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

April 13, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

VISITOR

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CITY OF TORONTO 1981 ASSESSMENT COMPLAINTS BILL

CONSTITUTIONAL CELEBRATIONS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

POVERTY LINE

GO TRANSIT SERVICES

LAKE SUPERIOR BOARD OF EDUCATION

GAS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION

OPPOSITION ACCESS TO INFORMATION

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO 1981 ASSESSMENT COMPLAINTS ACT

FRONTIER COLLEGE ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: While waiting for the members, I would like to ask those present to join me in welcoming Mr. David A. Arblaster, who is in the Speaker's gallery. He is the member for Mosman, New South Wales, Australia. He has assured me he has brought the good weather with him.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) rose on a point of privilege. The purported question of privilege arose as a result of a statement that I made in the House on April 5 concerning health and safety issues at a company called Rothsay Concentrates Ltd.

The essence of the honourable member's point of privilege was that I had incorrectly advised the House that as a result of an inspection by the ministry's industrial health and safety branch on April 2, all but one of 72 outstanding orders had been complied with. The member referred to the inspector's report, which from his

interpretation indicated that only 19 of 72 items had been looked at by the inspector.

I am able to advise the House that the information I gave on April 5 was correct and, further, that the member for Sudbury East has misunderstood the inspector's report. The 19 entries on the report referred to by the member grouped the various 72 items in accordance with the particular sections of the act or regulation in question. Thus, for example, the first of the 19 items actually refers to 21 individual orders.

The member, therefore, is incorrect when he suggests that my earlier statement was erroneous. He is further incorrect when he implies the inspector did not carry out a full and complete review of all outstanding issues on April 2.

I wish to add that the inspector confirms that during his inspection on April 2 he was accompanied by the union representative, who confirmed the accuracy of his report and signed it.

The member also referred to an accident and alleged the company had failed to comply with notification requirements under subsection 26(1) of the act. That allegation has been reported to an inspector who has investigated the matter.

Apparently, neither the company nor the senior union official responsible is aware of the particular incident. However, the inspector is returning to the plant on Thursday of this week and will pursue the matter. In the meantime, I hope the member can provide more particular information so the matter can be thoroughly and properly investigated.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CITY OF TORONTO 1981 ASSESSMENT COMPLAINTS BILL

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill entitled

An Act to provide for the Institution of Complaints for Certain Assessments made in the year 1981 in the City of Toronto.

As many members are aware, the recent assessment increases to residential properties in the city of Toronto have resulted in considerable controversy and discussion.

In response to the concerns of the city of Toronto officials and affected ratepayers, I developed a proposal which was unanimously endorsed by the Toronto city council on April 1, 1982. The details of that proposal are embodied in this bill.

While I do not intend to deal with the details of the bill at this time, I would like to inform the members that this bill deems those residential ratepayers in the city of Toronto who did not appeal their assessment increases to have appealed.

I believe this bill represents the most effective means available to deal with the city of Toronto's concerns respecting those ratepayers who did not appeal, while at the same time allowing my ministry to fulfil its statutory obligations under the Assessment Act to ensure that properties which were enlarged, altered or renovated be assessed at levels otherwise prevailing on similar properties in their neighbourhood.

In conclusion, I believe this measure will provide more than ample opportunity for the affected ratepayers to be made aware that their appeals have been registered, to have their assessments reviewed and explained by assessors and to take advantage of the appeal process if they so desire.

CONSTITUTIONAL CELEBRATIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House about our provincial celebrations, which will be held this Saturday, April 17, to mark the arrival home and proclamation of Canada's new Constitution.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, will proclaim the new Constitution in a grand ceremony on Parliament Hill in Ottawa this Saturday.

The royal party will arrive at 3 p.m. on Thursday, with the arrival ceremony being televised. After a number of appointments on Friday, Her Majesty will attend a gala performance at the National Arts Centre at 6 p.m. This will also be televised. She will then dine with Young Achievers from across Canada.

On Saturday, there will be the proclamation ceremonies, with the departure of the royal party scheduled for 10 a.m. Sunday.

Here in Ontario, everyone is invited to watch the proclamation ceremony on large television screens which will be set up in this Legislative Building. Our program here will get under way at 10 a.m. on Saturday, with music provided by the band of the Royal Regiment of Canada. There will be coffee, apple juice and cookies available for all those attending.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Wow! No hot dogs? Grind up a few cabinet ministers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No hot dogs. They are being saved for July 1. There will be no charge for the coffee, cookies and apple juice.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If it's the usual stuff, nobody would pay for it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the usual high-quality apple juice that is available in the lobbies for both opposition and government members.

2:10 p.m.

At 10:35 a.m. the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) will bring greetings on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and all members of the Legislature. Incidentally, at that time all the members of the Legislature who are present will be introduced.

At 10:45 a.m., the program will go directly to Ottawa, via television, for the proclamation ceremony. Upon completion of the hour-long Ottawa portion of the celebration -- just before noon here in Toronto -- all those present here will join in singing O Canada, being led by Catherine McKinnon; then they will be offered a glass of Ontario wine and may join in a salute to Canada.

All members of the Legislature, as I have indicated, have been invited to attend this very historic occasion here in the Legislative Building.

In conclusion, this week is the time for all of us to celebrate in the best Canadian tradition, because after 115 years we are finally bringing home our Constitution. This is the product of much hard work and concerted effort by many Canadians. We have achieved a remarkable document which represents a very vital affirmation of our nationhood and a reaffirmation of our belief in the monarchy, our belief in democratic and human rights, our belief in parliamentary government; in short, it represents all of our vision of Canada.

This Saturday, we are adding to our flag and to our national anthem a truly made-in-Canada Constitution. I know we will all want to celebrate this event appropriately.

VISITOR

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the members to the presence in your gallery of Mr. James Jessiman, the former member for Fort William.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the honourable minister on his statement today. I only express our regret that he will not be here; I assume he will be in Ottawa with our new Father of Confederation, the Premier, as well as the two midwives who participated with him. I assume they will be enjoying the festivities in Ottawa, leaving the Deputy Premier to conduct these negotiations and to drink the apple juice the minister is so gratefully providing.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It was apparent to everyone in this province that the minister's posture during the on-and-off-again negotiations of a week or so ago was to hope that the Ontario Medical Association would break ranks, that there would be a breakdown of discipline in that group and that the ordinary doctors would not follow the advice of the leadership of the OMA.

In view of the fact that this assumption has proven false; in view of the fact that doctors in Scarborough, St. Thomas, Welland, Brampton, Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Simcoe county, Sudbury and other areas walked out yesterday; and in view of the fact that one fifth of the OMA's branches are on strike today in North York, Brantford, Brampton, Paris, Guelph, Dunnville, Cayuga, Hamilton, Mississauga, Belleville, Trenton, Kirkland Lake and Parry Sound, is it not apparent to the minister that in addition to mismanaging the negotiations, he has made a gross miscalculation as to the militancy of the doctors?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying that if the Leader of the Opposition suggests that a government which has proposed a 34 per cent increase in doctor's incomes over three years, a 14 per cent increase in the

schedule of benefits for this year and a $12,000 annual increase for this year in physicians' incomes has mismanaged the negotiations, then I presume he is taking the position that we ought to be paying more.

If the Leader of the Opposition is making that presumption, I have to say to him that peace can be purchased at a price. The question is what is a reasonable and fair price. If he is suggesting that we pay 34 per cent in one year or 20 per cent in one year or 25 per cent in one year, then I have to say to him that those of us sitting on this side of the House have certain responsibilities, and they are to pay fair rates under the Ontario health insurance plan

schedule of benefits, to make sure doctors earn fair incomes and make sure the taxpayers also are protected.

I do not consider these negotiations to have been mismanaged by this government in any degree whatsoever. In fact, there is no point during the negotiations where one could say we acted in bad faith or the OMA could legitimately put forward a case that we had not laid out all the facts to them.

There is no credible way in which it can be suggested that by implementing our last offer in good faith, on April 1, we did anything but be fair, open and reasonable with the profession. Indeed, if we had not done that on April 1, the Leader of the Opposition would be rising and suggesting that we had mismanaged the situation and caused these rotating strikes because we had failed to make an adjustment on April 1.

May I also say that the Leader of the Opposition began his question by suggesting my faith had been improperly placed in the fact that the OMA would break ranks and not participate in the job action. If he had watched carefully the remarks I was making over those weeks, he would have recognized I have been saying that I firmly believe the physicians of this province are so dedicated to the welfare of their patients that they will not, under any circumstances, allow patient care and patient health to be threatened.

As I look over what has happened earlier this week and what is happening today, it is becoming quite clear that, by and large, patient health has not yet been threatened. There are a couple of instances that have caused me some concern, in that patient health care in those instances may have been threatened. Those cases will be referred by us immediately and directly to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which is the appropriate disciplinary body.

My faith in the medical profession, which I espoused here earlier, has held; that is, my faith that they would not allow their patients' health to be threatened simply because they wanted more money this year, next year and the year after.

If that situation deteriorates and if the medical profession disappoints me and fails to meet its obligations to look after the health of its patients, then obviously we will have a dramatically different situation than we have today. But to date I believe my faith in the medical profession has been shown to be accurate, because no patient's health has been threatened. There may be some examples, as I said earlier, and where those examples are evident, prompt and severe action will be taken.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may have a misplaced and misguided faith, but I can tell him what he said is not that. What he said on April 6 was this, "A vast majority of doctors will be saying: 'Let us not take these kinds of steps. Let us instead resume negotiation,'" saying thereby that the doctors would not stage the rotating strikes or walkouts or whatever he wants to call them. He was hoping they would not. Other seers predicted that the doctors' militancy would become an issue. We know, and the press knows, of specific cases of people who have been hurt by this situation across the province. The minister read the press reports today. I am sure he did.

I also bring to his attention the case of Mrs. Jean Wahl in Waterloo whose surgery was cancelled because of the walkouts. These are starting to affect patients in this province. Does the minister have any plan, or is he just going to continue on with this naive faith and these mild blandishments?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand the Leader of the Opposition wishes to provoke a situation that will not be helpful in resolving the situation of health care in this province. But, quite frankly, I am not going to permit him to do that. He can stand up and ask provocative questions and raise these individual cases and try to get different answers out of me every day this week, but my answer has not changed.

The disciplinary body in charge, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which members will note has lived up to its obligation over the weekend, has made very clear in all public utterances that it will investigate all cases brought to its attention and fulfil its responsibilities.

2:20 p.m.

I do not know how many times I can repeat this to the Leader of the Opposition, but every single case that is brought to our attention --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know he wants to instigate, but I want peace and I want an agreement out there. His kind of frustration at having failed to make a mark so far is not going to get in the way of the discussions between ourselves and the OMA.

Let me make it very clear. Regardless of how many times he might ask this question, every single case that is brought to our attention will be referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is the ultimate disciplinary body. The college has assured us it will deal with any case that is brought to its attention.

I might also remind the Leader of the Opposition that yesterday morning --

Mr. Peterson: No wonder the doctors don't like you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you want an answer?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yesterday morning we notified the Ontario Hospital Association that we wanted a full and complete report on the disposition of all elective surgery that was being cancelled as a result of the action being taken. We expect the hospitals to make their own judgements with regard to whether the disposition of those elective surgical cases was proper. If it was not, we expect a reference to be made to the college to see whether the doctors involved did, indeed, threaten the health of their patients. To date, as I indicated, with one or two exceptions there is no indication that happened on a broad basis.

Further, we are going to review all of these cases in the Ministry of Health. During this week I will have before myself and my staff a list of the disposition of all the elective surgery being cancelled in this province, and if there are any which raise doubts in our minds with regard to the disposition of those cases and as to the handling of patient care in this province, those cases will be referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

In short, the answer to the question is that prompt, firm action will be taken in each and every instance where patient care is threatened in this province.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand what the minister is saying. Am I correct, in paraphrasing what the minister said, that he will refer every single case -- and I understand that to be of professional misconduct, or suspected professional misconduct, as a result of the rotating strikes -- one case at a time to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and that he will permit the rotating strikes to continue on an indefinite basis, perhaps until they escalate into a full-scale walkout?

Is that a correct understanding of the position? And how many cases -- two, I gather, already are referred -- are too many cases?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, obviously until the OMA makes a decision such as I think some people in the OMA are mistakenly considering, of going the route of becoming a union, which is something I do not think would have broad-based support among the OMA, then we are not in a situation to bring in legislation to legislate them back to work.

In point of fact, I can only deal with -- and only intend to deal with -- today's situation today. We have to deal with this situation a day at a time. At present, by and large, health care has not been threatened. I do believe that almost every physician in this province will ultimately decide that he or she is not going to risk the health and safety of his or her patients to get more income for himself or herself. I do believe that.

That is why I think these hypothetical questions with regard to how many referrals to the college become too many are really just that: hypothetical questions. Unless one believes there are a vast number of physicians out there who are prepared to risk the lives, health and safety of their patients to make more money for themselves, then we will not have that problem.

I believe the vast majority of physicians -- almost all the physicians -- will not threaten the safety of their patients. If they did, then we would clearly have a breakdown, not only in negotiations and in governmental structures but also in the very fabric of our society and running throughout the entire medical profession in this province. It would go a lot more deeply than how much money we are paying the profession this year.

If the only thing keeping the medical profession in this province from threatening the health of their patients is how much the government pays them, then I would be shocked beyond belief. I do not think that is the case at all and, quite frankly, I do not think the honourable members think that is the case either.

Mr. Peterson: In addition to the minister's original miscalculation about the understanding of the degree of militancy among doctors and what is going to transpire there, he is now adopting a new strategy, as I understand it, to set patient against doctor. Asking patients to report doctors to the College of Physicians and Surgeons will create a further breach between those kinds of relationships.

How can the minister be proud of putting his responsibility on to patients, interfering with what has historically always been a very sacred relationship in the medical profession? That is who the minister is putting the onus on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not sure which alternative the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. Does he suggest that the Ministry of Health post a guardian in each medical office in the province to monitor the situation? Surely patients in this province will let us know. They are citizens. They care about their medical health. Surely they will let us know what is happening.

If the Leader of the Opposition suggests we are setting patient against doctor, I say to him that one of the things we have always valued very highly on this side of the House, and have been criticized for, is trying to protect the doctor-patient relationship.

He may recall, unlike his federal counterpart, Monique Bégin, who thinks all physicians should be opted in, that one of the reasons this government has argued constantly on behalf of having the opt-out option is we believe that the patient-doctor relationship is very important and that opting out plays a role in that. We have been criticized for that. This government, above all other administrations, has been willing to go to some great length, and to take severe political criticism, to protect that doctor-patient relationship.

If the doctors of this province choose to test that relationship, it is unfortunate. I am very disappointed. With some relief I note that most doctors, even those participating in the action, are being very careful to deal with emergencies as they arise, to make sure they are monitoring their patients' health and to return to their offices the day after the strike. For those who are cancelling elective surgery, they are also taking great pains to make sure the surgery is rescheduled in an appropriate way so that their patients' health is not threatened.

Doctors have decided to take some job action to express discontent. They have done so in a way they believe does not threaten their relationship with their patients, and I believe we have acted in a way that will not threaten their relationship with their patients.

I say this to the Leader of the Opposition, in all sincerity. I understand the political realities of attending in this assembly every day, and I understand his responsibility as Leader of the Opposition. But taking positions that are intended to provoke and to escalate rhetoric beyond reasonable levels is not the kind of thing that will allow this situation to be resolved without scars.

My ultimate goal is to have a medical profession that feels it has been fairly treated, if not treated as well as it would have liked to have been, and to have a minimum number of scars. That is a delicate task for a Minister of Health.

I do not expect the Leader of the Opposition to share my responsibility, but, in asking a question, he ought to keep in mind that there is a larger goal we all must serve. The provocative questions are not going to get this minister to raise the rhetoric above the level he wants to go to.

Mr. Speaker: I would just point out to the government side and the ministers in particular that we have spent 18 minutes on one question. I would ask everybody to co-operate in keeping the questions and answers as brief as possible.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to thank the minister for taking the time to give us a lecture. I am very grateful the Minister of Health does understand the responsibilities of being in opposition, because he is guaranteeing that soon he is going to be over here and it will be a horse of a different colour.

2:30 p.m.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the former past president of the Ontario Medical Association, the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: One can't be a former past president.

Mr. Peterson: Past president, former president, whatever.

The minister is aware the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers may withhold accreditation for graduates of several of Ontario's engineering programs because engineering faculties in the province do not have the appropriate technical equipment to train their students. Such continued provincial underfunding to universities is a primary reason engineering faculties do not have adequate equipment.

I want to ask the minister whether she is prepared to increase funding for technical equipment for engineering schools. What is she going to do to prevent the loss of accreditation of various schools of engineering in the province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the accreditation process is carried out by the Canadian Accreditation Board and is based upon opinions and certain kinds of criteria which are established by the profession.

I have asked the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario for the confidential memo which was provided to Dean Slemon because accreditation is a confidential activity which is relayed only to the dean of the faculty. I have asked Dean Slemon or APEO to give me a copy of the accreditation document so that we might see whether there was anything this government could do in addition to what we are already doing.

We are already funding engineering students at double the ordinary basic income unit, a rate which was agreed upon within this province to provide funding through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development specifically. This year this has encouraged research in engineering and high technology by providing matching research grants to the tune of almost $2 million and providing an additional $8 million for improving the research capability of the universities within this province.

I have not as yet received the confidential document from APEO and I would not comment upon that documentation or upon its rationale until I have had a chance to look at it.

Mr. Peterson: How can the minister sing the praises of BILD when it is going to offer a total of $10 million to her ministry's programs? The deputy minister's own report, the Fisher report, said $25 million was necessary immediately for equipment replacement. If we do not provide that amount of money we are going to reach the situation described by the dean of engineering at the University of Toronto. He said when new technology comes along we are not going to be able to respond to it.

In view of the chronic shortage of engineers now and what we will need in the future of this province, surely the minister has a responsibility to act on the basis of the information she has at the present time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The special committee which examined the future role of universities suggested equipment requirements which, to my knowledge, on several occasions in the past were provided by grants from the federal government. However they were certainly not provided for in the last 15 years. They also suggested there was need for additional funding in a very wide range of areas, not just in engineering. The fund they suggested was for the entire university system throughout all areas of the universities.

Certainly if the quality of engineering in this province is declining it is a matter not known to students of engineering in Canada. Ontario has 45 per cent of all student engineers in Canada, a rather disproportionate number. We recognize that students come from all across Canada to study engineering in Ontario because of the high quality of the program. I intend that high quality to be retained.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that her own government's manpower commission has recently reported to this province that in the next five years we are going to face very serious, if not chronic, shortages in the engineering sector, particularly as it relates to the developing high-tech industry in this province, something all of us want to encourage? Is she not aware of that indication from the Ontario Manpower Commission?

Does the minister not consider it a serious black mark against this government and this province that the Canadian Accreditation Board would make this assessment of the engineering capacity in this province, one that has ostensibly made a commitment to the kind of research and development and the kind of software development we need if we are going to proceed into the 1980s with the hope and enthusiasm that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program speaks to?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the report of the Ontario Manpower Commission and I would remind the honourable member that if he read it carefully he would understand that when they are talking about high-technology areas they are not just talking about engineering. Indeed, the area in which there is likely to be the most monumental problem related to manpower is computer science.

I would remind the member that we share that shortage with the entire world, not just with other provinces in Canada or with North America. We have made a very specific commitment in support of the introduction of capacity within the colleges of applied arts and technology and the universities to try to assist in overcoming that shortage.

As I said earlier, I would suggest to the member that until he has seen the confidential memorandum of the accreditation committee, neither he nor I should make any comment about the criteria that are used or the suggestions that are made. I would like to see that document first.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Minister of Health because in spite of his lengthy answer he has failed to do one important thing.

Would the minister inform this House and this province of the present state of negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association? How close is he to a settlement? In particular, will the minister consider the imposition of a cooling-off period through his authority under the Health Disciplines Act and will he advise the president and all members of the OMA in writing of his duties and responsibilities under the Health Disciplines Act and the Ontario Health Insurance Act for the maintenance of the health care system?

Will he also inform them of the obligations of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario so that the OMA will understand the grave consequences of concerted action by the association?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last question, with the intensive media coverage of the situation and with the dedication of the medical profession to the health care of their patients -- and I mean that quite sincerely -- I am satisfied that all members of the profession in this province understand their obligations to the public and to their patients. I believe they understand that fully and I believe that, by and large, to date they have met those obligations.

How far apart are we and where are the negotiations? In terms of the last official offers put on the table, I should clarify a couple of points. The last offer was put by the government on Friday, March 26. That offer was the exact one which was implemented by me the following Thursday. That amounted to a 34 per cent increase over three years, which would result in a 42 per cent increase in doctors' incomes over those three years.

The OMA's last offer for a three-year contract, which was made prior to our last offer, was for a 57 per cent increase in the Ontario health insurance plan benefits over three years, resulting in a compounded increase of 72 per cent and an increase in physicians' incomes over three years of approximately 98 per cent, which would raise them to $158,300.

2:40 p.m.

So this is clearly understood and so there is no suggestion these are government figures, let me make it clear the analysis of the last two offers put on the table are based upon the methodology adopted by Professor Weiler both last year and this year. I would remind the members of the profession that although they are unhappy with the Weiler methodology, they suggested Weiler be used as the fact-finder this year. We agreed and his methodology has not changed much.

The extrapolation of the figures for three years on the basis of the value of the OMA's last offer is based upon the figures which the OMA provided us as to its anticipated calculation of the rate of inflation next year and the year after.

To emphasize, the figures I have just given are not government-made figures; they are the Weiler methodology in terms of evaluating the cost of the OMA offer based upon figures given us by the OMA.

That is how far apart the parties were at the point at which the negotiations were completed. The last offer was made by the government. No counter-offer was made by the OMA. The OMA knew that on April 1 the government would have to adjust the fee

schedule in accordance with any of the three or four alternatives we then had available to us.

As the members know, we were faced with a situation where the OMA indicated further dialogue would be useful and it said publicly it thought negotiations should have continued. We indicated the last offer out there was made by us and, further, that we had an outstanding offer to continue negotiations. Therefore, last Thursday I invited the OMA -- I was not prepared to stand on any principle or wait for someone to call someone else. I think the public deserves better and therefore I caused our chief negotiator to send their chief negotiator a letter inviting them back to the negotiating table yesterday.

The OMA responded over the weekend saying that with four days' notice it could not assemble its negotiating team. We responded by saying part of our negotiating team would be pleased to meet with part of its negotiating team; in other words, any combination which might make it comfortable about meeting yesterday. They said that was impossible. We then suggested we meet today. That turned out to be unacceptable to the OMA. In conclusion, we are now looking at Thursday. A firm date has been fixed for this Thursday afternoon for the resumption of negotiations.

I might have wished, and frankly did wish, that the OMA might have recommended to its members that the job action they have taken, which will in some cases irrevocably change the public's view of the profession, might appropriately have been withheld or postponed pending the resumption of negotiations. It chose not to do that and I regret that. In any event, the status is that the outstanding offers are as I have indicated. Negotiations will resume Thursday afternoon at, I think, 2:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: I ask a supplementary question with some trepidation. Does the minister not understand it is his responsibility to ensure the universal public access to and quality of our health care system? Is he not aware that at the present time that is being endangered? What steps and what processes is he willing to take and to consider to ensure it is not in danger? What did his $600-million settlement buy? We still have doctors and especially the OMA recommending work-to-rule and job actions. We still have discontented doctors. We still have patients who are in a state of anxiety. What is he looking at to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again?

Is he willing to look at Emmett Hall's suggestion about binding arbitration and establishing that in such a way the arbitration board is looked upon with respect as a board of integrity by both the doctors and the people of the province? Finally, will the minister undertake to conduct negotiations, not merely through the media, but undertake to write the OMA and every member of the OMA about his responsibilities for the health care of the people of this province?

Mr. Speaker: Before the minister replies, I would remind him the last answer took six minutes. We are approaching halfway through the question period and we have only had three questions. I ask you to make a brief answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I regret the length of time but the words have to be carefully selected here. The questions and the situation are so delicate that it does take some care. May I say to the acting leader of the third party that we view compulsory arbitration as something that would be counterproductive to the government, the taxpayers and the medical profession in this province. I do not believe the medical profession wants compulsory arbitration. Mr.

Justice Hall, if the member will follow up, after his original report later conceded that he was mistaken in suggesting compulsory arbitration in the form his report advocated. The member should check that. I know his Health critic has made that point several times --

Mr. McClellan: He was right the first time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, he was right the first time, but Mr. Justice Hall changed his mind. He ultimately concluded, as this headline from one of my favourite journals, the Medical Post, will confirm, that he had changed his mind on the question of compulsory arbitration.

I will also answer quite briefly the question as to why I do not communicate with all the members of the OMA. We had been prepared to communicate with all the members of the OMA but, quite frankly, I am very sensitive about a situation where I must prepare a statement of current status for all the members of the OMA -- and there are 12,000 or 13,000 doctors in this province today -- and put it in the mail and know it will arrive four or five days hence, with luck, when the circumstances, the mood and the atmosphere may be quite different from what they were the day we put pen to paper. Then it becomes a very difficult decision to make.

Since I am sensitive to the concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition that some people will be anxious to accuse me of setting doctor against doctor, of going directly over the OMA to the membership -- all these things are part of what is going on -- I ultimately decided that a direct communication from me to the membership for delivery five days hence might prove to be counterproductive and open us to suggestions that we were trying to bust up the OMA or divide its own membership.

It was a difficult judgement call. I want to say to the acting leader of the third party that I believe to date it has been right. I cannot say what I will do a week from today if the situation is no better than it is today. There may be a point at which that sort of communication will be appropriate. To date I have chosen not to, but we did consider it carefully.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will obviously deal with any case in which patient care appears to have been threatened. I am also quite satisfied that every hospital in this province will ensure that the health of the patients who are residing in that hospital, and whose care they are entrusted with, will not be threatened either. That will happen. I cannot add much more to what I have said before to the member's leader and others. Where there is evidence that any doctor has acted in a way so that health care has been threatened he or she will be reported forthwith and directly to the disciplinary body.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I read in the Health Disciplines Act, subsection 3(1) that it is the duty of the minister to ensure that standards of practice of medicine are maintained and the rights of individuals are maintained. Does the minister see his duties compromised in the light of the story that appears on the first page of today's Toronto Star saying that a seven-year-old child was forced to go through the trauma of postponed, and fairly major, surgery?

More important, does the minister intend to sit there with these responsibilities under the act and permit the doctors to walk out at the Sick Children's Hospital, as is reported on page 6 of the afternoon newspaper? Does the minister think that it is anything other than obscene and despicable for doctors on strike to be using children as pawns, either in our general hospitals or in the Hospital for Sick Children; and what does that do to his previous comments about his views of the responsibility of the profession?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the first case the member cited with regard to the seven-year-old lad is an instance where we will ask for an opinion from the college with regard to the procedure. We will be looking at it in our own ministry because there are going to be some cases where, in my view, a judgement made that a cancellation of a piece of elective surgery would not threaten a patient's health will be subject to some

interpretation. In some cases, the cancellation of elective surgery may be tantamount to a threat to a patient's health though the doctor doing so may not have thought so.

I think this is a very dangerous and critical area into which doctors are stepping when they continue this action.

Mr. McClellan: What about the Sick Children's hospital?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will get to the Sick Children's hospital in a minute.

When I look at a situation where a group of anaesthetists in a couple of hospitals in this province can unilaterally stop all elective surgery without, I suspect, a thorough analysis of the case histories where the surgery is being cancelled, this causes me some grave concern. That is going to be looked into. It is being looked into by our ministry as I speak right now.

I think the doctors have to be very careful. They have lived up to their obligation not to threaten health care to the present time, but when one gets a situation in which anaesthetists, in essence, are taking that kind of extreme action at places such as the Sick Children's hospital, then it causes me some grave concern. I think each and every one of those cases has to be looked at by the doctors cancelling that surgery.

I think too it is important the anaesthetists make sure, before they as a group withdraw their services from a hospital, they have consulted with the surgeons involved in each and every one of those surgical procedures to satisfy themselves that the withdrawal of their anaesthetic services for a day will not cause harm.

I say to the House and to the members of the profession, if those kinds of things are happening out there I would find them highly inappropriate, highly outrageous, and I would be the first to report them to the college. The procedure they are following is being studied by us right now and appropriate action will be taken.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Wentworth North.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt --

Mr. Speaker: Point of order, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, hard as you may find it to believe, that was my first question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, you are right. It has just taken so long to get through, I guess.

Mr. Foulds: I hope the Treasurer will be a little more succinct than the Minister of Health. Perhaps the Minister of Health could have helped matters by having a statement.

POVERTY LINE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer a question about people living in poverty in Ontario -- and I am not talking about the medical profession. Is the Treasurer aware that the report released in March by the National Council of Welfare, Poverty in Canada, indicates that 193,000 families in Ontario are living on incomes below the poverty line; that half of them, or 95,000 of those families, are working poor -- they are working to be poor in Ontario -- and that 41.5 per cent of those living below the poverty line in Canada -- and one has no reason to assume that it is different in Ontario -- are mother-led families?

Does that not make the Treasurer just a little bit ashamed, just a little bit angry to be the Treasurer of this province? What is he going to do to rectify the situation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am aware there are a number of statistical attempts to define the poverty line. I am also aware it is very difficult to apply that evenly across the province. What seems to be and is in fact a very real poverty line in some locations may be considered in others to be quite adequate.

I have really never been one who felt we could statistically choose a figure that arbitrarily said this person is below a poverty line and that one is above. I think the member would agree there are a number of different ways of calculating that line. That is simply one of them, as I understand it. Beyond that, yes, I am aware.

Mr. Foulds: If I may say so, the minister is also aware that he did not answer the second part of the question, that is, what are he and his government going to do about it? Is he aware that the people on municipal welfare assistance, for example, are approximately 35 per cent below the poverty line? What steps are the Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) going to take to ensure that people on socially assisted incomes, the people who are working and are still poor, are going to have enough buying power to not only alleviate their own human conditions but to ensure that there is a decent economy in this province?

Does the Treasurer not understand the contraction of their buying power means there is less consumer demand and therefore less production in the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am aware of that last relationship. I am keenly aware that all of us would like to improve the basic economy. I can only say that is one of the things that is preoccupying me and my time very greatly these days, hoping that I can do something to help the economy of this province through the budgetary process.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether the government intends to raise the welfare rate to be at or near the family benefits rate in the province so that the recipients will not be at a level approximately 67 per cent of the poverty line?

Will he also give emergency relief to municipalities that are now having to foot the 20 per cent difference between the federal-provincial funding and the total cost of administering that program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services does appear before cabinet from time to time making recommendations on an adequate support level. I can assure the member he will be doing that before too long.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is avoiding the whole question about what is a poverty line and what is not a poverty line. Is he aware that 42,000 people are on general welfare lists in Toronto alone at the moment and a family of three is expected to live on $7,380 a year?

With 30,000 people waiting for assisted housing in Metropolitan Toronto because of failure of the government's housing policy, many of those people earning $7,380 a year in income maintenance are having to pay an average of $4,512 for a two-bedroom apartment. Would he not agree that is poverty? Would he not accept some responsibility for the failure of the Treasury to fund job creation, housing and income maintenance properly in this province so that people do not have to live in that situation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I turn the question back to the honourable member and point out that all the attempts taken around the world to solve the problems the way he believes those problems can be solved, do not work.

GO TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Mr. Lou Parsons, chairman of GO Transit, has advised me by mail that full GO rail service will not be extended to Hamilton in the foreseeable future, "due to extraordinary high capital cost."

What is that high capital cost that Mr. Parsons refers to and why is the minister prepared to spend more than $110 million on a demonstration transportation project up Hamilton Mountain when there is such an obvious need to improve GO rail service between Hamilton and Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I do not have, nor does Mr. Parsons have, a true picture of what the extraordinary capital cost would be to extend full GO train service to Hamilton. We have asked the Canadian National Railway to give us a detailed study of the capital expenditure requirements to extend that service at least as far as Burlington.

As I understand it we have three major obstacles that have to be overcome in getting that additional service at this time. These are the crossings of the Credit River, Oakville Creek and Bronte Creek -- three major structures that now limit the number of tracks available for the added service.

We have tried very hard to negotiate with the Canadian National Railway and with Via to get additional trains beyond Oakville. At this stage we have not been able to do so and I do not believe we will be able to until we get the full results of this study the CNR is doing.

3 p.m.

Mr. Samis: Why would the minister choose to inform the estimates committee on June 4, 1976, that this service would be greatly improved within a year and a half? And why does he continue to ignore the needs of a community with a population of somewhere in the area of 400,000 at a time when the Queen Elizabeth Way is so crowded between Hamilton and Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are not ignoring the needs of that large number of people. We are trying to meet those needs in the best and most rational way possible.

The honourable member is talking about the estimates committee of 1976, I think he said. If I recall correctly -- and I would have to go back and check dates -- we were negotiating at that time with Via Rail. Via Rail has about three trains a day that come through from Hamilton and Burlington at those hours when most commuters are in transit. So we proposed to make an arrangement with Via that would allow Via Rail to accept GO Transit tickets.

The Via Rail fare is more than the GO Transit fare but we were proposing that they accept GO tickets and we would pay the difference because we would not have the extra capital costs and so on. We also proposed that Via join us in the new Burlington station. We thought we were getting along very well.

At the time I made that statement I was quite confident that arrangement was going to be consummated. Eventually Via Rail withdrew from that arrangement and we were not able to make it. If we had, GO Transit passengers would have had the opportunity to ride on the Via train. However Via backed out of the arrangement.

Mr. Samis: In the context of GO expansion, can the minister tell the House when we can expect the decision on GO expansion to either Oshawa or Bowmanville?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I told the House about three weeks ago we have received the report from the CNR on that

section of the line between Pickering and Oshawa. We never have considered extending GO rail service beyond Oshawa -- at this time at least. We are looking into all the costs now. I expect to be putting the estimates before my colleagues in cabinet in the very near future.

We have the estimates from the CNR. We have to add the other costs of the extra capital equipment: parking lots, stations and so on. I expect to make that presentation to cabinet in the near future.

LAKE SUPERIOR BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Does she think it appropriate the Lake Superior Board of Education should be closing the Schreiber high school campus at this time? It is valued in excess of $900,000 but they think they can save $120,000 by closing it. This will necessitate capital expenditures of more than $1 million, 85 per cent of which is underwritten by the ministry, to accommodate those same students in Terrace Bay.

In light of the issues and directives put out by the ministry, does the minister feel that is an appropriate action to take, given her commitment to monitoring existing properties very closely before she allows them to be abandoned and duplicated elsewhere?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is well aware that autonomous, duly elected boards of education do not allow me to make suggestions about what they should or should not do in the area in which their responsibility is total under the Education Act, 1974.

The member is suggesting that in Issues and Directions we stated we would be compiling a list of school properties. That activity is going on. However, it is not for the purpose of permitting the minister to interfere directly in the appropriate affairs of the board, but to provide them with information and consultative services which will help them to make appropriate decisions.

That activity is going forward and I remind the member this decision was taken by a duly elected board of education. I think it has been repeated on several occasions. I would suggest clearly to the member that it might be appropriate if he were to meet with the full board and with the local community to discuss this matter rather than meeting only with the dissenting members who are against the decision.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister not aware I did meet with the majority of the board members in the company of her ministry officials right here in this building as recently as February? Is the minister not aware this same board has asked for capital expenditures in excess of $4 million to upgrade the schools in that jurisdiction when it is walking away from the best school in the jurisdiction, namely, the one in Schreiber? How does the minister rationalize washing her hands of this whole thing, like Pontius Pilate, when 85 per cent of that $4 million is going to come from her ministry at a time of austerity and constraint?

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is Portia, not Pontius.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that if the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) were to have received that remark she would have suggested it was sexist. I will not make that suggestion to the honourable member but I am not washing my hands of a situation which is within my area of jurisdiction.

I remind the honourable member that the Education Act, approved by all members of this House, states it is the responsibility of locally elected boards to make these decisions. We try to provide information which will help them make the decisions, to provide consultative services through the regional offices, to provide whatever we can to help boards make the best possible decisions.

However, I cannot take responsibility for decisions made totally by a duly elected board of education anywhere in this province. If some members were to suggest this House should overrule decisions taken by a municipal council, I suggest to them that perhaps they might be in equal difficulty if they tried it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misheard my friend. It was not Punchy Pilate he was calling her. Perhaps Portia Pilate would make her happier.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was Pontius Pilate. I know my bible well enough.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Maybe it was Punchy Pilate.

Mr. Speaker: And now to the supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we had a similar problem in my area. Part of the problem with this high school and one in Fort Frances closing was that certain members of the school board were not furnished with the relevant information with which to make a decision. The public, whose children were directly affected, had very little input and little information as to the reasons these schools were being closed.

Mr. Speaker: I am patiently waiting.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Would the minister not agree she has a moral responsibility to ensure the taxpayers at the local level are at least in receipt of the information on which these decisions are made and that she should issue a directive ensuring that be so?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that was done one year ago last January, as a matter of fact. It was done through a memorandum of considerable length which was sent to every board in the province. It is my understanding certain boards feel that because of their autonomy they do not have to follow that memorandum as carefully as they should. Therefore, there is an amendment in the amendments to the Education Act that I introduced last week which will ensure that regulation must be followed. Most boards are following the directives given, which spell out clearly the way in which there must be public input into the decision-making process.

When we have been concerned about this, we have asked boards to review that process to ensure that they have done what is supposed to be done under the B memorandum, which is now more than a year old. It is my understanding that the board to which the honourable member refers has carried out to the letter of the memorandum the process which is required.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: On a point of order: In an ordinary rotation, I should have been privileged or at least allowed to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There have been sufficient supplementaries. There is only a minute and a half left in question period and I am recognizing the member for Renfrew South.

GAS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour and it is in several parts. Is the Minister of Labour aware that at present there is being constructed by TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. a new gas pipeline through eastern Ontario to Cornwall and on into Quebec? Part of this pipeline is passing through the great county of Renfrew.

There is a difficulty though. Is the minister aware that in order for a worker, a machine operator, to obtain employment on that job in Renfrew county, he must belong to either the Teamsters' union, Local 91 in Ottawa, or the Labourers International Union, Local 527 in Ottawa, and that workers must, with the economic conditions as they are, plunk down $300 to join such union, with no guarantee whatsoever of obtaining employment?

How does the minister think he would feel if something was taking place in his backyard and he did not have an opportunity to work on that project?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to advise the honourable members opposite that I had no forewarning of that question whatsoever. I am aware of the circumstances the member for Renfrew South has brought to my attention. There is a letter on my desk waiting for signature later this afternoon, which will respond to the question.

OPPOSITION ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege relating to a call that I made this morning to the Hamilton office of the Ministry of the Environment. In it, I was advised that in a recent change in policy by the minister, every call from an opposition member relating to affairs in his or her own constituency was to be reported immediately to the minister and no written reports or information could be released to any opposition member without the Good Housekeeping seal of approval from the minister.

That change of policy, I might add, affected only members of both opposition parties and did not affect any government members. I wonder if this two-price system is going to continue to apply with the Speaker's approval?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Actually, it may not be a bad idea, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House, that first of all I do not know who the honourable member was talking to in the Hamilton office, but if that is what she was told I can assure her that it is totally and completely false. There has never been any such policy decision on my part. Whoever informed the member is either ill-informed or she might inadvertently be misconstruing what was said. I can assure her that her information is completely incorrect.

It is true, and I think it is prudent on my part, that I have requested, from across the whole of the province from our regional offices, that I be kept posted on a regular basis with regard to any local issues that may be arising, so I can discharge my responsibility and face this House with the best information that can be brought to my attention. At no time have I made, nor do I intend to make, a policy decision such as the member has implied I have made.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege: That information came directly from -- I am asking the Speaker for a report on the matter; I am not asking the minister.

Mr. Speaker: That is not my responsibility to report. The minister has replied.

Ms. Copps: If the privileges of the opposition are not to have access to information on local riding issues --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, the minister made it very clear that it was not government policy, and not his policy.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, he is --

Mr. Speaker: I am not arguing with you.

Ms. Copps: On the same point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That point of privilege has been disposed of.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Labour made a response earlier today to a point of privilege I raised last week. I am not sure what is going on, but I want to respond and make a point of privilege.

The minister indicated that the investigation of the various 72 violations had been thoroughly investigated. That is not the case, I am sorry. Let me start with that. Very bluntly, it is not the case.

We have checked again, and the union maintains that the inspection did not cover the 72 items. It definitely did not. When it was raised with management at a health and safety committee meeting last Wednesday, the company stated, if the union had any complaint, it should take it up with the ministry. The man who accompanied the company representative asked the ministry's official specifically that the 62 items which the company had communicated to the minister as having been completed, be reviewed, and the inspector refused to look at those items.

I have just one of them, which will substantiate my point of privilege. The day before the ministry inspection, April 1, in regard to the eyewash machine, which was reported to have been rectified and which was taken off the list of instructions for repair, this is what went up on the wall: "Do not use any aluminium brightener until eyewash is repaired in wash bay." That is one of the items that has been checked off as having been repaired, and that is the notice that went up the day before. I suggest to the minister there is something wrong.

If I could make a final point, the man in question in the compensation case the minister talked about is a Mr. Morgan McClay. I have a letter from the union to the effect that Morgan was injured on March 22 when he was struck by a three-inch tallow hose. The cause of the accident was the use of an improper tallow hose instead of a steam line. The accident occurred on March 22. The company reported it on April 7, 16 days later. The act says it must be reported to the director and to the union health and safety committee within four days.

I might just conclude by saying to the minister there have been 26 compensable accidents in a six-month period in that plant, and there are only 77 employees. Surely there is something wrong in there.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, rather than taking up the time of this House, first with a statement by the member for Sudbury East and then with another statement from me, and then with another from him and another from me, I have a course of action in mind that might resolve this matter. I am sure it will. I am prepared to introduce it tomorrow.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr15,

An Act to revive John F. McLennan (Bloor) Limited.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Shall Bill 125 be ordered for third reading?

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO 1981 ASSESSMENT COMPLAINTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Leluk, first reading of Bill 60,

An Act to provide for the Institution of Complaints for Certain Assessments made in the Year 1981 in the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

FRONTIER COLLEGE ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, seconded by Mr. J. A. Taylor, first reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting Frontier College.

Motion agreed to.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. R. F. Johnston, first reading of Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes municipal councils to refuse to issue demolition permits for the demolition of buildings containing six or more dwelling units, as long as a statute of Ontario providing for mandatory rent review remains in effect.

Tourist establishments, unsafe buildings and buildings whose coverage is 50 per cent or less of the applicable maximum residential density are exempted.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make my contribution to the throne speech debate.

The speech was an insult to the people of Ontario, and I suggest to all the ministers who have left the House that they should keep their squawk boxes on because they may have many chances during the afternoon to sue me for libel and so on.

Mr. Nixon: You are safe in here.

Mr. Sargent: I am safe in here? I will say it outside the chamber any time they want to go to bat. After 20 years in this House when sometimes we see the donkeys over there thumping their desks, I think of the story about Lady Godiva riding naked on a horse through the streets of Coventry. She was riding side-saddle and half the crowd was yelling, "Hurray for our side." All they do over there is shout, "Hurray for our side."

Much of the content of the throne speech is debatable and obnoxious. The excellent media in my area of Grey-Bruce -- -the Owen Sound Sun Times. CFOS radio and CKNX television -- are all excellent purveyors of the news and people are fully informed of what a fraud we have down here as a government. Their news content and especially the radio editorials on CFOS, although they are totally nonpolitical, often take the government apart for its lack of concern for the people of Ontario.

This morning, one million Canadians woke up with no job to go to and no hope for one. There are 143,000 youths walking the streets with no job creation programs in place and no hope of their getting jobs. I am going to lay it on the line for the record and say that I would be ashamed to be a member of the government because of what it is doing and has done to the people of this province.

I would like to set the stage for my never-ending desire to reveal to Ontario the record as I have seen it, along with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and other veterans of this party such as the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and the brilliant member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman).

We have seen this thing evolve to a situation where the leader of the Conservative Party has a more disgraceful record than that of Richard Nixon in the United States. Watergate is peanuts compared to Hydrogate and all the goings-on in the past 20 years.

While our economy is in its biggest nosedive ever in our lifetime, while hundreds of thousands of Ontario fathers wake up every morning with no job to go to and no hope there will be one, we have been ruining our most important line of defence against poverty.

The government across the aisle is run by a select group of people who have been feeding at the trough for 35 years. They have been plundering the public Treasury for themselves and their friends.

I hope the Premier (Mr. Davis) will hear this and the public will get what I am trying to say. The Premier does not set the policy for this House; it is set by a think-tank. We read about how often they meet at the Park Plaza Hotel to see what is going to happen during the House sittings. They met in Kingston about three weeks ago and all the big names in Ontario, the heart of the establishment, were there wondering how they could cut up the pie to look after the establishment.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) said in his speech at the time of the opening of the House that Mr. Trudeau has a planned program of chaos for Canada and the people of Ontario. Let us have a look at the chaos caused by this government during the past two decades. I have said before that the Premier, his party and the think-tank could be charged with fiscal debauchery. Let us look at the record.

The television program 60 Minutes, which is on every Sunday night, would have a ball here in Ontario. Why does Morton Shulman not get on to what is going on here? He knows the background. Does he have too many friends in the establishment?

3:30 p.m.

The story of Watergate was built around the theme of the President's men. All the Premier's friends and the Tory party's friends have put this province into a nosedive.

Take a look at the personnel of this think-tank. Every time we open the House all the big people who get all the contracts for Hydro and roadbuilding come and sit in the centre there. That is the picture of them coming. It is in effect parallel to kissing the hands of the Godfather, because they have been feeding at this public trough. They have been lining their pockets for 35 years, and they do not stop. They pass it on to their children -- it is like having tickets to Maple Leaf Gardens; you put them in your will and they pass along -- and so the children of the establishment carry on getting the goodies as part of their estate.

What we need in Ontario is a news media SWAT team, a special investigation team, but there is really no Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post to show how much we are being screwed and tattooed here.

On the public accounts committee we have the Tories, who are not there to view the public accounts but who are there as obstructionists. That is their main function: to obstruct and block the viewing of the things that could come to light and embarrass the government.

If I may, I will add a bit of background here. My first acquaintance with such goings-on was shocking. I had a $50,000 cancelled cheque made payable to the Conservative Party which was arranged by Mr. Kelly, the bagman. He had arranged this from a company called Fidinam. They could not pay a $1,500 bill. The year before their gross sales were $25,000, but by paying the $50,000 cheque to the Tory party they got a $20-million contract, with no tenders called, to build the Workmen's Compensation Board building. They also got a $15-million loan.

When I produced this $50,000 cancelled cheque in the House, and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) was here, I was booted out of the House about that one. That was investigated, but they had enough Tories on the committees and so they whitewashed the whole deal.

This was an unknown company. Now Fidinam is a giant corporation. They got a good start because they gave $50,000 to the Tory party. This is all documented in the press. It would be interesting to bring out a television series of 13 weekly documentaries to show the scandals of this government over the years. Anyway, the Fidinam people are quite happy.

We remember the story about the Premier and Gerhardt Moog going to Germany to arrange funds for the Moog and Davis hotel over here, the Hydro building.

Mr. Stokes: The Taj Mahal.

Mr. Sargent: The Taj Mahal. They got into some wine over there, and the Premier went to one end of the room and Moog discussed the funds at the other end of the room in German and they came back with the funds to build a building. But there were no tenders called. What happened? Don Smith of Ellis-Don Ltd. blew the whistle on them, and they had a big investigation. Members know what happened. As always, there were enough Tories on the thing to give it another whitewash. So it goes on.

We had the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education building, the $20-million educational building built up here. That was given to Mr. Moog, with no tender on the deal at all. They did not call for tenders because he was a friend of the Premier's. In fact, I think he was a legal adviser, although the Premier is a lawyer himself. It was a $20-million contract.

We have Phil Givens, who was a member of the Liberal Party; he was promised a judgeship if he would not contest his seat.

Mr. Martel: Was he really?

Mr. Sargent: A member of the New Democratic Party was kicked out because he said that, but I know it is a fact.

I have had conversations with the principals involved. He was promised a judgeship by Eddie Goodman if he would not stand in that seat.

Mr. Stokes: What about Vern Singer?

Mr. Sargent: He got a $25,000 cheque from Mr. Moog to act for him. Mr. Moog had Mr. Singer looked after. We will pass that one, because I was sued for $500,000 by Mr. Singer for that one. But we finally got it swept under the table.

An hon. member: One drink here and there.

The Deputy Speaker: I hate to bring up the topic but I am not sure whether the honourable member indicated that a member of this House had actually bought his seat. The member did not say that, did he?

Mr. Sargent: I did not say that. I would not say that.

The former mayor of Etobicoke told me the biggest scandal he had seen in politics over the years was the parkway belt deal in which a piece of land was involved. Ontario Hydro was building a line, and Cadillac Fairview owned about 10 acres of the land. They got $1 million for those 10 acres because they steered the right way. It was Ed Horton, a former mayor of Etobicoke, who told me that. He eventually died. But one could not get to the bottom of that, because one cannot find these things out in government.

At the outset I would say I am not taking a shot at the new back-benchers in the Tory party. I think they have done good jobs or they would not be here. As ombudsmen for our people, I think we do a great job as members of the legislature. It is a continuing source of enjoyment for me, because I do love the contact and doing things for people even though I am in opposition.

Many of the new back-benchers are involved in the people business and have been in public office for many years. They all knew the difference between right and wrong when they came in here. I give them full marks. Many of them would not be here if they were not totally honourable people. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Premier or his party is dishonest, but they are part of a crooked machine. If they were operating in the United States, many of them would be in jail because of a conflict of interest. But that is not the law up here.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What?

Mr. Sargent: I challenge the minister to challenge anything I have said in my speech. I will go to jail if I am not right. I will back that up.

Mr. Riddell: Is the member saying the Big Blue Machine is crooked?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's balderdash.

Mr. Sargent: This is how they operate. They have the largest cabinet in the free world. There is no state in America that has a cabinet like that; the federal government does not have a cabinet as big as this one.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It certainly is bigger. Can't you count yet?

Mr. Sargent: But on top of that, this government has 30 assistants. So they all get looked after.

The minister should not talk, with the Taj Mahal she has down there. One walks around on about two inches of carpet to get near her place. She has three or four secretaries; she needs them like a hole in the head. McKeough had an office like hers and it cost him $70,000 to furnish it. God knows what this minister's cost.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have one secretary.

Mr. Sargent: Let us look at these cabinet ministers. They get about $63,000 a year now.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not.

Mr. Sargent: Maybe the minister does not. Maybe she gets about what she is worth -- about $50,000. I should not have said that. Her skates are a bit dull, that's all.

But they get $63,000 first. Then they get all the perks; they get the living allowance, limousines and trips around the world. And here we have the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), who is a lawyer, criticizing the doctors.

When they are through with this business, every one of the members opposite, even though they are back-benchers, will get a pension; they will get $30,000-a-year pensions if they are cabinet ministers, and they will get $55,000-a-year jobs as heads of commissions.

3:40 p.m.

We have all the old guys -- every one of them. There is the Minister of Health's father, who is making $85,000, and there is Wishart -- they are making $85,000 a year all down the line. And here we have the Minister of Health talking about the doctors and the money they are making.

Mr. Andrewes: How about Bryce Mackasey?

Mr. Eakins: Larry is spending $100,000 on his office.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Look at your federal Liberals and about 12 members of the Liberal cabinet.

Mr. Ruprecht: It's wrong, no matter who does it, to spend $100,000 on somebody's office.

Mr. Riddell: Two wrongs don't make a right, Bette.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Larry is not doing that. He said so.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, you should call her out of order.

The Deputy Speaker: I was going to, but your own colleagues were engaged; I was just waiting for you to start up again.

Mr. Sargent: We have $7 billion in pension funds in Ontario, but there is not a nickel left in any of them. The government has raided $7 billion that was not its money. It's all down the drain.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not true.

Mr. Nixon: It is, Bette. You took all the Canada pension plan funds, all the poor teachers' superannuation funds --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Robert, you know better than that.

Mr. Nixon: You spent it all.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You know better than that.

Mr. Nixon: You spent it. That's the truth.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey- Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much. We have had the name of the Premier come up quite often in the Campbell Grant report on the harbour scandals in Hamilton. They got Campbell Grant to study and make a report on the whole mess down there. A number of times he mentioned "the Premier and the bagman Kelly" as being involved.

For five or six years now we have been trying to get the Premier to release the Campbell Grant report, but he says it is not expeditious for him to do it at this time. I do not know what you call it when the term runs out, but he is going to keep saying that for seven years and then it will be dead. I do not know what will happen, but he has that one pretty well covered up.

We have things like the Reed Paper scandal. We found out by accident one time that this government, through one minister, was going to give away to a paper company, Reed Paper, a tract of land bigger than the area of Switzerland. They were surprised we found that out. We blocked that one.

They had another one up north where they were going to spend $70 million on a magic mountain 200 miles north of Sudbury. We blocked that one.

Mr. Riddell: Can't stand the heat in the kitchen, Bette?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I can. I just happen to have a meeting. Do you want to come?

Mr. Nixon: No way.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would be delighted to take you to the meeting.

Mr. Sargent: Would you like to speak for a while, Bette?

Mr. Sargent: Keep your squawk-box on.

Mr. Eakins: There's not a minister in the House. Let the record show that.

Mr. Sargent: Oh, they have their boxes on, I think.

We have Darcy McKeough; he was the Treasurer. Then we have the wife of the president of Chrysler who was involved in a housing deal in London. She was faced with $600,000 in tax to pay. Darcy hit her at a cocktail party and told her he would fix the tax so she would not have to pay the $600,000.

What happened? Because we criticized the fact that his cocktail chatter cost us, the taxpayers, $600,000, to give this wealthy lady's money back to her, we were called into court. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and I were summoned to court about two or three days before the election. We were made to look the bad guys because we criticized them. That is the way this government operates.

Now McKeough is president of Union Gas. He is pretty cosy when they are coming in for these rate increases. He is in a good spot for these rate increases. Since he got that appointment, he is now a director of dozens of companies; he has directorships all over the place. They tell me that his entry in Who's Who is about seven inches long.

We have the Suncor situation, a real gangbuster. The headlines read, "How did Davis Keep This Secret?" The head of the largest government in Canada, outside of the feds, had it in his back pocket when the House opened. No one knew about it. The Deputy Minister of Energy, a guy named Tom Kierans, set the deal up for McLeod Young Weir, and there was supposed to be a one per cent or $6-million commission paid. But they decided there would not be any commission.

Our friend Kierans, whose office is in the same building as the Sun office -- the worst dog of an oil company in the country; they could not peddle it for eight years -- made a deal in the washroom there.

Interjection.

Mr. Sargent: Well, that is the story they quoted in the paper. They made a deal in the washroom, and they put through a deal for us to kick in $650 million. Mr. Kierans is the $6-million man. Now he is president of McLeod Young Weir. That is a real friend of the government.

The beautiful part of this is that 98 per cent of the company's shares were owned by the parent company in Philadelphia. They were not on the market, they had no value, so how would one establish that we would pay $650 million for a 25 per cent interest in something we have no say whatsoever in operating?

The Premier brings this into the House, and the government puts it through. This is not the government talking; this is the think-tank. The men who control the party put this into motion using my money, the taxpayers' money, to make deals for their friends. What is going on here is only the tip of the iceberg.

John White, the former Treasurer, had a dream that one day he was going to build a city of 500,000 people in Haldimand-Norfolk. He had access to the funds, because he was the Treasurer. He had 25 secret meetings with, I think it was, the vice-president of LePage. They got the rights and made a decision that they would get a $5-million commission to handle the land deals there. But there was no piece of paper, no contract at all. How was it arrived at? No one knew.

The deal went through. We spent about $60 or $90 million over there, and LePage got their $5-million commission, with nothing on paper to back it, no contract whatsoever. I asked the Premier if he knew about the secret meetings. He said, "Are you challenging the character of John White?" I said: "What the hell are you talking about? I asked you a question: Did you know about their secret meetings?" He said, "If I knew about them, they would not be a secret, would they?" The people of Ontario must know what is going on down here.

Now Mr. Kierans is top of the heap as head of McLeod Young Weir. They have our $650 million, and they paid $78 million of our money in dividends to the head office in Philadelphia. They did not tell us about that. That deal is going to cost the people of Ontario $2.4 billion. That is a fact.

Mr. Boudria: That's enough to make a Tory cross the floor.

Mr. Andrewes: Is there a vacancy over there?

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: The people of my area have an ongoing concern regarding agriculture. We are 49th out of 51 counties, at the bottom of the pile in so far as the wants of our people and farm income are concerned. Three per cent of our children get to university, against six per cent through the rest of the province.

I have been offered the chance to go across there, but I could never face my people after more than 20 years of support, even though I was offered a hospital in the riding if I would quit my job. I said, "Yes, I would quit my job for a hospital." They did not come through. I called their bluff on it.

The fact is that Ontario is the only province that is not looking after its farmers. We get $358 million a year from Ottawa for agricultural purposes. All we spend in Ontario is $181 million. The government takes that agricultural money and puts it into its general fund for squandering on other things. But that money belongs to the people of Ontario as far as the farmers are concerned. Ontario and Prince Edward Island are the only provinces that do not have a program of loans for farmers. I think that is scandalous in view of what is going on.

Many members will recall the many times I have talked in the House about the uranium contracts. Bob Macaulay is the man who set up the first Department of Energy. He became counsel for the Ontario Energy Board, and his legal fees for one year were $176,000. This same Macaulay is a brother of the present chairman of Hydro. This man is now involved in the biggest expansion of nuclear power in the world.

If I know nothing else in my lifetime, I want to say we should be ashamed of ourselves for what we are doing in the nuclear field. In the United States there are more than 70 nuclear plants. Many are only half built and are being scrapped because they are financial disasters. But here in Ontario last year, with a $14-billion debt, we were offering to build a new multibillion-dollar nuclear plant in Darlington to sell power to the United States cheaper than Hydro will sell it to us here in Canada.

Mr. Macaulay says this is a good deal. They are going to build a pipeline across Lake Erie. That pipeline is going to cost about $6 billion, we are told -- we do not know how much it is going to cost -- but he says it is going to make Ontario a profit of $100 million a year. There was a story by Tom Claridge in the Globe and Mail within the past month. It quoted Mr. Sims, the head of the firm in the States that is going to buy this power. He denied the fact they are going to buy the power.

He said he had read of proposals by the Canadians to build nuclear plants dedicated to export to the United States, but in closing he said, "They would have a gambler's interest to put up the money in the hope that the power would be saleable."

There is no agreement to sell hydro to General Public Utilities in the United States. He is flying his kite here and building Darlington, something we need like a hole in the head. We now have a 40 per cent surplus in power and it is going to cost us $9 billion. The experience across America and around the world in building nuclear plants shows that they cost more than five times what they started with. That could cost us $20 billion on top of a $6-million pipeline, whatever figure they are talking about. We must be the stupidest people in the world to let this go on without a plebiscite.

I asked the Premier in the House about the energy situation and about what he was going to do about the contract with Denison Mines. These two contracts with Denison have a $7-billion gross price. The minehead price of uranium at the start was $1 per pound. They made a cartel deal to sell this for between $40 and $60 per pound. The headlines we read today say that Ontario Hydro pays $500 million more to buy uranium from Denison. Uranium mines out west in Saskatchewan closed down because they could not sell their uranium for $32 per pound.

Yet from now until the year 2010 we are locked into a price of between $40 and $60 per pound. I think the former Minister of Energy knows what I am talking about.

We not only gave them this contract; we also said to them: "We will give you a $2-billion guaranteed profit. Whether you win or lose, you are assured of a $2 billion-a-year profit." Is that not just dandy? The land it is on is owned by the province but is leased to them for $7,000 a year. We gave them this contract, a contract of a size unheard of in the whole free world with those terms, and we said, "That's all right."

The background is that we now have four firms which have been indicted in the federal courts for criminal activities in this field, and we gave them a $650-million advance, an interest-free loan for 40 years. The interest factor on this alone is $2 billion on the loan.

The Premier does not want to talk about it. I say to everyone who is within the sound of my voice or who reads Hansard, there must be very powerful interests involved if the Premier will not discuss it or the renegotiation of such a scandalous contract when the people of Ontario are now having their lights cut off because they cannot pay their hydro bills.

We have a piece of land worth $7,000 giving Steve Roman and his gang a $2-billion profit, and we have a $650-million interest-free loan. He takes that money, goes down to Australia and buys uranium mines there with our interest-free money. The Premier does not want to discuss it.

If I can find my notes here, we have in the agreement the permission and the power to renegotiate it. Westinghouse in the United States was in the same bind. This giant, worldwide corporation was going to go down the tube because of its commitments in this cartel contract. If it had been forced to deliver uranium at that price, it would have gone bankrupt. It went to the Supreme Court. It challenged and fought it in the courts. I have three or four books at home on how it fought the government and what it fought it on. I have said repeatedly to the Premier in this House that any court in the land would agree to cancel these scandalous contracts.

4 p.m.

This folly of Hydro is digging a big hole for all of us. We had a project up in the Bruce -- the minister may know about this one -- that was going to cost $280 million. The final cost was $880 million. We have Mr. Taylor writing his letters every day in the Globe and Mail and in the Toronto Star, doing his own PR job, telling what a good guy he is and what a good job Hydro does, and all the time people all over the world believe our nuclear program is deadly.

We have acres and acres of spent fuel rods up in our area. They have no idea what they are going to do with them. They put them in swimming pools. They cannot demothball Three Mile Island and if the life of a nuclear plant is 30 years, how are they going to demothball Douglas Point? What happens if there is an earthquake or if there is a war? What are they doing to hit first? The fact is they do not know where they are going. They say maybe 10 or 15 years down the line they may find some good granite rock someplace to bury these fuel rods. The only end use for those things is plutonium. Plutonium is the most powerful explosive in the world. That is its only end use.

We have billions of dollars of our money being used by a government which I think, and I feel members must agree, is being run by a think-tank. Eddie Goodman has always been the counsel for Cadillac-Fairview. When I started here, Cadillac-Fairview was a very ordinary, minor company and now it is one of the largest companies in North America. I know they got a lot of their financial support from the Treasury, from the people of Ontario. No one can deny that.

The hydro rates of 75,000 senior citizens are going to suffer this winter. I tried to get a lifeline bill through the House to give a flat rate for hydro to senior citizens and people on the low end of the social scale, but the government laughed at it and turned it down. It is in force in a number of states in the United States and the NDP supports it, but we cannot get enough support in the House to pass it.

This business we are in is doing things for people; not just a select group, friends of the government, the establishment, but it is for all of the people of Ontario. This is not the government's money, it is only in trust. I think they are doing a disgraceful job of handling it.

We have this Minister of Health playing politics with the doctors. That is all he is doing it for. What the hell is a bit of money here when the government can spend $2.4 billion on an oil company? The most important thing in our lives is the health of our people and it is a fraud if the government takes people's money for OHIP and does not deliver the service to them.

The minister can do it. I got a letter the other day from a lawyer. A property I owned was two months in arrears. The lawyer, writing on behalf of a trust company, said: "You are now two months in arrears. We are going to put it under power of sale. Enclosed please find my bill for $500 for this letter." This lawyer gets $500 for sending me a letter, and this minister -- who is a lawyer, I guess -- is telling a doctor, who works for probably 100 hours a week, how much he can charge.

It took the doctors 11 years to get where they are. I have many doctor friends and they do not earn their money. The minister is playing politics with a very dangerous thing, and the government members have the audacity to support such goings-on. Why would he do it if it was not politics? What the hell is $100 million to the government? It is our money. It is our health system.

People are being refused hospital beds. My mother died in the hall of our hospital. She could not get a bed. For 20 years I have been promised a hospital and I cannot get one, and then there is this hanky-panky here where he is saying he is going to "negotiate."

Doctors have the right in a free enterprise system to get paid for service. Does anyone ever tell us what an accountant makes or question his charges? Can one tax an accountant's bill? A lawyer's bill can be taxed, but if so they will make a revision and give it back. Don't let the lawyers tell me about what the doctors should have.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, the lawyers are the ones who are overpaid.

Mr. Sargent: I say to the members of the government that they will have the total support of 7,999,000 people if they will renegotiate the uranium contracts and give these people back the billions of dollars which are committed for the future.

I could speak at length but I think I have gone over my time limit here. The time has come when the people should know what is going on. Someone has said, "You cannot hope to change the whole world but you can change the corner in which you live." I give the members my word that is what I have been trying to do.

I apologize to the members of the government if I have embarrassed them, but that is the way I feel. After 20 years, it is a hopeless situation to have them sit there and sneer at us. Their arrogance is unbelievable. They milk their rights, their perks; they go past us in their big limousines and it is getting hard to take. People think they are nice guys. I say they may be, but the think tank that runs them is using them because they are only pawns.

I am sorry to have taken so long but I thank you for the chance to say a few words in this throne speech debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is commend you, and Mr. Speaker Turner, and the Deputy Chairman, for the dedication you have applied, collectively, to your responsibilities as the presiding officers of this House. Having been there I can fully appreciate that it is not an easy task. It is one where, in most instances, if you satisfy 50 per cent of the people at any given time, you are doing a pretty good job.

It is, however, the most important job that anybody can take on in an assembly such as this. As my honourable friend the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) can attest to, the kind of activities that you three gentlemen involve yourselves in strikes at the very heart of parliamentary democracy and what this place is all about.

It is the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario. It is not the government of Ontario. It is a collection of 125 members dedicated to the future social, economic, cultural and, we hope, at times spiritual wellbeing of the 8.5 million people in the province for whom we have the privilege of speaking.

4:10 p.m.

It is not an easy task. I hope that as all three of you gain more experience in your collective responsibilities you will not lose sight of the fact that you are here to protect the rights of all members of this assembly in a democratic process, and that we are not the government of Ontario, although a good many of the items we deal with on a day-to-day basis are a result of our reaction to initiatives taken by the government.

It is our individual and collective responsibility to provide the best kind of lifestyle for the people of the province and it is to be hoped we will have a little left over to exercise our collective responsibility to help those in the world community of nations who are less fortunate.

Until most recent vintage, we have been perhaps the most affluent province in the wealthiest country on the face of the earth. When we look at the tremendous strides and advances made by Japan, with a population of 117 million and virtually no resources of its own, to become the second largest economy in the free world, and at the economic success it has enjoyed over the last 10 to 15 years, notwithstanding OPEC 1 and OPEC 2, it is the envy of us all.

The economic problems we discuss in this assembly on a regular basis are to some extent based on our inability to compete with nations such as Japan and some of the more advanced nations of western Europe. One has only to look around to find out that nations such as Singapore and Korea are finding their place in the sun based to a large extent upon their ability to import raw materials, a good many of them from countries such as Canada, convert them into saleable manufactured products and send them back to us with value added.

The Sergeant at Arms is not here. He is visiting his wife in hospital. Just a few hours ago she delivered their second son. I understand both of them are doing well and I am sure I express the sentiments of all members of the assembly when I wish Mr. Stelling, his wife and the new arrival the very best of everything for the future.

In connection with the throne speech, I sat here reasonably quietly the day it was given and listened to His Honour, the representative of Her Majesty in this assembly, in a lengthy dissertation which some might refer to as a tirade. I am very sensitive about the nature of this place and how we use it at every opportunity available to put our individual and collective points of view across.

I wonder what the outcome would be if a throne speech like that had been placed in the hands of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Westminster and we had said, "You read that in the Mother of Parliaments; that is the perception of your government and that is what we propose to do during the next year over in Westminster."

Placing that in the Ontario context, I invite all honourable members of this House to return to the throne speech for 15 or 20 minutes of quiet reflection to see whether or not they think it is an appropriate use of the office of the Lieutenant Governor of this province to take on an exercise in fed bashing. I personally do not think it is an appropriate use of a vice-regal office. I think some of the language contained in the throne speech was extremely provocative. Whoever offered it and whoever authorized it might want to go back to it and reflect upon that for a moment.

I say that in the context of what I was trying to say earlier. You, Mr. Speaker, have a responsibility as a presiding officer, along with the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman, to be impartial, nonpartisan and nonpolitical while carrying out your duties and responsibilities in the chair. You desire to be fair, firm, impartial and consistent.

4:20 p.m.

Perhaps I am overly sensitive about the role of someone like yourself or someone like the Lieutenant Governor, Her Majesty's representative in this province. Since it bothered me sitting there on the day that the throne speech was read, I thought I had a responsibility to say publicly what troubled me privately. All members should go back and reread the throne speech, put themselves in the position of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of this province and make their own assessment or their own judgement as to whether or not it was an appropriate thing to do.

I want to thank all members of the House who are here this afternoon. I know a good deal of what is said in a contribution to the throne debate, for very obvious reasons, is parochial in nature and perhaps it could be said it is political in the sense that it makes good reading back home.

Most of the items I want to address this afternoon are centred on events, happenings in northern Ontario, because basically and primarily that is my job. But I do not do it in the political sense. I do not do it in the partisan sense because a good many of the members, some of them here for the first time, have not had the opportunity to acquire an overview of what is going on in Ontario. I am sure many of them have had some very short and brief business excursions to parts of the province other than those they represent. I am sure many of them have had an opportunity to have a short vacation in northern Ontario, but that is not the real northern Ontario.

Members will recall that during question period a little over an hour ago, I asked a question of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) concerning the closure of a high school in my riding and my home town. I spent the Easter weekend meeting with the town council, with the study committee that is set up in association with any closure of a high school that has to take place under the Education Act in Ontario. I met with a variety of concerned citizens, including members of the clergy.

The letter to the Minister of Education, which I think I made available to all members of this assembly, was a fair and an accurate assessment of the situation. They were not my figures and statistics. They were not the figures and the statistics of the Lake Superior Board of Education. Those were statistics that were provided to me by the Ministry of Education. Everybody in the township of Schreiber, whether Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat, is of one mind about the action the school board has taken.

I want to report to those here this afternoon that I deliberately, and I make no bones about it, consulted with my friend and colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), to make him aware of what was going on. I deliberately involved the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) in what was going on.

It is a political issue, but it is not a partisan issue. The member for Rainy River got involved by asking a supplementary and was happy to do so. The member for Fort William tried to get involved and was happy to do so. I think it was of sufficient importance to the people in northern Ontario generally that it warranted a second supplementary from a member on the government benches who feels strongly enough about events in the north.

Honourable members know that whenever anything happens of major significance and import in a northern community, such as losing something as important, as central and as pivotal as a high school, it lessens our ability to attract professionals such as doctors, dentists and other people with special skills whom we are trying to attract, on a regular basis, to these northern communities.

The first questions one asks are: "Do you have a hospital? Do you have a high school? Do you have recreational facilities? Do you have reasonably good shopping facilities?" We who live in the north are asked those questions continually by people with special skills who want to come in to work and live and enjoy the lifestyle that we have in these northern communities.

I do not want to be overly dramatic about this whole thing. But I think all members realize what happens to a town such as Schreiber, with a population of about 2,000 people, which was there long before a community such as Terrace Bay, Marathon, or Manitouwadge was even thought of.

The township of Schreiber has been there since the year 1885. Members must realize what happens to any community in Ontario when one takes away something as important as its high school.

What was the board's rationale for making that decision? It was on the basis that it might save $120,000 a year, in a school jurisdiction where the administrative cost for operating that jurisdiction, spread over a distance of 120 miles, is in the order of $365,000. That is the administrative cost.

If the administrative cost was reduced by one third, one would have the $120,000 the board hopes to save. But what is it going to do? It is going to walk away from the best high school in the whole district. Do not take my word for it; ask the board itself, ask the appraisers who were brought in to assess the worth of those buildings, ask the architects who have been engaged to make that kind of judgement. They will tell you the very school the board is scrapping, locking the doors on and walking away from, is insured at the present time for $885,000.

4:30 p.m.

Appraisers were brought in to tell the board what the school would be worth on the open market if it were not used for educational purposes. An appraisal company from the city of Thunder Bay said, "Well, you know, the first thing you must do is offer it to another board." The only other board in the area that conceivably might be interested in this facility is the North of Superior District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, and I doubt very much if that board wants it.

So the appraisers said if it did not continue to be used as a school building, the appraised value for any other purpose was $32,000. That is what the board could expect to get for it, or at least ask for it, if it were to be used for anything other than educational purposes. The appraisers further went on to say that if the building could not be disposed of, the only alternative would be to demolish it and that would cost $16,000, to ready it for a subdivision.

This Minister of Education is saying the decision that has been taken is strictly a local decision, and school boards are autonomous and can live by any decision of that nature. But I wonder if this board can live by that, having heard the admission of people within the Ministry of Education and a member of an architectural firm by the name of Critchley in North Bay, in the riding of my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris). He said in regard to the school they are moving to, "If you are going to accommodate the high school students who will be taken out of Schreiber and moved to Terrace Bay, the first thing you must do is spend in excess of $900,000, just to save $120,000 a year."

I sought out the advice of specialists in the Ministry of Education and asked, "Would you mind telling me what the order of priority is for capital expenditures within the Lake Superior Board of Education?" They said, "Let us look." I checked last Thursday and rechecked again today just before question period to make sure I was entirely accurate in what I was saying.

The first priority for capital expenditures for the Lake Superior Board of Education is an application to this ministry to spend $570,000 to upgrade the secondary high school in Manitouwadge and $850,000 to upgrade portions of the elementary school in Manitouwadge.

The second priority, according to the Ministry of Education, is to close the high school in Marathon and put an addition on the existing public school in Marathon to accommodate the high school students, spending a sum of money in the order of $350,000.

Third, they have requested a sum of $183,000 for repairs to the roofs of the school buildings, for dust collectors for various schools within the jurisdiction and to replace a boiler in one of the schools.

There are three other priorities I was not able to get a handle on. Number seven on the list of priorities is a request for $900,000 for capital funds to improve the high school campus in Terrace Bay which is going to accommodate the Schreiber students. They have yet to make application in a realistic way. It is seventh on their list of priorities. They made a decision last Wednesday night to phase out the school. I have said to the Minister of Education, I have said to the board and I say to all members of this House, where are we going to put those students?

The only response I could get was they think they can go to the bank and borrow between $150,000 and $200,000 to buy portables to stick up on the parking lot or the playing field to accommodate the Schreiber school children in Terrace Bay. They hope to accomplish that by Labour Day 1982.

The Ministry of Education said this was local autonomy and democracy at its best. I have enumerated the expenditures and the list of priorities as outlined by the Lake Superior Board of Education. I want to ask all members of this House where and how we are going to accommodate these kids; so much for local autonomy.

I want to report to members of this House that only about four of the 14 members of the board have much more than a year of experience with the administration of schools.

Mr. Nixon: How many from the Schreiber area?

Mr. Stokes: Two.

Mr. Nixon: Of the 14?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: That's great local autonomy.

Mr. Stokes: One member of the board happens to be a brother of my colleague the member for Rainy River. His name is Mike Reid. Let me tell you something about this board. I do not want to be board bashing, but I want to let the members know the dilemma under which some of the school board trustees operate.

They made a simple request. They said if we wished to economize, one of the most obvious places to look was the administration of the board.

4:40 p.m.

I met with all of these groups at one o'clock last Saturday and I happened to have the figures of what it cost to operate that school board -- $60,000 a year plus expenses. I enumerated what it cost. I may have been out a few percentage points because those emoluments are adjusted from time to time, but I was able to put down before them a sum of $335,000, plus something just in excess of $30,000 for expenses: the rental of cars, travel expenses, overnight expenses and things of that nature. But in fairly accurate terms it is $365,000.

There were four members of the board at this meeting. They said, "Where did you get those figures?" I said, "I got them from the board office. Why do you ask?" They said, "We have been trying to get those figures" -- and they are members of the board -- "for several months because we have been charged with the responsibility of coming up with some kind of reaction to the targeting of this school for closure."

The board members could not even get the costs of administering the jurisdiction they were responsible for. Any time they asked, the office told them, "We really don't want to make those figures public but what we can tell you is the last adjustment was an increase of some percentage points -- maybe eight per cent or 10 per cent.

If any member here has attended a board meeting he knows that at each meeting they have to approve expenses and disbursements. They usually go over it in committee and then when they come to the regular board meeting they are in a position to deal with it all very expeditiously. But they are given a sum for expenditures and disbursements of maybe $550,000. One of the board members says, "All right, but what is this all for? How do you break it down?" The officials say, "Really, it is not appropriate to ask that kind of question because the money has already been spent; so just approve that amount of money."

It is a hell of a way to run a store. I can really agonize with these young school board members, some of whom have been on the board three months, some six months, some just in excess of one year. The majority of the board members say, "Really, you do not want to burden this board with all of those details; just take the word of the administrator that everything is fine and dandy; just vote 'aye.'" That is what they do.

I do not want to be unkind to our Minister of Education. I guess maybe I was a bit unkind when I likened her to Pontius Pilate and only because it is the Easter season. But it really disturbs me to hear a minister of the crown say, "That is democracy at its finest: economy and autonomy."

It is not economy. The minister might believe in autonomy and say she is just there to sign the cheques. But we are going to walk away from a million-dollar building and are going to replace it with a million-dollar expenditure down the road. She is going to be asked to sign the cheques for capital expenditures in excess of $4 million.

Mr. Nixon: Because the director thinks it is a good idea.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. I just want to appeal to all members of this House to assess the position of the member for Lake Nipigon who has the responsibility to represent the people in the township of Schreiber. I have a responsibility to report to the people in the House collectively that their money is not being well spent because, regardless of who makes the decision and when the decision is made, it is going to cost us. We are not going to save money by it. We are not going to save this $120,000 a year.

I hope I am not betraying a confidence, but when I heard about this on Wednesday night, at the first opportunity I went over and I apprised the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities of it. Our colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) was sitting beside her and, of course, it was sort of a three-way conversation. The Minister of Northern Affairs said, "No school, no high school anywhere in Ontario should close for a consideration of $120,000." I happen to think he is right. I hope the members agree with me.

I want to get into another area that deals with the north and it has to do with a conversation I had with our colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope).

Members will recall that I raised with the Minister of Natural Resources a problem in northern Ontario, in the Nipigon district of the Ministry of Natural Resources, where a young, perhaps naive, but very dedicated professional forester was fired because he dared to share some very vital and important information with me. That is all he is guilty of. He did not do it for political reasons; he did not do it because he wanted to be sensational; he did not do it because he wanted to get his name in the paper; he did not do it because he is an agitator. He did it out of a commitment to his profession of forestry.

He was notified about two weeks ago that his services were no longer required on the basis that he had disagreed with ministry policy. The minister was very careful when I put the question to him not to accuse this young, dedicated, professional forester of violating an oath of secrecy or anything of that nature; he did it on the basis that he disagreed with ministry policy.

I want to tell the members something about ministry policy.

Mr. Martel: He should have fired Mickey Hennessy last week.

Mr. Stokes: All Mr. MacAlpine, who is the gentleman in question, was saying to his people within the ministry -- the district forester, the regional forester, the regional director, the assistant deputy minister, the deputy minister and, one would hope, the minister -- was that before they asked him, as a professional forester, to make a decision as to whether or not there was a sufficient amount of timber on the Port Arthur crown management unit to allocate sufficient timber to a sawmill, that is Sapawe, which is just outside of Atikokan in Rainy River, the kind of data that he had been handed was out of date and inaccurate.

4:50 p.m.

This young forester did not have sufficient information upon which to make that recommendation, so he said to his superiors: "I am sorry, I cannot make that recommendation until we have had time to do a realistic inventory of the wood stock on that crown management unit as to the species and the age classes available. As soon as I can gather that data, I will make it available to you, and be happy to do so."

He was told: "Never mind. There is not time for that, we have to issue this licence. Issue it on the basis of previous data and previous inventory stock." He said, "Really, I cannot do that because I will be doing you an injustice if it is found out later that the wood supplies are not there and they are not sufficient to satisfy the needs of the traditional users plus this other user," which happened to be Buchanan Forest Products.

He said: "I am doing you people an injustice. I am doing Buchanan Forest Products an injustice because they need to spend $3 million or $4 million to upgrade the mill in Sapawe and, of course, they cannot do it unless they have some assurance that there is going to be a reasonable supply of wood in the long term to justify the expenditure in the first place."

He was not doing the minister or his staff an injustice; he was doing them a favour. Why do I say that? I say it because when he was asked to make that decision it was in October and November 1981. I want to report to the minister -- and he will know whereof I speak -- and to all members of this House that that is precisely what they have done. They have not issued the licence and they are not going to issue the licence, thank God. They are not going to issue the licence until they have done a realistic inventory as to age classes and species on the Port Arthur management unit.

We can all applaud that, but that is all Mr. MacAlpine was asking for in the first place. Why does the minister fire a guy for giving him good, sound advice, which he takes and implements? Then he fires him for his trouble. There has been a lot of discussion about this particular issue, and northerners feel very strongly about it.

I can report that a group centred in Nipigon is collecting a petition of hundreds of names that will be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Premier (Mr. Davis). They are going to remind the minister and the Premier of what was said in this House on October 9, 1980, when the minister in his previous responsibilities -- ministre sans portfolie -- was responsible for bringing in a freedom of information act.

Let me quote what the Minister of Natural Resources said on that occasion: "This government is committed to greater openness in its administration, and increased access by the citizen." To this end, the Premier last week wrote to all ministers with guidelines for civil servants in communicating with the public. Let me quote briefly from that letter:

"'Between now and the time freedom of information legislation is enacted'" -- this is from the Premier's letter -- "'and the administrative apparatus for its operation is in place, there is a great deal we can do to give the policy of open government meaning and consistency. A step that can be taken in this interim period is to encourage open and responsive behaviour among civil servants in their