31st Parliament, 1st Session

L016 - Fri 8 Jul 1977 / Ven 8 jul 1977

The House met at 10 am.




Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated on Wednesday of this week, Mr. Speaker, I want today to bring the members of the Legislature up to date on some recent developments in my ministry’s program to expand French-language court services in Ontario. I also want to deal again briefly with some of the statements made recently about the impending trial of Mr. Gerard Filion.

The Ontario government, as I have attempted to indicate on a number of occasions in this Legislature, recognizes that the use of the French language is of fundamental importance to French-speaking citizens in the courts and is of course particularly relevant to the administration of justice. As I have also indicated on past occasions, it is our intention to continue to expand the use of the French language in our courts.

During the past year I believe that we have made great progress in developing French-language court services in Ontario and, as I say, I am confident we will continue to progress in this regard.

A year ago my ministry began a developmental project in the provincial court, criminal division, in Sudbury. This level of the court system was chosen to start French-language services because it is the level where the vast majority of the public comes into contact with the court system.

The provincial court, criminal division, deals with more than 99 per cent of the criminal and quasi-criminal cases disposed of in Ontario. This includes all matters under the Criminal Code of Canada except those where a preliminary inquiry is held. It also includes matters under provincial statutes such as The Highway Traffic Act and The Liquor Licence Act as well as matters under municipal bylaws. This means that the vast majority of cases involving criminal charges, driving violations and liquor legislation infractions, as well as local bylaws such as parking violations, may be dealt with in the French language in the designated areas.

The project in Sudbury enabled us to examine and refine the program with actual experience involving the public, the courts, the Crown attorneys and the police. As a result of the Sudbury experience and what we have learned from it, French-language services in the provincial court, criminal division, have now become permanent in the judicial district of Sudbury.

In addition, I have expanded this service to the judicial district of Carleton, in Ottawa, and to the united counties of Prescott and Russell, in L’Orignal. French-language courts became available in those two areas on June 6, 1977.

Furthermore, I can now advise this House that there will be a further expansion of this service to Kapuskasing, Hearst, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane and Hornpayne. This will take place on October 3, 1977.

When these services are in place, French-language court services will be available to about 66 per cent of Ontario citizens who speak French only, the citizens whose individual needs in this regard are of course the greatest. In addition, French-language court services will be available to about 35 per cent of our citizens who speak both French and English.

At the same time, it is important to remember that my ministry will of course continue to provide, as it is our responsibility, interpreter services in every level of the criminal court system for any person before the courts who requires it, in English, French or indeed in any other language.

In addition to French-language court service in areas of concentrations of Franco-Ontarians and our interpreter services throughout the province, my ministry is now providing 11 bilingual court forms to assist persons before the provincial court, criminal division. These are being used in all areas with French-language courts and in other areas with large populations of citizens who speak French. These areas are Algoma, Cochrane, Glengarry, Nipissing, Ottawa-Carleton, Prescott, Russell, Stormont, Sudbury and Timiskaming.

In the areas with French-language court services, my ministry has carried out an information program to make the public aware of this service. As a result of our experience in Sudbury, we published and distributed more than 50,000 pamphlets in French explaining the service. These were distributed through the schools and made available by court and police officers throughout each area. We also placed newspaper advertisements in each area. We intend to continue this information program in all areas that will receive French-language court services in the future in order that the public may be aware of these services.

One of the rarely recognized difficulties in expanding French-language courts is the fact that the vast majority of lawyers in Ontario were educated in English. Even some lawyers who speak French do have some hesitation in taking trials in French, because their professional background and training was taken in English.

We hope to alleviate this situation over the long term by encouraging more instruction in the French language for law students. My colleague, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott), is going to provide special funds to the University of Ottawa for common law courses in the French language. These new courses will begin this September.

In addition to all the developments I have mentioned, I recently established a task force within my ministry to explore further the legal and administrative issues involved in an even greater extension of the French language in various ways in our courts.

My ministry intends to continue the expansion of French-language services in the provincial court, criminal division, and in the provincial court, family division, as well. I expect to be able to announce further expansion in both courts later this year.

I would like to point out that in the courts for which this government has responsibility for making judicial appointments, the percentage of French-speaking judges has been increased steadily. In our provincial criminal courts we now have 12.4 per cent of the judges who are fully bilingual. In the family courts the figure is 10.2 per cent. This compares with four per cent in the Supreme Court of Ontario and 7.6 per cent in the county and district courts -- the courts in which the federal government has responsibility for making judicial appointments.

Mr. Speaker, according to the 1971 census, about 10 per cent of Ontario’s citizens speak French only, or both French and English.

My ministry’s record in the past year of developing and expanding French-language court services, I believe, is positive evidence of the Ontario government’s continuing commitment to improve public services to Franco-Ontarians.

I’d like to deal specifically with the situation of Mr. Gerard Filion that has --

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some concern about the matters related to Mr. Gerard Filion being debated in public when they are matters before the criminal courts of the province. My question and my point of order is whether it is appropriate in this House for matters affecting the trial of Mr. Gerard Filion to be a matter of public statement by the Attorney General.

My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is: Should not all of these questions be decided within the criminal court process, with the Attorney General having the opportunity to make, through his agents, whatever arguments he wishes to make about this whole question?

Quite obviously, Mr. Gerard Filion’s advisers believe this touches upon a fair trial for Mr. Filion, and those matters are matters which should not be used for public debate in this assembly. I ask your ruling about it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may just make a comment on the point of order raised by my colleague, I think these are matters maybe you should consider in your decision. First of all, as far as Filion is concerned, I think he and his advisers are the first ones to raise this matter publicly in the province, so one certainly would have to give that some consideration.

The second thing about the Filion case -- and I think the rulings as to what is sub judice before this House may be the subject of a statement that you will be making shortly -- as I understand the rules and precedents set by the House of Commons, legislatures and so on, I don’t think there’s any impediment to making any comment or public debate about an issue before the courts as long as it is not before trial itself. As I listen to the Attorney General making certain comments as he did the other day about the Filion trial, and giving certain reasons about the difficulty of granting a trial in French in these circumstances, in my opinion, respectfully, I say this to the Chair, I frankly see nothing improper.

Mr. Speaker: It’s difficult for me to make that decision. I will be covering points like that in just a few moments. But I would just caution the hon. Attorney General to be fully aware and cognizant and cautious about what he does say. I’ll place the responsibility on his shoulders for anything that might possibly prejudice the trial of this learned gentleman.

Mr. Renwick: If I might, I’ll just make a further comment on the matter. We have had, as has been the custom now, an opportunity to read the statement that the Attorney General is about to make. His statement is full and complete with respect to French-language services in the courts of the province of Ontario, without having to deal at all with the question of Mr. Gerard Filion. While I respect the way in which you have transferred the question to the Attorney General, I do draw your attention, and to the attention of my colleague who intervened on the point of order, that certainly in debate in this assembly we are called to order if we refer to any matter that is pending in the court or before a judge for judicial determination. I don’t think we should split hairs about what that rule means.

[10: 15]

I recognize that the Attorney General is making a statement before the orders of the day, and in that sense this is not a debate. But surely it is consistent with the principle of this House that it would be wise for the Attorney General to defer, and eliminate from his statement to this House, those remarks relating specifically to Mr. Gerard Filion and to use the court process as the proper place to make any statements he has about the request which Mr. Filion has made, obviously on the advice of his counsel, with respect to the facilities in that court.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would simply like to state, Mr. Speaker, that I reject very strongly the suggestion that the balance of my statement contains any material that could possibly prejudice, influence or in any way affect the fair trial of Mr. Gerard Filion before the courts of this province.

I am not dealing with any of the evidence before the court. Much of what is contained in the balance of the two and a half pages of the statement has already been mentioned in the House. There is perhaps some additional material in relation to the issue of French-speaking juries which I think is useful information for the House.

I am satisfied there is nothing that I am going to say, and would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in the balance of my statement that could possibly interfere with the rule -- and the very important rule; I recognize -- of not discussing matters that would offend the rule as to matters that are before the courts in relation to what is sub judice. Those matters, of course, usually deal with the matter of discussing any evidence or aspect of the evidence that might be introduced in the courtroom. I have no intention of dealing with any of the evidence that is going to be introduced in this trial.

Mr. Speaker: With that assurance, I will allow the hon. Attorney General to continue, because I think the responsibility is on his shoulders that he does not -- and I am repeating myself, I realize -- divulge any information which might prejudice the certain person’s situation in court.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will indulge me while I make a point because of the immense significance of it. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Attorney General will be talking about matters related to evidence that will come before the court.

The important point I want to make is that Mr. Gerard Filion has been advised, obviously by his counsel, with respect to a procedural matter in the courts, which obviously Mr. Gerard Filion’s adviser feels touches upon the question of whether or not there will be a fair hearing for his client.

I do not think that the rules permit a discussion of that kind of matter in debate because, in fact, procedural matters in criminal cases are in many instances just as important as, if not more important than, the actual substance of the evidence.

I want the Attorney General to understand that I am not suggesting for a moment that anything that he is going to say touches upon what evidence there may be but it touches upon a profound procedural question raised by an accused person in the criminal court process. I don’t think there should be argumentative discussion in this House about that matter. It should be reserved for argument before the courts.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final word.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Perhaps I can end the impasse by saying that I don’t wish to get into debate particularly about this matter with the member for Riverdale. I respect his views and I acknowledge his concerns in relation to the administration of justice in this province.

In order to save time, since much of what I have dealt with in the statement has been mentioned in bits and pieces in this House --

Mr. Roy: That’s right; you have gone through that already.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- I am prepared simply to say that I will withhold the balance of my statement over the weekend. I will perhaps want to discuss this matter with the member for Riverdale between now and Monday, and I am prepared to leave my statement at the point we have reached at present.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Any further statements by the ministry? The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Energy.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy.

An hon. member: Either way it doesn’t make much difference.

Mr. Cassidy: He was bad there -- worse than he is now.


Hon. J. A. Taylor: Later today I shall be introducing legislation for the restructuring of the municipal electric utilities in the regions of Waterloo and Peel. The Waterloo legislation was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in the last session as Bill 36.

These bills are the first of a series which will result from the process started by Task Force Hydro and the government committee on the restructuring of public utilities chaired by Mr. William Hogg.

A significant feature of this legislation is that it reflects the hard work and dedication of the local study teams, the restructuring steering committee, their staff and Ontario Hydro. I would like to express my appreciation on behalf of the government to all of those involved.

Today I wish to reaffirm the government’s commitment to the basic principles of the Hogg report. However, experience with restructuring studies undertaken in the past two years has indicated that strict application of these guidelines may be too restrictive in some local situations. We have, therefore, developed a more flexible interpretation of the guidelines, to ensure that the restructuring of utilities is carried out to best serve local interests.

The steps required are simple and once complete could result in speedy resolution of the anomalies which now exist in various regions. These steps are as follows:

First: Where utility restructuring in a region or a restructured county is thought to be desirable, a review of the whole area is initiated by a local study team, assisted where appropriate by the provincial restructuring committee.

Second: The local study team evaluates and makes recommendations on a variety of options to restructure its region including a regional or upper-tier utility, lower-tier utilities and/or a temporary continuation of Ontario Hydro’s rural retail system.

The basic objective is that there should be no more than one municipal hydro-electric utility per area municipality, and that municipal utilities should take over retail service within their municipalities from Ontario Hydro. However, where it is decided locally, as part of a regional overview, that a municipality cannot yet support a viable utility to serve all of its residents, then Ontario Hydro’s rural retail system may continue to serve those parts of that municipality which it now serves.

The municipal council will be given the responsibility to decide when the municipal hydro-electric utility should extend its service area. In the interim, the council would review electrical supply at least every three years, and a unified municipal utility would operate any pre-existing municipal electric systems. After the council orders the service area to be extended, the municipal utility will supply retail power to all electrical customers in the municipality.

Mr. Speaker, the two bills to be introduced later today reflect the Hogg principles, as interpreted in this more flexible way to take account of local circumstances.


Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of the recent activities of my ministry with respect to improved axle and gross weight legislation for commercial motor vehicles.

Ontario is one of the leading road authorities on the North American continent in developing and applying the most modem technology for the design, construction, maintenance and the overall management of its highway network. As one consequence of this, Ontario truck operators are permitted the highest weights for commercial motor vehicles on the North American continent.

There is ample evidence to indicate that there are major cost consequences for the province if we do not clearly and firmly establish understandable and enforceable controls over both axle and gross vehicle weights.

The members are familiar with my ministry’s long-standing objectives with respect to vehicle weight legislation. We are very concerned with the efficient movement of goods on our road system. This requires that transporters and shippers of goods achieve maximum payloads. On the other hand, we must balance this need with the necessity of preserving the integrity of our roads and bridges and of safety on the highways. The problem of striking a proper balance between these concerns is exceedingly complex.

I introduced a related but temporary amendment to The Highway Traffic Act last March, and I had hoped to be able to introduce further and permanent legislation at this time. Our efforts to prepare legislation required discussion and consultation of our proposals with industry. In these discussions, I am pleased that there was a clear acceptance of the need to protect our roads and bridges, and of the need for a less complex and more enforceable legislation. During the discussions, a number of legitimate concerns were raised.

As a consequence of these concerns, our proposals have been significantly revised. The revised proposals are now before industry for further review which, in its turn, will result in further consultation. Therefore, I will not be able to introduce legislation during this session.

It is our earnest desire to recognize in every possible way the legitimate concerns of the trucking and shipping public while at the same time it is our firm intention to protect the integrity and safety of the province’s roads and bridges and to keep the financial consequences to the province within manageable proportions.

I am determined that further consultation will result in broad acceptance of a meaningful system to control the weights of loads to be carried in Ontario. I anticipate that the revised proposals will be acceptable to the industry and I expect to introduce the necessary legislation to mandate new weight provisions in the fall session.


Mr. Speaker: I make the following ruling to the House:

On June 30 last, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), after putting certain questions to the Premier (Mr. Davis), asked me to take under consideration the sub judice rule and its application concerning questions placed earlier that day. The member requested me, and I quote: “To use your good offices to see that the orders of the court are placed before the House so that we might have your guidance as to whether or not this matter, which involves Ontario Hydro and a decision by the Premier to order a secret inquiry, can or cannot be discussed in this House.”

May I first say as strongly as I can that I know of no authority by which any court can prevent free discussion in this chamber. Second, I have grave reservations concerning the advisability of the Chair becoming involved in a search of court records for orders made concerning the publication of evidence at preliminary hearings. This is not my responsibility.

I did however, particularly in light of the request made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, address a letter to the Premier asking him to provide me with a copy of the order to which he referred earlier in the day, so that I might be better informed with respect to a possible prejudicing of a criminal trial. I will speak further of this in a moment.

The Attorney General, at the request of the Premier, provided me with information that there are criminal charges being heard in the courts which have to do with the awarding of contracts relating to Ontario Hydro, the Madawaska dam and the Bruce generating station. In my view this information should be communicated to the House by the minister and not through the Speaker. I have already so informed the Attorney General. The minister may of course answer questions or decline to answer questions if he thinks this may be prejudicial to a fair trial of parties before the court.

The central issue lies in the application of the sub judice rule, which is standing order 16(a)7(i), and I quote, “In debate a member will be called to order by the Speaker, if he refers to any matter that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination.”

On June 30 and subsequent days, questions were posed, the answers to which indicated that there was an order of a court barring publication of details of a criminal trial. I was placed in the difficult position of having no other information before me, and it was in this light that I cautioned the House concerning the sub judice convention. I have now had an opportunity to reflect on this, and to study the precedents which are interesting and I hope will be helpful to the House.

May I repeat what I said earlier. No court has the ability to prevent this House from discussing any matter. The freedom of speech which this House claims as a right is not at issue because of the court order. The House however has imposed restrictions on itself and one of these restrictions is that great care is exercised in discussing matters before the court, so that statements here do not deny justice to the parties involved in the courts.


Standing order 16(a) places a duty on the Speaker to exercise discretion over debate in matters before the courts. Earlier this year, the House of Commons of Canada undertook a substantial examination of the sub judice convention in the Canadian context. The report, which was presented on April 29, has been of great assistance to me and I commend it to members. Following a lengthy recitation of precedents from Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, the committee notes that the Parliament of Canada has been more flexible in the application of the sub judice convention than other countries. I wish to quote the final sections of that report:

Section 22: “In the view of your committee, the justification for the convention has not been established beyond all doubt, although it would not go so far as to recommend that it be totally abolished. Your committee believes, however, that any modification of the practice should be in the direction of greater flexibility rather than stricter application.

“It is not possible to determine whether or to what extent comments made in Parliament might affect the outcome of a trial or an inquiry. The Chair is seldom in possession of the necessary information to determine whether or not prejudicial effect is likely. It follows that the House should not be unduly fettered by a convention, the basis of which is uncertain.

“On no account should the convention, which has been applied infrequently in years past, come to be regarded as a fixed and binding rule. It is not reasonable, for example, that Parliament should be any more limited in its debates concerning judicial proceedings than is the press in reporting such proceedings.”

In section 23: “Your committee has given consideration to the role of the Speaker in the application of the convention. It is submitted that while there can be no substitute for the discretion of the Chair in the last resort, all members of the House should share in the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems called for. A member who feels that there could be a risk of causing prejudice in referring to a particular case or inquiry should refrain from raising the matter. Additionally, a member who calls for the suppression of discussion on a matter on grounds of sub judice should be obliged to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Chair that he has reasonable grounds for fearing that prejudice might result.

“Should a question to a minister touch upon a matter of sub judice it is likely that the minister involved will have more information concerning the matter than the Speaker. The minister might be better able to judge whether answering the question might cause prejudice. In such a situation, the minister could refuse to answer the question on these grounds, bearing in mind that refusal to answer a question is his prerogative in any event.

“It is the view of your committee that the responsibility of the Chair during the question period should be minimal as regards the sub judice convention and that the responsibility should principally rest upon the member who asked the question and the minister to whom it is addressed.”

Section 24 states: “Your committee is of the opinion that precise regulations concerning the application of the sub judice convention cannot be evolved, and that it would be unwise to attempt to do so. Your committee recommends that the Speaker should remain the final arbiter in the matter, that he should retain the authority to prevent discussion of matters in the House on the ground of sub judice, but that he should only exercise this discretion in exceptional cases where it is clear to him that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals.

“In exercising this discretion, your committee recommends that when there is doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention. In view of your committee, prejudice is most likely to occur in respect of criminal cases and civil eases of defamation where juries are involved.”

I can see no reason why similar principles ought not to guide the members of this House.


Mr. Speaker: We’ll now have oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for that excellent ruling.


Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier. Is the Premier now prepared to tell the House under what authority he appointed Mr. Justice Campbell Grant; what were his terms of reference; what were the costs of the inquiry and under what budget did this money come; were persons called to testify under oath during this inquiry; and, if so, under what authority?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there are some parts of that question that would be appropriate for me to answer. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, I’ve already answered some.

Mrs. Campbell: One.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) my recollection is that there are two or three. But I’ll see if I can recall accurately what I said.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I explained to members of this House that on certain matters the Premier of this province -- and this also applies to ministers -- not only have a right, they have an obligation, to seek out information and to get reports, whether it is done on a confidential or non-confidential basis. I asked Mr. Justice Grant to assess certain matters, to conduct an investigation. That investigation, as I have said, is completed.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk there is a court order and, even apart from the order itself, there is no question whatsoever in my mind -- and I’ve had some limited experience in terms of the courts -- that this is a matter which should not be discussed in this Legislature at this time.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I’m looking forward to the opportunity of sharing the contents of Mr. Justice Campbell Grant’s report with the members opposite. On the first occasion that’s available to me as Premier of this province -- because the trial is to commence this fall -- I intend to share that information with all of those honourable members who are interested.

With respect to the question of how it is to be paid for, obviously there are means whereby this can be done. I was reluctant to mention this to the hon. members of the House, but Mr. Justice Campbell Grant, being the kind of person that he is, has declined to accept any payment for what he regarded as a matter of public responsibility.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary: The question of whether there were costs involved, apart from remuneration to Mr. Justice Grant, has still not been addressed by the Premier. May I ask him also to address himself, if he would, as to whether witnesses were called to testify under oath and, if so, under what authority? Perhaps, if he would answer those questions, further supplementaries may result.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think this matter was already referred to in the press. I do want to say that one is sometimes disappointed, being in public life, in the press -- not too often. The information upon which I asked Mr. Justice Campbell Grant to conduct this investigation has been available to the members of the media for some months. I want to compliment the vast majority of responsible journalists who have stayed away from discussing this issue, or attempting to, in the press, because I think it is fundamental to the administration of justice in this province that an order of the court of this nature be observed.

In terms of how Mr. Justice Campbell Grant conducted his investigation, he did it within the limitations that were imposed by that court order. I would only assume that most of the people he discussed it with, because it was not under The Public Inquiries Act, were not under oath. This would be my assessment.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I know that there is some interest, and I think a very understandable one; I would say this to him and more particularly to his colleague on his left (Mr. Nixon) and to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who has had some experience in the administration of justice in this province and, I sense, has some respect for it and some concern about it.

As I have said prior to this, I am really most anxious to share Mr. Justice Campbell Grant’s report with not only the members of the House, but the public. But I say without any hesitation whatsoever, a discussion of the information that led to my asking Mr. Justice Campbell Grant for that report is without question sub judice. Discussion of it in this House would be, without doubt, prejudicial to the case, both in terms of the accused and to the Crown. I have shared as much as I think I properly can with the members of this House at this moment.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Nixon: I wonder, sir, following your ruling, whether you or the Premier could not make it clear to this House what events are, in fact, before the courts and what makes it sub judice as far as our discussion is concerned? Are there individuals in this province charged with something having to do with the award of Hydro contracts? If so, I’m not aware of those charges. How can we be? Is there such a charge before the courts involving the award of Hydro contracts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Attorney General might properly answer that. To my best recollection, the answer to that is no.

Mr. Nixon: Then what’s sub judice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I can be of assistance at this time. There are a number of charges before the courts, and the evidence adduced at the preliminary inquiry, including the evidence that seems to be of greatest interest to the members opposite, is relevant to these charges one way or another.

I am not going to go into the details other than to say this: The preliminary hearing into these charges commenced on November 4, 1976, and at that time His Honour Chief Judge Hayes made an order pursuant to section 467 of the Criminal Code prohibiting the publication or broadcast of the evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. That’s when the order was made.

Following the questions that were asked in this House and following the occasion of the letter from the Speaker to the Premier of this province, I requested a legal opinion from the director of the Crown law office, Mr. R. M. McLeod, who is not only the director of the Crown law office but is also in charge of the particular prosecution.

The question that was put to Mr. McLeod by myself was as follows: “Should the activities or statements of any person in relation to the awarding of Ontario Hydro contracts relating to the Madawaska dam or the Bruce generating station, or the details of any inquiry conducted by or on behalf of the government of Ontario with respect to those contracts, be brought forward in the Legislature by way of motion, debate, question or otherwise?”

In delivering his opinion to me, Mr. McLeod said in part: “Please find attached an opinion prepared by me in this matter. This opinion contains references to the evidence in the preliminary hearing in the matter of Regina versus Filion et al and accordingly ought not to be published in any newspaper or broadcast.” In relation to the issue that was put to Mr. McLeod, his opinion is: “No, any such motion, debate or question would be in relation to a matter which is sub judice.”

Mr. Nixon: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you not agree with me that a statement such as that should have been put before the House and not left to your discretion in order to make a ruling lacking that information? Would you not agree with me that the Premier and the Attorney General failed in their responsibility to this House in not putting that information?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nonsense.

Mr. Nixon: Instead of that, the Premier indicated the questions were silly -- he used that word -- and then he just recently advised my leader to simply assist in restraining his colleagues to his left from asking these questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, not the questions; the innuendoes. The innuendoes were silly, and the member knows it. Hearken back to 1975. The member knows this is what happened to his people before.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Would you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General and the Premier had the responsibility to make such a statement to this House for you to rule on their veracity, and that they have failed in their duties?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Live and learn.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If I had felt that the statements were improper at the time, I would have taken action. I placed the responsibility, I think, in the proper places this morning in my ruling, first of all, on the members who are asking the question and on the appropriate minister. And I believe that most people are trying to exercise that responsibility properly this morning.

Mr. Reid: How can we do that without any knowledge?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You will have an occasion.

Mr. Reid: How can we make a decision whether it is sub judice?

Mr. Speaker: I would ask you to continue with that exercise from here on.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, your colleague from Riverdale summed it up very well.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has just expressed an opinion about which my colleague from Brant has expressed some concern. I share that concern because that seems to be a very wide opinion. Our concern is basically this: Fine, there’s a court order at the time of the preliminary hearing; and I think the Attorney General will agree with me that a court order is basically directed at the press to prevent broadcast and publication and not, as the Premier stated the other day, to prevent discussion -- and I am quoting Hansard. My point is this, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Pope: It has been said before. Let’s get with it.

Mr. Roy: Well, I am quoting from Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member keep to his point of order?

Mr. Pope: Let’s get on with it.


Mr. Nixon: All you say is that the questions are silly.

Mr. Roy: Look at Hansard. I am quoting the Premier from Hansard.


Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please continue with his point of order through the Chair?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am being challenged by the Premier. I will read him his answer where he said --


Mr. Cassidy: If he feels that way then read the stuff into the record. The Premier is on very sticky ground.



Mr. Roy: The Premier, in answer to a question, said: “Mr. Speaker, I cannot. There is an order related to the matter before the courts to which this question refers, which order prohibits any discussion or publication of material.” I am quoting the Premier and I say that that is not what the court order says.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know what was intended.

Mr. Roy: My point is that surely when we are talking about sub judice, as has been mentioned by the Attorney General, we are talking about the evidence itself at the preliminary hearing. We cannot be bound by the rule of sub judice when we are talking about an inquiry, terms of reference and about how that inquiry was set up. Where is the authority for this? Are we establishing a precedent?


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is getting to be a debate, partly on the Speaker’s ruling and partly on other matters. I think we should continue on, bearing in mind the ruling I delivered earlier. We will go on from this point in time. The hon. Leader of the Opposition had a supplementary and I should defer to him first of all.

Mr. S. Smith: Since it appears from the Premier’s answers that the secret inquiry was conducted without witnesses being sworn, can the Premier explain how he can be quite as confident as he claims to be that all is in order and that the inquiry report need not concern us? How can he be that confident without witnesses having had their testimony taken under oath?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never said the report would or would not concern the hon. member. I never made any such statement. I thought I was very clear in saying I was looking forward to the opportunity of sharing that report with the members of this House. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will then make his judgement based on that report. I am not saying he will or will not be enthusiastic.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I don’t think this matter is going to die; it will be coming up again. I want an assurance from the Premier that --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Cassidy: Since the court order about publication relates to the evidence of a preliminary hearing and expires at the time the trial begins, does the Premier’s statement mean he will be tabling Mr. Justice Grant’s inquiry report and open this matter up to discussion as soon as or shortly after the trial begins in the fall?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never found the member for Ottawa Centre not to be one who understood the English language.

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I made it abundantly clear that I was looking forward to the opportunity, at the first possible moment, of sharing the contents of Mr. Justice Campbell Grant’s report with not only members of the House, but the media and the public.

Mr. Speaker: We have now spent about 20 minutes on this and it is a very important question, but we will have one supplementary here and one more over there.

Mr. S. Smith: The government ordered a secret inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a confidential inquiry.

Mr. Roy: Fully understanding the Premier’s dilemma about the order at the preliminary hearing, I would like to ask him this question: Is he not concerned, as Premier of the province, about the type of precedent involved in setting up a secret inquiry as has been created in this case? Is he not concerned, for instance, as we are, that there is no accountability either to the public, to the opposition, to the press or even to members of his own cabinet? Is he not concerned that we establish guidelines for the future when a Premier of the province finds himself in that type of difficulty? Would the Premier not consider, when he is asking a Supreme Court judge to set up this type of inquiry, depositing with the Chief Justice his report of that judge? Would the Premier do that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I sometimes am impressed by the logic of the member for Ottawa East on some issues; I say that to him very frankly. This is not one of those occasions.

Mr. Nixon: This is one such occasion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nor, for that matter, was his judgement of last night.

Mr. Roy: My judgement’s pretty good.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Wentworth.

An hon. member: Your team don’t look like winners on this one either.

Mr. Wildman: The summer of discontent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not trying to impress --


Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Good -- are we all set now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re going to be disappointed when you see the report.

Mr. S. Smith: I am not worried about the contents.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Tell me how else you would do it.

Mr. Deans: It’s getting a little awkward. I don’t want to try to impress --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought we had the last supplementary. I’m sorry.

Mr. Deans: Damn it. Will you listen?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went- worth is asking a supplementary of the Premier, I believe.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, but it does become a little offensive after a while. I’m not trying to impress anyone with my wisdom. I don’t profess to have any in this field.


Mr. Havrot: You asked for it.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine. I want to ask the Premier a question for the sake of getting an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re wasting time. The hon. member for Wentworth has the floor, quite properly.

Mr. Deans: I just want to ask the Premier for the sake of knowing: Why would he have chosen to set up a private inquiry rather than to have pursued this matter -- if there was any indication to him of the need for an inquiry of any kind at all -- by going through the office of the Solicitor General, as might normally have been expected in matters such as this; to have an inquiry undertaken and to have the evidence, if there was any, of whatever it was that he was looking for, on the record and properly pursued? Why would he go and appoint some secret committee to look into something that was obviously a matter of public concern?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the acting leader and the House leader is not as familiar as his colleague from Riverdale is with respect to these matters.

Mr. Deans: He doesn’t understand either.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don’t understand him either? Well, I did and I think he raised this question on another matter earlier this morning and put it rather well.

Mr. Cassidy: No, entirely different.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Ottawa Centre can disagree with the member for Riverdale. I wouldn’t doubt that for a moment. One is a very intelligent, logical --


Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Premier will please refer to the question of the hon. member for Wentworth --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t know the member for Riverdale was planning to get out on the member for Ottawa Centre’s campaign. That would be a fatal error.

An hon. member: You worry about your own campaign.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. Because of the limitations imposed in terms of an existing court order, the options open to me in an attempt to deal with something that gave me concern were very limited. I pursued an option that I believed to be right -- I still believe it to be right -- and it is a report that will be shared with all of the members.

Mr. Roy: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition with his second question.

Mr. S. Smith: The second question is to the Premier.

Mr. Roy: Are we going into another project?

Mr. Speaker: That was a final supplementary on that question.

Mr. S. Smith: With regard to the inquiry by Mr. Justice Grant, can the Premier confirm that he issued the following statement as quoted in the Globe and Mail? The Premier is alleged to have said, “Let me assure the citizens of Ontario that I had the matter thoroughly reviewed when it was first brought to my attention some months ago. I have been assured that there is no foundation to suggestions such as those implied in the story.”

If the Premier can confirm that he did make that statement, can he explain how he could have been quite that assured and reassuring if the inquiry did not swear any witnesses under oath?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I made a judgement and I am confident of the judgement I made when I issued that statement as a result of a certain story in the Globe and Mail -- apart from the innuendoes that it contained, which I thought were unfortunate. I have no reservation in so stating that I have confidence in Mr. Justice Campbell Grant’s report. Yes, I make no bones about it. The Leader of the Opposition may or may not, and that’s a judgement he will have to make.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rainy River does not have the floor; the hon. Leader of the Opposition might have a supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Regarding the confidence the Premier has in the inquiry and related to that, can he tell the House how many other such confidential inquiries, as he calls them, have been conducted in the duration of his service as Premier of this province? Can he explain why his cabinet colleagues, notably the Minister of Energy, had no knowledge of the fact that such an inquiry was being carried on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Energy had no knowledge because it did not involve the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Roy: Or Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To the best of my knowledge this is the one occasion where I have exercised a certain judgement because of the limitation of a matter that was then and is at present before the courts. It is a decision that I would make again tomorrow or the next day if faced with the same set of facts. The Leader of the Opposition can calculate the number of royal commissions, some of them brought about at the suggestion of his colleagues who sit with him, and it is interesting to note that on those rather controversial, sensitive inquiries or select committees, without exception they all resulted in a very positive decision as it related to the matter that was under inquiry.

Mr. Roy: You changed your procedure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some day the members opposite ought to calculate the number they have helped bring about, the cost to the taxpayers of this province, and the results that have ensued.

Mr. Nixon: The Hydro report published in Great Political Scandals of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is why you lost seats. That is why you are where you are.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting valuable question period time. We will allow one final supplementary on this whole matter.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the Premier admits it was his judgement that led him to decide to ask Mr. Justice Campbell Grant to carry out this inquiry, is he also saying -- and I want to be very clear about this -- that, in his opinion, when he exercised that judgement, the effect of the court order was to inhibit him from referring a matter to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) for investigation by the OPP?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say that at all.

Mr. Cassidy: That certainly is what came out.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I said it was the final supplementary in this whole matter because we have spent 25 minutes on it now.


Mr. Speaker: Order. Other members want to ask questions this morning. I will call on the hon. member for Wentworth with his questions.

Mr. Deans: I am sorry, but I want to go back to it because I am not satisfied with what is happening. In relation to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, are there any other similar incidents that have occurred during the last 10 years, that the Premier can recall, in which he chose to exercise what he calls his option of taking a private citizen and asking him to conduct an inquiry into a matter which may well have fallen within the scope of an inquiry that should have been conducted by the OPP?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, (a) the latter part of that question is erroneous, and (b) I don’t really regard Mr. Justice Campbell Grant as a private citizen in that sense of the word. He is a former member of the High Court of this province and can hardly be regarded as a private citizen.

Mr. Deans: He is a private citizen.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As regards the first part of the question, I can’t speak for the last 10 years. I can speak for the last six and the answer to that part of the question is no.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier be good enough to explain to us then why he felt it appropriate to use a private citizen who had retired from the bench to conduct a personal inquiry into a matter that was of public concern?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that is a judgement that is quite proper for the Premier of this province to make. I don’t know what the hon. acting leader and House leader is attempting to get me to say. I have said all I can and helped him as much as I can. Certain information came to my attention. I was concerned. I asked Mr. Justice Campbell Grant to look into these matters and prepare a report for me, which he has done, and which report -- when that court order no longer exists -- I am more than prepared to share and am looking forward to sharing with the members opposite. They can have their debate then.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Can the Premier tell us the exact date when he ordered or asked for this inquiry? Secondly, did he discuss the matter with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General before he spoke to Mr. Justice Campbell Grant?


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the hon. member the exact date at the moment. I’ll endeavour to find that for him. I can only tell him it was many weeks before that story appeared in the midst of the election -- some many, many weeks before. I think I can honestly state that I did not discuss it with the Solicitor General. I did discuss certain aspects with the Attorney General.

Mr. Reid: Can you reveal your sources?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Rainy River asked me if I would reveal my sources. I would look to the precedents established by the hon. member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba).

Mr. Martel: You might not want to go to the Don Jail, though.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa East. The question had to do with any other similar incidents --

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary should deal with the original question asked by the member for Wentworth, which had to do with any other similar investigations by a person of Mr. Justice Campbell Grant’s --


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are straying back over the same question asked earlier, and really there was a different question asked over here.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the question asked by my colleague from Wentworth about the appointing of Mr. Justice Grant for this inquiry: Cannot the Premier understand that, as I understand it, the allegations were serious allegations made either against --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Surely this isn’t a question.

Mr. Roy: Are you going to start ruling as well?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Your opinion is no help.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Albert, that is a very low form of politics; it is not worthy of you.

Mr. Martel: You should know about that, Bill. You are an expert in that field.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member place his supplementary question?

Mr. Roy: My question to the Premier is, can he not understand that by setting up something that is secret, with no accountability to anyone, investigating something pertaining either to himself or his government --

Mr. Speaker: That’s not supplementary to the original question.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And it is nonsense; absolute nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I point out to the hon. member that this has nothing to do with the question -- it is not related to the question by the member for Wentworth. If he’d relate his question to the question from the member for Wentworth, we would allow him --

Mrs. Campbell: He is squirming.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary to the hon. member for Wentworth’s question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, as I understand it, the member for Wentworth asked why Mr. Justice Grant was appointed and when Mr. Justice Grant was, in fact, appointed --

Mr. Speaker: He asked how many similar appointments were made.

Mr. Roy: Yes, and I am right on that. My point to the Premier is this, on the basis of accountability, following that question, why will the Premier not take the opposition into his confidence?


Mr. Roy: He won’t take anybody else. He won’t take the cabinet. Is he not concerned about the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is not heeding my request. The hon. member for Wentworth with his second question.


Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Has the minister conducted any study into the pilot project currently under way on income maintenance for low-income families to enable them to continue to work? Does he have any indication now as to whether or not he is going to expand that program in an effort to enable other people to get into the work force?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The matter is under consideration in the ministry and I would hope to be in a better position to assess that by this fall.

Mr. Deans: Is he able to give the House assurances that he is not considering abandoning the program?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the House that I am certainly not considering that at this point in time.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary -- at least I trust it will be ruled to be a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member place it?

Mrs. Campbell: In the light of the original question, is it the minister’s intention perhaps to increase the FBA benefits in time to pass the costs over to the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand what that question is directed at.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member may repeat it.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the Robarts report and the recommendation that FBA obligations and privileges should be transferred to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, I am asking the minister, is he prepared only to look at the increase in FBA benefits as he passes that through to Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m still not entirely clear what it is that the member wants to know.

Mrs. Campbell: It is in reference to the Robarts recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I realize it’s in reference to the Robarts recommendations. Perhaps at this point all I should say to the hon. member is that I have only very recently received a copy of the Robarts report. It’s at present under consideration and perhaps I’d be in a better position to respond to the question after I’ve had a chance to consider it more.


Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has the minister received representation from the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee with respect to The Fire Department Act? If so, did the representations detail specific proposals for amendment, and what has the minister done with reference to these representations?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, we have had some definite requests from the municipal liaison people requesting a good number of amendments to the various fire Acts, and we have them under review. I had hoped at one time that we would be able to introduce them this year. Then when we had this earlier election, I hoped we would be able to introduce them this fall. I had also hoped we would be making more progress at the present time.

Mr. Martel: Who called the election?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: With the amount of speed that the House is making on legislation, I don’t know when we’ll get to it.

Mr. Epp: In view of the fact that the civil service would not be involved in the election and that it would have a chance to work during the election period, what has this to do with the holdup of the proposals being brought to Parliament in early fall?

Mr. Martel: Some civil servants at the top were involved, Michael Starr for one.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Solicitor General have a further reply?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, is it not proper for the minister to reply to a question?

Mr. Speaker: It is at the hon. minister’s discretion.


Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Energy. It relates to his statement this morning on the structuring of municipal electric utilities. In view of one clause on page 3, which recommends that “the municipal council be given the responsibility to decide when the municipal hydro-electric utility should extend its service area,” could I ask the minister if that means the freeze is lifted in a place such as Niagara and that the city of Welland will be able to proceed, prior to any restructuring bill, to take in the rural area in that city?

If the answer is no, as I suspect it will be, in view of his letter to the chairman of the hydro-electric commission of Welland which states, “It is my hope that changes to the guidelines can be agreed upon shortly which will facilitate speedy resolution of the longstanding issues, such as in the city of Welland,” would the minister explain how these new guidelines will speed up the solution of the differential in the rates in Welland and elsewhere in the Niagara Peninsula -- gross differentials which have existed for seven years?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member has already answered the first part of that question.

Mr. Breaugh: He asked the minister and he ought to answer him.

Mr. Grande: He answered his own question?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, he asked a question, and then he answered the question for us.

In regard to the second part of the question, my concern was to provide as much flexibility as possible to reflect the wishes of the local people. It was for that reason that the stringent guidelines laid down, as a result of the Hogg report, have been softened a little bit, as I indicated.

For example, all of a municipality now would not have to be included in a new utilities commission. For example, a part of a municipality may still remain under rural Hydro. It was that type of adjustment that I was trying to accommodate in the spirit of expediting, if possible, the restructuring and with the views of the local people in mind.

Mr. Swart: That requires a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the holdup in the changes of the boundaries in the city of Welland has nothing to do with the recommendation of the changes in his report? In view of that, will he not then give some further consideration to speeding up the situation in the city of Welland and giving the municipalities there the right to incorporate the rural areas into the municipality so the differential rates do not continue?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, Mr. Speaker, may I invite my friend to meet with me again? I met with him and his delegation earlier this spring.

Mr. Swart: They got nowhere.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’m well aware of the particular problems there.

An hon. member: Why don’t you do something about them?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The hon. member has to be mindful of the fact that it takes that co-operation at the local level to make these changes. I’d be very happy, as I’ve invited him to do, for the member to meet with us again. I’ll do everything possible to accommodate the will of the local people.

Mr. Swart: This was supposed to change.


Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware of the fact that 1,500 to 2,000 tons of this year’s freestone peach crop may not be processed, and would he outline what steps he is taking to overcome this apparent deficiency so as to protect the growers?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the fact that there could be -- was the hon. member talking about the clingstones?

Mr. Hall: Freestones.

Hon. W. Newman: Freestones. That’s a little better. I am fully aware of the freestone situation. We have had meetings, I have had discussions and we are working on a solution for it right now.

Mr. Germa: Put the wagons in a circle.

Mr. Makarchuk: Instant bull from Bill.


Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister indicate to the House what private or public aversion, or both, she has that prevents her from answering questions that are put to her in this Legislature, in a public manner through this Legislature, rather than via a private letter to the member involved? Is this a procedure becoming a policy of her ministry and does the minister realize that this new policy does not afford a member of this Legislature the opportunity to ask supplementary questions?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is certainly not a policy of the ministry, Mr. Speaker. The reason I sent a letter to the hon. member to answer the question which he had asked was that the information was not entirely forthcoming before the end of the session. However, I did have the information before the beginning of the next session. I felt that if he’d asked the question, he must have wanted to have the information; therefore, I sent it to him by letter, hoping he would find this satisfactory. He does not. Mr. Speaker, I shall get the copy of the letter and read it in the House, if that’s what the hon. member wants.

Mr. Havrot: More verbal fertilizer.


Mr. Bradley: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Further to my inquiry Monday concerning regulations covering containers to transport PCBs, would the minister inform the House whether two more Kingsway Transport trucks, in addition to the one involved in the spill in St. Catharines last week, were inspected by officials of the Ministry of the Environment here in Toronto this week and found to include additional leaking PCB containers?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are two more trucks owned by that particular company which apparently have been hauling PCB-contaminated material from the west to New York state through Ontario. As a result of the accident or spill that happened in the hon. member’s constituency -- this information was garnered from the company, of course, as to the extent of hauling they are doing of this particular material -- it was disclosed that two other trucks were involved and they were inspected.


I wasn’t aware that it was indicated there had been spills from those trucks as well. However, they were inspected and, apparently the company has been advised that there’s a possibility of prosecution -- and also that it is not to haul this type of material in that way in that type of vehicle.

Mr. Bradley: A supplementary: Could the minister inform the House whether a special environmental licence is required to transport polychlorinated biphenyls? If so, has Kingsway Transport been issued such a licence?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I’m not aware of that, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member appreciates, this is interprovincial travel. As a matter of fact, it’s international transportation. It is my understanding that the company has to get a permit at the point of commencement -- in this case, Saskatchewan. I’m not aware of any permit required in this province for such type of transportation.


Mr. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Education. Is the minister aware of the present situation between the Windsor Board of Education and its secondary school teachers, where a contract has still not been signed for the year 1976 due to complications with the AIB? I wonder if the minister is prepared to intervene, as he must consider the relationship that the board has had with its teachers, in order to speed up the process with the AIB?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be glad to discuss this matter with the Education Relations Commission and look into it. If there’s anything that they or we can do that would be in the normal procedure we’ll consider it.

Mr. Cooke: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister, then, is saying that he will approach the ERC? I have done that and they said that they won’t intervene --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary question?

Mr. Cooke: Yes, I want a commitment. I’m asking the minister if he is giving a commitment that he will approach the ERC. They have said they’re reluctant to intervene because they didn’t appoint the arbitrator last year.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The only assurance that I will give the member is that I will discuss it with the Education Relations Commission. That’s the only commitment that I will give at this time.


Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Could the minister advise the House if the Hydro building at 620 University is generating any income at this time?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I believe that’s the old Hydro building that the member is referring to. It is vacant and accordingly I would surmise that it is not generating any income.

Mr. Kerrio: A supplementary: Is the minister pursuing any prospective lessees or, in the alternative, some disposition of that very valuable property?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, it’s my understanding that Ontario Hydro has been trying to sell the property or, alternatively, to lease it. If the member has any prospective customers we’d be delighted to hear from him.

Mr. Kerrio: That kind of an answer deserves a supplementary question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Only if you have a customer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Eddie Sargent has one already.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Sudbury East with a supplementary.

Mr. Wiseman: Here is the leader.

Mr. Martel: Would the minister consider the need of the Legislature, when the third report of the select committee comes in? We will have to close part of this building for renovations, if the decision is made to adopt the third report, so would the minister consider saving that building for the needs of the Legislature?

Mr. Breithaupt: What about the press gallery?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I suppose that could be one consideration. Of course, taken in light of the government not to expand unnecessarily its staff, its bureaucracy and so forth --

Mr. Martel: Just during renovations.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Just a quick supplementary; hydro is an important thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications with regard to the government’s position on the federal government’s proposed increase in Seaway tolls. First of all, I want to thank him for sending me the statement that he’s made so far.

With reference to the statement that he made on March 4, could the minister tell me the membership of the study committees that he has established? Can he indicate to this House when that study will be completed and when this government will have a firm position on the increase in Seaway tolls, and would he consider having the committee contact the western Premiers, and the ministers of transportation of the three prairie provinces in particular, to investigate the impact that the Seaway tolls will have on the traffic of grain from the prairies to the port at Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did send the hon. member copies of statements and press releases which we have issued relating to this proposed increase in Seaway tolls. I can’t name all the members on that committee -- I believe they are mainly members of my transportation planning research staff with, perhaps, some outside members as well. I will get the member the make-up of that committee.

I understand -- and I believe I mentioned it in my letter to the hon. member -- that the committee will be reporting to me in the very near future. I can’t give him an exact date when they will have their report ready but I understand it won’t be too much longer. What we are really looking at is the adverse effect, or any effect, that the changes in Seaway tolls could have on not only shipment by water but by other modes as well.

As far as dealing with the other provinces is concerned, all the ministers of transportation, or highways or whatever their counterpart may be, do meet periodically. We met in Quebec City last September. Seaway tolls and ports policy was one thing we discussed at that time. We will be meeting again this September and we do have informal communications between these regular meetings, but I don’t know at this moment whether Seaway tolls will be on the agenda for the meeting in September or not. It may very well be. Perhaps, if it isn’t, it should be.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister to make direct contact with his three prairie counterparts with regard to this problem, particularly as it relates to the grain-handling industry? Can I get that commitment from him?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, yes. I will be happy to. To my knowledge, I have not had any correspondence brought to my attention from the ministers of transport for the prairie provinces. I saw some of the ministers and people connected with transportation in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago. It wasn’t mentioned to me, but I will make contact and see what their views are.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Is the minister not concerned that if the tolls are raised by any considerable amount there may be plans on the part of the Americans to build the canal on their side?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no information on that. Certainly, as far as the tolls are concerned any negotiations taking place with the United States government are being handled by Transport Canada, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who deals with that type of negotiation with another country. We have had no negotiations on it. I have had no indication of any proposal to build another canal.


Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services: A story in yesterday’s Globe and Mail suggested that certain foster parents in Metro Toronto might be profiteering from taking their foster children on a vacation to Italy and, further, that a senior official of the ministry has agreed with this practice. Has the minister checked into these allegations, particularly since it involves the expenditure of public funds?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, I have.

First of all --

Mr. Roy: Was the question a surprise?

Mr. Grossman: We are not allowed to ask questions. Only you guys can ask them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- I would like to comment that the article that the hon. member refers to is, I suggest, a fine example of how the selective use of information and the selective sorting out of information and leaving out of information available to a reporter on a story can be very destructive. It can be destructive of an institution known as “foster-parenting” in this province, and also destructive of the efforts of some very sincere people who are engaged in child care.

I would like specifically to deal with the allegations with respect to the financial aspects of that vacation.

The moneys that are involved, and which were referred to in the story as in excess of $5,000, are moneys that are normally paid to the foster parents on a per diem basis for the care of the children under their care. The only additional money that is to be paid to the foster parents in this particular instance is approximately $25 per child per week as a vacation expense. I don’t think any member of this House or any member of the public, if they were given the full and accurate information, would ever accuse foster parents of profiteering when they take children on a vacation with a vacation allowance of $25 a week.


Mr. Nixon: I wanted to put a question to the Treasurer pertaining to the application for annexation by the Town of Tillsonburg before the Municipal Board, directed against the township of Norfolk in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. Since the Treasurer, in my view properly, has not allowed this to go before the Municipal Board for hearing, what steps can he take to solve this situation so that the development plans in the township of Norfolk can go forward unimpeded?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are several requests for boundary changes, not only Tillsonburg’s request but also some indication that Woodstock feels there should be a change of boundaries affecting two or three townships within the county of Oxford. I wrote to the warden of Oxford and to the constituent municipalities and asked them some months ago to indicate to me what they might think all the boundary changes were -- or proposed -- not necessarily what would happen. I suggested that hopefully they would be dealt with at one time, rather than spread out over a period of time. As the member is aware, annexations can be and are not only expensive but divisive.

It had been my hope that perhaps, rather than go the Ontario Municipal Board route, since this was a restructured county, we might go a hearing officer route, perhaps using the board as a hearing officer, and leading to recommendations to me which would come forward to the Legislature in the form of legislation. I hoped in some way to avoid -- and I am not wedded to that proposal -- the enormous expense of annexations of which the ongoing saga of Barrie and certain townships is the latest.

I have not yet heard back from the county of Oxford. I think they indicated to me that they expected to have a reply in June, which is now past. I will look into that and see just where it is and, quite frankly, prod them somewhat, because Tillsonburg has expressed a desire to enlarge its boundaries. Whether it is appropriate that they do or not, or how large that enlargement should be, is not for me to say or comment on. But I think at some point they should have an answer, as perhaps should Woodstock.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the hearing officer route could very well be used to involve the boundary changes within the restructured county of Oxford, why couldn’t the Treasurer proceed that way, but exclude the area within Haldimand-Norfolk? That had its boundaries established by this Legislature -- although not unanimously -- just three years ago. This would give Oxford a chance to build on the structures of the lower two municipalities established at that time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that we could debate this at some time, and no doubt will during our estimates. But Tillsonburg is the urban centre and I think, putting it in a very simplistic way, if there is to be urban growth, it may well be into a township which happens to be in another regional municipality. Putting it very, very simply, I think that urban growth would probably be better within one community within one municipality rather than spilling over into a township.


The member, among others, has raised on a number of occasions the ongoing saga of Multi-Mall, and we are heading down that very path again unless there is some adjustment to boundaries.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the Multi-Mall now included in the town of Chatham? Oh, it’s not.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.


Mr. Martel: A question to the Solicitor General: Would he personally intervene in the dispute between the police commission and the police association in Sudbury by coming there personally to meet with both sides to see if he could help resolve the differences which are apparently tearing that police association apart?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me a question along that line the other day. I did say that the police commission had looked into it to see what it could do about getting the parties together and the negotiations were still on. They dropped it at that time. As recently as this morning I asked them to pick it up again.

I realize it’s serious and I’m quite prepared to do what I can. If it means a personal trip to Sudbury to try to get the people together, I’m very pleased to do it.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.


Mr. Roy: Can I, as I am supposed to do according to the standing orders as I see the amendment, advise you, Mr. Speaker, as the new amendment reads, that I give you verbal notice of my intent to raise a matter in the debate immediately at the end of the question period? That’s what I’m doing, and I’m saying I’m very, very dissatisfied with the answers given by the Premier here this morning and I intend to raise it at the adjournment of the House, as I’m supposed to do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If you are here.

Mr. Roy: I will be here.


Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders of the House, I would like to give notice to you that I’m dissatisfied with the answer of the Solicitor General and I would hope that we would pursue this.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. member knows if he reads the instruction, there’s another step to take and then it will be debated next Tuesday.




Hon. Mr. Snow presented the annual report of the Ontario Telephone Services Commission for the year 1976.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on June 30 I made a statement that the annual report of the Ontario Telephone Services Commission would be delayed. That report has now been completed and today I have deposited with the Clerk copies of the 1976 annual report of the Ontario Telephone Services Commission and copies are being delivered to the members and the press gallery.


Mr. Villeneuve from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Education be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry administration program ..... $15,008,000

Education program ..................... 1,952,242,000

Services to education program ......... 23,757,000


Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted.

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient: City of Hamilton, Township of Tay, City of Burlington, City of London, City of Windsor, County of Middlesex, City of Sudbury, City of Kitchener, Circle R Boys’ Ranch, Township of Georgina, City of Ottawa (No. 2).



Hon. Mr. McKeough moved resolution No. 3:

That the authority of the Treasurer of Ontario granted on March 31, 1977, to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing April 1, 1977, be extended to October 31, 1977, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Mr. Renwick: On that government Notice of Motion No. 3, I just wanted to say that we are in agreement with the date of October 31 which the Treasurer has selected for the period of the necessary interim authority to pay the civil service payments that are indicated in the resolution.

Resolution concurred in.



Hon. J. A. Taylor moved first reading of Bill 55, An Act to establish Electrical Service Areas in the regional municipality of Waterloo.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. A. Taylor moved first reading of Bill 56, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Peel.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Roy moved first reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend The Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: I am pleased to see the Premier and the Minister of Education here because the purpose of this bill is to permit the Language of Instruction Commission of Ontario to resolve a dispute relating to languages of instruction arising between a board of education and a French or English language advisory committee in cases where mediation involving a board and the advisory committee has failed. Hopefully, if we’d had this legislation back in 1973, we wouldn’t be here on the Essex bill in 1977.


Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, in view of the fact that sooner or later this particular session will be coming to an end, we would like to recognize the very great effort of the group of young people, our pages, who have served the latter days of the previous Parliament and have started us off on this new 31st Parliament. As is the custom, I will read their names into the record for posterity and will send them a copy of Hansard when that is printed.

We have Todd Brian from Windsor, Marie Elizabeth Carr from Orono, Peter Paul Davis from Beaverton, Susan Louise Forestell from Welland, Fiona Jayne Greenaway from Toronto, Christopher John Hillyer from Mississauga, Timothy Gordon Ridley Hudson from Willowdale, Lisa Michele Jaeger from Burford, Nancy Isabel Johnston from Listowel, Brenda Lynn Kenefick from Brampton, Martha Elizabeth Leach from Port Colborne, Barbara Lee from Thunder Bay, Lisa Ann Machek from Oakville, Darren Joseph Martel from Capreol, Richard Brett Martin from Kitchener, Donald Andrew Misner from Dryden, Cecilia Chelvakumari Rajanayagam from Toronto, Andrew George Saranchuk from St. Catharines, Bradley Donald Scott from Exeter, Lyle Ian Sutherland from Belleville and Janice Jane Willock from Rexdale.

I am sure we all appreciate the efforts of these young people. We are very fortunate that these people were available to come back for these two or three weeks.



Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 3, An Act to require The Essex County Board of Education to provide a French-Language Secondary School.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of Education have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not have an opening statement in the generally accepted sense of the word. I would like to refer the members to the Hansard of April 22, 1977, in which will be found the opening statement which I gave at the beginning of second reading of the bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament.

I think the reasons for the bill are very clearly stated in the opening statement. I might just add two things.

First, I am just a little disappointed that the Essex County Board of Education, knowing what is going obviously to be the decision of this Legislature, which could have been gleaned from the speeches of the three parties during that debate at that time, back on April 22, that this bill obviously would be passed, has not seen fit to take any action in the interval in any way that I know of to effect either the provision of a French-language school or to begin the building of the school we are going to require them to build. For that, I am sorry; I had hoped they would take that action. However, I firmly believe once this Legislature has expressed its opinion on this matter, as it will do very shortly, the board will then proceed to build the school on its own.

There are three sections added to this bill that were not in the bill that was presented before. They are subsections 3, 4 and 5 of section 4. They are merely for clarification and effective implementation if it became necessary for the government itself to build the school for the Essex county school board, an eventuality which I hope will not be necessary.

With those few words, I would hope this House can proceed very quickly and unanimously to pass this bill and that the Essex County Board of Education, then knowing the wishes of this House, acting in its role as mediator in a very touchy and a very inflammatory dispute, will then proceed to build the school, as required by this bill.

Mr. S. Smith: I too have already been afforded the opportunity to address remarks to the House when this bill was introduced in April. At that time, I spoke at a moderate length, so I will be very brief today.

I want to say simply, by way of reiteration, although our party will support the building of the school and the passage of the bill, we are disappointed that the government has allowed the situation to deteriorate and to drag on. It has become a situation of confrontation and bitterness which has festered to a point where it has become a national issue instead of a local one.

I say this without trying to be in any way difficult or nasty. I think this does show the fact that this government, unlike its predecessor, has been insufficiently sensitive to the importance of some of these language issues in the fragile national fabric that makes up this country. I am glad that the government is coming to recognize, however belatedly, its very important responsibility and it has my support as it does so.

I want to mention on the related topic that today’s announcement by the Attorney General about the extension of certain legal rights, the rights to a trial in French in certain parts of this province, was welcomed by me and by my party. I hope the progress which he is obviously making will be speeded.


I think we all know that what’s happening right now in the province of Quebec is that the government there at the moment is acting more and more each day as though they have some kind of authority to separate that province from Canada. I’m sorry to say that that government is using whatever ammunition they can find to radicalize the good citizens of Quebec.

The ammunition they are able to find, unfortunately, is that the English-speaking population in Quebec does enjoy a higher level of services and a greater number of services and a greater number of rights than the French-speaking population of Ontario. It’s very important that we stop giving ammunition to Mr. Levesque and his assistants, that we correct the problem as quickly as possible and do what Mr. Robarts has recommended in his recent address to the conference at York University -- get on with the matter of giving full rights and services to our Franco-Ontarians.

I think the necessity for this bill is evident, but it’s a sad situation because of the way in which municipal autonomy has been overruled. We feel that we have presented a bill -- Mr. Roy having moved it, and I having had the honour to second it -- which would solve problems of this kind. Instead of having to single out a place like Essex county and make the people there feel as though the entire province considers them as bigoted or whatever, we could have a rule that would apply with equal force everywhere in Ontario where there was a French-language minority desirous of having education in the French language.

Our bill would say that there would be a language of instruction commission and that commission would, after dispute and after arbitration, have the final say -- and its say would be binding, which it is not now. We believe that that would solve this kind of problem and would avoid the bitter divisions which have occurred -- pitting Ontarian against Ontarian, language group against language group, in a way that is extremely unfortunate. I can speak from personal experience during the last campaign about the depth of bitterness which has occurred and the dangerous levels to which some of this has risen.

I want to say simply that we believe in this time of restraint that if it were possible for an existing building to be used for the school, provided it meets two criteria, then such should be done. The two criteria would be that the existing building must be of quality equal to those buildings presently enjoyed by the English-speaking population and its location must be of a degree of convenience equal to that presently enjoyed by the English-speaking population -- insofar as that’s reasonable given the more dispersed nature of the French-speaking population.

We feel if those criteria could be met, then existing buildings ought to be investigated properly. If they cannot be met, we are not going to allow a second-class school that would not be acceptable to the English population to be given to the French-speaking population. So we say we’re for an existing building if one exists that meets these criteria. Failing that a new school must be built.

Our local members will have something to say because they feel that their citizens have been wronged by this procedure and by the stalling and the delays and the bitterness and division which has been the fault of this government’s procedures over the past seven years, and they will express themselves in their own manner I am sure. Nonetheless, in view of the national urgency and in view of our deep commitment to minority rights, our party will support the bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I’d just like to remind the members in the House that when one of the members has the floor I hope they will keep their private conversations down to a minimum.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 3. My mind, intellect and sense of justice and fairness are totally committed to the establishment of this French-language secondary school for Windsor and Essex county, and I rejoice with the francophones as they near the end of their eight-year struggle to attain this school. However, I am dismayed that there should ever come before us in this Legislature a bill so tragically entitled, “An Act to require The Essex County Board of Education to provide a French-language Secondary School,” a title that might cause even the most casual visitor in the gallery today to think, “What is the history of anger and hatred and heartache and lack of human understanding that would cause a bill of this title to have to be debated here?” I must commend the Minister of Education for his opening address on April 22 last where he outlined so thoroughly and accurately, step by step, the history of this struggle from 1969 to the present, a struggle that so clearly indicates to us why it is so imperative for the members of this Legislature to support the principle of this bill, the provision of a French-language secondary school for the students of Windsor and Essex county.

On that day, April 22, our education critic, the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), also gave a very excellent and moving address in support of the legislation. She, like the Minister of Education, will not be repeating that address here today.

The wording of the clauses in this bill are so uncompromising, so brutal in fact, but unfortunately so necessary. They leave no doubt as to the intentions of this Legislature, because it says, “On the day this Act comes into force, the board is deemed to have passed a resolution to construct a building ... ” It leaves no doubt that it is to be a new school either, with the words: “Within 30 days the board shall ... select a site ... that is not ... the location of an existing school.” The minister has now, so belatedly and lamentedly, I’m sure, on his part, judged the depth of feelings and emotions accurately for it pounds yet further forward, “Where the board fails to take action, the minister may thereupon cause all such things to be done as are necessary to construct the school.”

I would have much preferred The Education Act to be amended rather than have this bill now before us, which is so specific and singles out and makes an example of the people and their democratic choices of the school board members in Essex county. I hope and trust that this bill will never have to serve as a model and be used again for future bills for other similar situations in our province.

All that would have been needed was the deletion of the phrase “in the opinion of the board” from section 255, subsection 4, of the French-language instruction portion of The Education Act, and a reasonable number, such as 250, for example, inserted so that the amended section would then read: “Where a board provides or is required to provide for the use of the French-language instruction in one or more classes in a secondary school and the number of French-speaking pupils who elect to be taught in the French language reaches 250, the board shall provide an appropriate unit for a secondary school or, where practicable, a French-language secondary school.”

A second clause, possibly, would also need to be inserted for schools like Paincourt or other units that are already in existence that are below the stated figure of 250, but that also could have been simply covered by an additional clause which would read: “On the day upon which this Act comes into force, all French-language schools or units below 250 students shall continue to exist until such time as their operation becomes impracticable and an acceptable alternative is provided for those French-speaking pupils.”

My colleague from Carleton East in her so eloquent and moving address of April 22, called this bill a testimony to failure. We are all, in our own small and different ways, to blame.

The real culprit throughout has been procrastination and neglect. The Essex County Board of Education, having voted 12-6 in April, 1975, to proceed with the construction of the school, within weeks only of the breaking of the ground reversed its position on February 23, 1976, when a motion to proceed with the construction was defeated as a result of a 9-9 tie vote. Three members had changed their votes and the question is, what happened to change their minds and affect their hearts? It’s very clear what happened. In December, 1975, the minister announced the new grant structures as part of the government’s austerity program -- an austerity program, I might remind the House, which came about as the result of government overspending on its programs in the 1975 election year in an effort to retain its majority position. They changed the grant structures, which reduced the grants for capital construction from 95 per cent to 77 per cent. This meant that the capital costs of construction per average Essex county householder annually would increase for the construction of this school from 35 cents a year to $1.65 per year over the next 20 years. It is a paltry sum, the price of two packs of cigarettes a year but unfortunately enough of an increase to cause a group called the Essex County Ratepayers’ Association to oppose vehemently the construction of this school on the basis of the increased taxes.

I asked the Minister of Education, in March, 1976, to restore that grant to the 95 per cent level for the purpose of this school only in order to avoid the continuing and building controversy and bitterness. The minister refused. If he had done so then, certainly one, if not two and possibly all three, of the members of the board who had changed their votes would have changed their votes back again and the school would have been ready for occupancy this September.

The minister’s restoration of the grant to the 95 per cent level in March, 1977, came a year too late. He and his cabinet colleagues could have avoided all of this situation which arose over the past year and a half in Essex county by the restoration of that grant to 95 per cent, when it became obvious to the local members, and they told him -- at least for my part I did -- of the ensuing bitterness and problems which would arise. I perhaps may be faulted for not pressing the minister harder, more often and more publicly, but he must bear that major responsibility for that political ineptitude at that time.

Subsequent to that, the minister did in fact try his best. He tried to bring reason with a mediator in May, 1976, with the appointment of Robert A. McLeod, the retired former director of education for the Niagara South Board of Education, who tendered an excellent, balanced report in which he recommended: “That school facilities be constructed to provide French-language programs for students as is done for English-language students; that the principal and staff of French-language facilities be bilingual with the language of administration and communication to be French; that options in English, as may be desired by the French-language students, be provided; that the facilities be constructed and operated under existing policies of the board as in effect for English-language schools; and that necessary supervision for French-language programs be arranged for with the Ministry of Education on the basis that there be no local charge for the service.”


Those were the points in his report, but in fact the really interesting part of his report comes later. He concluded with the most interesting, pertinent and wise commentary.

He commented, and I quote: “The place for both English and French to learn the second language of their country is in the school. It is now perfectly clear that it cannot be done efficiently anywhere else. The country’s experience in trying to do so outside the regular school system has proven to be enormously costly to the taxpayers, and the results are not satisfactory. If this board in its wisdom sees fit to approve the French-language secondary facilities as outlined, it will be evidence of a commitment to French-language education for both English and French in a setting where it will be most effective.

“It is recognized that due to the length of time the school has been under consideration, approximately eight years, together with the controversial issues throughout the country involving bilingualism, the community to some degree at least has become polarized on the issue. As evidence of that situation is the recent involvement of municipal officials in the matter, the rise of the ratepayers’ association and a French-language school action committee. It is time the issue is settled before irreparable damage is done to the school system and to the community.

“The provision of facilities for the minority French-language students, as presently enjoyed by the English-language students, hopefully will trigger all the fair-minded people of Essex to express their support for the board in its difficult position. In addition, it will stand out as an example to our country that anglophones and francophones can amicably work out solutions to their problems. Such an example will surely serve the real interest of all Canadians at this particular point in time. Failure to do so could be a damaging blow to our future.”

A very prophetic and futuristic looking report, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately this report wasn’t released until February, 1977, and I suspect that it was ready before the school board elections took place in December, 1976. If it was, that again was a mistake in political judgement by the minister in not seeing that it should have been released earlier, for the school became the main, if not the only issue, in the school board election of December, 1976 -- with the minister and his mediator standing by and not helping to influence that decision by the release of the McLeod report. As a result of those elections, school board candidates defeated incumbents solely on their support of the construction of the French-language school and subsequently the Essex County Board of Education in March, 1977, voted 12-5 against the McLeod report and against the construction of this school.

Needless to say, having supported the establishment of this school throughout, consistently and without any modification of my support, I have encountered not a little criticism for my very public stance. I want to indicate why I support it and how I came to that position. I have taken the trouble and the time to read those portions of the Confederation debates of 1865 that dealt with education -- particularly the speeches of Attorney General West -- John A. Macdonald, from Kingston; Attorney General East -- George Cartier, from Montreal East; the Hon. J. S. Sanborn, from Wellington; the Hon. D’Arcy McGee, Minister of Agriculture, from Montreal West; the Hon. A. A. Dorion, from Hochelaga; and the Hon. George Brown, president of that council, from South Oxford.

In addition to that, a selection edited by P. B. Waite entitled, The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada, 1865, published by the Carleton Library and referred to me by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) -- a reference that I pay him tribute for. It got me into reading not only that document, but the original documents in the original debates.

In those speeches I learned -- although it was not explicitly stated, but certainly implied and assumed -- that both English and French language groups were accorded by Confederation the right of education in their own language wherever they may live. To illustrate the flavour, Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote very briefly from the speech of the Hon. John Rose, Montreal Centre:

“Now we, the English Protestant minority of Lower Canada, cannot forget that whatever right of separate education we have was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way before the proposed union of our provinces when we were in a minority position and entirely in the hands of the French population. We cannot forget that in no way was there any attempt to prevent us from educating our children in the manner we saw fit and deemed best, and I would be untrue to what is just if I forgot to state that the distribution of state funds for educational purposes was made in such a way as to have no cause for complaint on the part of the English-speaking minority in Lower Canada. I believe we have always had our fair share of the public grants, insofar as the French element could control them, and not only the liberty, but every facility for the establishment of separate, dissentient schools.”

I diverge to say that was the term applied to any school other than one considered at the time to be the main school in the two provinces -- “dissentient schools.” I return to the address of Mr. Rose:

“A single person has the right, under the law, of establishing a dissentient school and obtaining a fair share of the educational grant, if he can gather together 15 students who desire instruction in it. Now, we cannot forget that in the past this liberality has been shown to us, and that whatever we desired of the French majority in respect to education, they were, if it was at all reasonable, willing to concede. We have, thus, in this also, the guarantee of the past, that nothing will be done in the future unduly to interfere with our rights and interests as regards education, and I believe that everything we desire will be as freely given by the local legislatures as it was before the union of the Canadas.”

“Hear, hear” is recorded by Hansard at that time. Immediately there was an interjection at that point which further clarified the intent, in 1865, of the gentlemen gathered together to create Canada.

It was an interjected question by the Hon. L. H. Holton from Chateauguay, and the question was, “Dissentient on the account of language?”

Rose replied, “The question relates to all dissentient schools from whatever cause that may lead them to dissent.”

Again cries of “Hear, hear” were recorded, indicating that in 1865 it was very clear that whenever 15 students could be gathered together and wished to receive instruction in their language, either French or English, wherever they may be, that was a right that was going to be granted. And, in fact, it was a right.

Before I get into Quebec, I just might say that the minister in his remarks of April 22 quoted from an even earlier letter written by the father of our educational system, Dr. Egerton Ryerson, who in 1857 wrote to the trustees of Charlottenburgh township in Ontario. He says in that letter: “I have the honour to state in reply to your letter of the 16th that as French is the recognized language of the country, as well as English, it is quite proper and lawful for the trustees to allow both languages to be taught in their schools to children whose parents may desire them to learn both.” Quite clearly in Ontario, we have a tradition dating back to 1857 by Dr. Ryerson himself indicating that both languages were to be taught when requested and that it was right and proper for parents to demand that instruction for their children if they so desired it. It is a real tragedy that in Ontario we’ve procrastinated for 110 years in formulizing that policy in legislation and in action.

Quebec over the years, with its 183 English-language secondary schools, has lived up to the spirit of Confederation much more than we have in Ontario with our now only 24 French-language schools. This basic right, however, has been belatedly but clearly recognized in Ontario for 10 years now, supported by all political parties and legitimized in legislation since 1968. Therefore, in arriving at my support for the building and construction of that French school in Essex county, it is clear to me, and the basis of my support is, that it is a legitimate right of Franco-Ontarians in Windsor and Essex county to receive an education in their own language and, where there are sufficient numbers of students, as there is clearly in our area, those legitimate minority rights must be recognized and a school provided for them.

The previous speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, made reference to an area that interests me as it pertains to the current situation with respect to Canadian unity in Canada. I agree with him that we in Ontario as one of the two major founding provinces of Canada must take a leadership role in maintaining our national unity. We must not provide any excuse or opportunity to Premier Levesque to say to the people of Quebec as they approach a referendum that francophones are not welcome in Ontario or that their basic language rights are not respected and not granted. If we do not construct this school for the francophone student population in Essex county, it affords Mr. Levesque that opening and that opportunity to address in exactly those terms the people of Quebec with respect to francophone rights in other parts of Canada.

I might just say, however -- and I won’t dwell on it -- that English-language rights in the province of Quebec are still very much further ahead than French-language rights in the province of Ontario, including the changes that are proposed to be made in their education Act. Although the education Act that’s now proposed would appear to limit the right of free choice of any parent as to which of the two language systems they would send their children now in the province of Quebec, it in no way decreases our obligation in Ontario to provide that free choice to every resident of Ontario to educate his children in whatever language, French or English, he deems fit and proper to so do.


One of the major concerns I ran into, both before the election and of course during it, in spades, was expressed by the people of Windsor as to the numbers of pupils in Essex county who may, in fact, attend this school. They said there may not be enough students for a school of 750 and that the school population would dwindle, thereby leaving us with a white elephant in Essex county.

I want to reply to those people very clearly, as I did and spent so much time doing in that six-week campaign. A joint survey was conducted by the Windsor Board of Education and the Essex County Board of Education in the fall of 1973. That survey was very carefully prepared -- so carefully prepared and gone over that when it was finally finished and approved by both boards it was even called a survey instrument.

What did they do with this survey? Information meetings were held in all of the French-language elementary schools in Windsor and the county and in the High School of Commerce to explain the purpose of the survey, and the hope for construction of the French-language high school. The survey was given out with self-addressed envelopes to the appropriate board, and two other things took place: It was assumed and stated that the county would pay transportation costs for all of the county students to that school, but it was made very clear to the Windsor parents that they would probably have to pay their own transportation costs.

There were no hidden arguments, no facts kept from the parents of students in French-language elementary schools in either board. As a result, a very realistic enrolment of 837 students was indicated for the school by its fourth year of operation. It was probably a conservative estimate as well, since a later study, in February 1975, by the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario and by ministry officials projected an enrolment of 1,008 by the third year of operation.

In February 1976, at the time the 9-9 vote tie resulted, Mrs. Jean Ashton, chairman of the Essex County Board of Education, issued a press statement vouching for the complete accuracy of those enrolment figures, as well as detailing the minimal cost to the taxpayer. The Windsor Board of Education, under the chairmanship of Neil Libby, had already signed a 10-year agreement with the Essex County Board of Education to pay for a minimum of 125 students.

The enrolment is assured beyond any doubt. There are at present four French-language elementary schools in Windsor and seven in the county, graduating an average of 30 students per year for a total of 330 students exiting from grade 8 from those schools. Even if only 50 per cent of those graduating students end up in that high school, a school of this size would be justified.

Again, one of their concerns is that once established the numbers may well decrease. In virtually every other recently-established French secondary school in Ontario, enrolments have been maintained or have gone steadily up. I am just going to read these briefly:

In Kapuskasing, the school called Cité des Jeunes; in 1972 the enrolment was 873; it is now 908, at the end of 1976. I don’t have the 1977 figures -- I wish I had. In the Timmins board, Ecole Theriault -- the 1972 enrolment 1,604, the 1976 enrolment 1,660, an increase. In the Timiskaming board, Ecole Sainte-Marie in New Liskeard, 708 in 1972, 750 in 1976. In Sudbury there are four schools -- Franco-Jeunesse, Hanmer, Macdonald-Cartier and Rayside in Azilda; the 1972 enrolment in the four schools, 3,969; the 1976, 4,019.

In the Nipissing board, two schools -- Algonquin in North Bay and Franco Cité in Sturgeon Falls -- a combined student population in those two schools from 1972 to 1976 showing only a 40-student decrease. In both of those schools the 1972 enrolment was above what the school boards in both schools liked to consider the optimum enrolment. Even with 40 students less, enrolment in the combined schools still is not down to what the school board considers to be the optimum occupancy rate for those two schools. No cause for concern.

In Carleton -- the school Garneau in Orléans: 1972 enrolment, 684, the 1976 enrolment 1,162. Fantastic increase. In Ottawa, six schools -- André Laurendeau in Vanier, Belcourt, Cartier, Champlain, Charlebois and De La Salle; combined enrolment of 6,646 in 1972 and 6,614 in 1976, with that total enrolment virtually a steady state situation. In Prescott and Russell hoard, there are three schools -- Casselman-Cambridge in Casselman, Embrun in Embrun and Rockland -- 1,317 in 1972 and 1,233 in 1976, a slight decrease.

Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, La Citadelle in Cornwall -- formerly the E. S. St. Laurent, French-English bilingual school -- 758 enrolment in 1972, 995 in 1976. In North York, Etienne Brulé; 494 in 1972, 566 in 1976. In Hamilton, Georges Vanier, established since 1972, has an enrolment of close to 300.

The Niagara south board, Confederation in Welland; 874 in 1972 has decreased to 753 in 1976. I hear from the member for Welland that there has been an increase in this year 1977 from the 753. In the county of Kent, Paincourt school in Paincourt, established many years ago, has a steady student population of 96 in 1972, 96 in 1976.

The total for the 1972 enrolments was 20,368, and for 1976, 21,400 -- no decrease in our French student populations, but rather an increase right across Ontario.

I want to add a very personal note, Mr. Speaker, at this time. The three children which. I have fathered have all attended Ecole Lucien Beaudoin, a French-language elementary school, since kindergarten. In 1970 when Christine, the oldest of my children, entered, only two other children in her classroom came from anglophone families. In 1975 when my youngest, Jimmy, entered, fully one-third of the children in his class were from anglophone families or fully assimilated francophone English-speaking families.

The question one might ask is -- why this increase? One reason is the example in the community of older children, such as my 12-year-old daughter Christine, who appear intelligent and who have obviously had a sound basic education, but who, just as obviously, are fluently bilingual and fully literate in both languages, consistent with their attained age and their year of school. Francophone parents, of course, desire their children to attend a French-language school for reasons that are more cultural, for the retention of their heritage and their way of life.

Anglophones, however, need proof that a French education is beneficial and that the graduates are bilingual. It’s graduates like Christine and graduates of that school who are older, who are bilingual and have suffered no decrease in their education, who point out to anglophones that it can be done. That is what has caused the increasing number of anglophone families in the community to send their children to that and other French-language schools in the area.

In a few years it will be much more evident than it is now in our country that the concept of anglophone kids attending a French-language school is the best means of becoming bilingual; that concept will sell itself. At that point we will have the graduates from the proposed secondary school. What a pity and what an injustice that we haven’t already seen six years of graduates already from that French-language secondary school; what a greater pity and a vaster neglect that the Tories, who have governed Ontario for far too long now, didn’t move to have French-language elementary and secondary schools fully in place in the public system 20 and 30 years ago.

We had to wait until just last April to have placed before us a document entitled, The Teaching and Learning of French as a Secondary Language Program. In Windsor and Essex county all of the French-language elementary schools are in the separate board and this government has done little to encourage, until April last, the real teaching of French and the extension of that into our systems across Ontario, particularly in most of the public schools where it’s so lacking.

One of the concerns I ran into, both before this election campaign and throughout it, were parents who said, “Well, we’re not sure whether we support the French-language secondary school, but what really irritates us is that French is not given in our schools from kindergarten on.” And when you inquired what kind of French-language instruction they would like to have, they were talking in terms of an immersion program. There’s a great feeling among the majority of parents in the city of Windsor to have their students in an English-French immersion program in their schools, starting from kindergarten on. That is a very real feeling and I want the minister and the ministry officials to know that; that is the program that we should be moving to just as quickly as we can. Those parents who have older children regret that the program wasn’t there and in place for them while they were in their lower grades of school and preferably from kindergarten on.


A real solution to the French-language question is, of course, to teach French to children at this early age. If there ever was a time to teach a second language, free from all prejudices, anxieties, obstacles and inhibitions that we adults all share, it is in early childhood. Kids love another language. I’ve seen my three kids go in and they simply have a real joy, at age five, age six, age seven and thereafter, in learning the new words, having two words for each object which they encounter, and at seeing both languages develop as they talk with us and with other children in school and with their brothers and sisters in my home. They pick it up so spontaneously, so quickly, so unaffectedly, and we grown-ups learn it so slowly, we resist it so fiercely and use it so infrequently. We must get a valid program into our school system.

The minister also made one other mistake in judgement throughout this entire establishment of a French-language secondary school in Windsor, but one I think we would all have made, trusting as he did -- the mistake was in trusting -- the good faith of people, particularly the elected school board members of Essex county. I refer to the portion of the minister’s February 13, 1976, letter to the Essex board where, as part of the conditions surrounding the grants for the French school, he allocated a further half-million dollars to accommodate the immediate capital needs for projects at Belle River High School, Kingsville High School and Essex District High School, and even went further to say that if the need for local improvements could be substantiated, such expenditure would be considered part of the cost of that combined project for grant purposes.

This half-million dollars was, of course, widely interpreted to be a conditional grant -- yet the half-million dollars was entirely used and a French school not built. That was a mistake in judgement by the minister, but in this case perhaps one, used to dealing with people who deal in good faith, may not have been able to predict beforehand.

There are a few other failures that give rise to this French feeling in Windsor and Essex county and the bitterness caused by this whole issue. One of them, I may say, is the federal government, because of which virtually every immigrant who arrived in this country over the last 25 years has no understanding whatsoever of our constitution of Canada that indicates there are both French and English and their respective rights to education and to language, even language, in this country. Their initial reaction is, “I’m Italian,” “I’m Greek,” or “I’m Polish,” and then “Why do the French have a particular right in this country?”

When they immigrated and when they took out their citizenship, there was no attempt made by the federal government in any way, shape or form -- and I’ve asked each one of them, “What happened when you took out your citizenship? What did you have to read? What were you asked?’ -- no attempt at all by the federal government with those immigrants to indicate to them the history of this country as it relates to the French-English question. It’s a real failure on the part of our federal government with respect to the education of those immigrants when they arrived or took out their citizenship in this country.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might return to the principle of this bill. He’s talking about federal matters at this point.

Mr. Swart: He’s right on.

Mr. Bounsall: I’m right on. I’m indicating that this bill is a bill that is necessary because of a particular situation in Essex county and the bitterness, Mr. Speaker, and I’m indicating what has given rise to the bitterness, which is the lack of understanding at virtually every level, and this is one of the grossest examples of what should have been done but wasn’t done over the years. The federal government should remedy it.

Mr. Kerrio: You were right on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: One of the other points which is of rather more than minor irritation in Essex county, which the federal government should pay some attention to, is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation French station. They almost consistently refuse to hire anybody in that station from Windsor and Essex county, who speak the Windsor-Essex county patois, of course. They bring down employees for that radio station from, basically, the province of Quebec who continually deride the existing French-language people there for their particular accent.

I say to the CBC they had better change their policies. They had better open up their eyes and start hiring people from the area who at least will not deride the particular accent which is spoken down there.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. I fail to see how your comments concerning CBC hiring practices in Windsor relate to the principle of this bill. Would you kindly return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Bounsall: That’s not surprising, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: It’s the kind of confusion that leads to the problem.

Mr. Bounsall: Let me say, as I said on the other point, that I’m indicating quite clearly why the bitterness is there and why this board did not pass that school and why we have to have this bill before us.

Let me continue to address myself to the many concerns I’ve heard from individuals in the anglophone community. One of the questions that one hears often from school board members or the ratepayers’ association is the question of local autonomy that’s breached by this bill. Let us not forget that the autonomy which school boards have is granted by this Legislature. The autonomy can be increased or decreased by this Legislature.

It is indeed a sad day that the autonomy granted and exercised so responsibly by all must in the case of this Essex County Board of Education and in this one very small area be taken back by us. We do not do this lightly. We do it with a heavy heart. But we do it with a defensible position that in a civilized, democratic society the majority must respect the legitimate rights of a minority. I hope no member of this House feels that in a case of legitimate minority right an autonomy granted by this Legislature should not prevail.

In regard to section 4 of the bill, I say to the members of the Essex county school board, those members who are expressing their anger and very deep emotion over the autonomy issue: “Do not cause the minister to take away further autonomy through the exercise of section 4 of this bill and cause the Minister of Education to have to build this particular school.”

Of the other concerns often expressed to me by the anglophone community over this school, one is that the graduates of this school will get all the top federal government positions that are going because they’ll clearly be the only people in our society, at least from the province of Ontario, who are bilingual. That is very true. I’ve encouraged parents who have children of whatever age in elementary school to send their children to Alliance française courses or to whatever courses they can take in order that before they get out of elementary school they might be able to switch to the French-language school in the elementary system but certainly to get themselves into a position, if the children are willing to enter that French-language secondary school, to take advantage of what I think is a true statement, the increased opportunity for job positions with the federal government.

I really don’t have very much to say to those persons who approach me on this topic and say: “Quebec wants to separate and I don’t think we should impede the separation of Quebec. If they choose by their decision to separate, I think we should let them go.” I have nothing to say to these people who start with that premise and then conclude, when I say we don’t want to let them go, “I think we should join the United States. I think the province of Ontario should join the United States and we’ll extend our OHIP system right across the United States.”

Mr. Kerrio: What has that got to do with the bill?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Will the hon. member return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Swart: He is right on.

Mr. Bounsall: I am. I am right on, Mr. Speaker. I could argue that point out with the Speaker again if he wishes.


Mr. Bounsall: To those persons who express that concern, where they clearly don’t grasp the whole issue of minority rights in French-language education that was established at Confederation, it obviously has no relevance to them whatsoever. With them I can just say, “You are more American than Canadian. Best of luck in joining the States and establishing the OHIP system across the United States.” I don’t usually even continue on and argue the problems with the OHIP system which we have. There is nothing much one can say.

Anglophones have said to me as well, with respect to this bill, Mr. Speaker, “My children shall derive no benefit from this school. Why should I support it? Why should I help pay for it?” To those anglophones, I ask them a question in return. “Have you ever objected to the provision of other special education facilities such as schools for the retarded -- Churchwood, for example, in Windsor? Thanks to providence, your children also didn’t make use of these.”

From others I have heard that French “is being forced down our throats.” It should be obvious, but let me reassure anglophones in Essex county who still feel that way that this bill forces absolutely no one to learn French. It forces no one to go to a French school. It is clearly a matter of parental and children’s choice whether the children attend the French school and become bilingual. What this bill simply does is to make that choice available at the secondary level and makes it available in the way most assured of producing a truly bilingual student at the end of high school.

It has been said to me that the school would have been built some years ago if the proposed initial design had not included an auditorium. Yes, the original design did, but why should the francophones not try for the best? And if it is turned down, well they tried. C’est la vie. In fact, provincial grant moneys for an auditorium were completely removed and the auditorium was dropped from the plans. It was never discussed again, not even behind the scenes. So those who bring that point forward simply do not know the situation.

Some comments have been made about the French-language advisory committee turning down offers made in good faith by the Windsor board to provide a school. Those who say that simply have heard only half a story. It’s true that at a joint meeting of the two boards in 1974 -- and therefore an informal meeting -- Neil Libby, the then chairman of the Windsor board, offered that a school in Windsor be established for use by September 1974, and that the ministry be consulted as soon as possible re a long-range plan for the construction of a new building.

The High School of Commerce was the school in mind, but several things, it immediately became evident, were wrong with that proposal. It contained virtually no technical facilities and the renovations to include such facilities would have required $2.5 million to $3 million, almost the price of a new school at that point. Spending that kind of sum on renovations, it would then become “the” school and not an interim measure. It would not be centrally located, as all the studies indicated it should be for the francophone population, and it would involve much more lengthy and more costly driving miles for transportation.

Monarch High School was mentioned at a Windsor board meeting but no formal offer was ever made because parents of Monarch High School objected immediately and strenuously. Belle River High School, I am told, was considered for expansion by the building of a wing, it being a school which is bilingual in the county, but that would have wiped out the outdoor athletic facilities entirely for both French and English, and therefore was not practical. A new shared school at St. Clair Beach with two wings and a shared gymnasium, cafeteria and lab facilities was considered and touted, but the problem there was that there are no new English-language classroom facilities required. Thus, no approval would ever be forthcoming, at least in the present state, for additional English-language classroom facilities in any part of the county.


More recently, we have heard of the use of the University of Windsor’s faculty of education building, a building still owned by the ministry. I want to say what I said during the campaign when I was asked about that at the doors of that university. I said I had no objection, if the building could be used. But there are three main disadvantages to the use of that building. The Windsor Board of Education, that facility being in Windsor, would have to agree to administer the school. And with one quarter or less of the students of that school being from Windsor, and three quarters from the county, it has never been thought reasonable by the Windsor Board of Education to administer the French-language school for the area. They have never considered it and still, from my informal conversations with them, board members do not deem it reasonable that they should administer the French school.

But if they said, “Yes, we will do it,” you would then have the Ministry of Colleges and Universities saying that classroom and office space would need to be built at the University of Windsor campus to replace it; the ministry would have to be agreeable to that. But that is probably the least of the problems in connection with that particular facility. I think the Ministry of Colleges and Universities would, in fact, do that, if the Windsor board agreed to build that additional classroom and office space back down on campus, where it is at present six miles away and not a very happy situation for the university.

But the real problem is still the Essex County Board of Education, which, if those two conditions were met, would still have to say, “We will buy from the Windsor Board of Education, in an agreement such as the Windsor board has already signed, a minimum guarantee to purchase a minimum number of spaces in that school for whatever number of pupils want to go.” The problem with the Essex County Board of Education is that ever since its formation it has consistently refused to buy any facility or space from the Windsor Board of Education, for any reason. And on this issue, I would suspect, they certainly would not.

I may be wrong. But they went to great lengths to avoid buying 400 spaces at Vincent Massey High School on the far west side of the Windsor board and busing students an average of only four miles from the La Salle area to that school. They went to great lengths to avoid that and caused a double teaming of classrooms at Amherst High for some three or four years, to the great dismay of teachers, pupils, and everybody else; and they bused the students an average of eight miles to get to that school, all to avoid, buying facilities and space from the Windsor board. So, on this issue I can see, in the final analysis, a great problem there.

If those three things can be worked out, there is no problem. In addition, that facility has an auditorium which perhaps would be of some advantage to the francophone community. But it is well beyond the point, I think, where this can be considered. If that offer had been brought up five years ago, it may have been welcomed. But the situation has gone too far.

The building of a new school, as this bill proposes, in an appropriate location, has become a symbol in the francophone community, a symbol much larger than just a place to conduct classes in French. It has become a symbol of the preservation of one of our two founding cultures. Of course, we have managed in Ontario to virtually destroy the Indian and Eskimo cultures, and the Franco-Ontarians fear for their cultural future. It is a symbol as well of our majority anglophone toleration of minority groups.

This next point, I have understood the least, and found the most difficult to grasp; but I have arrived at the belief and understanding that the francophones in Ontario, and in our area, have a right to their own school in their own location, just as we anglophones have always had provided to us. To be told where the location should be, if it is not acceptable to the francophone population, is simply not an acceptable solution or situation.

I say to the francophones, as we are about to pass this bill, by this bill you have not only won the battle, you have won the eight-year war. The true measure of a victor is how you act toward the vanquished. The time is near at hand, and those are the terms in which it’s stated down there, I might say to the member for Ottawa East, when you can rejoice quietly --

Mr. Roy: It is not.

Mr. Bounsall: -- when you do not rub it into the anglophones, when you toss no victorious looks and you bury any bitterness you have. To the members of the Essex county school board and the people of Essex, there is great honour in a defeat gracefully accepted. I ask the anglophones who are still upset about the building of this school not to subject themselves to any prolonged last-ditch legal moppings-up.

Some say why is there the need at all for a French-language school? Why not a bilingual school? What’s wrong with that? As Professor Tom Symons, commissioner of the Commission on French-Language Secondary Schools, has pointed out, there is really no such entity as a bilingual school. There are English-language schools that teach some courses in French and there are French-language schools that teach some courses in English.

We have to ask ourselves, therefore, how do we achieve in Essex county a bilingual Canadian? The only real chance for a student immersed and surrounded as we are in the English language to become bilingual in Essex county, in my opinion, is to attend a French-language school, where the administration is in French, the language of communication is in French and all activities are in French. The problem in Essex county is to retain and to speak enough French because English is so readily available.

There will, of course, be English taught as a language in that French school. The Education Act states -- where 20 students or more request that a given course be taught in English there is a clear legislative direction under section 2(66) of the Act that that course or those courses be taught in English. I understand from the French-language advisory committee that there will be no problem locally in that French school for those options to be taught in English as desired by French-language students. They will be provided if the request is there.

Mr. Symons went on further in this report and said in a comment about bilingual schools that most francophone students in Ontario are usually bilingual already because of circumstances outside the classroom, whereas most anglophone students are not. What nearly always happens in a so-called mixed school or bilingual school is that the language of communication and administration, and thus the overall atmosphere, is English. Much more often than not, therefore, the mixed or so-called bilingual school is a one-way street to assimilation for the French-speaking student.

I will end on a personal note. When the school opens in the fall of 1978, among those in that entering class, God willing, will be my daughter Christine. If that school had not been built, we certainly would have made other arrangements for her continued French-language education at whatever cost to us. All members of this Parliament involved in this bill should be invited to the official opening of this school, including the very few, and I hope none by the time this debate is concluded -- who have not yet found it in their hearts or consciences to support the building of this school.

I hope all members will come. I want to say one more thing. I will be there on the day the school opens, quietly and unobtrusively hidden in the background because I want to observe the pride, the exultation, the joie de vivre with which those students enter this school for the first time, the school that they have heard about and that would be provided since the days they were in kindergarten, nine long years ago. It is a unique scene that will not often be repeated in Ontario, and would that all our students across this land entered their schools with the same feeling that this group of francophone students will have on that opening day.

On motion by Mr. Sterling, the debate was adjourned.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House I would like to table the answer to questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 standing on the notice paper.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the House adjourned at 1 p.m.