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

June 27, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY STANDARDS IN MINING INDUSTRY

VISITOR

HUMAN RIGHTS

FRENCH EDUCATION LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

FRENCH EDUCATION LEGISLATION

PENSION REFORM

VISIBLE MINORITIES

CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS PROCESS

CUPE LABOUR DISPUTE

TABLING OF INFORMATION

UNEMPLOYMENT

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

RETRAINING PROGRAMS

HOUSING REBATES

VICEROY LABOUR DISPUTE

PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITIES

UNEMPLOYMENT

PETITIONS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MOTION

SUMMER RECESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

BEDS OF NAVIGABLE WATERS AMENDMENT ACT

TRIBUTE TO MEMBER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

THIRD READINGS

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY STANDARDS IN MINING INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on June 20 and 21, 1984, I provided honourable members of this House with details of the tragic accident that ultimately took the lives of four miners employed at the Falconbridge mine.

Today I wish to provide members with a report on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Inquiry Commission into Safety in Mines and Mining Plants in Ontario, headed by Kevin Burkett. My purpose is not to provoke partisan debate but rather to inform honourable members of the efforts that have been taken by labour, management and government in the province to improve safety practices in mines and to indicate what remaining steps need to be undertaken.

Members will recall that the Burkett commission was established in July 1980 to examine the adequacy of existing arrangements and practices that could affect the safety of workers in mines and mining plants in Ontario and to make appropriate recommendations on this important subject. The commission was appointed in part because of a concern about the unusually high number of mining fatalities that were recorded in 1980. It should be noted that the Burkett commission report was published three years after the report of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines, chaired by Dr.

James Ham, whose recommendations laid the foundation for both the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its cornerstone, the internal responsibility system.

In an effort to gain an understanding of the safety practices currently in place and to permit all parties to participate fully in its deliberations, the Burkett commission undertook a multifaceted inquiry. Among other things, the commission conducted public hearings, visited a number of mines and mining plants, contracted for several research papers and commissioned an update of the data contained in the report of the Ham commission.

In April 1981 the report of the Burkett commission was released.

This very comprehensive document contained a total of 83 recommendations, which dealt with the following topics: (1) the responsibilities of chief executive officers, front-line supervisors and workers; (2) what the commission referred to as the contributive responsibilities of joint health and safety committees, company safety departments, unions, the Mines Accident Prevention Association (Ontario), and the mining health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour; (3) worker training; (4) ground control techniques; (5) the use of alcohol and drugs; (6) lighting; (7) the available accident data base; (8) jurisdictional and administrative arrangements for the safety of Ontario uranium miners, and (9) the production bonus.

The majority of the commission's recommendations were directed towards the policies and administrative procedures pursued by individuals and organizations with responsibility for the health and safety of miners. The commission's final recommendation was that a follow-up inquiry into the adequacy of safety practices and arrangements in Ontario mines and mining plants be undertaken within three years of the release of the report.

As I indicated to members on Thursday last, Ministry of Labour officials and I have met with senior representatives of labour and management on a periodic basis since the report was released. The purpose of these meetings has been to obtain status reports on the implementation of the commission's recommendations. Quite apart from these sessions, many additional meetings have been held between the relevant parties to discuss the recommendations and the steps taken to adopt them. The result of the consultations, as I noted on June 21, is that the vast majority of the recommendations put forward by the commission have been implemented.

While time does not permit me to list all the recommendations that have been acted upon, let me refer to some of the more important ones:

(1) Modular training programs, developed on a tripartite basis, have been put into place for hard- and soft-rock miners, and a similar program will be developed shortly for first-line supervisors.

(2) The Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario has engaged the services of a professional engineer to provide courses on ground control techniques throughout the province. In addition, ground control courses are now given at two community colleges.

(3) All large mines in the province have secured the services of professional engineers with expertise in the field of rock mechanics to provide advice to management on ground control procedures. Smaller companies have trained their own geologists to undertake this activity.

(4) The tripartite Mining Legislative Review Committee now reviews all recommendations put forward by coroners' juries to determine whether amendments are called for to the mining regulations to prevent similar incidents from occurring.

(5) The Atomic Energy Control Board has passed a regulation under the Atomic Energy Control Act incorporating, by reference, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and accompanying regulations. This regulation will be administered and enforced by Ministry of Labour inspectors and officials.

I also wish to point out that quite apart from the recommendations put forward by the Burkett commission, the Ministry of Labour, on advice received from the Mining Legislative Review Committee, has caused important amendments to be made to the mining regulations, with a view to improving worker health and safety. In 1983, for example, a total of 98 changes were made to 74 sections of the regulations. In addition, the committee continues to examine other important subjects such as the development of underground communication systems.

Some recommendations contained in the Burkett commission report have yet to be fully implemented. Included in this category are recommendations dealing with underground lighting and the development of additional post-graduate courses in rock mechanics. In the case of underground lighting, the results of a report undertaken by a technical consultant will be available shortly for study and appropriate action. On the subject of graduate courses on rock mechanics, discussion between government officials and representatives from universities are continuing.

2:10 p.m.

I should also add that labour, management and government representatives have not, in every case, been able to agree on the desirability of the recommendations put forward by the Burkett commission. A case in point involves the recommendation that, wherever practical, falling-object protection should be installed on all man-operated underground equipment. This matter was investigated in detail by the Mining Legislative Review Committee, which concluded that the better approach was to ensure that all roof surfaces were scaled, screened and rock bolted.

As I indicated earlier, the Burkett commission recommended a further inquiry be held to assess the adequacy of safety practices in Ontario mines and mining plants in the light of the findings contained in the report.

I wish to inform the House that I will be convening a meeting with labour and management representatives as soon as possible, not only to review further the status of the substantive recommendations put forward by the commission, but also to discuss how the further inquiry recommended by Mr. Burkett and his colleagues should be structured.

I will also ask that the participants consider mechanisms that might be employed to accelerate the implementation of those recommendations which have not been fully adopted as yet. We will also be discussing other approaches that might be employed to enhance worker health and safety in mines and mining plants.

The tragic events of last week have reminded us all of the unforgiving environment in which the miners of this province earn their livelihood. I am committed to making this class of work place a safe and healthful one, so that miners may continue to perform their important work without fear of injury or illness.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, and with the indulgence of the House, I would ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming the Honourable Bernard P. Dunn, MLC. Mr. Dunn is leader of the National Party in the Legislative Council of Victoria, Australia. He is here taking

part in a study group and is proceeding onward on Friday.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: From the proceedings, I understand there are no more statements.

Mr. Speaker: I called for statements and nobody stood up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a point of order then. It refers to a matter I had hoped would have been brought forward today by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie).

A couple of years ago we passed Bill 7, the Ontario Human Rights Code, but there was a delay with respect to the imposition of all the terms of that act until two years had passed, so the various ministers and ministries could comply with the various parts of that act in regard to sexual discrimination or discrimination by age and that sort of thing.

This being the last day of the House, I had expected we would have heard by this time as to whether all ministries were complying or whether there were some exemptions for even a longer period of time.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the minister does not have a statement. The member might put that question to him at the proper time.

FRENCH EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I understood from discussions with the government House leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) last night that the government was going to introduce the Franco-Ontarian education bill today. Is there no statement to that effect? Is the government not going to explain to this House what it is going to do?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. That is at introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the same as what was printed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In view of the court ruling yesterday, it would certainly be helpful if the minister could make a statement now, rather than leaving it until after question period. There will not be another occasion.

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

Mr. Cassidy: I just make the point that this is a very important and fundamental piece of business --

Mr. Speaker: I realize that.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and the government is deliberately avoiding the chance to be questioned on this legislation before we adjourn for the summer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat.

Mr. Boudria: That is the way you usually do it. Why can you not stand up and say what you are going to do for once? Why do you not have a little more courage on francophone issues?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have lots of courage and you are going to hear about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) will please be quiet.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader.

Given that this is the last day of the session and he is now contemplating our return to this Legislature to deal with the fundamental problems facing this province; given the fact there are so many real and serious problems that have not been addressed in any meaningful way by the government, there are many bills outstanding at the moment that are important and need discussion -- such as freedom of information which the government has reneged on; amendments to the Theatres Act; dealing with the crisis in the agricultural community; dealing with problems of our seniors and providing income maintenance for the disabled -- given the fact the government has done nothing of substance to deal with those; given the fact that many observers think this is the most unproductive session ever in the history of this parliament, certainly one of the worst--

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- will the government call this House back early in September, following Labour Day, to deal with those real problems?

Mr. Martel: You are funny. You have been negotiating to get out earlier all along.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it surprises me very greatly that as one of the 125 members of this House, the Leader of the Opposition would want to be associated with an opinion that would suggest he has been sitting here since March doing nothing, because in fact he has.

Mr. Boudria: There is not much sense in bringing in legislation. You just keep blocking it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In fact, the government of this province has introduced much legislation during that period. It has introduced some 20 more bills than last year. By the time this afternoon is finished, more bills will have received royal assent in the spring session than received royal assent last year. These include some very important bills, such as the Courts of Justice Act which rewrites all the procedures for our courts here and makes French an official language of the courts. They also include the Land Registration Reform Act, the Young Offenders Implementation Act and a whole host of other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Wrye: One of the worst sessions ever.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would say to my friend that it is perhaps about time he stopped believing what I think a number of members of the press would like to believe and he would like to propagate -- that this has been a dull session. This will be remembered, in the long history of this province, as one of the historic sessions, because at this time and in this session, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and this government extended aid to the separate schools to grades 11 and 12. In the long history of this province this will be looked at as a very rewarding session.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, for months now, for well over a year, we have been asking this government what it intends to do to help the red meat producers of this province, some of whom are going bankrupt every day. As a matter of fact, the number of bankruptcies is up this year as compared to last year.

When the questions were put to him, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), responded by saying that everything hinges on the national stabilization program.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: Since the national stabilization program has not been dealt with in the House of Commons yet, and it is questionable whether it will be before the summer recess --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Riddell: -- what is this government going to do to keep our farmers in business since they cannot rely on a national stabilization program to be passed in the House of Commons before the end of the summer? What is this government going to do to keep our farmers alive? Why does it not follow the example of the other provinces that are subsidizing the red meat producers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am going to let that question be answered in a very excellent manner by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, when he appears here in a few minutes.

I want to add to the second part of the Leader of the Opposition's question. He knows very well we have tabled today a

schedule of business that will keep the members of this House busy on the work of this province from the day this assembly adjourns until we come back in October.

Included in that is the study of the Workers' Compensation Act amendments, the Child and Family Services Act --

Mr. Nixon: We studied that last summer too.

Mr. Peterson: And the summer before.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why do you not pass it then?

Mr. Nixon: We did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and a number of other measures that will be considered.

I do not like to be critical, but I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition talk to his House leader and to others in this House. We made arrangements, and never once did I hear seriously questioned the fact that we would be adjourning in June and coming back on October 9, given that the members of this House will be busy carrying on work in committees during that period.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Just before the government House leader moves into an area where he might possibly mislead the members, the date of return is usually announced by the government House leader. It is not arrived at by any consensual procedure; it is announced. The government House leader is proud that he thinks like his leader; he said so. That is why he is such a good House leader, and one can judge that for what value it has. What he has told us is when the House will return, and we simply convey that to our colleagues.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, since the government House leader simply stated a few moments ago that he heard no objections to coming back before October 9, does he not recall that I opposed our getting out of here on June 13, which was the original date, and asked that we come back in mid-September, at the latest, so we could do the business of the House?

Is that not a fact? Is the government House leader prepared to get up and at least admit that he somehow misled the House, not deliberately but inadvertently?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is proving the point. He made quite an argument that we should not adjourn on June 13 and I accepted his argument. We are still here and we are still doing the business of the House.

There is certainly some truth in what the House leader for the official opposition, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) says, but he knows that if he had really fought hard for a date in September, I would perhaps have considered some change.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader may put any description he wants on it. I think most of us who are here --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: -- including the press gallery, would view this as a session dominated by trivial issues as we sleepwalk our way towards the next election.

Perhaps when the government House leader considered an October return he did not think there would be anything for us to do, so why does he not consider taking the next couple of months to prepare some legislation and some initiatives for this Legislature? Then we will come back in September and look at raising income maintenance levels for the disabled and we will look at the frail elderly programs, the homemaker programs and all those social issues that the government keeps saying it is going to deal with but never does deal with.

Why do we not take a couple of months off and let the government get ready the legislation it was not able to get ready this spring, then come back and do it in September?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I see in Orders and Notices a notice that suggests my friend and others are going to be studying the Day Nurseries Act in September, and I would not want to deprive them of doing that.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. It being the last day, I want to give him a chance to explain himself and tell us what has been going on.

We have discussed in this House, as members will recall, his Ontario Youth Hotline, his new method of dispensing information across this province on his youth employment programs. Is the Treasurer aware that we phoned the hotline again this morning and no information is available and nobody knows what the new programs in the budget are?

They referred us, with respect to the old programs, to another phone number. We phoned the old program number and they said no new applications are being taken -- in fact, they are full

-- and referred us back to the original hotline number for the new programs, where they do not know what they are doing.

On June 6 we had a young constituent who requested information about jobs from that hotline. Nothing has arrived and there is no material in her hands at this date, many days later.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: In his very clever little brochure called Ontario Youth Opportunities, the Treasurer said a number of things, but I will quote the end: "The government has made a start. Let us not wait another day to prepare our young people for tomorrow." Given the fact that his budget is now 43 days old, how long do we have to wait for action?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if we had chosen to take the advice of the Liberal Party of Ontario and mounted so-called job creation programs which are in the federal Liberal government mode, we would have had the programs allegedly operating the next day.

If the member wants programs for young people where they dig and fill up holes, he can have them the next day. If he wants programs for young people that would teach them how to lick an envelope and seal it, he can have them the next day. In point of fact, listening to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), he could use one of those programs. Maybe we should have done it. If he wants programs where young people are taught to paint the fence and go home, he can have them the next day.

However, if he wants to reject old-time, old-style Liberal politics and Liberal economics and if he wants to move into the future to help these young people to deal with the hard core of the problem -- this will be a surprise to the member -- it is not done in 24 hours; it takes some time to get a program up and running.

However, I have one piece of advice for the member which I will offer him during my supplementary answer.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer has had more than 24 hours; his government has had 40 years and has done nothing. He does not learn.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: In the Treasurer's great diatribe, weak as it is, in defence of his own feeble position, I assume he is expounding the Tory view of job creation -- which is to advertise but do nothing.

Given the fact that the Treasurer has spent $400,000 on television advertising, excluding of course the production costs -- it does not include the radio advertising; it does not include his little brochure with his signature and fine declaration on it -- and given the fact that he has said in the past, "There is no use having programs if one does not advertise," my question is, what is the use of advertising if there are no programs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member might have missed this, although we might have said it only 30 or 40 times. I know he has watched the advertisements and read them very carefully. The object of them is to locate private sector employers -- this is with an "er" and it means people who employ other people -- to offer positions for young people.

Instead of employing them on government payroll, as the member would have it, we are trying to identify employers who would help us with these programs. We have always acknowledged --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This may be the last question period for the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), so she should listen. She may use some of this in Ottawa.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member will pay attention to the advertisements, he will find they seek employers. This is because our programs are private-sector based. I am delighted to say the investment we have made in those campaigns has resulted in more than 100 employers a day calling to offer jobs for young people. To date, we have accomplished more than all of the member's suggestions, stacked end to end, would ever be able to provide.

Finally, I have one piece of advice for the member. He should watch the advertisements and write down the youth employment number. Some of his people may be needing it before we meet again here in the fall.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I want to ask one final supplementary to this very helpful and pleasant minister. How many telephone calls has he had and how many jobs has he created?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated in this House the other day --

Mr. Bradley: The unemployed are not laughing, even if the Premier (Mr. Davis) is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We could send the unemployed a copy of the member's speech of the other day.

As I indicated, we are getting more than 100 calls a day from employers. That information is being relayed to the youth employment counselling centres, which I know the Leader of the Opposition supports. The youth employment counselling centres are working with those job offers, where they are appropriate, to find jobs for the young people who most need them. That has vastly increased the number of real job offers available to the youth employment counselling centres.

When one considers the fact that more than 100 employers a day are calling, and often calling with more than one job offer and more than one training position, we are in very good shape.

In order to feed the member's addiction to having a specific number of jobs that are being created, the positions we are creating this summer alone, as I indicated the other day -- perhaps the member was not here -- will be well in excess of 110,000. It will be some time well down in the year before we have the final numbers because we are feeding them through the counselling centres and precise monitoring will be much more difficult.

There will be many more jobs, however, and they will be much better jobs than the member has suggested.

FRENCH EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education with respect to French-language education rights.

In view of the government's decision not to make a statement prior to question period, which would have enabled us to have a more informed discussion at this time, can the minister tell us whether the government has drafted its proposals in such a way that the right granted under

section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to instruction in minority-language educational facilities, that is, in French-language schools or entities, will be implemented, or is the government still backing away from that commitment which is so important to students in areas such as Iroquois Falls and Mattawa?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the government has not backed away at all. As a matter of fact, before there was any appeal to the courts, there had been a great deal of discussion and we had announced our intention of introducing amendments to the Education Act to ensure that the impasse that developed as a result of debate regarding the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario would be resolved. They are some of the amendments to the Education Act that were introduced for first reading in this House last December.

If the honourable member has read the bill, he knows they are there and knows they are still a part of the bill. My colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) said yesterday we would be reintroducing the bill with some slight changes in wording to include the impact of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the policy that was introduced last December is maintained in the amendments to the Education Act.

Does one make a statement a second time simply because one is going to reintroduce the same bill?

Mr. Martel: You do it all the time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not do it.

Mr. Cassidy: I have to express concern, in view of the fact that the Court of Appeal's decision clearly knocks out a lot of the proposals that were in the government white paper of a year ago and also the proposals that were in the Education Act amendments tabled in December. Is the minister not aware the court ruling indicates that failure to set statutory guidelines on the establishment of French-language schools or entities is inconsistent with the charter?

Has the government responded to that? Will the government take action to ensure that the Franco-Ontarian communities in Iroquois Falls and Mattawa, which have been struggling to have a French-language entity for many years and have been resisted by the majority in that area, can have their French-language entity this September?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is obvious that until the act is passed there cannot be a final resolution to the problems the member cites. We are not talking about the white paper; we are talking about the amendments to the Education Act that were introduced as Bill 157 in the last session of this Legislature, and that is what is being reintroduced today. It does address the concerns that I think the member is looking at.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not admit that the reforms to the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario she proposes in her bill are grossly inadequate and that the situation in Iroquois Falls and elsewhere will not be corrected because she is not giving quasi-judicial power to that commission?

Would the minister not agree, therefore, that the bill she is introducing today should immediately go to committee over the summer months in order to proceed with hearings on those inadequacies, to amend the bill with the input of the public, to bring it back to this House in the fall and finally to get some teeth into the Languages of Instruction Commission, so we do not have the perpetual repetition of the mess that is happening in Iroquois Falls, Mattawa and everywhere? She knows the amendments she has proposed are inadequate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answers to the two questions -- and there were just two in all of that rhetoric -- are no and no.

Mr. Boudria: That is commitment for you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister knows our party has welcomed the commitment by the government to provide French-language education for every French-speaking pupil in the province. But is she not aware that the weakness of her proposals until now has been that there has not been adequate assurance that there will be a French-language school or entity where the numbers warrant? This has been the issue that again and again has divided communities across the province and created enormous problems for Franco-Ontarians.

Does the legislation coming in this afternoon speak to that problem? If not, why has the government chosen to ignore the court's ruling?

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We understand there are now some 200 companies that have not yet filed their 1983 financial reports with the Pension Commission of Ontario. Can the minister tell us how the pension commission can exercise its regulatory powers and monitor the situation? Can he also tell us how many other situations like that at CCM are out there and how the workers can have any assurance of the security of their pensions?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as we have reviewed before, the final triennial report is received during a period of time that I believe extends up to six months after the end of the year, which brings it to the end of this month. There is a filing that takes place in April, but then there is a confirmation process.

As I have indicated quite openly in the House before, there is a need for us to review the provision of information to pensioners, potential pensioners and their trade union representatives. We are looking at that now, and I hope the member knows it.

Mr. Mackenzie: We have three days left and the minister wonders how many of those 200 just may be at risk.

Can the minister tell us why this government allows companies to withdraw surplus funds or earnings from the pension plan and add them to general revenue? Does this government not accept that pensions are deferred income and, therefore, any surpluses should go to increasing existing pensions or adding benefits to those on pension?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, this has been a long-standing issue, one the commission has dealt with at some length and one in which I think this House can take some pride, in view of the fact that the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) recently indicated very clearly, at a meeting of the representatives of all the provinces of this country, that this government believes some degree of inflation protection should be provided for workers in the province and that he intends to pursue that course.

I have not yet heard the member opposite say, "Good stuff," even though we stand alone in comparison with other provinces. Which party is in power in Manitoba? I cannot recall. It is not Friday, so I will not ask a trivia question. But if it were Friday, I would ask what party in this country is in power -- and there are not many governments formed by that party -- and refuses to accept that principle? Can anyone name it?

An hon. member: Not the NDP.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Not the NDP. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: As the minister well knows, we have been raising the question of the companies taking advantage of the surplus for some time. We still do not have it resolved.

The minister himself said, back on May 14, in response to questions from my leader about this same matter: "I have determined it is not satisfactory. We have to move towards some more frequent process of evaluating the sufficiency of the contribution and towards a process which advises employees and their unions on a more regular and shorter basis than that. We have been working on it for some time and hope to proceed in the near future."

Can the minister tell us when we will proceed on this in a meaningful way and tighten up the loopholes that exist there now in terms of pensions for workers and the security of those pensions for workers?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: May I just go to the last issue first on security for workers. Since it is not Friday I do not want to go through the trivia questions today, but the member knows this is the only province in this country that has in place a pension guarantee protection fund. I have yet to hear him criticize others, even to the west of us, that do not have that fund in place.

I am glad the member remembered I did say that those are areas we are pursuing. We are continuing to pursue them. I have been in contact with some representatives of the trade unions about the kind of options we are looking at now. There are considerations under way.

VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will recall that some three months ago, immediately after the issuance of the paper Equality Now! from our federal colleagues, an all-party committee, I asked him to direct his mind to that report. He said he had not had a chance to review it and had been briefed only quickly, but he would take under advisement my suggestion that a select committee, an all-party committee, of this House look seriously at the recommendations of that report and how they apply, particularly in the provincial jurisdiction.

He said then he had not had time to review it, but he would probably read it over the weekend, as I recall. That is three months ago. I am sure he has had a chance now to review it and I am sure he would agree there are many recommendations that are directly applicable here in Ontario.

Why did the minister not come back to this House with his recommendations on how that report could be used constructively by members of this House? Does he have a plan now of how we can study those recommendations? Is he prepared to share with us his thoughts on that report and how he is going to advance in that area?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I did not catch the first part of his question and I am not sure what report he is referring to.

Mr. Peterson: The report we discussed some three months ago, Equality Now!

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am aware of the report the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. I have read it and I have asked my staff for their comments on it, but I am not in a position at this time to indicate what appropriate action we might be taking.

Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be uncharitable, but it is obvious the minister does not remember, so I would refer him back to March 29, three months ago, when he said he had been briefed briefly and he would take my suggestions under advisement.

I also asked him at that time to involve himself in discussions with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and others involved in the race relations area in the cabinet to make sure there were special programs for job creation for our visible minority. Did the minister have any discussions with the Treasurer? If he did, why did the Treasurer not respond in a specific way in his budget to attack a problem which is so serious?

That report indicates there is an 88 per cent unemployment rate in some areas among visible minority youth, in the Regent Park area in Toronto, just to use that as an example. Why has there been no response from the minister or his colleagues to those constructive suggestions?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: There was a meeting of the cabinet committee on race relations just as late as this morning on that particular subject. There was also a meeting of the cabinet committee on race relations chaired by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) last Wednesday morning where the subject was discussed at that time.

CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS PROCESS

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is fully aware of the ongoing controversy about the southwestern Ontario transmission proposals of Ontario Hydro. Now that the Hydro empire is striking back through its public relations, can the minister tell the House how long he is prepared to allow Ontario Hydro to continue to mislead the public of Ontario with its blackmail tactics in relation to the net effects of this so-called locked-in power at Bruce?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty seeing a question there, but perhaps the honourable member would like to be more explicit when we come to the supplementary.

I suggest he is likely reading Mr. Claridge's articles in the Globe and Mail again. Mr. Claridge was quoting directly from some evidence offered by Ontario Hydro at the Ontario Energy Board hearings which would suggest that, following 1988, provided various generating units at Bruce come on stream, there could well be locked-in power at Bruce.

Mr. Charlton: Perhaps the minister could tell me, as my colleague suggests, whether or not Darth Vader is going to be the next chairman of Hydro. While he is thinking about that, could he tell us how Ontario Hydro can say on May 31 that there are going to be continuing blackouts in this province as a result of the locked-in power at Bruce nuclear and then say yesterday there will not be any blackouts because of the additional costs to replace that power? In other words, they have the capacity to replace the power; yet they were pumping out information only weeks ago about blackouts. Which is it going to be?

When will the minister stop Ontario Hydro from contradicting itself in its efforts to frighten the people of Ontario into providing something that may not be necessary?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Once again, the member has not been explicit about the material he is referring to. I cannot comment on this hypothetical material.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, the Divisional Court decision on Monday leads me to ask what attention is paid to an appeal to cabinet by a member such as myself. For example, on July 15, 1982, two days following the decision announced by the board, I appealed this decision to cabinet. I appealed the decision on the grounds that the people in my area were not properly notified of the hearings. This is exactly the same basis on which the court decision on Monday was based.

I quote the last sentence from my appeal: "I, therefore, make the appeal that further hearings should be held on the M3 route before any further decision be made by cabinet." Had the minister paid attention to my appeal and reopened the hearings at that time, as I suggested, before cabinet made its final decision, he would have saved Ontario hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McKessock: Will the minister assure us we will now have a complete and thorough rehearing of this matter?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the member that at this time we are considering the various options to expedite this proposal.

CUPE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Could he give me an update on the question asked last Friday, June 22, regarding the strike of outside workers of Local 87 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Thunder Bay? It is now three weeks later and both parties are not at any stage of negotiations. Meanwhile, garbage collection, parks, cemeteries, public works and road maintenance in this city have been affected by this strike. Could the minister bring me up to date on this matter?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there have not been very many developments since I reported on this in the House the last time the member brought it forward. My mediators are in constant touch with both parties. The parties met in mediation on April 25 and then again on June 6. I believe strike action began on June 14. The parties met directly without mediation on June 18. We had a mediation meeting on June 19. At that time, the mediation efforts were unsuccessful.

It is usually appropriate after a mediation session to let the parties re-examine their positions. June 19 is only about a week ago, so that lapse in time is not unusual. We are hopeful we will be able to get the parties together again. There is no sense in bringing them together if one side or the other is not prepared to make a move. We are hopeful we will be able to get them together and that we will be able to resolve the dispute in a reasonable period of time.

Mr. Hennessy: As the minister has mentioned, it is very difficult to get both parties to dance when the orchestra does not want to play. In his position, could the minister not get in touch with both parties and ask them if they would be willing to sit down and negotiate? It is like two people in an argument: if a third person makes a suggestion they are willing sometimes to sit down and negotiate.

The people of the city of Thunder Bay are suffering from this strike. That is the reason I am asking the minister for some action.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I know the suffering that goes on because a similar circumstance lasted all summer in my home riding of Sault Ste. Marie about six or seven years ago. I can understand the problems the member is describing to me from a first-hand point of view. I want to emphasize that our mediator is in touch with the parties almost on a daily basis. We have to have both parties agreeable to sitting down and talking. They have to change their positions somewhat before we can begin to act.

I want to assure the honourable member that every effort that can be made is being made by my ministry to bring this to an early resolution.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the first minister concerning the release of the report of Mr. Justice Campbell Grant relating to certain matters arising out of Harold McNamara's diaries.

In view of the fact the session will adjourn hours from now, and in view of the fact the seventh anniversary of his first commitment to release that report is fast approaching, can the Premier indicate in this House today whether he is now prepared to live up to the commitment he made some time ago, obviously in good faith, and release the report of Mr. Justice Campbell Grant which arose out of certain disclosures from Harold McNamara's diaries?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I listened rather carefully the other day when the honourable member indicated that seven years ago I said the report would be released. He neglected to say it would be released, not after permission from but on recommendations from the law officers of the crown. I know the member missed that part of my commitment. I think the Attorney General told the House the other day the matter is still not resolved.

Mr. Conway: That diary raises very grave questions about public policy in this province some years ago. All the accused who were jailed are now released and the appeals still outstanding are on narrow legal matters. The entire legal action related to bid-rigging on federal contracts. The diaries and our interest in the diaries relate particularly to the Ontario Hydro construction at Arnprior. Can the first minister indicate to me and the House how those appeals in any way compromise the release of a report done by Mr. Justice Campbell Grant, presumably on those issues of public import such as the Madawaska Dam project at Arnprior?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am very aware of the member's interest in this report. I think I said at the time that while I was not prepared to table the report, it indicated quite clearly that there were no problems. I know that is not what the member would like the report to contain. In response to the question, I am guided by the answer given by the Attorney General.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will recall that on November 30, 1983, he indicated funds were going to be allocated to the development of Wanapitei park. In view of the fact that some 8,800 people will come off the unemployment insurance rolls by September, would the minister be prepared to advance those funds and commence that project as at least some measure to reduce the massive unemployment in the Sudbury area, which is currently about 15 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, we have made moves in many branches of the ministry to attempt to alleviate the unemployment situation in Sudbury, both on a temporary and a permanent basis. It is true we have examined the Wanapitei park both for approval as a candidate park under our land use planning process and also through the ongoing review with respect to actual regulation pursuant to the provisions of the Parks Assistance Act.

At this time, I cannot give a commitment to the honourable member on the expenditure of funds or the timing of a decision on the expenditure of funds.

Mr. Martel: The federal government has not seen fit to create work. The Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) reiterated this afternoon he was not prepared to undertake make-work projects. This certainly does not fall into that category.

Since the welfare rolls in Sudbury will increase by 70 per cent by the end of this year, does the minister not think it would be wise to reduce the unemployment insurance and welfare rolls and start a project that would be of direct benefit to Science North in attracting people, with places for them to stay, and that would provide some work for those who are unemployed?

The government's theme in conjunction with the region has been to get some diversification, tourism being one of the areas. Would it not be wise to move in that direction and assist in all the ways I have mentioned so as to provide some benefit to the Sudbury region?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Obviously, we do feel there is some sense in moving in that direction. That is why we indicated that Wanapitei Lake is a candidate park under the land use planning process and also a candidate park for regulation under the Parks Assistance Act. I am not in a position to give the member anything more specific than that in terms of timing or level of expenditure.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding the announcement in the House by the Premier (Mr. Davis) on June 12 on separate school funding.

In his statement the Premier said the following, "...we must not undertake a course of action that by its nature or in its execution would cripple or limit the viability of our nondenominational public secondary school system, which is accessible to all and universally supported and which will always remain the cornerstone of our education system."

In view of this statement by the Premier and in view of his desire and that of the government to see the implementation of this funding brought about in a way that would not garner a good deal of opposition from the public school community, will the minister assure the House that the funds provided to secondary education for Roman Catholic schools in this province will not be provided at the expense of the public school system, but will be new funds that will provide what the people in the Roman Catholic separate school system have been looking for for years?

3 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the honourable member has overlooked a very important part of the statement made by the Premier, namely, that we are shortly appointing a commission to examine the whole matter of financing of publicly supported education in Ontario.

I believe it is inappropriate to make suggestions about ways in which things will or will not be done when we shall be anticipating the words and decisions of a group of very wise persons in determining the most appropriate methods of funding of the entire publicly supported system.

Mr. Bradley: If I recall correctly, the figure of approximately $40 million a year was arrived at -- the minister will correct me if I am wrong -- without the deliberations of the commission, and I detect from her answer to my original question that she is not prepared to give that undertaking.

Will she give an undertaking to members of this House, then, that on the various commissions she has set up to look into, first of all, the implementation in independent schools, but particularly the one she has mentioned -- that is, on the funding of education -- a good variety of people from the education community will be represented on that commission in order that all points of view on education that exist in the province today will be fully considered and that those people will be in on the semi-decision-making process?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think it would be ludicrous to suggest that everyone who has an interest in the funding of the education system --

Mr. Bradley: No, you know what I am talking about.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This is just as sensible as the statement you made which suggested that I said I was not going to ensure that anything happened.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What I was really saying was that I think it inappropriate for me to prejudge what the wise persons on that committee will determine. But there is no doubt that there must be strong representation from those who have knowledge of the public public system and the public separate system. There also has to be very good input, it seems to me, from those who provide all the money for the systems, and they are the taxpayers of Ontario.

RETRAINING PROGRAMS

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Allen: Is the minister aware that a very flexible program of retraining and upgrading at the Niagara South Board of Education was subjected recently to a redefinition of full-time students in memorandums B9 and B3 issued by the ministry, which established the retroactivity principle, that is going to cost the board $700,000 over the course of the year June 1983 to 1984 and will prejudice a program that caters to at least 400 young people and adults who are engaged in programs of upgrading and retraining?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that we did define very clearly for the purposes of board audits those who are considered to be students, those who are not considered to be students and the way in which the funding would be delivered in support of them.

I do not believe the action that has been taken will definitively and permanently prejudice the activities of boards related to upgrading, which is certainly a very grave responsibility of school boards and which we are supporting as a result of the new methods of funding continuing education that we brought into effect more than two years ago.

It is also my understanding, however, that those in the Ministry of Education responsible for determinations of

definitions for funding purposes are looking at all the concerns that are being expressed by all the boards at the present time and are reviewing this definition in the hope of ensuring there are enhancements of programs that provide for the upgrading of students in a way that allows those students to participate in skills development programs for their benefit and for the benefit of society.

Mr. Allen: I wonder if the minister is aware of the degree of flexibility that is required in the programming for many of the adult learners who are going back to those programs who are on shift work and cannot meet the regular times of continuing education programs. In estimates she has declared herself to be aware of these things, yet she is putting in place at this time a program, a funding principle, that not only is punitive and retroactive but will also make it extremely difficult for a board like the Niagara South board to maintain a program of flexibility.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Will the minister not undertake to review the principles she is putting in place? Will she not abandon the punitive retroactivity that is at work in the memoranda B9 and B3? Will she not undertake to enhance, rather than to limit and curtail, retraining and upgrading programs by the funding devices she puts in place and the

definitions she has of full-time students?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If there is any rigidity it is not within the funding mechanism at present. There is flexibility available to boards that could be utilized effectively by boards if they were willing to look at it. There are all sorts of means that can be established, and the action that has been taken is anything but punitive. It is responsible and accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario, which is what it should be.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister continue to invoke cutbacks on those programs, such as the one mentioned by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who raised this issue in the House previously? Why does she continue to implement cutbacks in programs which are so successful and which would enhance the reputation of the Ministry of Education if she were to show the kind of flexibility that allows a maximum number of people in Ontario to take advantage of our education system and eventually to keep themselves off the unemployment rolls of this province?

Mr. Boudria: She cut it because it worked.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, such a suggestion is almost as ludicrous as the kinds of statements that emanate from the so-called mouth of the member for Prescott-Russell. There is flexibility --

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not say anything unparliamentary, not a thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Flexibility is part and parcel of this activity. It is the rationale for introducing the amendments to the funding mechanism and it is unfortunate -- no, it is fortunate for the students of Ontario that the mathematical inability of the former teacher now representing St. Catharines is not being inflicted upon the school pupils of that area.

HOUSING REBATES

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Is he aware that a rebate of $8,000 per home is being provided for new homes in Townsend? Would the minister be prepared to assist housing construction in existing subdivisions in Haldimand-Norfolk and in other parts of Ontario to that extent?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The money of Ontario taxpayers is being utilized to compete directly with local builders. I do not know whether the minister is aware of this, but there are only three or four builders who are allowed to build in Townsend. If I bought a lot there, I would have to have it built on by them. Would the minister not consider allowing other builders, as long as they conform to the plans of the new town sites, to utilize their expertise in building new homes there?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member is fully aware of exactly how we came to have people develop homes in Townsend. We put out an invitation to those who wished to build in Townsend to make their submissions. We had several contracts submitted from contractors who are from that area. We did not try to exclude anyone from the opportunity. It has been a matter of their own ability to move forward and to take up the offers of the lands that have been made available as serviced lots for the development.

As developers or as part of a development organization, as is the case in the private sector, we have to find ways of encouraging the movement of homes at a reduced price to the consumers in this province. I understood that was the objective of the Liberal Party when it criticized this ministry in regard to housing.

How can one put housing in the marketplace for the individual consumer, the middle-income earner, who wants to buy a house in Townsend or anywhere else? Here is an opportunity through the mortgaging program to reduce the price of a house to the individual consumer. I would think the member would be delighted that people who are going to be residing in his constituency are buying a home for $8,000 less than under normal circumstances.

VICEROY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that 123 employees of Viceroy Manufacturing Co. in Toronto have been locked out for more than a year. After some 40 years of labour peace, they were taken over by a new owner who, with the assistance of his lawyer who is also the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri), locked those workers out. There has been a continuous effort ever since to break the union in that plant. Can the minister give us an update on what has happened?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there are two problems. There is the matter of paying vacation, termination and severance pay, and orders were issued last fall, following an investigation by our employment standards branch. The employer decided to challenge those orders on judicial review and the employer has obtained an order staying the effect of the directions that are made under the Employment Standards Act. The Ministry of the Attorney General has entered an appearance on behalf of my ministry in respect to this application. As a result, I think it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on that aspect of it.

As far as the collective bargaining dispute is concerned, a senior mediator has been actively engaged now for some time endeavouring to assist the parties to reach a settlement. A series of mediation meetings have been held. The last meeting was in late May.

I am happy the member has raised this question today, and I am pleased to report that it appears quite likely now that the parties will be brought together in a further mediation effort before the end of this month, which means before the end of this week or certainly early next week. I cannot forecast the outcome of this meeting, but the member is aware and very appreciative of the efforts of our mediation people in these various disputes.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased with the slight hope the minister holds out. I hope it is accurate. It might be advisable to take a look at the kind of advice being given by outside counsel, such as the member for Yorkview, in a case such as this. As the minister also knows, mediators were present when the owner of this plant called the union and the workers "criminals." I believe that will show on the record. This is a plant where the workers had 40 years of contract settlements without a strike. I hope the minister will see to it that every effort is made to resolve this particular dispute.

PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITIES

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment with respect to mobile polychlorinated biphenyls destruction. In the light of the fact there are about 1.5 million litres of PCBs in storage now, and another six million litres being used in transformers, why has it taken the minister so long to determine the process he is going to implement to destroy these, which in effect has led to several serious spills over the years we have been following this very serious chemical waste, including a spill of some 38 gallons of pure PCBs at the Miracle Mart shopping plaza on April 24 and numerous other losses of barrels of PCBs in other sites.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there have been relatively minor upsets with respect to some of the PCBs in storage. To indicate they were serious is not a correct or appropriate statement. The reason the process is taking so long is this ministry went through the exercise of attempting to identify and to put in place a central site for the destruction of PCBs. We found that most communities had a great deal of resistance to having those types of facilities located in their particular area.

We then moved to mobile technology. We have proposed to hold one hearing in Toronto with a series of public meetings in 18 communities across the province in order to communicate with the people of this province exactly what our intentions are, exactly what the technology is, and to let them know that in every way, shape or form this is going to be safe and appropriate technology for the destruction of PCBs.

If we were not going to take that step, the criticism from across the floor would immediately be one of indicating we had not consulted with the people of Ontario, we had not given them the information that was required in order to make a proper decision on this matter. Quite frankly, I think we are moving in quite an appropriate and correct fashion.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: After reading the

article from yesterday's Toronto Star about the thousands of people in Metropolitan Toronto who cannot afford to buy food, it troubles me to see the outward display of smugness and self-satisfaction on the part of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), and the Premier (Mr. Davis), when they are asked questions about unemployment and job creation programs in this province.

Surely this government can do much more to help the downtrodden of this province.

PETITIONS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by just over 500 constituents of the county of Kent which reads as follows:

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

"As resident electors of the county of Kent many of us send our children to Christian independent schools because we believe that Christian parents have a God-given mandate to choose the kind of education that shall be given to our children. We educate our children to become all round Christians and Canadian citizens, with love and respect for God and country.

"Most Christian school supporters are people of modest means. We ask for your help in reducing the unfair burden of what, in effect, is double taxation. Our schools operate in the public interest. We ask for protection for the right of our school to its existence and the remission of taxes taken away by Ontario but not used for the education of our children."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting on the last day that we sit that we should have one more petition which reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in small, independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition, demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

This petition is signed by another 56 people bringing the grand total to 11,768.

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege: You might be able to help me out with this, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to say, but I know you will listen.

It has come to my attention that in a number of different ministries -- I do not know whether this affects the Speaker's office or not -- long-term contract staff are being laid off and student workers are being brought in for the summer.

I am told that in the Ministry of Government Services, for instance, contract staff are not having contracts renewed at the end of this month, while at the same time these people are training summer students to perform some of their duties in the ministry.

As you would know, when government assistance is provided to the private sector companies to hire summer students one of the stipulations is that students must not displace regular salaried hourly or contract employees, since the intent is to create additional employment and not merely replace the current employees with summer students.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: Here is the question I have of you.

Mr. Speaker: The point is that I have no way of knowing what government is or is not doing.

Mr. Epp: You should just listen to him.

Mr. Speaker: I did. I think it is unreasonable to expect the Speaker to respond or be aware of that.

Mr. Bradley: I thought you were going to be helpful.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure you my office is not one of them.

MOTION

SUMMER RECESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns today it stands adjourned until October 9, 1984, provided that, if it appears to Mr. Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice; and that, should Mr. Speaker be unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Mr. Speaker: Are you all familiar with the motion?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the motion. You may recall that the question put by my leader earlier expressed a deep concern that the session we are just now adjourning for the summer has been singularly unproductive.

The House leader, in response to that question for the government, has indicated that the statement by the Premier (Mr. Davis) with regard to the funding of Catholic education was a landmark decision. I would hasten to agree with that. However, it had little or nothing to do with the work of the Legislature.

3:20 p.m.

The government House leader points with some pride to a lengthy list of bills that has been carried through the House. I am sure the Speaker, with his lengthy experience, would be aware that if that is supposed to be the legislative program of a modern government in a problem-ridden province such as Ontario, it is very ineffective indeed and a serious disappointment to the opposition.

The New Democratic Party leader indicated that he had objected to the date of coming back immediately after Thanksgiving as being too late. I recall he made such an objection. In the debates that have been going on concerning the Barrie-Vespra bill, I well recall the House leader of the NDP making it quite clear that in his opinion the time allotted for the discussion of estimates and so on is far more than can be accommodated before the usual Christmas recess.

It has been known on more than one occasion that the House leader of the NDP has indicated in a rather threatening way that because he and his colleagues were not treated in the House the way he felt they should be, somehow or other there was going to be retribution. The best retribution the party has discovered is, I suppose, to prolong debate.

I must say that I and my colleagues have found that a useful parliamentary weapon on occasion, particularly when there are matters we want to bring forcefully to the attention of the Speaker, supporters of the government and, of course, the general public -- at least those members we can persuade to listen to us.

Our aim here is to see that our view of the issues and our alternative, both in policy and individuals, are at least recognized by the populace of this province.

The leader of the Liberal Party indicated earlier in question period his real concern that the elected members of the Legislature have not had a good and sufficient opportunity to deal with the legislative program that we feel is effective. Because of that, we are moving an amendment to this motion put forward by the government House leader that would change the date of October 9, 1984, to September 4, 1984.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the concurrence of the House, I will read the motion and the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wells has moved that when the House adjourns today it stands adjourned until October 9, 1984, provided that, if it appears to Mr. Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time during the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice; and that, should Mr. Speaker be unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole House shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Mr. Nixon has moved that the motion be amended by changing the words "October 9" to "September 4."

We will deal first with the amendment to the motion.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on this. First of all, again there has been this general cloud cast by my friend, the House leader for the opposition, that this has been an unproductive session. If he and his members want to be cloaked in coming down here and not engaging in the business of this province, just coming down here and taking their money for a session that has not been productive, he is welcome to do that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not know why my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is standing, but he does not have the floor.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Renfrew North please resume his seat.

Mr. Conway: I was thinking about my friend the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) being in China.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is fine. The member knows he is there and he knows what he is doing there. He is working on the member's behalf to try to sell products from his constituency and all the others to the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Boudria: Not even the minister believes that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly I do.

I want to indicate that this session began on March 20, 1984, and it is likely to adjourn on June 27, a period of time that is fairly compatible, except for extraordinary circumstances, with the normal spring-summer session of this House. In this period, we have introduced 63 pieces of legislation. When today's session is concluded, 41 pieces of legislation, government bills, will have received royal assent. In that list of bills there are a number that affect various citizens of this province.

Mr. Conway: Read the whole list.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, since my friend wants me to read the list, I will read the list.

Bill 1,

An Act to amend the County Courts Act; Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Wine Content Act; Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act; Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act; Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act; Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act; Bill 14, the Arboreal Emblem Act.

Mr. Boudria: All of those took about one afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, there are little bills, but there are also big bills.

Bill 18,

An Act to amend the Justices of the Peace Act; Bill 100,

An Act to revise and consolidate the Law respecting the Organization, Operation and Proceedings of Courts of Justice in Ontario.

Mr. Boudria: Those were dealt with in the winter.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That act was passed this session and it came up for debate this session, whether the member wanted to spend time debating it or not. I am talking about legislation passed this session, a session he is trying to say was unproductive. Whatever he says about debate, the fact remains that during this session that bill was passed and received royal assent.

My friend should know he should be --

Mr. Boudria: The work was done last winter in committee.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It does not matter whether the work was done last winter. The member said this was an unproductive session. If we had not met here this session, that bill would not now be law. Let us look at reality. I want to remind the member that was one of the bills passed this session.

Bill 122,

An Act to revise the Architects Act; Bill 123,

An Act to revise the Professional Engineers Act; Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act; Bill 44,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act; Bill 5,

An Act in respect of Extra-Provincial Corporations;

Bill 36,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Energy Act; Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act; Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act; Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 68,

An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn; Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act; Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act; Bill 45,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act; Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act;

Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act; Bill 65,

An Act respecting a Convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters; Bill 67,

An Act to amend the Milk Act;

Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act; Bill 72,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act; Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act; Bill 28,

An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act (Canada); Bill 66,

An Act respecting Conveyancing Documents and Procedures and the Recording of Title to Real Property;

Bill 74,

An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act; Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act; Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act; Bill 104,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Payments Act, and Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

3:30 p.m.

Then there were a number of private bills; and second reading and referral to committee of Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, and Bill 77,

An Act respecting the Protection and Well-being of Children and their Families, plus the bills that remain to be done today.

Some of these may not have created the controversy or stimulated the great discussions some of the members of this House wanted, but all those bills are the business of the people of this province. They needed to be passed. They have been passed and we are here doing that job. We are paid to do that job and we have carried out a legislative program.

In relation to that, we also had a debate on the speech from the throne. No-confidence motions from both parties were placed and lost, and this government gained the confidence of the House during that period.

This government presented a budget that has received universal approval around this province and one that no one has been able to argue with. Because we presented a budget that is universally accepted around Ontario, it is termed a boring budget and this session a boring session.

A number of bills will still be debated. There are a number of important bills on the order paper that will be debated in the fall. I might point out that in 1983, in the spring session, only 33 bills received royal assent. I am not going to name them today, but I will point out that this House really has been carrying out the duties and work for which it was elected. This government has been giving the leadership for which it was elected.

This has already been tabled and agreed to by the two other parties, both the official opposition and the third party. Starting on Tuesday, September 4, and for that week, the standing committee on social development, the select committee on the Ombudsman, the standing committee on procedural affairs and the standing committee on resources development are all beginning to work.

During September, in-depth work will be carried out on Bill 101, the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act. The social development committee has scheduled sessions on review of the Day Nurseries Act. There will be consideration of Bill 77, the Child and Family Services Act. There will be a review of Ontario Hydro by the standing committee on public accounts.

I will not read the whole schedule, but a full

schedule of work has been laid out for September. There is also a

schedule for July and August. It is not as lengthy as that laid out for September, but September has a full

schedule of work for the members of this House.

For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment that has been brought forward. I think it has to be shown that this is just another little grandstanding play by the Liberal Party. They are always looking for some little, different twist when they realize these committees are going to meet -- and they do not really want to come back on September 4.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would venture to say that if I had moved this motion for September 4, the official opposition would have stood up and moved that we come back October 9.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to get involved in this little debate. I want to say to my friend the Liberal House leader that he has been skewered again by his colleagues. They have no respect for what he tries to do for them; they skewered him again today, and they did the same to the whip. The poor whip has had his come-uppance too. For sheer chutzpah, you guys take the cake.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I know where the enemy is; I will come to them. They want to play their silly little games. Let us put it on the record where they have been.

Mr. Speaker: If I may have the honourable member's attention, I would ask him just to sit down for one moment. Instead of addressing his remarks to --

Mr. Martel: I am speaking to the motion, which says that this House should come back -- I want to speak to that. I am looking right at you out of the corner of my eye.

Mr. Speaker: No, you were not, really.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have heard. When we talked at the House leaders' meeting about when we come back --

Mr. Bradley: Are you for the motion, Elie?

Mr. Martel: Yes, we are going to support the motion. But first, on principle --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I will give it to them. Just wait; just let me continue. They might learn something if they would just control themselves.

When we started talking towards the end of May, as we usually do, about when the House would wind down, there were some people who wanted to get out of here when the Liberal convention started.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Who?

Mr. Martel: I could name a party that wanted to get out then; I do not want to name it, though. I will not; I will just infer. Members might have their suspicions, but that was the position that was taken.

Mr. Nixon: You might imply, but we do the inferring.

Mr. Elston: We did not.

Mr. Martel: Do not tell me you did not; I know what went on at those meetings, my friend. Were you there?

Mr. Elston: That is an error.

Mr. Martel: No, it is not an error, my friend. Do not play games with me.

In fact, the government House leader knows full well I argued that we could not get the business done by the time they wanted to get out. I also suggested we had better come back, at the latest, in mid-September, looking at the legislative program -- all of which containing any substance, by the way, came in the last six weeks. I am going to get to the government.

My view of the rest, what we did in the first eight weeks, is that we might as well have stayed home. Members will recall my leader standing in this House and saying to the government: "If you want to adjourn for a while until you bring in your legislative program, we will do that. We will go about our business. When you are ready to do business, we will come back." We did nothing in the first eight weeks. Most of them over there contemplated their navels.

Mr. Gillies: What about Bill 141? You were very anxious to pass that one, were you not?

Mr. Martel: Are you taking your foot out of your mouth again, Phil?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: As a parliamentary assistant, go back and line your pocket.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why do you not quit shooting from the lip?

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: He is like Judy LaMarsh. He takes one foot out only long enough to put the other one in.

I tried to get the House to come back in mid-September so we could start to look at a variety of items.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Why is the House leader of the New Democratic Party gratuitously insulting one of the greatest politicians we have ever had in this country who is no longer living? Surely that is one of the most peculiar comments he has made in a longtime, in a long list of peculiar comments.

Mr. Martel: If I were you, I would feel really badly for being skewered again.

Mr. Speaker: Address your remarks to the chair, please.

Mr. Martel: I know you are very sensitive as a result of the coup de grace that has been served upon you by your colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the motion.

Mr. Martel: Let me continue, Mr. Speaker. September 15 is what I suggested. It was argued against. It was said: "No, we have lots of time. We could do it when we got back." If one looks at the order of business before us, it is impossible for us to do all of the business in the House unless we started to cut hours on estimates and so on come fall.

Let me get to the government. I listened to the government House leader provide us with a list of gobbledegook that he called legislation. There were one or two pieces of legislation that had any meaning. There were a lot of house-cleaning bills.

If that is called legislation and a legislative program, we are in serious trouble. If that is a legislative program, no wonder there was nothing for the unemployed this session, no wonder there has been nothing with respect to interest rates, no wonder there has been no pension reform, no wonder there has been nothing on women or family law reform, nothing on occupational health and safety and nothing on senior citizens. We had a lot of house-cleaning legislation. If that is a legislative program, we really are in serious trouble.

In fact, things got so bad after the first month of doing nothing that some of us organized our own hearings so that we could at least do something useful. My friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) organized a poverty conference and travelled across the province because nothing was happening here. He will come out with a report shortly on poverty.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Tomorrow.

Mr. Martel: I held hockey hearings because of the number of children, 27 youngsters, who have become quadriplegics in Canada in the last eight years. We have done nothing about it. We do not have the courage to.

My colleague brought in a report on technological change. We have technological change occurring that cries for leadership, that cries for pension reforms, so that we know what we are going to do with the people who are being replaced by machines. We did nothing. We did not even talk about it. We have 600,000-plus who are unemployed, some of them affected by technological change.

We go along regularly allowing one plant after another to shut down and create more unemployment because of technological change, but we did not bring a thing in to deal with technological change. Lay them off, put them on unemployment insurance and welfare and maybe when it gets bad enough we will do something about technological change and how we are going to retrain and re-employ people and provide jobs for them, or maybe reduce the age for pensions and so on. We did none of that. We had a legislative program which was house-cleaning.

We could have done most of it in three weeks. We did not even get around to doing estimates. I do not want to misinform the House. In the Legislature itself, we did Intergovernment Affairs, which took two days; Government Services, which took four hours; and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and the Office of the Premier, which took less than five hours. Tell me about what we did.

We have massive unemployment, my own area having almost 17 per cent unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We spent a lot of time talking about Barrie-Vespra.

Mr. Martel: That was nine and a half hours. When did the government bring forward any substantive legislation before the budget, and the budget came down in late April?

They have no priorities. They have no program. As I say, they have been sitting there contemplating their navels, collectively, these past 10 or 11 weeks. What we have done we could have done in about two weeks.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What about Bill 141?

Mr. Martel: We are prepared to talk about 141.

Mr. Speaker: Speak to the motion, please.

Mr. Martel: When do they want to call it? The people in the media phoned me today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Speak to the motion, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you allowed him to speak on anything -- nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. He was interjecting, and you know as well as I do that all interjections are out of order.

Mr. Martel: I did not interject when he was speaking.

Mr. Speaker: I know you did not.

Mr. Martel: He told all about what they were doing, the program for next fall, the program during the summer, and it amounted to a hill of beans.

What was I talking about before I was so rudely interrupted? Yes, Barrie-Vespra and Bill 141. Let me talk about 141. We offered to negotiate, but there was a

section of Bill 141 we did not want. It is interesting that when I spoke to some of the people in the media today, they said "Do you know the Ministry of Labour is blaming the New Democratic Party for Bill 141 not getting through?"

I expected that. I asked the people in the media to go back to the number of days we considered legislation in this House. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) cannot play the game and get away with it.

My friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) said, "We cannot get the Theatres Act through." There is a court ruling pending and we were going to consider legislation with a court ruling pending, not having looked at any of the regulations and with nothing in the bill that tells us what the government intends to do. We were supposed to do it blind, to accommodate the government.

I said to the media, "If you look at the number of Fridays and Mondays, which are not legislation days, on which we considered legislation, he would take that nonsense back and eat it." If one looks at the

schedule for this House and the procedures and rules, we consider legislation one day a week in this zoo, and there have been only 10 legislative days, legally, according to our procedure since we came back.

We have ignored estimates to consider legislation on Friday mornings and Monday afternoons in order to accommodate the government. The government started its legislative program, as lousy as it is, after June 1. Then they run around like a bunch of yahoos, trying to blame someone else. They were not prepared when they came back for this session. They did not have a legislative program in place and still do not, but they have to blame someone else. They are a disgrace. They think this place works --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Come on now. You are getting overworked.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Never mind. Bring forward some legislation. As I said, I am prepared to support this motion because I was the one who tried to convince the government House leader and the Liberal House leader that we should be back by mid-September. I was the one who prevailed upon the House leader not to adjourn this House on June 13. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot go and tell the press it is us when they are negotiating to try to get out of the zoo.

Mr. Barlow: You are wasting time now. Let us get on and vote on it.

Mr. Martel: My friend the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) says we are wasting time. We know what the order of business is for this afternoon. There is a vote that shows the heavy-handedness of government again, a vote that forces Vespra to watch its land being expropriated without compensation. They go around wanting it both ways, each of them running over and snuggling up to somebody from the press saying, "It is those socialists who are not letting us get our legislative programs through." They pass this around constantly.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Talk about snuggling up to the press. There is the snuggler.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Baloney. I know the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) well. She is just a pussycat and she knows it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I am. That is right.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now for the motion.

Mr. Martel: We are going to support this.

Mr. Piché: Continue wasting time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I will not say what I was going to say to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché).

Mr. McClellan: Tell us more about the snuggling up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What about the quality of participation some evenings?

Mr. Martel: I say to the member for Cochrane North that I do not come in here and weave to my seat and disrupt the House all the time. Last Monday and last Thursday -- tell me about wasting the time of the House.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Name an evening of the House it does not happen.

Mr. Martel: Tell me about it.

Mr. Hodgson: You are wasting it right now.

Mr. Martel: No, we have to vote. We are not going anywhere. It is his party's heavy-handed motion. We are prepared to sit.

As I conclude my remarks, I cannot help but admire the audacity of this group to my right that has been arguing to get out since June 13. The government House leader is prepared to accommodate them.

The government House leader gets up and talks about a legislative program. None of it is there. They have not done a thing to deal with any of the problems facing the society of Ontario. They can be listed: senior citizens, the unemployed, job creation, interest rates, pension reform, family law and occupational health and safety. What have they brought in except a few minor amendments here and there? For gall, they are as bad as that group to my right.

We will support the motion. I suspect it might not even be in order, but we are prepared to support it anyway.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the motion. I must say I do not know what the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) speaks of when he implies that the Liberal Party expected to get out at the time of the federal Liberal convention. It is unknown to me.

Mr. Martel: Baloney. Maybe you should find out then.

Mr. Riddell: I do not miss caucus meetings. I can say in all seriousness I never once heard it suggested that the Liberal Party expected to get out at the time of the federal leadership convention. I do not ever recall that being said. I do not know what the member for Sudbury East speaks of.

This House came back on March 20. The budget came down on May 15. In the meantime, absolutely nothing was done in this Legislature. We did not do estimates. No estimates were started until after the budget came down on May 15. There was very little legislation done. There was little legislation that was anything other than house-cleaning legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You said there were no estimates. There were estimates done.

Mr. Elston: Very few.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: I stand to be corrected if there were estimates done. I know I wanted to get at the Agriculture and Food estimates. I was told there would be no estimates done until the budget came down. If some estimates were done, there were very few.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is your fault.

Mr. Riddell: I do not understand that.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Riddell: The reason I wanted to start the Agriculture and Food estimates was that we are in a crisis as far as agriculture in this province is concerned. I had thought we might start the estimates and that with the dialogue we have in estimates we might be able to iron out some of the problems we are faced with in the agricultural industry. For some reason, the Agriculture and Food estimates were not going to start until after the --

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the New Democratic Party, not you. The NDP does not want to start before the budget.

Mr. Riddell: I hold very little faith in the NDP. I would hope the government would not be governed in its programs by what the NDP tells it, or we are sure going to go astray for some time to come.

There are 438,000 people unemployed at the present time in Ontario, representing 9.4 per cent. There are 184,000 youths unemployed, representing 16.5 per cent. I maintain we still have work to do. I am not satisfied to go back home knowing these people are unemployed.

When I got up today on a point of privilege, I did it in all seriousness. I have been uptown and I have seen the line-ups for the soup kitchens. I read the articles in the Toronto Star and I was appalled to think that in Ontario of all places, the so-called bread-basket of Canada, and in Metro Toronto, the so-called industrial heart of Ontario, thousands of people are starving. They cannot afford to buy food.

I am not about to question the articles that appeared in the newspaper. Apparently, some research has been done on it. Can members believe that in Ontario we actually have people who cannot afford to buy food? With the problems we have in this province, we are talking about getting out of this place and staying out until October 9? I do not think it is right.

Let us take a look at farm bankruptcies. In 1979, there were 64; in 1980, 122; in 1981, 140; in 1982, 176; and in 1983, 165. Never in the history of this province since the days of the Depression have we heard of so many farm bankruptcies. A large number of those bankruptcies are taking place right here in Ontario. Why? The reason is we have a government that is not committed to the agricultural industry of this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, balderdash. Absolute balderdash.

Mr. Riddell: I would tell the Minister of Education that we are one of the few provinces that will not support the red meat industry at a time when it is facing a crisis such as it has never faced before. We have put questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) --

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the member to get back to the amendment to the motion, please.

Mr. Riddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have put questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Food on what he is going to do, in line with other provinces, to support the red meat industry of Ontario. He says, "I cannot do anything for the farmers of this province because it would appear to be bargaining in bad faith to the national stabilization program."

I talked to Ottawa yesterday. I was at a hospital board meeting in my riding last night and a number of farmers were on that board. The farmers came up and said: "Jack, what are we to do? We question very much whether the red meat plan, the bill for the national stabilization program, will be passed in the House of Commons before the end of June. We cannot rely on the national stabilization program on which this minister has been hanging his hat. Until we get a national stabilization program, why can this province not do what the other provinces have done and subsidize the 1983 production?"

I had hoped we would stay in this Legislature long enough to see what was going to happen in the House of Commons in connection with the farm stabilization program. I hope if it does nothing, we could come back early so we could address the problems farmers are facing.

We simply cannot afford to let our farmers go out of business and lose our agricultural industry to other provinces such as Quebec and Alberta. Surely we have to make a greater commitment to agriculture in Ontario. We have to ensure this province remains the bread-basket of all Canada.

With our youth unemployment -- young people who simply cannot see any future ahead of them whatsoever -- and the farm problem, I maintain we have a lot of work to do yet in this Legislature. Since we have decided to adjourn at this time, I sincerely support the motion that we return early so we can address some of the major problems this province is facing.

4:16 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Nixon's amendment to Hon. Mr. Wells motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Elston, Epp, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, Mackenzie, McClellan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Peterson, Reed, J. A., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton.

Nays

Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock;

Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wells, Yakabuski.

Ayes 32; nays 53.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment to the motion lost. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion by Hon. Mr. Wells carry?

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, members of the House will recall that on December 15, 1983, I introduced Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Education Act. That bill, which died on the order paper, contained a number of amendments concerning a variety of matters in the Education Act. Most important, it contained provisions to implement a government proposal of March 23, 1983, to extend to French-speaking peoples the right to receive their education in the French language regardless of numbers.

In August 1983 the Lieutenant Governor in Council directed four questions to the Court of Appeal under the Constitutional Questions Act. Since these questions pertained in part to the current French-language provisions of the Education Act, it was felt that Bill 157 should not be reintroduced until such time as the court's decision on the referral was available to us. As members will be aware, that decision was released yesterday, June 26, 1984.

The French-language education provisions of Bill 157 have been altered to ensure they are in harmony with the Constitution Act, 1982, and with the court's opinion on the questions referred to it. They are being introduced to the House at this time in this revised form. The further aspects of French-language education, particularly the issue of governance, have been under study by my ministry for some time and require further consideration and consultation.

This further consideration and consultation will take place over the summer months, and following that the government will introduce legislation concerning these items in time for the municipal and school board elections of 1985. This bill is a significant indication, I believe, of the government's intention to ensure the provision of enhanced opportunities for the young people of this province to receive their education in the French language.

I would be deeply remiss if I did not draw to the attention of the members of this House the fact that the staff of the Ministry of Education and the staff of legislative counsel have worked diligently over the last 24 hours to ensure that the bill which is reintroduced today is in conformity with the decisions of the court and with the Constitution of Canada. I think we should express to my staff, and particularly to the staff of legislative counsel, our gratitude for their diligence in carrying out that work.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have only just had a chance to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I think we should recognize the official opposition first and then we will go in rotation.

Mr. Cassidy: We think of ourselves as the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I did not realize he was rising on the same point of order.

Mr. Boudria: I can only say to my colleague on the left, "Keep thinking."

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think you will admit these are very unusual circumstances for the introduction of this bill today. Can we be permitted on this occasion, with the agreement of all sides of the House, to make some remarks? We will not be addressing this matter for a number of months, and I am sure members of this House will be agreeable if we take a few brief moments for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that is not in order and not debatable. The standing orders do not provide for it.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: That has certainly been the case on previous occasions with important legislation. Prior to question period today, the point was raised both by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and by me that we wished to have some opportunity at least to comment on this. We regretted the fact it was not possible in question period because the minister chose not to make a statement at that time.

I hope unanimous consent can be given for a short statement by a representative of the two opposition parties, prior to going on to other business.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we do not have any problem with granting consent, provided the members remember we are operating under a time allocation motion today which calls for a vote on third reading of Bill 142 at 5:45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope there will be a few minutes left for us to make a few comments on third reading of Bill 142. I have no opposition to this, but I do hope we are going to have a few minutes for that.

Mr. Speaker: That is the pleasure of the House.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, you called for bills and I have a bill to present.

Mr. Speaker: No, not yet. We will get to that.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay unduly the agenda of the House. I recognize we have other things to discuss this afternoon. My purpose in saying a few words in the Legislature at this time is certainly not to delay the other legislation waiting on our agenda for this afternoon.

I do want to take a few minutes to address the issue before us, recognizing that this bill was introduced in very unusual circumstances. It is unusual in the fact that the decision from the court came down yesterday and unusual in the fact that, because it was such a historical and landmark decision, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) in her wisdom today did not see fit to address the House at the proper time for ministerial statements prior to the introduction of this bill.

She could have done that today and given all members of the assembly, particularly members on the opposition side, the benefit of proceeding with the questioning of ministerial policy subsequent to the statement that should have been forthcoming according to most people on this side of the House. I think deep down in her own mind the minister would have felt more comfortable had she chosen that avenue.

It is fair to conclude that once again today we have witnessed an unusual procedure. On several occasions we have seen government ministers stand up and make a long-winded statement to the effect they will be introducing a very minor bill. We have seen a minister introduce an amendment to some sort of car dealers' insurance and speak to it for 10 or 15 minutes prior to question period, boring the members of this Legislative Assembly.

4:30 p.m.

This is known by all people, especially Franco-Ontarians, as the back door policy of the government. This government has become famous for this policy, choosing to tell the francophones of this province one story and the anglophones a different one.

I said to a member of the press last year while being interviewed on this topic that the government spends half its time telling the francophones that it is doing what it is not doing, and the rest of the time telling the anglophones that it is not doing what it is doing.

They have confused everybody in this province. They have been totally inconsistent to such a point that even other provincial jurisdictions in this country fail to recognize the services that are being provided already.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is because they will not open their eyes and look. You mislead them; that is why.

Mr. Boudria: The reason is the government has failed to tell everybody the same story. If the minister would be more forthcoming and tell everyone the same story all the time, so everyone would know where she and her government stand on different policies in this province, then everybody would know. The government of Quebec would know that services are being provided. The francophones would know what services are available. The minister always chooses, as we saw today with only the French camera left in this Legislature --

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As a francophone in the Legislative Assembly, I find it sad to hear the comments from the member for Prescott-Russell. We are creating history today. He should be talking in favour of the bill and making comments that are important to what we are dealing with today in this bill. I think it is a sad day for the kind of comments he is bringing in front of the House.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the way the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) describes the bill as being historic. The Minister of Education did not even see fit to speak about it during statements. That explains the controversy I was speaking about prior to being interrupted by the member for Cochrane North.

I do not think the bill in itself is nearly as significant as the decision of the courts yesterday. There is far from being unanimity in this province as to how to resolve the many Franco-Ontarian educational issues that we have at hand.

Needless to say, the bill the minister has introduced does not deal effectively with the problems of the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario. The policy not to proceed any further down that avenue and give quasi-judicial status to that body was decided by the minister. I reluctantly accept that, although in the future, when we get into further debate on this bill, I intend to propose the necessary amendments to improve the bill that way.

I have gone on for five minutes which is all I promised I would take, although I have a lot more to say on the Franco-Ontarian education issue, and most of all on the means and methods that this government uses whenever it chooses to dispense services to francophones.

There is one marked exception and that is the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). When he introduces legislation, he says the same thing to everybody. Why does the minister not have a little talk with him and learn to be that way. It would be far better for her and the rest of the members across the floor. The Attorney General does it the right way. He calls it the way it is. He tells the anglophones and francophones the same story.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment a bit on this. I am grateful to the members of the House for the opportunity to say a few words because I think that yesterday's judgement of the Court of Appeal was very much an historic one. It gives, for the first time, judicial support for the concept of Franco-Ontarian educational rights, making more concrete the meaning of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

section 23, and its guarantee not just of French-language instruction but also French-language facilities.

Mr. Conway: This is your last speech, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. Cassidy: As my colleague, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), has pointed out, unless unforeseen circumstances occur, this is the last opportunity I will have to speak in this Legislature. Before commenting briefly on the proposed law the minister has brought forward, I would just like simply to say briefly that it has been a privilege for me to have been a member of this Legislature for the last twelve and a half years, to have had the opportunity to serve with people.

I hope we have maintained friendships, even though from time to time we have disagreed about specific priorities, legislation and that kind of thing. I will certainly look back on this period as an important part of my life. My regret, if any, is that the one job I tried to and did not get was the chair of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I guess I can dream about that. I did not quite make it. I had the opportunity to have many other responsibilities within this chamber, and I am certainly grateful both to my own colleagues within the New Democratic Party and also to friends and colleagues of all three parties.

With respect to the specific legislation, I am disappointed that the minister did not think it important enough to comment on prior to the question period. I think I am also disappointed that more was not done in order to think through all of the significance of the Court of Appeal's ruling, although I recognize that officials of the ministry have laboured very hard overnight in order to make one change to this particular bill. I certainly trust the government will not appeal the ruling. I cannot conceive how anybody else who was involved would think of appealing it.

However, the only change which has been made, from my brief opportunity to look at the bill, has been in the definition of a French-speaking person, which is contained in the charter and which is broader than the reference to a French-speaking pupil in the Education Act. Possibly the change has been made so the Education Act will in future conform to the charter, and a child who may happen not be French-speaking but born of French parents or parents educated in the French language in this province will be able to be qualified for French-language primary or secondary school instruction.

My concern goes back almost to the day I became a member in this House. It is over the fact that the bill as put forward is unfortunately not historic in terms of its ability to resolve the immediate and pressing problems we have with young people who now either have no access to secondary school French-language instruction or who are stuck in bilingual schools where only a modest portion of the instruction is available in French.

Having visited Mattawa and Iroquois Falls, I know of the anguish in those communities among parents and children alike who have been trying for many years to implement the minister's commitment to have a French-language entity in those two places. There is ample evidence of the desire of a large portion of the communities for that.

The bill does not speak to the need for a legislative guideline with respect to the provision of a French-language facility. That means a French-language school or a French-language entity. That is what I spoke to in my question to the minister today.

It seems to me that with the generous and positive step, which I welcome and which my party welcomes, in assuring French-language students that they will have the right to education in French, we could surely also resolve the need and the desirability for French-language facilities and a French-language environment.

The thinking of the Court of Appeal is really very clear in its judgement. To conclude, I will read a few excerpts or abstracts or paraphrases of the argument.

4:40 p.m.

First, they confirm the right to minority language facilities where numbers warrant. The charter is quite explicit about this.

Next, they spend a fair amount of time defining what the facilities are, and a facility is a school or perhaps an entity; it is not just a classroom. It is a place where you can have a French-language educational environment and it is more than just having a few classes in French.

Next, the Court of Appeal quite clearly indicates that the school board's discretion, as it exists now and as it would exist in the proposed law we have today, concerning whether the numbers warrant the provision of a French-language school or entity is unconstitutional; that is quite clear from the judgement. I am not a lawyer, but I have had 13 years' experience in dealing with laws in the province and in dealing with legal judgements.

Next, the Court of Appeal states, "Any limitation placed on minority language education rights cannot be left to the unfettered discretion of existing school boards, no matter how well-meaning and competent those boards may be."

I know when we come to debate this question the government will argue that if there is a dispute between a French-language advisory committee or a French-language community and the board, the matter will go to the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario and eventually will come to the minister; the minister will then have binding power to resolve the dispute. However, no change has been made to ensure that there are guidelines according to which the minister is required to act.

In other words, the minister, according to the proposed bill that we have now, has "unfettered discretion" to decide how French-language minority education rights will be determined. She could, therefore, make a decision that in Iroquois Falls, despite all the things the charter says, she is not prepared to insist that those rights be given and that those students can have a French-language entity.

It seems to me that if a school board should not be given unfettered discretion to decide what French-language education rights are, then surely the same thing should apply to the minister, however well-meaning. Since the government's statement of policy does not indicate that even today it is prepared to guarantee access to French-language facilities, entities or schools, we still have a situation of unconstitutionality.

Next, the court reports favourably the United States constitutional test that requires that legislation should "set reasonably clear and specific standards in circumstances where the grant of an unfettered discretion leads to arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional restrictions upon guaranteed rights."

The court reports the doctrine called "void for vagueness," according to which a state or federal statute in the United States can become void if it is vague. Unfortunately, when it comes to the people in Iroquois Falls or Mattawa, this proposed piece of legislation is vague and would therefore be determined constitutionally, I suggest, to be void.

I hope the minister's advisers look at that point over the course of the summer, because what the Court of Appeal clearly seems to be saying is that the failure to set statutory guidelines for the establishment of French-language schools or entities is in fact inconsistent with the charter.

I would just say, in perhaps my final words in this Legislature, and in repeating my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, to your predecessors in the chair and to all members here, I hope as a longtime resident of this province that perhaps over the summer the government will look seriously and temperately at these issues, as I have tried to speak to them for the last few minutes.

I hope that ensuing from this study over the course of the summer not only will be an adequate scheme for governance acceptable to Franco-Ontarians and livable as far as the school boards are concerned, but also that steps can be taken to make sure that Franco-Ontarian students in places like Iroquois Falls and Mattawa will have the right to schools not just enshrined in the Charter of Rights but also as a reality.

Pour terminer, M. le Président, je tiens à remercier tous les députés de tous les partis pour leur coopération et pour le privilège et l'opportunité pour moi d'avoir été présent ici comme député depuis 1971. J'espère avoir la chance de continuer à servir comme un député dans un autre parlement.

Comme je viens de dire en anglais, j'espère qu'au cours de l'été le gouvernement va étudier très prochainement et profondément l'excellent et historique jugement de la Cour d'appel, qui vient d'être émis hier; et que le gouvernement sera prêt à faire encore des ajustements et des changements dans le projet de loi qui vient d'être déposé aujourd'hui pour assurer pleinement et entièrement que le projet de loi et la législation de la province de l'Ontario s'accordent entièrement avec l'excellent jugement de la Cour d'appel et donnent entièrement les droits éducationnels pour lesquels la communauté franco-ontarienne a lutté depuis tant d'années.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cureatz moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, first reading of Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize munic