontario tax grant applications and the mailing of property tax grant and sales tax grant cheques to seniors.

During the first week of September we fulfilled an earlier commitment and mailed applications for the second instalment of the 1981 property tax grant to all Ontario seniors whom the ministry considered eligible. As of October 22, 493,989 completed property tax grant applications had been accepted by the ministry for processing. Of these, I am now pleased to report that 342,159 have been approved and the cheques mailed to seniors throughout the province.

An additional 88,441 grants have been approved for payment by the ministry and cheques for these households will be issued the week of November 9. The remaining 63,389 applications are presently being processed for payment and cheques will be mailed in due course. As well, on October 5, the Ministry of Revenue mailed out on

schedule sales tax grant cheques of $50 each to some 845,000 eligible senior citizens.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my satisfaction with the delivery of this year's Ontario tax grants for seniors program. We have made the public commitment through the media that a maximum turnaround time of eight weeks is required for application processing before a property tax grant cheque can be mailed. In those instances where the application is filled out correctly, this

schedule is being adhered to. Our public information program is paying significant dividends in the form of a reduced error rate in completed applications and a marked decline in the number of public inquiries.

The honourable members will appreciate, however, that in a program of this magnitude and complexity there are bound to be a number of technical difficulties. In this instance, I would specifically acknowledge problems experienced by some seniors who have turned 65 in 1981 and have received an insufficient property tax grant cheque. This situation was quickly identified by my ministry and corrective measures implemented. Cheques for the full entitlement will be sent out to these people the week of November 9.

Also, the Ministry of Revenue recognizes that some seniors eligible for the property tax grant --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for ministerial statements has expired.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the Treasurer. How does the government of Ontario or the Ontario Energy Corporation intend to finance the Suncor deal? The Treasurer will recall that Malcolm Rowan, at the time the Premier (Mr. Davis) held his original press conference, said the second $325 million would be obtained by means of notes from Suncor and that the money needed to repay the notes would be generated from the profits of Suncor, presumably to be taken in the form of dividends.

When I raised the matter the other day and pointed out that such a dividend policy would result in an additional $300 million a year being channelled south of the border in a company that previously never declared a dividend, the Treasurer said I jumped to conclusions. In fact, he told the Globe and Mail that the matter is still up for negotiation and will not necessarily be by notes at the 17 per cent interest rate.

The Treasurer himself said on October 15, 1981, and this is in Hansard: "The second $325 million will be borrowed through devices as yet to be finalized. I believe the member will find the moneys required to handle that $325 million may well be generated, hopefully, by dividends or cash flows during the 10-year period."

Would the Treasurer answer in a very straightforward way why he has suggested that the money for the second $325 million would come from dividends out of Suncor if that is not what is going to happen, and what are the options presently being considered by the government of Ontario to finance the second $325 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement the honourable Leader of the Opposition read in the latter part of his simple question was basically accurate. I left myself two options, the way I read his comments: "may well be paid by dividends" and "by instruments yet to be negotiated or arranged."

Those statements still apply. The potential for receiving dividends still exists. The fact that dividends have not been paid does not mean that dividends will not be paid. Negotiations are under way, and until they are completed I think it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the final form of the debt instruments.

Mr. Smith: Since the two options seem to be either dividends or some other debt instrument, would the Treasurer admit that if it does go by way of dividends, in order for Ontario to receive dividends of $100 million a year, $300 million a year will flow south of the border out of the company and out of the country, in a company that previously never did dividend its money out for common shares to its parent company south of the border but left the money in this country?

If some other debt instrument is to be chosen will the Treasurer simply admit that it will, via the Ontario Energy Corporation, essentially increase the net cash requirements of the government of Ontario at a time when Ontario Finances, which was just released today I believe, shows that the net cash requirements have already increased to 75 per cent higher than the 1980-81 situation and, in fact, to 47 per cent higher than his own budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition is aware that there are provisions to find at least another 26 per cent Canadian content in Suncor. I would assume if that takes place, and it probably will, then at least his calculations are wrong. Assuming that the other 49 per cent remains American held, then at the very worst a dollar of dividends in Canada would be matched by a dollar of dividends in the United States.

The decisions or discussions about whether the dividends are covering the interest costs will be found only after the negotiations are completed some time in November. I point out that when I reviewed his $2.4 billion cost, which he put forward the other day, I found that he nicely slipped in $1.3 billion worth of interest on interest in his calculations.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What instructions does the government intend to give to its nominees on the board of directors of Suncor with respect to the dividend policy of the corporation? Could the Treasurer share with the House in what other ways the government of Ontario's representatives on the Suncor board will seek to have changes made in the corporate policies of the company that will benefit Canadians or Ontarians?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that both of those questions would best be answered by my colleague here, since once this deal is completed the real management of it will be through the Ministry of Energy, not through Treasury.

Mr. Cassidy: Would you redirect the question to the Minister of Energy, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think as the honourable Treasurer has attempted to emphasize on several occasions here, the dividend policy of this company is to be put in place. The parent company clearly acknowledges that there will have to be a dividend policy in place. It is part of the negotiations that have led to the letter of intent, and it will be finalized in the final documents. There will, in fact, be a dividend policy in so far as Suncor is concerned. As part of that agreement we will, through the Ontario Energy Corporation, have nominees on that particular board and obviously we will be --

Mr. Smith: And the money will flow south of the border.

Hon. Mr. Welch: But not in the totals that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated. My advice is, on the basis of --

Mr. Smith: Well, 75 per cent to Sun Oil and 25 per cent to you. Three times what you get goes there.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I note with some interest that the Suncor profit has fallen to 95 cents a share from $4.86 for the comparable nine-month period last year. I also note with great interest that the Treasurer's net cash requirements have just gone up 47 per cent higher than projected and roughly 75 per cent higher than a year ago. I also note --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Peterson: -- with great interest that one of the key advisers in this deal, one of the key economic advisers to this government over a number of years, Mr. Tom Kierans, past chairman of the Ontario Economic Council, a director of the Ontario Energy Corporation just resigned, president of McLeod Young Weir, a leading financial agent to this government and author of the secret study outlining the merits of the Suncor purchase, now says --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I direct the attention of all members to standing order 27(b). Please ask your supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: As the outgoing chairman of the Ontario Economic Council said in his speech yesterday, public support for nationalist policies such as the new energy and industrial programs would not be supported by Canadians if they knew the cost. Is it because the minister listens to him that he has no bloody idea what is going on and has completed fouled up the economic policy of this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a new question.

Mr. Peterson: Well, you listened to somebody stupider.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You did not tell him that to his face the other night.

Mr. Peterson: Well, he was buying dinner. I tell you what he is saying is outrageous, absolutely stupid. You know it --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I caution the member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: -- and you should be embarrassed. This is the stupidest thing you have done.

Mr. Smith: The Premier has now interrupted me to say the member for London Centre did not tell Tom Kierans to his face. He did not know that Kierans was against the nationalistic program until today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we are interested in the conversation. Do you have a new question?

Mr. Smith: Oh yes, I certainly do.

MASSEY-FERGUSON LAYOFFS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. The minister is undoubtedly aware a press release has been issued at the Brantford plant of Massey-Ferguson announcing that 600 hourly-paid employees are being put on indefinite layoff.

Is the minister aware this matter was announced with no advance notice given to the minister himself, nor apparently to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie)? The notice was given only today. The workers have had only one week's notice, contrary to the way indefinite layoffs are supposed to be dealt with.

Does the minister not recall that in the agreement with Massey-Ferguson, where much public money has been used to try to assist that company, the only understanding was there might be temporary layoffs as a result of economic conditions, but there was certainly no understanding at all that indefinite layoffs would be tolerated?

Why is the ministry now saying the layoffs are temporary when they have been announced as indefinite? What is the minister's understanding of the status of these layoffs? How does it jibe with the agreement reached with Massey-Ferguson?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as we were informed only shortly before the public was informed this morning, we do not have the answers to some of those questions. The ministry is seeking at the present time some clarifications that are necessary under the agreement.

Mr. Smith: I appreciate the brevity of the response of the minister, but may I ask him how it is that even as late as three o'clock today he is still unaware of the nature of this layoff of 600 workers at Massey-Ferguson, a matter of very grave importance indeed?

Can the minister assure this House that either a date will be given for the recall of these workers, and it will be truly a temporary layoff, or, if the matter will be indefinite, it will be seen by the minister to contravene the agreement and action will be taken to rescind certain aspects of that agreement and also to make sure the company complies with the laws of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, as I said to the excellent and interested member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) when he contacted me and we chatted about it extensively this morning, the ministry, unlike it has been pictured by the Leader of the Opposition, knows of the layoffs, and the simple question now is whether in the agreement the definition of "temporary" and the description of "indefinite" are the same or different.

If these layoffs are in violation of the agreement because they are indefinite as opposed to temporary under the definition of "temporary" in the agreement, then I can assure this House and the member for Brantford, as I did earlier today, and the Leader of the Opposition, that every action will be taken to enforce the agreement to its fullest: but it does depend upon the legal definition of the layoffs as described in the agreement versus that described in the press release this morning.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister tell us, inasmuch as many of the latest number of employees to be laid off probably will not even qualify for unemployment insurance and as a result are going to end up on the welfare rolls, whether or not his government is now willing to take a look at the reconstituting of the plant layoff committee so that we can have things like justification and proper notification of workers involved in plant shutdowns?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the member would have to ask my colleague the Minister of Labour, and I suspect his answer would be no.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It concerns me that the welfare of the 600 workers laid off seems to be hanging on the legal

interpretation of a term in the agreement that the minister has signed with the company when he put forward the large guarantees that enabled it to continue operations. What assurance can he give us, even if it is a temporary layoff or an indefinite one, that all of the provisions for the assistance of the workers that are required under the terms of the agreement will be carried out?

Is he going to depend on legal

interpretations of specific words and subclauses in the agreement, or is he going to take some action to safeguard the jobs of those people at Massey- Ferguson and others in Brantford who seem to be in more jeopardy than in other communities of this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member, again as I assured the member for Brantford this morning, that every action will be taken within the legal framework of the agreement and outside of the legal framework, in terms of the general undertakings and the spirit of the agreement, to make sure that every protection possible is provided to those workers.

I should add that my staff has been in constant contact with Massey-Ferguson, trying to monitor its success over the last period of time. Obviously Massey-Ferguson, White, International Harvester, everyone in the industry except John Deere, are having a very difficult time, and I can only assure the members of this House that this government will do everything possible to ensure that all of the workers affected in this situation are not only protected by the firm within the context of the agreement, but this government will provide all the assistance possible, through the Ministry of Labour and my ministry, to make sure that is done.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have two points of privilege. I will get them both in this one point here. Number one, I am concerned about the fact that you are always trying to take the part of the government in this House. I am concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: I think it is, but I have a point of privilege against the minister here.

Mr. Speaker: I will listen to your second one.

Mr. Sargent: I know the Minister of Industry and Tourism is quite a hotshot now, dealing with Ford and all the big companies, but my point of privilege is that when I have called to speak to him numerous times he has been too busy to return my calls and he has an exec or somebody call me. I know he is a hotshot, but I want some answers.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The member for Ottawa Centre with a new question.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question with the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Since the minister now acknowledges the crisis which has hit the farm implement industry right through southwestern Ontario and since the automobile industry -- with both parts producers and car manufacturers in southwestern Ontario -- is having similar problems, will the minister say when this government is going to respond to the economic crisis which is now overtaking almost every major community in Ontario west of Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we responded last January, with the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program.

3 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Since there has been no announcement with respect to the auto parts centre, and no announcement with respect to the microelectronic centre proposed for Ottawa and for Cambridge, what are workers who are now being put on the street to do with empty promises that came from a cynical government seeking re-election back in January; which government was prepared to promise the moon at that time but is not now prepared to lift a finger despite all the minister's statements? At a time when workers are going out of work and do not know where their next job is going to come from, when is there going to be action from the government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we can go over all the statistics that even the member knows by heart by now because we have given them to him so many times.

In the last two years there have been 307 major new plants or expansions in Ontario, 90 of which, by the way, involved some direct assistance from this government. Does the member not call that assistance to industry? In the auto parts sector, there have been 67 new plants or expansions. He knows there is no government anywhere that has done more.

What do I say to those workers there? I say that in a situation in which the largest industry in this province, the automotive industry --

Mr. Mackenzie: A 40-year con job.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member for Hamilton East cannot take good news, but he has to listen to it sometimes. I know it is tough to come here and hear good news.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister address himself to the question.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does anyone want the support of the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) for leadership? Seriously?

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister address the question of the member for Ottawa Centre please.

Hon. Mr.

Grossman: May I say that in a situation in which the largest industry in this province, the automotive industry, is undergoing worldwide stress and is having its worst year ever, for this province to be in a situation where it has over 100,000 new jobs this year; where our unemployment rate remains well below the national average; where our manufacturing investment is very strong this year; where our manufacturing jobs are up over last year, it is an absolutely astonishing record for this government, for this Treasurer and for this Premier, to be able to point to that record -- and those people who are going through a difficult time as well -- and say that every possible step has been taken by this government in this economic situation to provide literally more job opportunities than any equivalent jurisdiction at this period of time.

With BILD, the picture can only get better. No other government has made those kinds of forward-looking investments.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I believe the minister was incorrect when he said the auto industry was the largest industry. The agriculture and food industry is the largest industry. I believe he sat in cabinet yesterday when the head of the farmers' organization said that farmers were facing a crisis situation.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Riddell: My question to the minister is, in view of the fact that his government can come up with $10.6 million for a jet for the Premier to fly around in, and can come up with $3 billion over 10 years to buy a slice of an oil company, knowing that neither of these will lead to the creation of one single job in this province, why can he not convince his cabinet colleagues to find some money to introduce an emergency low-interest loan program to help our farmers facing --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Final supplementary, the member for Brantford.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, it was not a supplementary.

Mr. Gillies: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister follow up on the initiative he took by introducing legislation in this House to assist Massey-Ferguson -- legislation that was opposed by the New Democratic Party -- by bringing every possible pressure to bear on the federal government in its upcoming budget to do something about the insane interest rates that have led to this crisis in the farm machinery industry?

Mr. Smith: How was that supplementary to the question of the member for Ottawa Centre?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It dealt with Massey- Ferguson.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Smith: That was supplementary to my question, not to that of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). His question had nothing to do with Massey.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The practice has been that there is a question from the leadoff or the leader; that individual gets a supplementary; it then goes to the opposition parties, and it goes back to the original party. Once again -- having read Hansard for last Friday -- I remind members that this matter was disputed last Friday. And here we are again on Thursday going through the same ritual.

Yes, I am afraid that no supplementary has come back here, and the nonsense you have just accepted from the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was not even supplementary to this question; it was supplementary to the previous question; it did not even deal with the matter that was raised. You allowed it to be answered, and then you allowed the minister to get up --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. I would point out to the member for Sudbury East I did not allow the supplementary. I did call it as a final supplementary. I heard it; it was out of order, the same as the previous one.

Now we will try again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No. With the member the final --

Mr. Martel: On the point of order: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, you allowed the minister to get up and reply to a question you yourself said was not supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He did not allow me.

Mr. Martel: He did. The minister should not give me his nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not recognize the minister; he popped up.

Mr. Martel: You just let him do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I did not.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary deals with the original question of the crisis in the southwest. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) indicated in the debate we had in this House on interest rates on October 13 that the federal government could do nothing in the short term and that he supported the high interest rate policy in the short term. I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism what his government can do when he considers that Brantford has a 10 per cent unemployment rate plus the layoffs announced today and that St. Thomas has more than 3,000 layoffs at Ford alone.

Does he realize the repossession rate of homes in Brantford is 94 -- there have been 94 foreclosures in that city so far -- that in Chatham 65 homes that have been repossessed are on the market and five more are coming in each week, that these cities are being hit with high unemployment and high interest rates at the same time, and that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. He asked the minister what the minister was going to do. Now will the minister reply, please?

Mr. Cooke: What the hell does this government want?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has indicated for some time the devastation that is being wrought by the ill-advised policies of the federal government. He has made no secret of that.

I know even the members opposite understand that the basic problem in this economy is high interest rates, because I have heard their candidate for leader on this subject. They were out campaigning with him in Brantford yesterday; instead of providing solace to the workers they were campaigning for Bob Rae in Brantford. He has been in the House of Commons lecturing the federal government about the insane high interest rate policies and putting the blame squarely where it belongs: on the federal government of this country.

That is their candidate for leader. He understands where the responsibility lies; he understands the reason those people are losing their homes; he understands what the problem is. When he gets to this House -- he never will get to this House, but if he did -- we would insist he remember what he said when he was in Ottawa, and the members opposite should remember what their candidate stands for.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have no idea where the minister gets his reports from Brantford. I was in Brantford yesterday as the --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I am clarifying the record.

Mr. Speaker: Please do, but --

Mr. Cooke: So sit down and listen for a change.

Mr. Speaker: I will, indeed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You did not raise a point of privilege, with all respect.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: I raised a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege Mr. Speaker: The minister made an allegation that my colleague was in Brantford yesterday with Bob Rae about certain matters with respect to leadership. He does not have a right to make a statement like that if it is not factual.

As I suggested to the Speaker about a week ago, when someone gets up and makes a statement like that and they are wrong, it is time they withdrew. Otherwise you leave us no alternative except to say he is misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Martel: No, it is time it got clarified.

Mr. Speaker: Let me just clarify one point for all members of this House. They are continually rising on points of privilege asking me to make a judgement. I have no idea whether the information is factually correct or not. I cannot express an opinion and I am not allowed to enter into a debate.

Mr. Cassidy: You did not even listen to him.

Mr. Laughren: Just do your job.

Mr. Martel: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw the comment I made. You may not have heard the unparliamentary language I indicated. I used a word I should not have used in this House.

Mr. Martel: But you might withdraw, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said the member was in Brantford campaigning with Bob Rae yesterday. I wish to correct the record. I think he was just there campaigning for him -- not with him.

Mr. Cooke: That is not accurate at all.

Mr. Martel: That is not accurate either. You couldn't even show tact once, could you?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Will the member for Sudbury East resume his seat.

Mr. Cassidy: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You allow that kind of comment but then you cut off the member for Windsor-Riverside when he simply wished to clarify the record. I think that is a biased policy on your part. We see it every week and every day.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do. I have a new question, Mr. Speaker.

RAILWAY SERVICE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In January of this year, the task force on rail policy headed by the member of Parliament from Rosedale called for Ontario to play a strong role in the revitalization of rail services. It called for Ontario to take a stronger and more forceful role and called for the full participation of the government of Ontario in the planning and development of the rail system on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Presuming that is the position the government intended to take, would the minister say just what strong steps he and the government have taken with respect to the Via Rail cuts in this province apart from having two meetings with Mr. Pépin?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have had at least two meetings, probably three meetings with Mr. Pépin, and a number of discussions with my ministry staff and the staff of Mr. Pépin's ministry. I have certainly put forward the position of the government of Ontario with regard to the Via Rail cutbacks and I do not know of anything further I can do beyond that.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Passenger services on three lines that go into Toronto from Peterborough, Stouffville and Barrie are being cut and this affects thousands of people. The main line rail service from Ottawa to western Canada is also being cut. Given these facts and the way cutbacks are being imposed on services in northern Ontario in the riding of my friend from Sudbury East, is the minister saying a few talks with officials is all the government of Ontario is going to do?

What about the recommendations in the report that Ontario should act as a catalyst to help implement new rail services, that it should serve as a mediator where there are disputes, that Ontario should act as a spokesman and intervene on behalf of the users of rail services where problems like this have emerged? Are there any studies the minister can make public that will contradict the trumped-up figures with which Mr. Pépin is trying to justify the shutdown of Via Rail passenger services in this province? Is the government of Ontario going to take any other steps on behalf of these passenger services or just sit there like a lump of wet spaghetti?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Withdraw that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have never been called a lump of wet spaghetti before, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, it is not unparliamentary.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Speaker has just ruled that is not unparliamentary.

I and my ministry have intervened at every opportunity when there have been proposals for rail cutbacks in Ontario. We have appeared on behalf of the citizens of Ontario at Canadian Transport Commission hearings on many occasions. Since Mr. Pépin announced his cutbacks I have met personally with him on at least two occasions -- I believe there have been three occasions -- when I put forward our position and violently opposed a number of the cutbacks he is proposing.

I have not had an opportunity to appear before any CTC hearings on these particular cutbacks because, as I am sure the honourable leader of the third party knows, there have been no CTC hearings. I believe I have been as effective as possible in putting our position before the minister and have been as effective as any of his federal colleagues in Ottawa have been. But I admit that none of us has been very effective in getting Mr. Pépin to reconsider.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, concerning the report on the Ontario rail policy, can the minister inform the House how many of the recommendations in that policy report have been implemented by the Ontario government and at what cost?

Mr. Foulds: That is not a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a supplementary.

Mr. Mancini: Certainly it was.

Mr. Speaker: No. It was not. The member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications how he is going to answer this question from the Ontario Progressive Conservative riding association for Lake Nipigon:

"On behalf of the Lake Nipigon Riding Progressive Conservative Association, we would like to voice our objection to the proposed closure of passenger service in the north. We who reside in small communities in the north rely on passenger service, especially with the rising cost of fuel. It is a vital link in keeping our country united. Please reconsider your actions."

It is addressed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will be answering the letter from that very important organization in the honourable member's riding. I will be telling them that unfortunately they must have misunderstood the discontinuance of these services. I will be reminding them I will not be reconsidering my actions as far as discontinuance is concerned, because I took no action --

Mr. Martel: That is right on.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member should just hold his horses. I had nothing to do with taking the action that is discontinuing that service.

I will be telling these members of the Lake Nipigon Riding Progressive Conservative Association that on their behalf I did appeal very strongly to Mr. Pépin, when I was in Ottawa, to maintain daily service on the line where he proposes to continue only a three-times-a week service. I made a strong presentation to Mr. Pépin that the service should be maintained on a daily basis. That is what I will be telling the Lake Nipigon Progressive Conservative Association.

Mr. Cassidy: When times are good they take credit; when they are bad they blame the feds.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CONSTITUTIONAL PACKAGE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for staying so that I can ask him a question.

With the upcoming federal-provincial constitutional conference starting next week in Ottawa, and with the press reports where we keep reading about Ontario's position -- in fact the tag he has been given these days is "the honest broker" -- will the Premier enlighten the House as to what areas Ontario is taking leadership in to show some flexibility?

For instance, in what areas is he prepared to amend or change his position on the question of veto in the amending formula? What changes is he suggesting in the formula or in the charter? Is he prepared to change his position on that, or is he suggesting the Robertson-Pickersgill formula of opting in or out? Can the Premier enlighten the House and tell us exactly in what areas he is proposing change to arrive at some consensus?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I may have one or two observations tomorrow morning. I have said this several times to the press and I reiterate it. In simple terms, my approach to this is fairly obvious. We are prepared to consider, work with and endeavour to create a greater measure of consensus. We are prepared to see refinements of the charter. As I said almost a year ago we are more than prepared to find alternatives with respect to the amending formula. I think it is also important to point out I said this to the press and I am not trying to hide anything or in any way --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They can laugh if they like. Those people may not take this matter seriously, but frankly I am not negotiating in public prior to next Monday. We face a situation where every other Premier knows basically what my position is. I have a rough idea what, as a group, the group of eight feels its position is. I have a rough idea what the Prime Minister's is and what the Premier of New Brunswick's is.

What has to emerge at this conference is some understanding that everybody, or a larger number of people, have to move somewhat from their present positions. I cannot be more definitive. I am not refusing in that sense of the word, but I really am not prepared to negotiate in that sense prior to the meetings on Monday.

Mr. Roy: I quite appreciate that sometimes one is not as effective as one could be if one negotiates publicly but once in a while it may be advantageous. Even though the Premier has a majority government I suggest he could take the Legislature into his confidence for such important things as the constitution.

The Premier talks about showing some flexibility so may I ask him whether he is prepared to show some flexibility in the area of the charter of rights and freedoms dealing with language rights? Would he change his position on that as it involves language rights in this province, therefore making the federal package on the charter far more saleable in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I think the honourable member perhaps does not totally understand the issue or the positions taken, particularly by the Premier of Quebec. Ontario went a very substantial piece in terms of initiating the entrenchment of education within the charter.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Would the member for Ottawa East please listen. I am not going to respond to his facetious remarks. I am trying to take this seriously.

Mr. Roy: It was not facetious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on, he was facetious at the beginning of his remarks and he knows it. He always spoils a good question by being silly at the outset and I am trying not to reply in that fashion.

As it relates to past and present discussions, the traditional position of Quebec has been -- and I have seen no evidence of any change -- that its opposition to the charter with respect to language is not related to what point of view we may or may not have in this province. It relates to its point of view there should not be provisions with respect to language in the charter that in any way conflict with its internal governmental policy. That is what the Premier said. He has said it a dozen times and I want to make that abundantly clear.

I will just reiterate what I said. I am not negotiating in public. I am delighted to share my points of view on this issue at appropriate times with members of this House. I have never been reluctant to do it, but I think this meeting on Monday is a critical one. It really is going to mean that people are going to have to change their points of view. Otherwise, no success will be achieved. In general terms we can see some refinements in the charter. I am not married to the crossing of every "t" and the dotting of every "i" that is there. The resolution, at least initially, was less than it is at this moment.

In other words, it was the federal House of Commons that added a great deal of what is in the present resolution. We could have lived with the former resolution and we have said we can live with the present resolution, so quite obviously we can see some areas of refinement.

I think the amending formula is very important. We were part of -- not a consensus -- but we raised no objections to the Toronto consensus formula. I am sure the honourable member remembers it in detail. Then there was the Vancouver consensus and the Banff consensus. I know the member very carefully reviewed all those options and I know he understands the existing option. From Ontario's point of view -- if that is critical, as I believe it is to some of our sister provinces -- I feel as Premier of this province that we can be flexible.

But it would be unwise to say exactly what our position is in the present situation, prior to the other first ministers reassessing their own positions in approach to this next Monday.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Even with revisions in the charter of rights there will be aspects of the charter that a number of the eight provinces will have great difficulty accepting. They have indicated their opposition up until now. So could the Premier explain the double standard that exists right now, whereby Ontario is supporting the federal package because it has been able to negotiate its way out of having to have

section 133, French language rights, applied to this province,

whereas those other provinces are being asked to accept the charter of rights despite the fact they find it very difficult to accept?

Would the Premier not be prepared to do away with that double standard by going into the negotiations on Monday and indicating he could accept

section 133? If there is an agreement, he could say as part of that agreement Ontario will take courage, with the support of the opposition parties -- which support has been there for a long time -- and will accept the obligations of

section 133 of the British North America Act for Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I heard the member for Essex applaud that vigorously.

Mr. Boudria: Prescott-Russell.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was somebody. I'm sorry, I thought it was Essex.

Mr. Nixon: You always mess up a good answer with a facetious interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leader of the New Democratic Party is factually incorrect. Ontario did not negotiate its way out of anything. That is not the way the process worked. It was not a case of that in any way, measure or form. I make it abundantly clear the position of Ontario was not to negotiate its way out of anything. Our position during the discussions on the charter was to add one or two things we felt were fairly fundamental. One of them did relate to the question of mobility rights. That happened to be an Ontario initiative, along with the other one I mentioned a few moments ago. We were not negotiating our way out of anything during that process.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not at all sure I could agree with the honourable member's presumption regarding the motivation of the federal government. I do not believe the motivation had anything to do with what Ontario did, except that the federal government apparently felt very strongly it was not receiving sufficient credit for whatever it did in the area of post-secondary education from coast to coast.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Grande: Does the Minister of Colleges and Universities know that between the fiscal years 1976-77 to 1979-80, the Canadian average spent on universities was 33.9 per cent and Ontario spent 20.7 per cent on its universities? Would the minister not show good faith with the federal government in terms of the possible cutbacks on established program funding grants by making up its mind as soon as possible, and before the federal budget, on the recommendations of the committee on the future role of universities?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is a totally unrealistic suggestion by the honourable member. In the first place I have already made very clear that the examination of the entire post-secondary system is in process at the present time. That report is considered to be extremely important but it is being considered in conjunction with two other major reports -- the report on polytechnic education and the one on continuing education. I will promise the honourable member that the government position in that area will be available very early in the new year.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister. Will the minister make a commitment to this House and to the students of Ontario now that no matter what the federal government should do, this government will immediately reverse its policy on post-secondary assistance? This policy has seen the provincial share of post-secondary financing for the operation of universities drop from 18.5 per cent in 1977-78 to five per cent in 1980-81, during the same period when the federal government's spending went from 66 per cent to 80 per cent and tuition fees remained constant at 15 per cent.

Will the minister make a commitment today to begin to reverse the trend where Ontario pays less and less each year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is unfortunately falling into the trap that has engulfed so many others before him. I would remind him there is no specific directed allocation for post-secondary education from the federal government to the provincial governments of this country at the request of the federal government in 1976-77.

Before that time, the federal government decided it was spending far too much money in cost-shared programs and made the decision that it should persuade the provincial governments to accept block funding for certain established programs with no direction at all. The honourable member is using some kind of sleight of hand, or some kind of imaginary figures, to determine the position which he has presented. What I will promise is that as the minister responsible for colleges and universities I will do my very best to ensure that our institutions are funded adequately for their future, for the future of this province and the future of the students.

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister should know better than to try to lead the House in the direction she has attempted to lead it, since it is not an accurate direction.

To clarify the record, I would like the minister to know there is no sleight of hand involved in the figures produced by my esteemed colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich. He has simply taken the amount of money that came into Ontario's hands as a result of the change in the established program funding when the arrangement was made and the same percentage of that money which previously went to universities, admitting it could have been used however the province wanted.

They were not legally obliged to use it for universities, but had it continued to finance universities at the same rate as before the established program funding was changed, the government would have kept up the 18.5 per cent funded formerly. Now that has been reduced to five per cent --

Mr. Speaker: Order. A new question; the member for London North.

NURSING HOME INFORMATION

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that five months have passed since the minister assured the House he was working on a means by which he would make nursing home inspection forms public --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed.

Mr. Van Horne: Can the minister explain why we were recently told by an official of his ministry that they were still working on the kind of form and they were not sure what the criteria should be? Why is his ministry stalling on that when he gave us assurances in May?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is stalling. The staff are working on it. They know the direction I have indicated I wish to go. They are to report to me this fall on how that can be done. With respect, that could not reasonably be called stalling.

Mr. Van Horne: I ask the minister to check and report back to the House, because we were told within the past week that not only were the criteria a little hazy but also they were considering dispensing with the thought altogether. Now the minister is telling us a different story. I wish we would get the story straight. Will the minister report to us as to when that form will come to us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When the staff have completed their work and I have had a chance to review it and discuss it with my colleagues, I will announce what the system will be. There is no question that there is going to be a new system.

USE OF DEPO-PROVERA

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning the report he tabled today on the use of Depo-Provera. Even though there are some shortcomings in the report, one thing sticks out: The rate of death occurring in these institutions by breast cancer is 25 times the norm. Given that information is from the minister's own report, is he now prepared to ban the use of this drug in his own institutions?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it plain when I gave the statement an hour or so ago that I would adopt the recommendations of Dr. Zarfas, and I have done so. Dr. Zarfas does not recommend a ban in our institutions. He does not recommend a ban outside our institutions.

What Dr. Zarfas has recommended is that his entire report be directed to the 38 or 39 facility physicians -- physicians who practise primarily in our facilities -- and then be published in the medical journals for the information of all medical practitioners across the province.

He has also recommended that this study be sent to the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare and that that branch do much more investigation because, as the honourable member will note from the report, the people who have been studied here are a relatively small sample.

To come to the particular point, because I know the member would want to ask it in a supplementary, I consulted with Dr. Zarfas across my desk and asked him if he would recommend that this pharmaceutical be banned in our facilities. Dr. Zarfas told me, "No."

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to ask the minister if he has an explanation for the simple fact that, just shortly after I asked the initial questions about the use of this drug and just prior to the undertaking of this particular study, more than 255 women in these institutions were immediately taken off the drug.

Second, I would particularly like to know why, in one of the institutions in Rideau, fully 46.9 per cent of the women in the institution were on this drug.

Does that not give the minister a pretty clear indication that there was at least some abuse of this drug in his own institutions?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I was not the minister at that time. Therefore, I will consult with the people responsible in these facilities and so forth and take that question as notice. The member will get back a reply in writing.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister may recall that his predecessor assured the House when the matter was raised that there was no risk with respect to Depo-Provera, that it was extremely safe and that there were no reports of adverse reactions.

I want an answer now from the minister as to why 230 female residents of the Rideau Regional Centre who were on Depo-Provera before the question was raised in the House were immediately taken off the drug as soon as the question was raised.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am hardly in a position to carry around in my mind the events of last June when I was not the minister responsible. I have answered quite candidly that I will take that question as notice. I will reply in writing to the member for Oshawa, who originally asked the question, and I will reply directly to the member for Bellwoods.

MAJOR REALTY

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware that one of the largest realty firms in the city of Windsor, Major Realty of Windsor Limited, has gone into receivership and that the realty agents employed by Major who have money forthcoming from sales made are therefore not going to be able to receive their moneys? I would like to know what steps the minister is going to take to ensure that these agents will be paid.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem that has existed in Windsor with Major Realty. In fact, when Price, Waterhouse moved the receivers in at five o'clock last Friday our ministry inspectors were on site at that very time, making sure that the trust fund was in order. At that time, five o'clock on Friday, we were able to ascertain that the trust funds of Major Realty were in order; so we can at least say that much, and that is the context in which we were there at that moment.

The only thing I can say in regard to looking after the actual agents and what moneys will be forthcoming to them is that if any of their proceeds were contained within the trust funds then they are protected. Our only area of inspection at that moment was the trust funds. To the extent that they would cover off any expenses or income the agents would normally receive, we can say for sure that is there. Beyond that, we would have to determine the individual cases.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would make reference to the petition I presented to this House two days ago, a petition signed by more than 2,600 people from London and district and asking this House to assist in the removal of urea formaldehyde foam insulation.

I was informed after I presented the petition that it could not be properly presented to the House because, according to standing order 29(f), "no petition shall be received that prays for any expenditure, grant or charge on the public revenue..."

I would argue that the wording "to assist in the removal" could suggest that the government use its influence with manufacturers, which is the idea presented in the private member's bill brought to this House on Monday through the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), and that the petition does not clearly or explicitly or directly ask for the expenditure of funds and therefore should be left as a petition rather than forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

I know that it would be difficult for you to rule on the point I am raising now, Mr. Speaker, but I would like you to look into it if you would, please, and discuss it with the Clerk of the House. I have a very strong feeling that the people affected by urea formaldehyde foam insulation are going to be shuffled from federal to provincial to municipal government with no one having the courage to stand up and speak their case for them. I think we have a duty to do that, and I would like you to look into it, please, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take that matter under consideration.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report as follows:

Resolved that supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Ministry administration program, $5,586,000; agricultural production program, $93,743,700; rural development program, $5,325,900; agricultural marketing program, $12,765,600; agricultural education and research program, $27,967,800.

Resolved that supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Agricultural production program, $37,000,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln; and

Bill Pr16,

An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting the Latvian Canadian Cultural Centre.

Report adopted.

MOTIONS

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 54

Hon. Mr. Snow moved that Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, be discharged and removed from the Order Paper.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BARRIE-INNISFIL ANNEXATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill 156,

An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Innisfil.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed legislation is to implement the agreement between the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil on a range of boundary planning and financial issues.

The agreement results from a negotiation process similar to the one conducted two years earlier in the city and area of Brantford. Negotiations and agreement followed years of protracted confrontation by the municipalities before the Ontario Municipal Board and the various courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, which left the boundary issue unresolved.

I would like to congratulate the negotiators for the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil and Mr. Gardner Church and Brian Isaac of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on a job well carried out.

3:50 p.m.

MUNICIPAL LICENSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 157,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Businesses by Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 158,

An Act to revise the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Motion agreed to.

PLANNING ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 159,

An Act to revise the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say one further word in relation to my statement today?

I would like to thank the staff of the ministry, Mr. Bain, Mr. Wojciech Wronski and Mr. Farrow and others, and to respond in the House to a question that has been asked by a number of organizations, which is: How long will the new planning act take to come to completion and royal assent? I have no idea, obviously.

I have indicated to many organizations throughout the province that we were hoping for second reading in this House this session and that the bill will go out to committee for a fairly lengthy period of time for review by all those interested.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 160,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make a lengthier statement earlier today but we ran out of time.

The bill I am introducing today to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act will replace Bill 54 but will include the amendments that were included in Bill 54, which I removed from the Order Paper today.

In addition, the bill will include a number of amendments implementing recommendations of the Biggs review of farm-related trucking matters. They will also implement a procedure for intercorporate trucking between related companies, where the companies are owned a minimum of 90 per cent by the parent or sister company.

I have distributed the full statement and information to the critics.

ARBOUR DAY ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill 161,

An Act to proclaim Arbour Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, there are two points in the bill. It is similar to the one introduced by the former member for Beaches-Woodbine, Mr. Wardle, in 1973. A second point is that Arbour is spelt in accordance with the Oxford dictionary.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton, first reading of Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 140, 142, 144, 146, to 149 and 168 and the interim answers to questions 151, 153 to 167 and 170 to 172 standing on the Notice Paper. (See Hansard for Friday, October 30.)

I also wish to table the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 204. (See Hansard for Friday, October 30.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRESERVATION OF PARLIAMENT BUILDING

Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mr. Kennedy, resolution 22:

That the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoint a committee to be composed of the Speaker and not more than seven members of the House, with consideration to the composition of the House, and others who may be deemed appropriate, to advise and make recommendations with the intent of preserving the architectural integrity and heritage of the Parliament Building of Ontario, its grounds and contents therein in order to make preparations for an appropriate celebration of the centennial of the building as the seat of the Legislature and a symbol of the living heritage of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would like to say to the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution, I believe we should pay more attention to Ontario's heritage as preserved in this particular building. It is a building of great significance for several reasons. Each reason ties in to our most primary values.

This building embodies the finest work and craftsmanship that we have anywhere in Ontario, and it is one of our oldest buildings. It is a working, functional, historic monument, the seat of our deliberations as we manage the affairs of Ontario through the democratic process.

It is an education, I suppose, in the meaning and the working of democracy for thousands of people who visit this building and its grounds each year. It is one of our most popular tourist attractions. I know that as I was entering the House prior to question period this afternoon, and as other members may have noticed, we had three or four buses from as close as North York and from Owen Sound and other parts of the province.

4 p.m.

A building of such great significance deserves the finest attention, care and, although it may sound a little corny to say, even love that we can give it. We have to remember that we are torch-bearers, if you will, only for a time; we will pass our system of democratic government on to our children and, in turn, to their children, and they will receive it in the condition that we leave it in. We are the stewards.

This building and its grounds are the actual seat of our government in Ontario and therefore merit our highest respect. By respecting our seat of government ourselves, through that example we can teach our children to respect it in turn and the democratic freedoms that we intend to pass along to them, in their turn, when they are old enough to bear that responsibility.

I guess as much as anything it is the educational function of Queen's Park that impresses me the most. Each of us has his own feelings as we think in terms of this building, but I know mine is the extension of oneself and the education it means personally to each of us. For my part, as I have people visiting from my riding of Mississauga North, and I particularly mentioned the school tours, I see them in the halls and in the gallery, and I see them watching us from the gallery if the House is in session. One has to appreciate that that is an opportunity that is so unique and so important that the building that permits it all to be possible has a very special meaning.

From my office over in the Frost Building, I get a unique bird's-eye view of this gracious building. I have a chance to look down at the building and across the gardens. I see people wandering and enjoying the park, the trees and the gardens. One probably all too often takes it for granted, but the fact is that it is a lovely building.

One cannot help but be moved by the people and the activity that one observes. One sees the people reflecting on their history as they look at the sculptures that are on the grounds and as they look up at the building. I suppose and hope that they are seeing democracy as a living process, whether it be on the grounds or within the confines of the building.

I say that we are trustees, and I believe that to be true. It is in that capacity that I want to ask all honourable members of this assembly to consider whether we are according to Queen's Park the full measure of care and attention that it deserves as the focus of our provincial government.

Are we doing as good a job as we might of showing our visitors the history of our province? Are we conveying a sense of the great achievements of Ontarians? Are we stimulating as much respect for freedom and the democratic way of government as we can here at Queen's Park? Are we treating the building and its rich collection of art and furnishings with the attention they deserve from the point of view of historical preservation?

My personal conviction is that we could and should do much more than we are. With all due respect to the constant procession of custodians, and I see our former Speaker is in the House and perhaps will be joining in the debate, I know the kind of feeling that many people who have had the responsibility for this building have inputed to it and have added to it. The new customs and the preservation of those things we treasure most about the building have been having, as I understand it, a constant upgrading. But I always say that, with something as precious as this building, we probably could admit that there is yet more we could do.

I say this in a spirit of concern for preserving and conserving the best of our past, and this has been, of course, a decade --

Interjection.

Mr. Jones: No, I really was not being facetious; although, yes, I have heard that jingle somewhere. I think it fits.

Mr. Stokes: The member was sort of getting carried away there.

Mr. Jones: I recall that during Canada's centennial celebrations in 1967 we designated century farms, and as we travelled throughout the province we always saw that distinctive emblem telling us those farm buildings had been in existence for 100 years or more. I think all of us perked up, paid some attention and probably reflected on our heritage when we saw those signals of our past as we went across the way.

Mr. Elston: The government is getting rid of most of the century farms these days. The Ontario government is carrying on with the program.

Mr. Jones: No. The member ought not to mix the two debates. We have a strong rural base in this province, of which we are so very proud, and it makes sense to me that as we think of the heart of the province and its democratic process we should give the same care to our farm communities as we did to those properties that were designated as being 100 years old or more.

We encourage preservation of historically important properties, scenic lands, works of art, books, artefacts and other cultural properties throughout the province under the Ontario Heritage Foundation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is guided by a group of about 30 private citizens appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council because of their expertise in heritage conservation. The Ontario Heritage Foundation was established in 1968, and it has received over $10 million worth of gifts. Some are used as museums or senior citizens' centres, and they thus serve a very useful workaday purpose as well as being preserved as part of our heritage.

I think the Canadian centennial gave a lot of people the opportunity to pause and reflect on the importance of conscientiously preserving our historical buildings. Many centennial projects involve the restoration and renewal of other buildings throughout Ontario, and it was as though we suddenly realized that unless we acted, much of value would be lost.

For whatever reasons, there is no doubt that we are taking a wide variety of concrete measures in Ontario to ensure that the heritage properties, objects and buildings are preserved. Many governments, heritage organizations and individuals have joined forces. I suppose a landmark in Ontario is the Ontario Heritage Act of 1974, which promotes local initiatives and involvement. We have wisely adopted the decentralized approach in many areas where jurisdictions overlap, such as education and land-use decisions.

The Ontario Heritage Act puts the legal instruments for such moves as the designation of an individual site or heritage district in the hands of local governments, which are in close touch with the needs and wishes of the people whose property rights will be affected by such measures. Obviously we as the assembly are the local government with respect to Queen's Park.

When visiting Europe, or even when we look at movies or travelogues, we always tend to sense that Europeans take great pride in the living presence of their history. It seems to be everywhere. The preservation of their heritage for many centuries is something we can learn a lesson from. Just as they sense their social continuity and stability in the form of their physical surroundings, we should certainly do no less for a building we hold in such high esteem as the building we speak about today.

It is very positive that Canadians have begun in earnest to conserve whatever historical artefacts we have. We have been proud of this building on many occasions, but maybe we have expressed it on too few occasions. As we walk the halls and see the pictures of personalities of the past, unique sculpture and paintings that have been brought forward so that the public can have an opportunity to share them, we reflect on it, but perhaps there are other things we can still be doing.

4:10 p.m.

This afternoon prior to the debate I was reminded, as I spoke with the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), who was a former Minister of Government Services, of the fact that during the time she was in that ministerial role, Eric Arthur put out a book called From Front Street to Queen's Park. For my part, when I first read that during a break from the Legislature, I enjoyed the pictures. I learned of the tremendous historical importance of the background that was conveyed to us in that book.

Fern Bayer, who currently has the responsibility for the government of Ontario's art collection, is another person whom we can be extremely grateful to for the work, the constant interest and commitment we have here assisting the trust that is ours in the form of this building.

No building so well illustrates the need to preserve Ontario's architectural heritage as the Legislative Building here at Queen's Park. It has been described in various ways. One critic has affectionately referred to the Legislative Building as "a noble red pile." Others have been less charitable, calling it dull, uninteresting and an unsuccessful example of artiness. Whatever the description happens to be, it cannot hide the fact that the Legislative Building is a tribute to our past and a symbol of our collective heritage in Ontario. The descriptions, too, cannot hide that the Legislative Building has a fascinating history. I would briefly like to capsule my understanding of it.

The facts about the building are fairly straightforward. The first Parliament met on April 4, 1893. That was the third session of the seventh Legislature. The Premier of the day was Sir Oliver Mowat. The new building replaced an older one that was located at the corner of Front and Peter Streets. As we read that book by the eminent Eric Arthur we were all taken back to that windswept day of the opening. That new building had its trials and tribulations. Until recently, this building has been very much overlooked by historians and architectural critics. The building was brought forward in Alan Gowans's famous book, Building Canada, which I would commend to the members.

It is curious that it took so long for an appreciation of the Legislative Building to develop. Perhaps it was because people found the building's architecture dull. I certainly do not think it is. Perhaps there are lingering bad feelings that the architect, Richard A. Waite, was not a Canadian but a Briton living in Buffalo, New York. Or it may be that the building was constructed with fairly little fuss, on time, and close to the budget. Whatever the causes of that lack of interest in the past, the neglect is beginning to fade and a new appreciation for the Legislative Building is starting to develop, and we should seize that.

The building Waite designed was to be made of sandstone and brick in the exterior portions, and wood in the interior. The exterior was to be made of red sandstone from the Credit Valley quarries of Carrol and Vick. In the end, other stone had to be used in addition to the Credit Valley material. Some came from Connecticut and was used in the south facade. Other stones came from the Orangeville area, but it is not certain where they were used.

When the west wing was rebuilt following the bad fire of 1909, the stone used was New Brunswick number one River John brownstone. It can be seen in the west wing as having a deeper pink colour than the stone elsewhere in the building. Despite some of the problems and delays with exterior building materials, construction proceeded on schedule. In 1893, public works commissioner Fraser wrote a glowing tribute to the builders, praising their ability to keep work on schedule.

The exterior carvings have always fascinated me as I look to the building from the exterior or, for that matter, from the interior. It is interesting to know that the carving was carried out before the blocks were put in place.

The largest amount of carving is located on the south facade. There are three elaborate sections to that. The firm that carried out the carving was Holbrook and Mollington. Sadly, however, the carvers seem to be lost to history. It is a pity they are anonymous because their work is rich in detail and highly inventive.

Over the main entrance is a frieze with figures representing philosophy, art, engineering, commerce, architecture, literature, science, agriculture and music. On each wing are friezes of prominent Canadians and the honoured group consists of eight people, each of whom advanced the cause of government in Ontario. On the east side, workers carved the images of William Hume Blake, John Graves Simcoe, John Beverley Robinson, and John Sandfield Macdonald. On the west side are the likenesses of T. B. Pardee, Sir Isaac Brock, Robert Baldwin and Matthew Crooks Cameron.

The carvings are interesting because they are about things that do not exist. Apparently, Waite originally intended to make all the friezes symbolical. As they stand now, there is no direct connection between them. Waite's plans were either ignored or discarded because of their cost.

The second interesting point is that the Legislative Building has no cornerstone. That certainly fascinates me. Given the importance of the building the omission of a cornerstone certainly seems unusual. The only item to commemorate the construction of the building was a symbolically set keystone in the east arch of the main entrance.

Like the exterior, little is known about the people responsible for the finishing of the interior. The master wood carvers who executed the work in the legislative chamber are unknown but for one person. The ironwork is thought to have been carried out by the master smith Angus Macdonald, who worked for the St. Lawrence Foundry Company here in Toronto. There is conflicting evidence on that point. It can only be supposed Macdonald was responsible for the many exquisite railings on the stairs of the Legislative Building and in the lobby of the main entrance.

This work, while we appreciate it, we take for granted all too often. It is a rich heritage. As we look back and chronicle the steps of the building coming into being, the fascination of the details lost and the details known about that history -- I suggest that from 1893 to the present, the Legislative Building has been a symbol of parliamentary government in Ontario, and it is a viable and solid link with our past. I believe this unique and very special example of Ontario's architecture requires the special attention that is proposed by this resolution. Even as fall sets in with the leaves, we can enjoy a special building. We ought to preserve it with special attention.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the resolution which the member for Mississauga North has brought before the House today. Honourable members may recall that in 1979 I presented a private bill to the Legislature which would amend the Legislative Assembly Act in order to create the post of curator of Queen's Park. This follows the theme being advanced today in this resolution.

The person whom I would have in mind to take on that responsibility would be the same Mr. Eric Arthur, the author of the book From Front Street to Queen's Park and certainly one of the most distinguished architectural conservers and historic persons within the province and within Canada. In the work he has done and in the advice made available to the Legislature, Mr. Arthur has clearly shown a very strong interest. I take the opportunity of commending the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr.

Stokes) who as Speaker of the Legislature was personally interested and concerned about the preservation of the fabric of this building and in ensuring there were no changes to that fabric which would interfere with the architectural whole.

I suggested at that point this honorary post of curator would give an opportunity of offering advice to the Speaker of the day or to the government of the day in order that preservation of the building, the working out of changes, the suggesting of colour schemes and such matters would all be done in a harmonious style.

4:20 p.m.

The sponsor of the resolution reminds us that the building was first opened on April 4, 1893. For those members whose memories do not go back that far, the Premier of the day, the Honourable Oliver Mowat, was a Liberal. He was Premier of Ontario from 1872 until 1896, in those days when a lengthy term meant good government as opposed necessarily to government being in power too long.

In any event, during those years and the years following, in his position not only as a federal cabinet minister but finally as Chief Justice of Ontario and Chancellor of the University of Toronto, he always evinced a great interest in the history of Ontario and a great interest of developing for the future but preserving the past.

I, too, have been struck by walking around this building and seeing the kinds of details, the carvings we see in this chamber or the various parts of the frieze and the architectural designs on the outside that have already been referred to. It is indeed a building of great worth and value. It may not be one of our approaches to say that the design of this building is what would happen in this day and age, but it was a monument of its times, it has meant a lot to the people of Ontario and it is worthy of preservation.

It does not take many important things -- I think of one thing I recall Mr. Speaker Stokes doing. It may not seem very impressive at this point, but it is certainly much more pleasant sitting inside this chamber to have those curtains removed from the front doors. When one looks at the lights, dealing with those bevelled pieces that make up a very intricate design, that is a very handsome item, one we are now able to see and which is of benefit, not only to those on the inside of the chamber, but one which makes a much more pleasant and enlightened view of the main doors leading into the chamber.

I had suggested that a curator of Queen's Park would be an idea that would lead into this same sort of pattern we have here today. I suppose I could also refer to Bill 94, which I brought in in 1980,

an act respecting the use of the expression, Queen's Park.

I will not go into the details of that because of the apartment building that has developed. It followed the same theme that saw, in Ottawa, private member's legislation suggested to set a tone with respect to the use of the term, Parliament Hill; not just a commercial term, not the name for some hotel or whatever, but something that is set apart, that is understood and that relates to the history and the seat of government of the province, setting the Queen's Park theme in the same way the term Parliament Hill has a special meaning which I think is worthily being maintained and developed.

We are all interested in seeing the changes which have now taken place to the East Block on Parliament Hill. I have not been in the building since it has been restored but it is said that, while the lighting may be a bit dull and while there may be a strange green colour of paint on the walls that may not be what people do now, it is a restoration of exactly how the building looked when it was first put up in the 1870s.

That is an excellent kind of thing, to my mind, because the restoration of that area, the Prime Minister's offices, the offices for the Governor General as they were then, and the restoration of all these themes, is an important commitment to the generations of Canadians who are going to relate to how government was in those days.

We, too, have that opportunity and I suggest the appointment of this committee to plan for some appropriate centennial and for the maintenance of the fabric of this building is a most useful thing. These things do take time and planning and we have some 10 years to get ready for appropriate celebrations. Since the time must be taken and used well, following through with the idea of a committee of assistance to Mr. Speaker, however it might finally be decided, is something I certainly approve of and would be happy to be involved in personally, if that should develop.

We have the important remembrance in this building to maintain its architectural integrity. I recall when room 228 was going to be turned into another committee room, which was badly needed, there was some thought of taking out the wall between room 228 and the next. This would have destroyed a marble fireplace and a very fine mantel, and I believe Mr. Speaker Stokes was instrumental in making sure this did not happen.

Again to give credit, when we look at the restoration of what used to be the old post office into what is now the Amethyst Room, which serves as a committee room and as a reception room for the larger delegations and which can be handsomely set up in a variety of ways, we find the kind of thing that should exist in this building.

This is the fabric that I believe we should preserve and conserve. This is a phrase I do not often use, but in this instance --

Mr. Laughren: Very wise.

Mr. Breithaupt: I do not know whether I am very wise not to use it or very wise in this instance, but --

Mr. Foulds: The member is very wise not to use it except in special circumstances.

Mr. Breithaupt: Except in special circumstances, because in this circumstance to preserve it and conserve it is a most valued thing. It not only is valued by those of us who have the responsibility and opportunity to live and work in this building, but also is important, of course, as part of maintaining the historical fabric of the province and as an opportunity for those who visit -- for school children, for the guests who crowd our galleries on occasions such as this, for the members who crowd the benches on some occasions -- to share.

I think it is a worthy idea. I hope the House will approve this in principle, because the planning does take some time and members will come and go and elections will take place long before this centennial is reached.

I welcome the opportunity to have spoken in support of this resolution, and I commend the member who brought it forward to us today.

Mr. Stokes: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Mississauga North for having the foresight and concern to bring in a resolution of this nature, and I would like to thank the member for Kitchener for his kind remarks.

I think that, all too often, if we do take a look into the past we do not learn from the mistakes of the past; we stumble along with the present and really do not give sufficient respect and attention to those people who have provided us with the heritage that goes with a building of this kind and with the nature of the things we do, sometimes not very well, in this building.

I agree in general terms with the concept that is loosely expressed in the resolution, but, given the fact that it seems to be motivated by a wish or desire to prepare for an event that is not going to take place for another nine years -- namely, 1992 -- I think we should not only have a sound foundation for an appreciation of what this building means to us as members of it and, indeed, to all the people who work in this building; I think we should carry it much further and recognize that this is a symbol for all of the people in Ontario, a symbol of a free, institutionalized democracy.

All too often we not only take all these things for granted -- the milieu in which we find ourselves, the architectural and historical integrity of a building such as this; all too often we neglect to pay enough attention to the institution of Parliament. If you look at a map of