31st Parliament, 1st Session

L082 - Fri 16 Dec 1977 / Ven 16 déc 1977

The House met at 10 a.m.



Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) made a number of statements with regard to the fire in the transformer on Adelaide Street. We have good reason to believe these statements have served to misinform the House in a serious way. I’d like to quote the statements point by point, if I might. The first one I quote from the Minister of the Environment from Instant Hansard, page 24:

“Hydro knows full well the steps that have to be taken and the information that should be given to the firemen when they arrive on the scene.”

We have spoken to Mr. John Smith, the platoon chief at the Adelaide Street fire hall, who was the senior fire department official at the scene of the fire. He was contacted yesterday by our research office at 5:30 p.m. He asked for the Hydro man in charge of the site and he said he was told that the fire involved “a new type of inflammable liquid used in the transformer.” He was not told that the material had any toxic qualities. This was confirmed by Mr Goyette, assistant manager of power service department of Toronto Hydro, who says in today’s Globe and Mail:

“Toronto Hydro has no contingency plans for such emergencies involving transformer fires containing PCBs.”

Point two: “Hon. Mr. Kerr: We advised all the employees and the firemen of what was involved here and what precautions should be taken. That information was given on the scene.

“Mr. Lewis: To whom?

“Hon. Mr. Kerr: To the Hydro employees and to the firemen. That information was passed immediately by our people from central region who attended on the scene at about 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. that day.”

Mr. John Smith, the platoon chief, says he was on the scene until the very last firefighter left at approximately 11 a.m. That means that he left and the others left at least two hours before the environment officials even arrived on the scene. He said he was not aware even yesterday at 5:30 p.m. of any particular dangers connected with the fire. He says, furthermore, that he took no special precautions with respect to his clothing or equipment.

This has been confirmed by Fire Chief Bonser, and I quote from the Globe and Mail: “His men weren’t informed about the health hazards of the PCBs until he read about it in the Globe.”

Point three -- and perhaps a somewhat lesser point -- the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) prior to the arrival of the Environment minister said, and I quote, that, “the site has been entirely cleaned at this point,” meaning yesterday. This was allegedly confirmed by the Environment minister outside the House.

Now, however, ministry officials quoted in the Globe and Mail, and I quote: “Removal of the soot covering the building would not begin until basically Thursday night,” -- that’s last night, some time after we met here in the House.

Now there are obvious concerns arising from this. I won’t labour the point by listing all the very clear contradictions; but when the lives of people are at stake, when the very future of the employees of Hydro, the firemen, the passers-by, the employees in the building and nearby buildings and those working there, are in danger; and when the House is so misinformed, basically what we are left with is either the conclusion that the minister has perhaps in some way, inadvertently, misinformed the House or he himself has been seriously misinformed by his own officials. I believe the privileges of the members here who have raised these questions yesterday have been seriously affected by this type of behaviour on the part of the minister, and I would hope that the government would have a statement to make on this subject today.

Hon. B. Stephenson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not state that I knew that indeed the clean-up had been completely carried out at that point. I had been informed that indeed the cleanup had been carried out and that’s what I reported to the House.

Mr. S. Smith: I can accept that.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of privilege: I, too, was extremely taken aback by the way the Minister of the Environment handled this matter during question period yesterday. Immediately after question period, I phoned directly and personally spoke to Fire Chief Bonser of the city of Toronto. He informed me -- and he is such a straight and open man that I could not believe it otherwise -- that he didn’t have the slightest idea of the hazards to which they were subject until phoned by a reporter five days later, that most of his men and the equipment -- 22 men and the equipment -- were off the job by 9 in the morning, two hours after the fire had started and that the Minister of the Environment arriving at 1 o’clock therefore had no one to speak to, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out.

The fire chief informed me that even though they had been warned as firemen about hydro transformers, the possibility of electric faults, the possibility of the coolants causing difficulty, they had never before this instance encountered the evaporations of a highly toxic substance like PCB. Everything this man scrupulously told me in a direct phone conversation contradicts directly the positions which the Minister of the Environment put before this Legislature yesterday. I don’t believe that the minister would deliberately mislead this House, but I think he owes this Legislature a strong and early apology before this House rises, because there’s too much at stake.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege: I understand the minister is on his way here. I am not familiar with the facts of the situation but I understand he’s on his way from his office. Perhaps he will either reply to the concern expressed by the members opposite or he may make some statement, or perhaps through questions some of these matters can be sorted out. The minister does plan to be here.

Mr. Speaker: Due to the nature of the point of privilege, I think the House will accord the hon. minister an opportunity to respond when he does arrive.


Mr. Speaker: Before we commence the business of the House today, and since it appears that the session will be prorogued later this morning, may I take just a moment to extend to members and all others concerned, my sincere thanks for their cooperation and assistance during the period I have been in the chair. In particular, I want to thank those who are responsible for the operation of the House. Hon. members are of course aware, of the visible staff who support us here; the clerks, the legislative counsel, those from Hansard, and those with whom we work directly. However, I do want to express publicly my thanks and best wishes for the holiday season to the many people who help us in many unseen ways. I will not take the time to enumerate them on this occasion, but I know members of the House will want to express their best wishes to all of the employees of the House, for a joyous Christmas.


Mr. Speaker: Also, I would not like to let the day pass without noting the last day on which the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) will lead the New Democratic Party in this House.

Mr. Lewis: Well, we could have an election before it’s over.

Mr. Speaker: The member has, since 1970, been a dedicated partisan, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. Since the member is only surrendering party leadership and not his seat in the House, the House will continue to have the benefit of his wit and wisdom for some time to come.

I look forward to giving my personal greetings to members and all others concerned with the House in room 228 after prorogation.



Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, during my visit to Israel last January, and more recently here in Toronto, I stated that I would introduce a bill to make it clear that as far as Ontario was concerned, economic boycotts which prejudice citizens of this province by virtue of their ethnic background, religious affiliation or freely expressed views, will not be tolerated by this Legislature and the people of Ontario.

In fulfilment of this statement, I will be introducing -- or the government House leader on my behalf, depending on the hour -- a bill called the Discriminatory Business Practices Act, 1977.

In considering the form and substance of this bill, it was necessary to consider carefully the areas of legislative competence of this House under our constitutional structure. Perhaps the desired effect might be obtained more directly by legislation aimed at trade and commerce, foreign trade, shipping, money and banking, or criminal law. These areas are only within the competence of the government of Canada, and I commend to that government consideration of this problem in these areas.

This House may deal with matters of property and civil rights, and accordingly the problem has been addressed here from that viewpoint.

The legislation deals with discrimination in relation to creation of contracts of a primary, secondary and tertiary nature within Ontario, and with the disclosure of information, or the required request for information, of ethnic background, religious affiliation, et cetera, of the contracting parties. The enforceability of contracts involving such discrimination is made null and void; a civil remedy by way of prohibition is also provided. By these civil means, it is our hope that this province will clearly indicate its abhorrence of such discriminatory practices within its boundaries.

I have today forwarded copies of this legislation to all nine other provincial Premiers and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for Canada. I commend this legislation to them.

I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure other members are, there have been, and will be, concerns within the business community about the impact of this legislation. By tabling the bill today, the people who are concerned will have adequate time for study and comment in regard to what we have prepared. Provided it is clearly understood that we do not intend to back away from the principles that this legislation represents, we will be willing to listen to any and all constructive suggestions.

I am proud of this bill that will be introduced, and proud of Ontario’s leadership which this bill represents. I am confident that members of all parties in this House will share that pride with me.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have another brief statement to make that may or may not be in order; and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reserve your judgement as to whether it is in order until the statement is completed. If you then rule it out of order, I will accept that ruling, but it will be in the record in any event.

Mr. Foulds: Good luck; the Premier should never have made those introductory remarks.

Mr. Nixon: He picked the wrong Speaker.


Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I would forewarn, Mr. Speaker, that it may not be in order, but I am suggesting some leniency until you’ve heard it and then make that judgement.

Mr. Conway: The Premier breaks the rules with such charm.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I probably am breaking the rules, but because of the organization of the day, I may not have a chance a little later.

Mr. Speaker, I’m really rising to express, in my own way, best wishes on this, the last legislative day when the member for Scarborough West will be serving his party as its leader. I do so in spite of the fact that maybe later today somebody will try to defeat the government.

Hon. W. Newman: Don’t count on it; they may draft him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not my intention to offer either eulogy or hollow praise. He obviously will continue to sit opposite and champion those causes in which he deeply believes, and he will continue to do so with skill and conviction which few, very frankly, can match.

While in political terms his party and mine stand opposed on some goals, and I guess on most methods, in human terms he has often been at one with every Ontarian who has dreams and aspirations for their future. Our political careers have not been precisely parallel or contemporary --

Mr. Lewis: You can say that again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in that I am somewhat senior to the hon. member --

Mr. Lewis: And rather more successful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a little bit senior, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mellower.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Both of us are mellowing maybe; I’m not sure. I, for one, will always be proud to say that I served in this Legislature when the hon. member for Scarborough West did, and that I’ve tried to answer questions which emerge from his sense of social justice, his concern for human dignity and his compassion for the less fortunate.

Neither of us has been beyond the politics that we embrace in the service of the two parties that, along with our friends in the Liberal caucus, serve a parliamentary system which remains, in my view at least, the best we know. I have campaigned against him, and I sense he’s campaigned against me, each for different views of how best to serve the people. How the people did, in fact, choose does not convince me that he was always wrong; or that I was completely right, just most of the time. In fact, election results often prove only that no single leader, or any single party, ever has all of the answers.

The leadership he has offered his party has been -- and I say this as a leader of a party -- particularly selfless, particularly noble and particularly decent. If he erred at all, it might have been that he was provocative when he should not have been, and conciliatory when provocation might have helped. That’s very easy for me to say, because I’m never provocative.

Mr. Lewis: That’s true.

Mr. Lawlor: He is never conciliatory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m always conciliatory.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Always conciliatory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wish my friend well, and I speak for our caucus. This province owes him a great deal and I hope that his sense of contribution to public life -- past, present and I sense still in the future -- will always justify that debt.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to join with the Premier in his very accurate and very gracious remarks and simply to add a few words of my own, if I might, on this occasion.

The fact is that the gentleman who is now stepping down as leader of his party has been, whether he knows it or not, an example to me in my little time that I have spent in this Legislature, and I still have a lot to learn to ever even aspire to catch up to his level of parliamentary ability. He has brought the humanitarian dimension to provincial politics in a way that is very obvious to people throughout the province; and that I particularly want to pay tribute to.

I believe that apart from questions of political party and apart from matters of economic philosophy or whatever, that he has doggedly played one of the most difficult roles for most of his young adult life -- sometimes without any real hope of victory, more recently with real hope of victory. But he has done so obviously because of a belief in what he stood for and for no other reason. That was something that was very clear to everybody, very clear to me when I had little interest in politics and followed his career closely.

He has taught us, I think, how opposition parties should do research; he has taught us how we should question ministries; he has taught us how we should take issues and draw them to the public attention. He has tremendous skill in these ways. Those of us who carry on the same tradition, although in another party, whether we know it or not are following many of the standards which he set in this House.

I personally wish him well. I know he has given up a lot in the prime of his adult life. I wish him well as a private member. I wish him well in his family life, which he will have a little more time for now, and in any career that he undertakes. I know he realizes that we say this with very great sincerity. He has my admiration as a person, as a humanitarian and as a parliamentarian. It has just been a privilege to follow in his shoes as Leader of the Opposition and to learn from him. I wish him well.

Mr. Lewis: Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps uncharacteristically, let me say that I love you all, indiscriminately and across every party line. I had hoped, and I hope I am still given the opportunity to respond to some of this and to make some reflections of my own when I am able to wind up the budget debate for my party.

The Premier and the Leader of the Opposition are incredibly generous. They are good friends -- I want to say something about that later on, and I appreciate the avoidance of the past tense.

I do want to stay in this Legislature. I want to barrack and declaim raucously, and with a sense of inspired liberation from somewhere up there where I will be consigned at the appropriate point in time. I want to make life wretched for the government, as they would wish me to do to maintain the consistency. And indeed, before this day is over, when I have the opportunity to move on behalf of my party a no-confidence motion, nothing in the spirit of the chamber at this moment would give me greater pleasure than to help to bring this government down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But not until after February 3.



Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to report to the Legislature on Ontario’s position regarding the current negotiations in Geneva on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, better known as GATT.

I do not have to remind members of this House that Canada is a trading nation. Almost one-quarter of the nation’s GNP is derived from exports, about two-thirds of these being shipped to the US. The Ontario economy is even more dependent on exports, with 29 per cent of our GPP coming from foreign sales, approximately 80 per cent of these to the US. With such a high dependence on foreign trade, it is essential that Canada participate fully in the Geneva negotiations.

Moreover, I would ask you to note our dependence on trade with the US. In the Kennedy round of trade negotiations of 10 years ago, Canada was able to negotiate a special status and did not, therefore, cut tariffs across the board. This time the US Trade Act provides that the US may grant concessions to other nations only if these nations are full participants in the negotiations.

Our position in presenting our views to the federal government is based on the awareness that this province has half of Canada’s manufacturing and two-fifths of its fruit- and vegetable-growing and processing industries. We have a vital stake in these negotiations.

Also, because of our economic position, we will incur the largest portion of any adjustment costs resulting from the lowering of trade or tariff barriers. Indeed, these costs will probably be as substantial as those faced by any other industrial economy. Thus while we are supportive of the federal government’s negotiating team, we are equally concerned that Ontario’s position be stated most clearly.

The core of our submission to the federal government revolves around three major themes: One, the importance to Ontario of the multilateral trade negotiations; two, our concern with the balance of benefits and concessions, or as it is called reciprocity, particularly in view of the sensitivity of a number of Ontario industries to any moves towards lowering trade barriers; and three, the need for appropriate policies to smooth the adjustment period to be formulated and announced before the negotiations are concluded.

We feel these points are essential if we are to minimize the costs of increased competition and achieve the maximum gains from improved access to world markets. In formulating our GATT position, Ontario has had to tread a delicate path between the short-term need to maintain employment and the long-term desirability of an internationally competitive, highly productive industrial structure benefiting all Ontarians, producers as well as consumers.

Clearly, we feel the key requirement for Canada’s negotiators is to obtain reciprocity, not just for the nation as a whole but also for the main regions of this country. For Ontario this must include reciprocity for secondary manufacturing and agriculture. Canada’s negotiators must obtain improved access for Ontario products in the US, the European Economic Community and Japan. Further, they must strive to lower non-tariff barriers if we are to realize any significant benefits from these negotiations.

I would remind this House, Mr Speaker, that Canada’s trade policy is oriented towards the use of tariffs rather than non-tariff barriers. So if Canada’s tariffs are to be lowered while other countries retain their non-tariff barriers, this will be an unacceptable outcome to the negotiations.

Since this is the first round of trade negotiations dealing to any extent with non-tariff barriers, and since many of these barriers are extremely difficult to define, we share concerns which have been expressed by others as to the possible outcome.

However, there are certain areas in which Ontario has considerable interest. For example, Ontario has the potential advantage in supplying professional services -- engineering, systems work, management consulting and so on -- to other industrial countries, but only if tendering procedures abroad can be made more open and fair. Ontario manufacturers could sell more high-technology products to other countries -- products such as heavy electrical, telecommunications and urban transit equipment -- if restrictive procurement and unfair subsidy practices could he eliminated.

However, should progress in reducing non-tariff barriers be limited, Canadians will, I suggest, be increasingly inclined themselves to consider other means of protection as permitted by GATT.

In our submission to the federal negotiators we have also pointed out that should there be limited progress in reducing these non-tariff barriers, reciprocity for Ontario’s manufacturing will have to come from within the tariff plan itself. This we see as being extremely difficult to achieve.

The tariff-cutting formula under discussion is structured so that higher tariffs are to be cut by greater amounts than lower tariffs will be cut. Canada, as a nation with relatively high tariffs, would therefore suffer the greatest cuts.

We have suggested that in order to achieve reciprocity in the tariff plan, the federal negotiators will have to negotiate the following:


One, a substantial number of exceptions to the tariff-cutting formula in order that average reductions in Canadian tariffs will not exceed the reductions in foreign tariffs faced by Canadian exports. Moreover, those Canadian industries which rely upon tariff protection for viability and have some prospect of further growth and development, must continue to enjoy an appropriate measure of protection.

Two, maximum credit for voluntary tariff reductions where the actual Canadian rate is currently lower than the formally agreed GATT rate. For example, in 1973 Canada unilaterally reduced the tariff on certain consumer products such as tableware, vacuum cleaners and bathtubs from 20 to 15 per cent. Canada should be entitled to full credit for those reductions.

Three, a number of key Ontario exports to the US face US tariffs which are less than 10 per cent. According to the current tariff-cutting formula these tariffs would be reduced only marginally. Greater than formula reductions must be secured if appropriate benefits are to be realized.

Four, in high-technology products such as communications, heavy electrical and urban transit equipment, where non-tariff barriers are the main obstacles to freer trade, Canadian tariff cuts must be linked to foreign non-tariff barrier concessions.

Five, effective seasonal protection and conversion to ad valorem -- that is a percentage of value rather than cents per pound -- tariff rates for Ontario’s horticulture industry must be secured. For example, the present duties on most fruits and vegetables are one or two cents per pound, with the level of protection diminishing as prices rise. An ad valorem duty of 10 to 15 per cent, say, would provide Ontario’s farmers with greater assurance of a continuing domestic market.

If these tariff negotiating objectives are met, then there will be increased opportunities for Ontario firms to expand production and increase exports in their most competitive lines. This, in effect, will help offset the losses they will likely incur because of more effective import competition.

However, it would be a serious mistake to assume that these opportunities will be easily realized. As far as the medium-term outlook is concerned, economists are forecasting slower growth both in Canada and abroad into the early 1980s. Because of this, we have made it clear to the federal negotiators that a deliberate and co-operative effort must be made to implement the policies and programs required for a successful adjustment to international specialization before any agreement to lower trade barriers is concluded.

Our key recommendations to the federal government regarding adjustment policies relate to: One, the improvement in confidence in the investment climate; two, continued restraint in the public sector in areas of both taxation and expenditures; three, increased support for industrial innovation and product development; four, the restructuring of certain government policies, programs and regulations affecting industry; five, the establishment of industry sector committees to aid in the identification of problems which industries may encounter during the adjustment period; six, more rapid and effective domestic recourse against unfair foreign trade practices; and seven, increased consultation among various industry and agriculture groups, as well as among the various provinces and the federal government.

We believe that any further erosion of the economic strengths of Canada must be ended now through greater co-operation among all levels of government. There must also be a greater effort made to harmonize technical standards and provincial procurement practices throughout this country.

In the course of assembling our position, Ontario officials have had extensive consultation with industry and agriculture associations and with other provinces. The Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough), the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), and I, along with other provincial ministers, have met with our federal counterparts and will be meeting next Monday with the federal ministers of the Ontario ridings. Such meetings will continue to take place as required during the coming months.

As well, throughout the process there have been substantial discussions with the federal government and with the Canadian delegation in Geneva.

We expect these consultations will continue and intensify during the coming months as the negotiations move into more detailed phases. Senior Ontario officials will be meeting with their federal counterparts in both Ottawa and Geneva on a regular basis to ensure that Ontario’s interests and concerns are effectively communicated to the Canadian negotiating team.

I would like to make it perfectly clear to the members of this House that Ontario associates itself totally with the overall Canadian objective being pursued in Geneva. At the same time we have registered very clearly our concerns and indicated areas in the negotiations where we feel that a strong stand must be taken, not just in Ontario’s interest but in the interests of the nation as a whole. While we look forward to new opportunities for Ontario industries as a result of lower trade barriers in Canada and abroad, we are not prepared to see these achieved at the price of irreparable damage to Ontario’s secondary manufacturing and agriculture.

Reciprocity -- a fair bargain -- is what Canada will strive to achieve in Geneva. I offer to this House the assurance that Ontario fully intends to lend its support to help Ottawa reach those goals on behalf of this nation.

Mr. Roy: Who wrote that for the minister?

Mr. Cassidy: He doesn’t sound very sure.

Mr. Roy: Last week he told me that GATT was an insect.

Mr. Warner: I notice the Treasurer didn’t reply.


Hon. J. A. Taylor: On May 23 of this year I announced, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), the start of a major energy-related initiative to determine the feasibility of using reject heat from Ontario Hydro’s Bruce generating station.

A detailed economic and engineering study has been undertaken by Ontario Hydro and independent consultants to examine the feasibility of using the moderator cooling water at Bruce for greenhouse heating and aquacultural purposes. I am pleased today to table a summary report of the findings of this study for the information of members of the Legislature and the general public. A more detailed report is being printed and will be available next week.

The study confirms that substantial savings of more than 50 per cent in greenhouse heating costs can be achieved using reject heat instead of conventional oil or gas furnaces.

Mr. Kerrio: There should have never been reject heat.

Mr. Foulds: In the new Legislature, this minster is going to be a reject minister.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It looks at the economic and technical feasibility of greenhouse development in the area. The study also confirms the technical feasibility of developing a fish hatchery and/or fish-farming operation.

The project provides an opportunity for the greenhouse vegetable industry to meet the challenge of rapidly rising fuel costs and competition from imports, both of which have placed the industry in serious economic difficulty. The potential for fish culture would also allow the expansion of efficient production of fish in Ontario and improve prospects for commercial fishing and sports fishing industries.

I am pleased to record the enthusiastic support which we have received from the local municipalities and from the county of Bruce; I know there is a strong interest in the region to see this concept become a reality, and I welcome this contribution to its development.

When I announced the start of this project, I noted it would involve major opportunities for the private sector in the design, construction, ownership, financing and operation of suitable facilities to make use of the reject heat available from Ontario Hydro generating stations. We are particularly interested in receiving the response of the existing operators in the greenhouse and aquacultural industry. Arrangements are being made to consult with them over the next few weeks. Copies of this report are also being made available to other organizations, such as banks and energy companies, which may be potential investors in such a project. In addition, steps will be taken to allow the residents and businesses in the area an adequate opportunity for review of the project and its implications for their communities.

The project offers a major investment and employment opportunity for the agricultural and aquacultural industries in Ontario. At the same time, it improves the efficient utilization of valuable energy resources. Similar projects to utilize reject heat are being actively considered by local officials for communities adjacent to Ontario Hydro’s scheduled Darlington and Atikokan generating stations, and I have offered the support of my ministry to the communities concerned. Energy today, whatever the source, is too valuable a commodity to waste. Every effort must be made to achieve maximum use of energy and energy byproducts, wherever feasible.

The ministries of Energy and Agriculture and Food are also involved in energy-saving projects for existing greenhouse operations, using renewable energy and energy conservation measures developed co-operatively with a representative commercial grower. I look forward to a positive response to this initiative.


Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have two statements this morning. The first is on the matter of the aluminum wiring commission. Due to the government’s grave concern and the public’s grave concern over the whole matter of safety of aluminum wiring, I have approached Dr. Tuzo Wilson, the chairman of the aluminum wiring inquiry.

As members know, I do not think it appropriate to interfere with the day-to-day conduct and procedures of a commission. However, because of our concern, I have asked Dr. Wilson to complete his report as soon as possible. Dr. Wilson’s original target was September 1978 for a report. Due to our concerns, he has agreed to report to me no later than April 1978.

This will place a considerable burden on Dr. Wilson and his staff. I do appreciate his co-operation and the personal sacrifices this may entail. Both his concern and ours, for the people affected, led him to agree to this accelerated schedule.

Mr. Warner: Get Hydro to fix up the problems in the meantime.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just relax.

Mr. Kerrio: You’d better get them to ban the wire, Larry. The cameras aren’t running yet.


Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have already distributed the long-awaited copies of the Ontario Residential Condominium Study Group to members of the opposition who have expressed a key interest in its recommendations, and as well to the critics.

Mr. Cassidy: You are presenting it for Christmas. You waited until the very last minute so it would die over the Christmas season.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have done that specifically before question period today so that we wouldn’t be subject to the accusation we waited until after question period -- which the orders of the day would ordinarily call for -- before tabling the report. As the members listening will know, there were delays entailed which ordinarily would have deferred the report from being tabled at all before the end of this session.

Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to review the report in depth but are distributing it now to interested groups and individuals to enable them to examine it at the same time as our own study of the recommendations is going on.

From my preliminary reading of it, I’m pleased to note that the report has taken a pro-consumers’ stance. In fact, it recommends major changes to the Condominium Act and other legislation to protect the rights of condominium owners in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what we said two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but these are sensible.

There are a total of 126 recommendations covering everything from municipal policies and services to condominium insurance, management and taxation.

Although we have made no decisions yet as to implementation, I would like to outline a few of the recommendations:

Recommendations one to four would set up an entirely new approval process which would, in essence, call for all conditions, standards and levies to be determined prior to the issuance of a building permit. Further, powers would be given to the municipalities to impose necessary development conditions rather than require a condominium development proposal to go through the Ministry of Housing by a subdivision process a second time.

Warranties: Recommendation seven suggests that warranties required by builders on materials and work performed by tradesmen should he transferred to the condominium corporation.

Insurance: Recommendations 35 and 38 ask that the condominium corporation be given the right and the obligation to insure the entire property. Now corporations usually have the responsibility to repair the entire property but don’t have the legal status to insure against this potential liability.

Application of the Act: Recommendation 46 suggests the Condominium Act be amended to include a general provision that consumers cannot sign away or waive their rights under the Act.

Rescission: Recommendation 47 provides that prospective buyers should have 10 clear days after receiving all documents required by statute to cancel the agreement to purchase without penalties.

Binding contracts: Recommendation 62 suggests that if the developers’ board signs a contract on behalf of the condominium project, it will only apply for 18 months unless the condominium corporation ratifies it.

Reserve funds: Recommendations 89 and 92 suggest a trust fund for the replacement of major capital items deposited with a chartered bank or trust company in a trust account separate from the condominium corporation operating accounts. The recommendation is that the Condominium Act should be amended to ensure that the trust accounts are in the name of the condominium corporation.


Cost of repairs: This is covered in recommendation 91. If a unit owner does not pay the condominium corporation for repairs carried out on a particular unit, the corporation should be allowed to treat this unpaid bill as an arrears in common expenses. The money then becomes collectable by way of a lien.

Registrar of condominiums: Recommendation 107 calls for the establishment of the office of the registrar of condominiums under my ministry. The registrar would administer the Condominium Act and ensure that the rights of condominium owners in Ontario are protected.

Dispute resolution: Recommendation 115 would provide a two-tiered system for dispute resolution composed of local bearing officers and a tribunal. Administrative responsibility for such a system would rest with the registrar.

As a result of these and other recommendations, the Condominium Act could become much more than a set of regulations, passing instead into the realm of broadly based consumer protection legislation. Purchasing a condominium home is much more complex than buying a single-family dwelling. In addition to normal offer-to-purchase agreements, buyers must also review and understand such things as bylaws, rules and regulations, management agreements and budget statements. In addition to the complexity of the issue surrounding the purchase of a condominium, we have to look at the scope of the condominium market. With an estimated 1,000 condominium corporations and 100,000 individual condominium units in Ontario at this time, the recommendations of this report can affect the lives of more than a quarter of a million people, with more to come as new developments come on stream.

Mr. Speaker, because of the wide scope of the recommendations, I believe a new Condominium Act will result. Because of its importance to condominium owners, I would like to have the Act drafted for introduction in the spring of next year.

The report is being widely distributed to condominium corporations, associations and other interested parties. I hope they will study it carefully and provide me with written responses by the end of January. I would prefer a longer period of public review, but the importance of the new Act’s effect on present and future condominium owners necessitates swift action. On the other hand, there has already been extensive consultation and more than 250 briefs have been received from interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that those who reply to this report will address their comments directly to the recommendations and their implementation. Repeating earlier arguments and positions would slow development of a new consumer-oriented Condominium Act and would not be in the best interests of those most affected -- the Ontario condominium owners.

I would like to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, the names of the six individuals who worked very diligently to conduct this study and to compile the comprehensive document which the hon. members have before them. They are R. L. Radford and Dianne Santo of the Ministry of Housing; Angus MacKay of the Ministry of Revenue; Marcia Sypnawich of TEIGA; Audrey Loeb Burns of my own ministry, and, finally Darwin Kealey who so ably, through a difficult period of time, chaired the study group.

At my request, Mr. Kealey has found time in his busy day today to make himself available outside the House after question period to answer any questions that the press and others may have.

On behalf of my ministry and the study group, I wish to thank all of those who participated in the consultation process and assure the House that the report will be dealt with expeditiously by my ministry.



Mr. S. Smith: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Minister of the Environment to respond on the point of privilege raised earlier before this House rises?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member could ask a question. I didn’t hear the point of privilege that was raised by the hon. member.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, I am not going to argue much about whether it should be a question or not. I will basically reiterate. If you rule it’s a question, Mr. Speaker, I will accept your ruling.

For the benefit of the minister, I drew the attention of the House a little earlier to what I believe to be very fundamental contradictions between the statements which the minister made in the House yesterday and the facts as they appear to be emerging. The first statement of the minister, to which I referred, and to which with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will refer again, is his statement: “Hydro knows full well the steps that have to be taken and the information that should be given to the firemen when they arrive at the scene.” That was the first statement.

One John Smith, the platoon chief at the Adelaide Street fire hall, was the senior fire department official at the scene of the fire. He was contacted at 5:30 p.m. yesterday. He says he asked for the Hydro man in charge of the site and was told by a person there that the fire involved a new type of inflammable liquid used in the transformer, but he was not told that the material had any toxic qualities.

This was confirmed by Mr. Goyette, the assistant manager of the power service department for Toronto Hydro, who in today’s Globe and Mail is quoted as saying: “Toronto Hydro has no contingency plans for such emergencies involving transformer fires containing PCBs.”

The second point of apparent contradiction which I brought to the attention of the House is that the minister told us yesterday: “We advised all the employees and the firemen of what was involved here and what precautions should be taken. That information was given on the scene.” The leader of the New Democratic Party asked, “To whom?” and the minister said: “To the Hydro employees and to the firemen. That information was passed immediately by our people from central region who attended on the scene at about 1 to 1:30 p.m. that day.”

Mr. John Smith again says he was on the scene until the last firefighter left at approximately 11 a.m. and perhaps before that. In other words, the last firefighter left at least two hours before the Ministry of the Environment officials were on the scene. He, Mr. John Smith, was not aware yesterday at 5:30 p.m. of any particular dangers connected with the fire. He took no special precautions with respect to his clothing or equipment. This was confirmed by Fire Chief Bonser who said, and I quote from the Globe and Mail again: “His men weren’t informed about the health hazards of PCBs until they read about it in the Globe.”

The remaining contradiction was dealt with by the Minister of Labour where, I point out, before the Minister of the Environment’s arrival she said she had been informed that the site had been entirely cleaned at this point -- that was during yesterday’s question period -- where the minister must now know that the removal of soot covering the building would not even begin until last night.

The points which are therefore raised, are: First of all, why was this House given information which appears to have been totally incorrect? Furthermore, why was there a lack of a Hydro contingency plan? Why was a fire that occurred at 7 a.m. not attended to until 1 p.m. by the people from Environment? Why were no attempts made to inform the firemen, the Hydro employees, the employees working in the building or passers-by of possible dangers? Why the delay in the clean-up? Why has it taken so many days before the clean-up has even been begun and when will it be completed?

Basically, why would the minister stand in this House and speak with such apparent confidence about events which allegedly transpired at the scene of such an important event and yet be proven to have been totally wrong in the statements he made in this House?

The question is, was he merely inadvertently misinforming the House; or was he himself seriously misinformed by his own officials, in which case may I remind the House of the almost frivolous question about ministerial responsibility we heard about yesterday from the Premier and his back-bench members?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, first of all, when I mentioned that Hydro knows full well the procedure that is necessary in the handling of toxic material of that kind, I referred to Hydro generally. Certainly Ontario Hydro and the whole system, along with Monsanto, have disseminated material and information dealing with PCBs to all of the utilities. This information has been given now for a number of years on how to handle PCBs in the event of any type of emergency.

The hon. member is correct when he says there wasn’t an effective contingency plan in operation when our people arrived there. That is true, and certainly the procedure will have to be improved in the future. But this information has been given by Hydro in co-operation with our ministry, and I would assume that wherever there is a transformer or equipment of that kind containing that type of liquid, all people are informed. I would think possibly that in some way the material or the equipment itself should be better identified.

Mr. Wildman: Yesterday you were going to sue them.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But certainly contingency plans and information have been disseminated to Hydro.

The hon. member asked why our people only arrived on the scene around 1 o’clock. The fact is they were only advised of this fire a few minutes before that period. It’s not possible for the employees of the Ministry of the Environment to know every type of fire that may be going on in this area or in the province. It is the law that, in a situation like that, the Hydro employees should have immediately informed our ministry, knowing that a PCB liquid could be a part of the emergency resulting from that fire.

My information yesterday regarding the firemen was wrong and I apologize for that. I apologize for that.

Mr. Lewis: Why did you do it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The information I received yesterday was that there was still one or two firemen at the scene when our people arrived, and that they were informed that certain contingency plans, certain clean-up operations, must take place immediately.

Mr. Deans: Who gave you that information?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That was information from within my ministry. I really don’t know who that particular person was.

Mr. Lewis: You made it sound as though --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity for supplementary questions.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But you can understand in an emergency of that kind that there would be some confusion.

Mr. Wildman: You are responsible for your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But as far as the Hydro employees were concerned, of course they were on the scene, and it was there that they assisted our people and D&D Disposal to clean up the operation. You must remember that this fire took place in an underground station or a pit under the sidewalk, not in the building. It was then immediately that our people went into that pit to contain the PCB liquid that had flowed from the transformer. When I indicated that yesterday regarding completion, I had been told earlier this week the operation was completed, the clean-up of the liquid and the material and the containment of the soot in that area had been completed and it was on its way to New York for disposal.

As far as the soot on the building and the clean-up or the restoration of the building are concerned, it was indicated to me yesterday that the work would be completed yesterday. But because of the danger to pedestrians from the operations going on -- the spraying et cetera that would go on to clean that building -- it was felt this operation should be carried on at night when there aren’t the same number of people walking around in front of that building.

Mr. Warner: They should have closed the street.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think that was probably a wise decision.

Mr. Wildman: Why didn’t you close the street?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The information yesterday was that if the men had started yesterday morning and were able to work right through, it was expected to be cleaned up yesterday. The operation was expected to be complete. I regret any remarks I made that would indicate it was completed yesterday at the time I made the statement at around 4:30 or 5.

So I did not attempt to mislead the House. There is always a certain amount of confusion resulting from a fire of this kind. It’s regrettable that there is criticism of my ministry, because my ministry acted with dispatch and efficiency as soon as it was notified. It took control of the scene. It had the disposal company there cleaning up the operation, and, of course, it is still there assisting in the restoration of that building and the cleaning up of any soot.

I think it’s important to keep this in perspective. I’m not saying that certain reports are exaggerating the situation, but my people feel that there is no danger to health from any vapourization of PCBs.

Mr. Lewis: How do they know?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: This is the information we’re getting now and we’re working with occupational health.

Mr. Lewis: From whom? There is no study -- there is nothing.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That’s right. It’s not complete. The information, the testing that was going on there and the analysis of the soot will continue --

Mr. Deans: I hope it isn’t the same person who gave you the information yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- so that we can complete any preliminary examination so we’re exactly satisfied of whatever statistics or criteria will come out of that examination.


I am not sure what other questions the hon. member had. All I want to say is that my ministry officials acted with dispatch. The right people were there. There is no question that in a situation like that the firemen, I understand, do have instructions and there is information regarding the handling of contaminants in their literature.

Probably the most unfortunate fact here is the delay in calling our people in, and there is a breach there, because where there is any danger of a spill or exposure to PCB-contaminated material we have an emergency phone number that is supposed to be called regardless of where or when it happens.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister then agrees that in point of fact he inadvertently misadvised the House yesterday, and I can understand that he feels, Mr. Speaker, he was himself poorly advised by his officials. However, this was not a fire that occurred yesterday. He surely had sufficient time to make sure he knew all the facts of this matter, a potentially serious matter which may or may not turn out to be a health hazard, and we pray it turns not not to be, but we don’t know.

Given the fact that he had enough time to check on this, how can he come before this House and tell us there is a Hydro contingency plan when apparently there is not? How can he justify the fact that the fireman we spoke to, who was the senior man on the scene, had still not been told but had to read in the Globe and Mail of the fact that there may have been a hazard to himself, and he still has not had his equipment and gear and clothing looked at? How can he justify the Fact that he finds himself at a loss for what the real facts are, with no contingency plan, with nobody that his officials even talked to when they got to the scene, because there were no firemen there? How, days later, could he still not be properly informed about what happened at a potentially serious event?

Mrs. Campbell: It’s called ministerial responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Something the member For St. George (Mrs. Campbell) will never have.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize it is a Hydro contingency plan. Hydro is not under my ministry. Hydro happens to own equipment which contains PCBs. Hydro has the rules and regulations to be followed under our legislation regarding the disposal of old equipment or spent equipment containing PCBs. Ontario Hydro has advised the utilities -- that is my information -- about how to handle material of that kind in an emergency, whether it is a spill, an accident, a fire, or what have you.

If Hydro, or a hydro station, or Toronto Hydro, or any other municipal utility of that nature does not have a contingency plan then there should be one, but certainly the information is available to all hydro stations. We have made it plain what can result if there is not proper handling and containment of an accident of that kind. I suppose we should probably have people going around inspecting this or having questionnaires distributed to employees of Hydro, but we have left that responsibility to Hydro.

As far as the disposal of PCB-contaminated material is concerned, they have been doing it correctly, so that is all I can say about a situation like that. Certainly this situation will improve matters in the future. There is no question about that. There will be contingency plans. If there is any question about people fighting those fires, the firemen themselves will have to be aware on the spot of situations like that. They carry their equipment. They have all the preventive equipment that is necessary. I would expect they would use it, but in a situation like that the firemen should be advised immediately they arrive on the scene.

Mr. Deans: By whom?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: By the people who own the building; the Hydro people; the people who rang the alarm, whoever is there; the workmen there, who were in that pit.

Mr. Deans: Why did they know?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We’ve been 16 minutes on the original question and one supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Hydro should know, and the employees should know.

Mr. S. Smith: You have had five days to advise them. Why didn’t you?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, I would assume they were advised. My information is still that they were advised, even before the press release. However, if they were not advised, that again should be corrected. But I think the important thing is that they be advised when they arrive on the scene before the damage can take place, not three or four days after. That is where the real fault is here -- the late arrival of my people, and trying to salvage and clean up after, when they should have been there right from the start. That’s the only thing I can say and that is the type of thing that has to be corrected in the future.

Mr. Riddell: You’d better bring Everett Biggs back into that ministry.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is right, something has to be done to clean up. May I ask him a two-part supplementary, as briefly as I can. Since there doesn’t seem to be any knowledge available from the existing literature about what might happen to human health in the event of short dramatic exposure at a level of up to 10,000 parts per million -- the only parallel being the ingestion over a short period of time in Japan, but then at only 2,000 parts per million; never anything on record as high as this -- why has this ministry not yet dealt with the workers in the building, beyond Hydro and the firemen -- the workers in the building who were subjected to considerable smoke and vapour inhalation during the course of the fire itself? Secondly, since the minister had a member of his staff and a member of the Ministry of Health’s staff and a member of the Ministry of Natural Resources’ staff sitting on the federal task force on PCBs which reported on April 1, 1976, why has the minister not moved to provide an alternative to the PCB liquid in the transformers which that report indicated was a significant and continuing hazard?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all that the hon. member shouldn’t make analogies that may, in some way, exaggerate or indicate a type of situation that doesn’t exist. The short, dramatic exposure that the hon. member refers to is exposure to PCBs that may be contained in the soot. That’s a lot different from ingestion, as talked about in Japan, at two parts per million, a great deal different.

Mr. Lewis: You can breathe it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s over a long period of time, of consumption of fish, that there is a danger.

Mr. Lewis: No, it wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is the information that we have.

Mr. Lewis: Well then, you had better go back again.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is our information regarding the situation in Ontario or the situation in Japan. It is in eating contaminated fish over a prolonged period of time that the real danger lies.

Mr. Lewis: Excuse me, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It had nothing to do with fish. It was rice, rice that was soiled with the PCB content, and it wasn’t a prolonged period of time. There may not be an analogy, but it is not on the basis of the facts the minister has been given.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: All right. Mr. Speaker, there is no question, as I said yesterday, that the workers who were involved were in that underground station that may be exposed to the PCBs and should be examined. There should be a health examination right now.

Mr. Deans: When?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Right now. That can be done by Hydro, or it can be done by our occupational health people.

Mr. Warner: It hasn’t started.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have indicated in information to Hydro that that should be done. We understand, for example, the firemen will be examined. They are doing that on their own volition. And the same should be done with Hydro.

Mr. Foulds: It should be immediate. It should be systematic.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The other point I want to make is regarding the task force. As I have indicated many times before, PCBs will be banned. Importation of PCBs will be banned through the federal Environmental Contaminants Act. The problem right now is to find a safe alternative, and that hasn’t been found. They are working on that but it hasn’t been found. It is my feeling, and I have made this submission to the minister on a number of occasions, that we should now bring in a regulation under that federal legislation to ban PCBs as of, say, January 1, 1979, or the end of next year or something like that, so that the industry knows we are serious and that they have to find an alternative.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I get up on a point of order, please? In view of the fact that close to 20 minutes was taken on this question, most of it on statements by the minister and on points of privilege raised yesterday and then again today -- which should have gone in actually as a form of statement -- isn’t it fair to say that some time should be added to the question period and that the members here should not be penalized for the fact that he was late?

Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate that the minister was not here when the hon. Leader of the Opposition raised this point of privilege. There were five minutes for the Leader of the Opposition to reiterate his point of privilege by way of question and another five minutes for the hon. minister to respond to the initial question. I will add five minutes to the question period.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I certainly regret the length of time that was involved.


Mr. S. Smith: I will ask my second question of the Minister of Education and it is on a topic that the Treasurer attempted to answer yesterday. I must say I did not quite grasp his answer at that time.

The Teachers’ Superannuation Fund and the comments of the Provincial Auditor in his most recent report regarding that: Does the minister agree, first of all, that the Provincial Auditor has reported that there was an obligation to place $144 million, more or less, plus some back payment of $65.9 million, into the fund just for the purpose of dealing with the annual payments required to amortize the unfunded liability?

If he agrees with that which appears to be in the report and if he will agree that that adds up to approximately $210 million -- can he tell us, please, whether he put that full $210 million into the fund for this year and, if so, by what route, since the only payments to the fund that we seem to be able to track down are the supplementary estimates of $102 million and the original $105 million which are apparently matching contributions, having nothing to do with the amortization of the unfunded liability? Can he tell me, please, did he put in the $210 million and if so, by what route?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that my friend put that question on the order paper so we can have it properly analysed and answered. All I can say to him is that the members of his caucus were at the committee the other day when we debated the supplementary estimates. It was all explained very clearly. We are putting into the Teachers’ Superannuation Fund everything that we are legally required by law to put in and that we were required in the form of matching payments to put in under the arrangements of the plan.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to take this type of answer. The fact is that there is some obligation reported on by the Provincial Auditor, given the fact that there is that obligation of $210 million and that we, on this side of the House, have seen estimates for only $102 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Put it on the order paper.

Mr. S. Smith: I asked where the rest of the money has come from and how he and his friend the Treasurer have managed to come up with the $108 million, by what route? Is this some Management Board order? Is this some type of secret deal? Where does the money come from?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You are over your head.

Mr. Roy: We know we are getting to you when you wake up.

Mr. Cassidy: The mountain is rumbling.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we debated this for an hour and it was indicated that all the money that had to be put into the fund this year will be put in. If my friend would like to put the question on the order paper we will give him a completely documented written answer. But I can assure him, the money that has to be put into the fund by law is being put into the fund.

Mr. S. Smith: My final supplementary, if I might, since we are not going to get an answer: can the minister tell us --

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you don’t expect to get an answer, you cannot ask the question.

Mr. S. Smith: I live in hope, Mr. Speaker. I live in hope.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has suggested that if you want a more detailed response that you put it on the order paper and that is quite a legitimate request for the minister to make. I think any further supplementary is inappropriate.


Mr. S. Smith: To put the question on the order paper properly, I would want to know first of all whether this money that he says is being put into the fund is what he’s now including in money which will allegedly be part of the new rewriting of the Edmonton commitment? Will it have to be met entirely out of property taxes? Is that the lump sum that the minister is now putting on to his new interpretation of the Edmonton commitment, so that property taxpayers are going to have to do it for him, and if not, where’s the money coming from?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my friend is confusing two things completely.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He certainly is. He needs a good holiday.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There’s been no suggestion under the Edmonton commitment or from anything that this government has said that anything concerned with the payments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Fund would be transferred from the government to the property taxpayer at the municipal level.

Mr. Swart: No, you’ll just reduce it from the grants.

Mr. S. Smith: Which you have done.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That has never been done and it has not been suggested.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Leader of the Opposition is so mixed up. He needs a good holiday; he really does.

An hon. member: The Treasurer has got a long one coming.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member want a response?

An hon. member: Put it on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Treasurer has indicated that although we are paying it and there is no suggestion that this cost be transferred to the municipal property taxpayer --

Mr. S. Smith: Just subtract it from your grants. That’s all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- surely my friend understands the system enough to know that is a payment on behalf of the employees of a municipal agency by this government and could quite legitimately be counted as part of the support this government gives to local government.

Mr. S. Smith: Sure it can. Just subtract it from their grants.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly.


Mr. Germa: A question of the Premier: Is he aware of, and does he appreciate, the mood of anger and frustration present in the Sudbury basin as a result of the announced layoffs at Inco and Falconbridge? This feeling is so intense that it motivated 30,000 Sudbury citizens to sign cards petitioning the Premier to take action to alleviate the layoffs.

I would ask the Premier to respond to the demands enunciated by these 30,000 signatures:

1. Government action to force Inco and Falconbridge to rescind the layoffs;

2. An end to tax concessions to industries which are not tied to new jobs for Canadian workers;

3. An industrial strategy that will provide for diversification of the northern economy with a dynamic manufacturing sector tied to the resource base.

How does the Premier respond to those?

Hon. Mr. Davis: At the outset I would like to say to the hon. member that I appreciated when he gave me, in a very relaxed sort of setting last evening, not notice of the question but notice that he had something which be construed as a Christmas present. I see what he wants to give me and I would suggest, for the convenience of the pages, that he not have it all transferred immediately to my desk; when I have answered the question or -- he wants me to have these petitions -- perhaps when the House prorogues he could ask the pages to take them directly to my office; it would save some measure of effort.

Mr. Laughren: Will you answer the questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Will you answer them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I obviously can’t answer all of them by Christmas.

Mr. Laughren: You’ve got a big enough staff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that the hon. member was kind enough once again to give me the one he has signed personally, I will attempt to draft a reply and send it to the hon. member, who in turn might circulate that reply to all of those who have submitted these petitions from his constituency.

Mr. Wildman: You have been talking about industrial strategy for almost 10 years.

Mr. Martel: You have the names and addresses. We don’t.

Mr. Warner: It would involve about 100 of your staff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I listen to the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. Does he want me to add 100 to the staff to reply? Is that what he wants?

Mr. Warner: No, the Premier should just use the 100 he’s got sitting around.

Mr. Roy: Give Darwin Kealey the job.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier will ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In reply to the three suggestions in the petition, I have already stated our concern. I think I can sense the frustration that is being felt in the Sudbury area at this time. The government, with the support of the members opposite, of course, has established the select committee, which has now had its period of time extended to bring back any suggestions that might be worthwhile for consideration by the House when we meet in February.

Dealing with the second part of the question, that could lead me into a very lengthy discussion, and I think I sense what the hon. member is suggesting. I would only say that we have to be very careful, in discussing this issue with the public, that there isn’t a misunderstanding. While the hon. member may disagree with certain tax policies that exist here, I would only say to him that they are related to our desire to see the economy of this province continue to grow. I think the tax policy that currently exists is in the interests of the people of Sudbury. The hon. member may disagree with this, but we happen to believe that it is.

On the third point, the question of an industrial strategy to locate more secondary industry in northeastern and northwestern Ontario, of course, the government supports this as fully as the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t do anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not as easy to accomplish. We’ve discussed this before.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve had 33 years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The hon. member can assure his constituents, those who sent those petitions through him to me, that we certainly agree with the third point that is in the petition; and he may take that message home over the Christmas holiday period.

I can’t help but observe, Mr. Speaker, that quite obviously the hon. member and his constituents didn’t have total confidence in the mail system. I assume these were all delivered to the hon. member and he, in his own inimitable fashion, carried them by hand here to Queen’s Park. I want to compliment him for that singular accomplishment. If he would bear with me and transfer them directly to my office, it might save a lot of this paper passing back and forth here in the House.

Mr. Germa: I will certainly take the Premier’s advice, but it was a demand upon me by the signatories to the petition that I do this in the public forum.

My supplementary is, does the Premier understand the level of anger in the community and is there a connection between this anger in the community and the two transformer stations which were blasted last week by dynamite?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps the hon. member could tell me whether there is any such connection.

Mr. Turner: Tell us.

Mr. Germa: There is.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier aware of the federal government interdepartmental report which states the following: “The relative importance at Inco’s Sudbury operations comes into question when one considers that Inco has recently been bypassing the low-grade ores in favour of the higher-grade ores in the Sudbury area. The company either mines around these low-grade ore bodies or uses them as mine fill”?

Is the Premier aware of that study? When is he going to move and intervene in a meaningful way to protect the non-renewable resources of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I find some slight contradiction in that question. If the hon. member is saying we should intervene to protect the non-renewable resources, I think that is in some way a contradiction to the desire on the part of members opposite, and certainly to the desire on the part of the government, to see that these resources are better utilized, that people are put back to work --

Mr. Foulds: Exactly. That is the point he is making.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and that Inco and Falconbridge secure the markets and, as a result, provide employment for the people of that area.

I think there is a basic contradiction in what the hon. member states in his question. I am not familiar with the federal document, no. I will bring it to the attention of the chairman of that cabinet committee, who also happens to be the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: Since the Premier says he is interested in providing jobs in the mining sector, is he aware that for the past 10 or 12 years the production in the mining field has increased by 44.5 per cent while the number of people working in that industry has declined more than six per cent? How do those statistics indicate this government is worried about jobs when, in fact, the production almost doubles and the number of workers declines?

Mr. Laughren: Thanks to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier).

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has highlighted one of the problems that a society like ours is faced with. The member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) could ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) exactly the same question. He could say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, “How come the farmers of this province, who as a percentage of the total or in total numbers are less today than they were 10 years ago, are none the less producing two, three and four times the amount of food?”

Mr. Laughren: It is a silly analogy.

Mr. Riddell: I have a question I am going to ask the minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member will get his turn later.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s productivity.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member for Sudbury East doesn’t want productivity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps he doesn’t want to see these industries competitive. I am just very thankful that Inco and Falconbridge are competitive in the world marketplace.

Mr. Martel: What about the secondary industry? That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. The member is changing his tune.

Mr. Martel: No, I am not. It shows the government has nothing to take its place.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: If the Premier’s government is, in fact, interested in meeting the third demand outlined in the petition, why it it that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism over the last 10 years has emphasized the development of tertiary service industries that supply low-paying seasonal jobs and has had its major concentration in the north in that area, rather than emphasizing the development of secondary manufacturing industries based on the resources in the north? Does the government have concrete plans at this stage to reverse that priority?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, if the member is talking about the north, the northeast and the northwest, I would think the government’s commitment has been clearly demonstrated. He should be more aware of this than anyone in this House, with the exception of the hon. member who lives next door and who is aware of it, because the rather significant industrial plant, which is in secondary manufacturing, in Thunder Bay. It has been given a most significant contract by this government, both in the short term and long term. That is a clear indication of this government’s commitment to secondary industry in northern Ontario. If he thinks his constituents don’t believe that, I suggest he should go home for Christmas and say to his constituents he is not interested in that contract and that he really feels Hawker Siddeley shouldn’t be building those cars.

Mr. Foulds: That is nonsense and the Premier knows it. That is a complete distortion of the truth and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I challenge him to do it. He hasn’t got the nerve.

Mr. Foulds: Why has the government invested so much? The Premier didn’t answer the question.


Mr. Germa: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In all of the hysterical gyrations I see going on to relieve the pressure on the city of Sudbury, is the minister going to allow the final indignity to be heaped on the city when someone suggested that our empty mining shaft should be used as a disposal site for nuclear waste?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is before the ministry at the present time. Apparently, they will contain that material in a cement encasing and put it down 2,000 feet in an abandoned mine shaft.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That application is before us. We haven’t approved it but that is a suggested method of disposing of that waste.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Is the minister suggesting this stuff will be recoverable at any point in time when it would become dangerous, such as breaking open and starting to enter the water table?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: According to the application of the proponent, there would be no chance of it breaking open if it was encased in a cement casing. That is the claim by the proponent. As I say, we haven’t approved that certificate or that method.

Mr. Germa: Who is the proponent for this exercise?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I believe it’s Falconbridge.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There have been enough supplementaries. The hon. member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Foulds: Hasn’t he ever heard of a cave-in at a mine shaft?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is an abandoned mine shaft.

Mr. Cassidy: That stuff lasts for 25,000 years.



Mr. Riddell: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Has the minister been following the Outlook conference in Ottawa this week and has he read reports entitled: “More farmers quitting; Slump predicted for apple growers; Farm machine sales to drop” and many other such headings?

Does it not concern the minister that so little attention is devoted by this government to the plight of the farmers and the millions of dollars and the thousands of jobs which have been lost in farming and in related industries and services in Ontario, compared to the spontaneous reaction of this government to sudden cutbacks, as unfortunate as they are, in such companies as Inco and Falconbridge?

Mr. Foulds: What reaction?

An hon. member: There goes the Liberal vote in Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: With the waste uranium.

Mr. Riddell: In view of the fact that farm incomes have declined by 11 per cent to the end of this year and are predicted to decline another five per cent next year, has the minister predicted what this is going to cost the Ontario economy in terms of dollars and in terms of jobs? What measures are the minister and his colleagues over there going to take to bring some stability to this primary industry in Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Absolute hogwash, and you know it.

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t need any help.

Mr. Warner: You need all the help you can get.

Hon. W. Newman: Let me say this: Let me just tell the members opposite one or two things about the agriculture industry in the province of Ontario. It’s the most efficient in the world, to start with. They sit over there and talk about jobs. There are 800,000 jobs in agriculture-related industries.

Mr. Roy: Bring on Gene Whelan.

Mr. Conway: Where is Bill Stewart?

Hon. W. Newman: Those jobs are important. They are very important. But the members opposite sit over there, and I haven’t heard a word from over there at all about what was said in the House this morning by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett). It will be two years this January that I have been talking about it. If we are going to have an agriculture industry in Canada, we have two major things we have to be concerned with at the national level before we can develop a five- year program in the province. We have to know what they are going to do down there.

Mr. Ruston: Passing the buck.

Hon. W. Newman: We have not passed the buck. We have carried our own all the way and the farmers in the province know this.

Let me tell the members opposite this: With regard to the negotiations that are coming up with Ottawa right now, I suggest they talk to their counterparts. We are going down on Monday to do it -- and the members opposite have an obligation to do it, too. Yes, they do, because that’s what is going to make agriculture viable in this country. That and a truly national stabilization program --

Mr. Conway: Why don’t you just move to Ottawa and stay there? Just go down to Whelan’s office and stay there.

Hon. W. Newman: You know, the great federal government of Canada believes in dividing and conquering --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, yes. And it’s time we started to pull together to make the agricultural industry of Canada work properly.

Mr. Conway: I thought you favoured national unity.

Hon. W. Newman: We have done, and we will continue to do, our share on behalf of the farmers of this province.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: It is all well and good to blame the federal government for everything, but in light of the declining farm incomes, reflecting the low prices that farmers are receiving at the farm gate, and in light of the articles that we read that food prices are the major contributors to the rising cost of living, why doesn’t the minister commission a study into the processing, distribution and retail trade to ascertain just where the ripoff is taking place?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t think I had to elaborate again to the members opposite the various programs we have brought forward in the province of Ontario. We have shouldered our responsibilities as far as the agriculture community is concerned. If the members opposite will check with the farm organizations, they will find we are in tune; maybe they are not, but we are. We have concerns; we always will. We brought a stabilization program in here. Corn is involved in the program this year.

There are a lot of other programs that I could talk about -- the capital grants program and all our other programs and services to farmers. We deal with them at the grass-roots level in our ministry. I get out there, and the members opposite know that.

The hon. member talks about food prices. Yes, the consumers have never had a better bargain in their life than they have in food. In this country they buy food with 16 per cent of their disposable income. They should be prepared to pay a little more --

Mr. Roy: You are plagiarizing Gene Whelan.

Hon. W. Newman: -- if they want to preserve our agricultural land and our farmers on the land. Thus we have our promotional program to sell Ontario products. I am glad to see that some of your members are helping us promote that. The farmers have to make a decent living; nobody is more aware of that than I am. And nobody is more committed to trying to help them make a better living than I am. Don’t forget that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The great farmer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He couldn’t raise a disturbance.

Mr. Deans: Oh yes he could.

Mr. Wildman: Could the minister indicate when he expects to complete the study into the high cost of food in the small, isolated communities of the north?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear that question. There were too many side remarks.

Mr. Warner: The minister’s colleagues are unruly.

Mr. Foulds: The Minister of Northern Affairs should keep quiet.

Mr. Martel: That’s his first contribution ever.

Mr. Wildman: If I could repeat the question: In line with what the member for Huron-Middlesex was asking, when does the minister expect to complete the study into high food costs in the small isolated communities in northern Ontario, that he indicated he would do during the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates?

Hon. W. Newman: I think if the member will remember, the question he asked was about a specific town -- I believe it was White River, not all of northern Ontario -- because of the lack of competition there. I made a commitment during the estimates that we would look at that, and yes, we will be looking at it.

Mr. S. Smith: In the fullness of time.

Hon. W. Newman: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Makarchuk: That means never.


Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister implement the recommendations of the Johnston inquiry, tabled in 1974, which called for province-wide bargaining in hospitals, as negotiations are now under way regarding contracts which expire March 31, 1978? Does the minister not think the time has come to move on the subject?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think significant progress has been made towards the recommendation suggested by Mr. Johnston in that report. Indeed, most of the hospitals in the southern part of the province do bargain on an organized basis. They resolve local issues locally, and those issues which cannot be resolved locally and certain other issues are taken to a central table.

This has been a rational move in the direction suggested by Mr. Johnston. I think the measure of success is an indication of the rate at which we should move in that direction, and indeed whether we should move totally in that direction. I think it’s wise to learn from the experiences of the negotiators and the groups involved in negotiations during the past three years, in order to make rational decisions about whether we should move further.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: I didn’t ask the minister whether the individual hospitals are negotiating; I know they are doing that. I’m asking whether the minister is moving towards instituting province-wide negotiation, the way it has been done in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, and the way she has done it in the construction industry; that’s what I’m asking her.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s all very well to suggest province-wide bargaining for hospitals in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan the number of hospitals is large but the number of people involved is relatively small. There are more people involved in bargaining in at least three or four hospitals in Toronto than there are in bargaining for all the hospitals in the province of Saskatchewan. So they’re really not comparable.

I am not suggesting that we will move legislatively in this direction at this time. I just said that it was wise to gain experience in gradual moves in that direction to determine the wisdom and the validity of such a move before suggesting any such legislation.


Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that his ministry has paid $328,347 to an organization for the training of persons under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act without a formal arrangement or contract, is the minister prepared today to table in this House the management consultant’s report?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I will even give the hon. member the reason; again.

Mr. Martel: Quit while you are ahead.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have received a final draft copy and within the next week, I and the other members of the steering committee are to meet with the consultants to finalize the report, at which time it will be produced in sufficient quantity to be circulated among the senior members of my management committee in the ministry. As I indicated to the member in the estimates when she raised this question, I feel my first obligation is to deal with the report with my senior management group, and only after that will I consider whether it is appropriate to table it in the House or make it public.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not believe that in view of the serious question of his ministry in the item to which I referred that he should view the matter rather more seriously than he has done? How long has he had that report?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I believe I received the draft copy of the report about a week ago --

Mrs. Campbell: At the time you told me you didn’t have it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and have been reading it and reviewing it since that time so I can prepare for the meeting with the consultants in the next week. I am sure the hon. member realizes that I do have other things on my plate at this point.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, you do indeed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am glad that she will acknowledge that. I really don’t know where the hon. member gets the idea that I don’t take all aspects of my ministry very seriously.

Mrs. Campbell: Because of the answers you have given this House.

Mr. Roy: Just the evidence; we look at the evidence.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is precisely why we have embarked upon this very serious question of looking at the possibility of the review and perhaps reorganization of the management structure.

Mr. McClellan: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say if it is a fact that the management consultant report has recommended that Dr. Crittenden, the deputy minister, should be replaced?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Absolutely not.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may: Since rumours are very strongly rife and unusually well placed that the management report suggests certain substitutions be made in the most senior staff of the ministry, how about tabling the report in order to dispel these impressions?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to be repetitious. I will not table that report at this time because it is not yet even finalized.

Mr. Foulds: Which sections are you going to take out?

Hon. Mr. Norton: But I can assure the member that if he has heard the kinds of rumours that he is suggesting --

Mr. Lewis: Very strong rumours.

Mr. Makarchuk: We got copies before you did.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- they are absolutely fallacious.

Mr. Lewis: Well prove it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The member for Bell- woods (Mr. McClellan) started the rumours.

Mr. Lewis: If he started it, it’s from a very good source, I may say; utterly reliable.

Mr. Cassidy: You guys hide everything.

Mr. Speaker: We are wasting time.


Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker: my question is to the Premier. In view of the escalating oppressive policies of the South African government against the blacks there, symbolized by the brutal death of Steve Biko, does he not think it is time his government exercised some sanctions against South Africa? In particular would he start by instructing the Liquor Control Board to stop buying South African wines?

Mr. Breithaupt: You are the people who said they should be allowed to vote here.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I sense the parties opposite want to have a debate. If they want to have it, I will sit down. Would the member like to do that?

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, you wouldn’t do that.

Mr. Roy: You are the same way; you allow them to vote in this province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you don’t want people to vote in this province?


Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) -- no, I won’t; it is too close to Christmas.

Mr. Speaker: Talk to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to remind him how in-laws vote. In fact, they still have hopes for him.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the very important and serious question raised by the member for Welland-Thorold, my own personal views, and I am sure the views of my colleagues, with respect to the policies of the government of South Africa I think do not need to be stated in this House. I don’t think we need to debate that here; I don’t sense any differences of opinion. I think the question of whether or not this province should become involved in questions of economic sanctions -- whether the hon. member genuinely feels that this would be a proper response, whether it would produce anything that might alter the situation or improve it -- I think that is something that would have to be assessed very carefully and very objectively.


This issue has been raised before. There is no question that some products from South Africa, not just in the LCBO but in other retail outlets in the province, are being sold. I think there are arguments on both sides. Do you influence policy, do you correct situations with which you don’t agree in a country that is several thousands of miles away from here by this sort of activity?

I must confess I am not prepared to say at this moment that would serve that kind of purpose. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever on the part of the member for Welland-Thorold that I personally, while it isn’t a matter of provincial jurisdiction necessarily to comment on the internal policies of a nation of this world, am totally opposed to it, as I am sure he is; and I think I speak for my colleagues. Whether or not the suggestion he makes would be useful, solve any problem or serve any real purpose, is something that I would like to assess very carefully.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Is the Premier not aware that the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia have instituted this kind of boycott? And in view of his excursion into international waters by his statement this morning, does he not think that this government could show at least a little displeasure with what is being done in South Africa by instituting this boycott on the sale of wines here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess that one could, if one wanted to carry this to its ultimate conclusion, get into a discussion as to whether this government supports or does not support the internal policies in a number of nations of this world. This is where I think one starts getting into some very difficult areas in terms of what it is that one objects to personally in South Africa --

Mr. Swart: This is new; this is new.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- what reservations one might have about the internal policies of some other countries.

Mr. Swart: It is new and it is worsening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To put it into perspective, I am sure there are other nations in the world where one can’t support what they are doing in terms of policy or principle or ideology. I think one has to think this thing through very carefully.

The minister has just passed me a note. Not that it alters the situation at all, the percentage of South African wine --

Mr. Swart: It’s 1.3 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, 1.3 per cent out of the total. I just am not going to give the hon. member a commitment on a matter of this kind as it relates to the province of Ontario at this moment, but I don’t want there to be an misunderstanding about my own view as to the policies of that country.

Mr Swart: You can’t be that disturbed if you won’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I suggest to the hon. member that he just go through a list of half a dozen other nations and ask himself in his own conscience whether or not he agrees with what they are doing and whether this country should alter its trade policies as it relates to those countries as a way of solving the problem.

Mr. Lewis: I think South Africa is in a class of its own in the international community.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure, on this particular issue. But there are others.


Mr. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In thanking the Minister of Energy for agreeing to ask cabinet for an outside study on the Bradley-Georgetown hydro corridor, a study requested consistently since 1973, would the minister accept this copy of Hydro’s application for an official plan amendment of the town of Halton Hills? It clearly shows a corridor north-south through Halton Hills, 750 feet wide minimum and 1,750 feet wide maximum. Based on this document will he undertake to correct the answer to a question which he gave last week denying that this was so? I specifically refer to section 3, page 2, of this document entitled Location of Lands Affected.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to accept that particular document. It could have been done with less drama.

Mr. Peterson: Stop telling us how to behave. We are doing pretty well over here.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member for Halton-Burlington no doubt refers to the meeting that I had with the interested citizens’ group. May I correct the headline of that particular article in the paper? What I said was that I would pursue the three principles that were of great concern to that delegation; that is, it seemed certain that Hydro could save time, money and achieve a more secure system if it went that other route.

I indicated that I was interested in obtaining the facts in regard to those three matters, that I would do so -- and I fully expect to have something on those matters before the day is out -- and that I would discuss those matters with the Premier and cabinet. Then, of course, any alteration in the government’s position in regard to that route would have to come from that source.

I want to make it abundantly plain that I did not undertake to obtain an independent report, which would take something like four months. That was not the substance of my undertaking to that particular delegation. I might reassure the member for Halton-Burlington that the delegation seemed quite satisfied that I would look objectively at its representations and get back to it next Wednesday.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) asked me a few weeks ago if I could give him the number of capital building projects requested and approved in the current year. There were 560 projects requested and 130 were approved. This was for a total of $375 million requested and we were able to accommodate $88 million of the requests.


Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Am I correct in assuming from his statement in introducing the Kealey commission report to the Legislature that the only process for public input will be by way of written submission to the minister before January 31? Is that my understanding?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, it is at the present time.

Mr. Philip: In the light of the interest in this particular area, as evidenced by the number of presentations made to the Kealey commission by members of this party and members of the other opposition party, would the minister be willing to table the responses he has had from the various interest groups in order that we might have the most intelligent debate when the legislation eventually comes down? Would the minister also approach his House leader with a view having an open debate in this House scheduled for early in February on the Kealey commission recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to the first question is yes, I would be pleased to make available any communications that come to me pursuant to my invitation to the Condominium Federation and others to make submissions in January, and I will make those available to members as soon as they are in.

Secondly, the answer is, after the end of January, obviously members will understand it takes a great deal of work to compile all the information we will be receiving and to make some careful consideration of the recommendations, the cost implications of some of them, the policies involved and to reflect upon the responses we get in January. I don’t think an early debate on the report itself would be terribly helpful because, as the member well points out, the parties have had their opportunity to make their views known with regard to the general principles involved before the study group.

Now that members have the report -- and I did, seriously go to great pains to provide it to them at this time so that they would have the Christmas break to study it -- I hope they will please make some representations to us and let us know what they would ordinarily say during a free-ranging debate early in February in the House, if the House were sitting then. I would very much appreciate the members providing us with the comments they might otherwise make in the debate process in February. I think what would be much more helpful is if, as soon as the submissions are in, my staff and I sat down with a view to presenting for cabinet consideration some recommendations with regard to the frame and substance of a new Condominium Act. That will be necessary, because in order to draft the necessary legislation -- it would be very long and comprehensive -- legislative draftsmen would require a good two or three months to come up with a sensible piece of legislation.

The member therefore will understand the time limits, in view of my desire to have a bill in the House and passed by the House before we rise next June or July. Because of the time limitations, I would urge those persons who will be getting copies of this to make their representations to us in January -- and that includes all members of the House and the public -- so that we can move on it expeditiously.

Mr. Philip: One final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Roy: Well, we’ll see the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in the new year.



Hon. Mr. Grossman presented the report of the Ontario Residential Condominium Study Group.



Hon. Mr. Auld moved that notwithstanding standing order 2(a), the House will continue in session today until it is prorogued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor.

Motion agreed to.



Hon. Mr. Davis moved first reading of Bill 129, An Act to prohibit Discrimination in Business Relationships.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s about time.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I notice on the government House leader’s desk -- and I’m sure the members opposite wouldn’t want not to have the answers to these questions -- the answer to question 57.

Mr. S. Smith: He may not have intended to give them.



Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the concurrence. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The look you gave me there all of a sudden frightened me and I was just ready to back off and just accept the slings and arrows from the Chair.

I’ve been looking forward for some time to participating in this concurrence involving the Premier. I can understand that the Premier has other pressing matters. I have discussed with him the fact that he will be listening attentively on his box and occasionally I’ll see flashes on his microphone when --

Mr. Peterson: Do you have a box at the Albany Club, Bill?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will interject from the meeting.

Mr. Roy: Yes, interject from the meeting. I would point out to the Premier, though, and to my colleagues here who may well wonder why it is Saturday morning and we haven’t dealt with this concurrence before, that all week long I was told by the House leader --

Mr. Peterson: What day is this? Friday morning.

Mr. Roy: Is this Saturday or Friday?

Mr. Peterson: Friday.

Mr. Roy: All I know is it’s been a long week, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. You have been here three days.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, two and a half.

Mr. Roy: Oh, the Minister of Housing is here. I’d like to say to the Minister of Housing as well that he has --

Mr. Speaker: No, I wouldn’t want you to say anything to the Minister of Housing.

An hon. member: Direct it to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is Friday and we’re dealing with concurrence of a report.

Mr. Roy: No, concurrence of the Premier’s office, which is very wide-sweeping, Mr. Speaker. It involves all sorts of things, including attacking the Minister of Housing, but I’ll not do that. I’ll adhere to your ruling.

But I do want to say to my colleagues that all week long I was at discussions with the House leader about when we were going to get to concurrence. He kept saying to me, “Well, the Premier wants to be here.” I said, “Well, it’s not really necessary for the Premier. I know he’s got other things to do, at least he tells us he’s got other things to do. So I could have concurrence either Tuesday night or Thursday afternoon or Thursday evening.” And all the while he said, “No, he wants to be here.” So we have it Friday morning and of course, I know that the Premier has other things and he is not here.


Nevertheless, I do accept the opportunity of speaking on the concurrence motion involving the Premier’s office because I’ve been waiting for some time to say certain things. While I will discuss some of these matters involving the Premier and the administration in various ministries, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to remind my colleague, the Attorney General, now that the evidence is in involving the Judge Williams inquiry --

Mr. Speaker: We’re dealing with concurrence in supply for the Premier’s office.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t heard anything yet that was germane to the motion before the House.

Mr. Roy: When we’re dealing with concurrence in the Premier’s office, we’re dealing with all aspects of business of the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not.

Mr. Roy: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You’re dealing with the operation of the Office of the Premier.

An hon. member: That’s right. Throw him out.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Premier and the office of the cabinet involves the whole operation of the government of Ontario, I say with great respect to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Not for purposes of supply.

Mr. Roy: I say that when we’re discussing the estimates of the Premier’s office it involves the whole operation of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. Whatever gave you that impression?

Mr. Roy: Logic.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. You’ve been around this House long enough to know when you’re dealing with supply you deal with a specific item and a specific vote dealing specifically with the way in which the money is being expended. You can’t go as far afield as you’re suggesting today. You will deal with the concurrence for supply for the estimates to operate the Premier’s office for this fiscal year.

Mr. Roy: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to challenge my ruling?

Mr. Roy: I don’t want to be abrasive with you.

Mr. Speaker: No, but I want you to be relevant and up to this point you haven’t been.

Mr. Roy: I don’t want any ruling just made off the cuff. I say that the Office of the Premier involves the operation of this whole province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. Roy: What does a Premier do then?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: You’re not going to listen to the Treasurer because if any one knows about nonsense it’s he. I say respectfully to the Chair that when we’re discussing the Premier’s office it’s always been my understanding that the Premier’s office involves the operation of the whole province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Why didn’t you go to his estimates then?

Mr. Speaker: I so rule that you can only speak on things dealing with the operation of the Premier’s office. I’m going to insist on that. You can’t debate my ruling but you can challenge it if you wish.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker: I am challenging your ruling. I’m sorry. I think that’s much too restrictive.

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House was concurrence in supply for the Office of the Premier in the amount of $1,770,000.

The hon. member for Ottawa East contended that he could talk about anything having to do with the government of the province of Ontario. I ordered that all members would restrict their comments to that specific vote for the Office of the Premier. The member for Ottawa East thought he could talk about anything to do with government in the province. He has challenged my ruling.

The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling which was upheld on the following vote:
















































Newman W.









Smith, G. E.



Taylor, J. A.

Taylor, G.





















Miller, G. I.

Newman, B.






Smith, S.


Van Horne


Ayes 68; nays 22.

Mr. Roy: I accede to your ruling. I would now like to discuss what is called “an advisory committee on confederation” which has been set up by the Premier’s office. I also want to discuss a conference which took place on June 27 to June 29 called Destiny Canada that was also set up by the Premier’s office.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order so there is no misunderstanding. The conference was not set up by the Premier’s office, it was set up by York University with the support of the government.

Mr. Roy: And the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no. The full credit goes to --

Mr. Peterson: The people at York, admit it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. But I don’t want you to think it was us who did it. It was the University of York and the committee.

Mr. Peterson: You are using all these academic institutions for your own purpose.

An hon. member: He is out of order again.

Mr. Foulds: “It was we who did it.” You need the nominative case after a copulative verb.

Mr. Lewis: You will never last by mangling grammar.

Mr. Roy: In any event that conference was organized through the initiative of the chairman of the advisory committee that was set up by the Premier’s office. I think, in that light, I can discuss, within your ruling, these --

Mr. Lewis: You should have said, “it was us what done it.” Then it would have been okay.

Mr. Roy: -- and similar other matters of the Premier’s office. I originally intended to speak about his relationship with the province of Quebec and with the national government. And I do want to say that I have been looking forward to participating in this type of discussion since November 1976. I am sorry --

Mr. Makarchuk: You could have done it in the Throne debate, the budget debate.

Mr. Roy: -- that this House, in spite of assurances by the Premier’s office, has not had an opportunity to discuss the role of the province of Ontario and the Premier, in relation to the unity of the country. We attempted to discuss this matter during the Premier’s estimates but, unfortunately, because of a time constraint we were unable to -- and that is not the Premier’s fault.

An hon. member: It’s Darcy McKeough’s fault.

Mr. Roy: There had been an agreement by the House leaders that there was only so much time for certain estimates. The Premier, on his own initiative, came down for his estimates but unfortunately that evening he had only an hour. When we did get into the discussion it had to be terminated rather quickly because of the time constraint.

I don’t want to unduly delay the proceedings of the prorogation of this House but I do feel the role of the province of Ontario and the role of the Premier is extremely important in the debate on this country that we all love, Canada. I say it is becoming more and more important because the challenge that is facing us all, as Canadians, is a very real and serious challenge indeed.


The gathering of the storm that started in the 1900s and which, in fact, blossomed on November 15, 1976, was not wholly unpredicted.

I can recall as a member of this House in 1973 going down to the Conservative caucus office here, where they have a television set, and we watched the returns of the Quebec election in 1973 and our joy over the overwhelming victory of the Liberal Party at that time. It was frightening, however, to observe the margin -- 102 of 110 seats. One knew at that point, with virtually a two-party system in that province, it was only a question of time for a majority government with so much power, to find itself in strong disfavour with the public of Quebec. It seemed inevitable that the existing opposition party, which was dedicated to the separation of this country, would come to power. So it did -- on November 15, 1976.

If I may talk briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the challenge the Premier and this province have to face on this.

This is a government of extremely capable and competent people. I get extremely annoyed when I hear certain people -- I don’t intend to name them but some of them come from the province of Quebec -- who adopt an offhand attitude that the Parti Quebecois were just a bunch of radicals and it was only a question of time before they would no longer hold power.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Trudeau said that.

Mr. Roy: You are saying that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Trudeau said that.

Mr. Roy: If he said it I don’t agree with him, but whether it was Trudeau or not, these politicians were extremely competent people; people with qualifications, dedicated to their goals, extremely lucid and able to communicate with the public. I know very few politicians that have such an effective grasp and rapport with the public of their province as the Premier of Quebec.

When I look at all the propaganda involved -- some of these questions I have raised in the House on this issue -- propaganda going on in schools and through the media. This is, indeed, a serious challenge. What do we have to meet that challenge?

There is a perception on the part of Canadians that those leaders who are meeting the challenge are the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and René Levesque and that this happens to be a fight between them. It should be a debate that involves all of us; and certainly the Premier of this province and all the people of Ontario.

The perception is it is only Trudeau and Levesque -- two Frenchmen discussing the future of the country -- you clearly get the impression there is a void there. The void exists as follows: there is a lack of perception, of taking a stand, on the part of English-speaking federal ministers elected to communicate, participate and inform the English-speaking community of this country. I don’t want to get involved with who is and who is not doing his job. That void at the federal level extends to the Leader of the Opposition and, with respect, the leader of the NDP. Other options are not coming forward as alternatives to those being suggested by the Premier of this province.

That void is accentuated by the fact that in the province of Quebec there is no leader of the opposition who can consistently bring forward alternatives. That is something to be corrected, Mr. Speaker. It makes the challenge extremely important as to who is going to fill this void. If we don’t fill it at the federal level, if it is not filled at the Quebec provincial level, then it must be done by other provinces.

I suspect the approach taken by the other provinces, by the Premier of this province, by the province of Ontario -- who has always had a special relationship with the province of Quebec -- what they are going to put forward is going to be more credible. We are not in conflict. We are sister provinces.

Mr. Lewis: Well, you are right. You are right, but the Liberals failed federally, the Liberals failed provincially, and now you ask us to bail everyone out. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Roy: The leader of the NDP -- and I’ve always thought it offensive that any party would be called a third party in this House -- is talking about who has failed. There has been a failing. As I said before, since 1960 there have been certain corrections that should have been made and were not made. The fault lies in great part at the federal level, but the fault lies with other provinces and this province as well. Once we get into a problem, the most positive way of dealing with it is not looking back to see who caused it --

Mr. Lewis: Sure it is.

Mr. Roy: -- but saying “Let’s look to the future and see what we can do about it.”

Mr. McClellan: Ignore the cause, like an ostrich.

Mr. Roy: I am not. I am not for a minute ignoring the cause. I could get into the cause over some length of time, but I don’t want to do that today. I do want to say that there has to be a response and there has to be a response by the Premier of this province and by this province itself, which may well be more credible than any response made at the federal level.

The response from the federal level always is on the basis of conflict. If we give Quebec more, we have less for the federal people; and the federal people will have a perception they’re giving away certain of their powers, while Quebec members at the federal level will not have the same standing as other federal members because Quebec will have been given more power.

This country was put together by the provinces, Mr. Speaker, and I say to you it’s going to be kept together by the role played by certain provinces, especially the province of Ontario. What goes on in this province is more important than what goes on basically at any other level except the federal level. How have we met this challenge? We have done some things in this province, but in my opinion we haven’t done enough. I can recall, following November 15, the Premier’s approach at that time, the confusion that took place, the lack of knowing which way to turn and how to meet this challenge.

I want to discuss briefly the Premier’s approach back in February 1977, when he went down to the province of Quebec to the carnival. At that time, he had discussions with Premier Levesque. Here was the response he made in a speech in London, Ontario, as reported in the Globe and Mail on February 7, 1977. The paper said: “Premier William Davis said yesterday that it is too early to search for solutions to the threat of Quebec’s separating from Canada because the problem is not yet that clear or fully understood.”

If after November 15 the problem was not fully understood by the Premier of this province, I think we’ve got problems responding to the threat. It was with great chagrin that certain newspapers reported his approach. I look back at an editorial in the Montreal Star on February 8, 1977, following the Premier’s visit. It stated as follows: “The Ontario Premier’s round of Caribou diplomacy in Quebec City over the weekend does not appear to have left the country noticeably more united. He sought an informal pact with Premier Levesque to cool for the moment the debate over separatism, but since Mr. Levesque had already made it clear in New York that he had no intention of cooling the debate and his ministers since have been busy pursuing all over the North American continent, it would seem that the self-denial is likely to be one-sided.”

The original response by the Premier’s office was not one that we should have expected for a province which was neighbouring on the frontiers of the province of Quebec. It saddened me deeply at that time to think we were going to take an approach in the face of that threat that said basically cool it, that it’s too early to be looking for a solution. Not only did it concern many of us in this province, but the credibility of the Premier of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec went down somewhat. It’s important that the credibility of the Premier of the province of Ontario be as high as possible in Quebec. I note John Robarts’ reputation in the province. I say to you, that is something we should all wish for, whether it is partisan or otherwise, because we’re talking again about the unity of this country.

As matters progressed since November 15, 1976 -- and I’ve watched them over the year 1977 -- what happened? What was the Premier’s response? I’ve got to give full credit to the Leader of the Opposition; certainly he perceived how serious a threat it was at that time. Some people were suggesting that his voice was one of shrillness and that he was too emotional about this. He, at least, was one of the people who had a perception of what we were to meet and what we are experiencing here every day.

I’ll put an example to you, Mr. Speaker, to show how organized the Parti Quebecois is. Their leader goes on a trip to Paris and receives medals, and then when he returns, they use propaganda to get 15,000 people to that airport to meet him, welcoming back the hero. That type of propaganda, when it’s repeated over and over again, has a serious impact, especially when it’s based on something as emotional as nationalism. So I say, we’ve got to look at these things.

We progressed into the year and we got the June election. There was a sort of agreement at that time that the question of national unity would not be the subject of an election. It would not be discussed on a partisan basis. Certainly, that was something that was adhered to by the leaders of the other two parties; and it was adhered to by the Premier for a period of time. But as the election progressed -- and I’m sure my colleagues can recall what took place at that time -- all at once, it was national unity; the only way that the people of Ontario could give certain evidence of how they felt about the country, was to vote for the saviour of the country, the Premier of the province.

All at once that became an issue. Do you recall how wrapped up in the flag he was? In fact, letters were going around at that time saying that the only way that Ontarians could safeguard the unity of the country was to vote Conservative. I thought it was sad that, having decided not to make it a partisan issue, all at once it had become one. I look back at some of the comments made by Norm Webster in the Globe and Mail in May 1977, and what he had to say about the Conservatives’ approach during that election in using the issue of national unity.

I say the reason it’s so sad is because national unity is something that we all believe in. It’s not something that can be discussed on a partisan basis, saying that if you vote for the Conservatives you happen to be more for the unity of the country than people who happen to vote for the NDP or vote for the Liberal Party.

I look back at a comment made by Norm Webster on May, 31, 1977 when he said: “Vote unity, vote Davis, oppose the perfidious Grits, the NDP and the Parti Quebecois by marking your ballot for a Tory. Keep your country safe from the infidel by returning the Conservatives to office with a strong majority.”

He went on to talk about the approach taken by the Premier. He even mentioned a letter at that time written by the former Premier of the province, the Hon. John Robarts, who had sent copies of letters which said:

“The lack of leadership of the Liberal Party, the resurgence of the New Democratic Party and the election of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec threatens the economic and social foundation upon which this province has been built and upon which it has contributed to the strength of Canada. Ontarians, therefore, cannot afford to sit idle and allow those to represent a dramatic political alternative to assume power in Ontario, or those who threaten Confederation to go unchallenged.”


This is the type of thing that saddens people who feel strongly about the unity of their country. We did not even have a debate in this House as had been promised and there we were in June or May, prior to the election of 1977, when it became really a political issue.

I thought that was unbecoming. I really thought that it was unbecoming of the Premier and his party to associate themselves with that issue in such a way, trying to get the people of the province to believe that the only way to keep the country together was to vote Tory.

Fortunately for us, and certainly to the great credit of the voters of this province, they didn’t go for it. That type of approach makes the whole debate somewhat cynical -- when certain people feel a certain way about an issue that should be above partisan approaches and it is dragged in during an election campaign. I was saddened by that and I thought that was not the approach that the Premier of the province should have taken.

There have been some approaches made by this province for which I must give credit to the Premier -- for instance, his setting up of an advisory committee on Confederation, his support of the discussion that took place at York University. Some of these things certainly were positive. Some of these forums, where citizens -- not politicians -- citizens from right across the country were able to sit down and discuss differences, differences which were very often imagined more than real.

The sadness about the whole aspect of it is the two solitudes. The people in the province of Quebec are getting basically one side of the balance sheet or the blackboard and the English-speaking elements of the rest of the country are getting another story from their press.

It’s important that we break down these barriers. I am frightened every day to think that this country will be split up, not because there are major differences but because people don’t talk to each other, people don’t understand each other. Basically it’s a matter of ignorance rather than deep and heartfelt differences.

Conferences like the one that took place at York University, and certainly some of the federal initiatives, assisted in initiating this debate and keeping it within a proper perspective. But I think more can be done. More can be done and some has been done.

Under the threat of what happened on November 15, we have seen changes. We passed a bill here dealing with the Essex problem. We have had discussions. For instance, before the Robarts and Pepin commission, the Premier stated some of the approaches that could be taken by this province towards the minority in this province.

Certainly the treatment of the French-speaking minority in this province is an important factor in looking at Canada as we know it or we would like to see it, because there happens to be a majority of French-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec. In the rest of Canada there is a majority of English-speaking Canadians and, if you believe in the federal government, you must have a federal government which is able to communicate with both, hence bilingualism at the federal level.

Okay, that’s one thing. The other aspect, of course, is that there happens to be in the province of Quebec a sizable minority of Anglophones, just as there is a sizable minority of Francophones outside of the province of Quebec. The problem would be relatively simple if we could tell the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec to move to Ontario and the French in the rest of Canada, be it Ontario, New Brunswick or elsewhere, to move into Quebec.

Of course that’s not going to happen; that is their home. They, like myself, believe that it is their province and they feel just as much Canadian living in the province of Ontario as they would if they were living in the province of Quebec and they are not about to move.

So, Mr. Speaker, there must be a certain adaptation. It’s difficult for some of us who don’t like some of the approaches taken by the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec pertaining to their minority to say to them, “Look, you can’t be doing this.”

That is not the way to be treating the minority. In fact, our record in this province is such that the minority has not received a treatment that has been even equal to the treatment of the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec. So it is important how Ontario cleans up its own act -- its own House here.

There have been some steps. Some of them we have talked about -- for instance the question of languages in the courts was a positive step. But at this point it is still superficial. The fact remains that someone in Prescott and Russell, for instance, going to court can only have one level of court in his language. And even the legality of that is questionable. But if he should want to appeal, he can’t go any further than that. So it requires something that I have been asking for since 1971 -- an amendment to the Judicature Act. Something that the Attorney General has proposed, has suggested he would bring in before the session was over and which we have not seen yet.

I would ask the Premier to direct his attention to something like this, so that the changes that take place are meaningful and not superficial. You can’t fool people any more with superficial approaches in reaction to certain problems. Certainly if we have a commitment it should be a full commitment, and not a superficial one.

Certainly our treatment of the French-speaking minority in this province is something that is going to give us credibility on the national scene in the province of Quebec. Certainly the approach taken by the Premier in this province is going to be something that is going to be useful.

I notice the Premier has set up an advisory committee on Confederation and that one of the latest people to be selected for this committee is one of his former advisers, Hugh Segal. I read in yesterday’s Globe and Mail that Hugh Segal has been appointed to the advisory committee. I say to you that that is a positive step. I appreciate that Mr. Segal can make a positive contribution, just as I respect the people on it. But certainly those of us in the House here can make some contribution as well. We have select committees for all sorts of things. Why don’t we have a select committee in this House to look at the question of the constitution; to look at the responses that the province of Ontario could make in the national debate? Can not we, the elected representatives, make a positive contribution to this? Certainly we could, if we are to have all sorts of select committees to tour the province for a variety of problems -- which are of great importance. But surely in the order of things, a select committee set up by the Premier of all members of this House, dealing with the fact that we are into a minority situation as well, where the Premier could get responses from all parties, would be helpful in this question. Especially when I look at some of the responses he has had in the past, which at best have been somewhat confused.

If we had a select committee of the members of the House, which could travel around this province, if for nothing else than to educate and have discussions with the people of this province -- or people of other provinces -- or even people in the province of Quebec, then we might have this dialogue, so that we might publish it, so that we might put forward views which would be helpful.

Because certainly, no matter which way you look at it, this country will not be the same again. The constitution will have to be changed, and what are our responses going to be? Some of the responses by the Premier certainly were helpful. I thought the statement he made before the Robarts-Pepin commission about his flexibility, about certain rights being transferred to certain provinces, were helpful. But I think there is a contribution that we can make here as members.

Certainly when I look at the government side, and I look at different ministers in charge of certain ministries, and when I looked for instance yesterday at the money we are spending for policy secretariats -- I look at that and I say to myself: couldn’t we have a minister in full charge of federal-provincial relations; a minister who would be doing only that; whose job would be to look to the future; to be in a position to have dialogue with his colleagues right across the country and with the province of Quebec? Certainly that would be in the priority of things. A minister could play a useful role. We would have one individual who could do this on a full-time basis.

I think there are other things we could do.

Mr. Martel: Sure, you could sit down.

Mr. Roy: There could be increased publicity about dialogues and exchanges between various provinces. The Premier could initiate, for instance, programs whereby people who are travelling to our two sister provinces -- that this type of travelling -- tourist, publicity or otherwise -- could receive some form of tax credit. Keith Spicer suggested that someone should be able to get around this country for $100 -- any place in the country. I say this because the minute --

Mr. Deans: If that ever happens, you’d never be here.

Mr. Roy: I listened to the member for Wentworth, and I appreciate --

Mr. McClellan: Don’t you have some billings to look into?

Mr. Roy: -- that the potential leader is somewhat frustrated, but I ask him to bear with me. I don’t have --

Mr. Deans: You’re abusing the purpose of concurrence.

Mr. Martel: You might have come in on the debate on time, instead of 45 minutes late last night.

Mr. Deans: You didn’t do your job properly.

Mr. Martel: When you have an agreement, you might honour it once in a while.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I notice my colleague is getting extremely excited.

Mr. Martel: Your colleague -- he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Three sides.

Mr. Martel: When you make an agreement, it’s an agreement.

Mr. Roy: I have listened patiently, I have listened to many long debates from the member for Sudbury East --

Mr. Martel: Except when you’ve done it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I don’t want to antagonize him too much, because he has a tendency to get carried away, and I would not like to see him leave the House early again today.

Mr. McClellan: There’s an airport limousine waiting for you, Albert.

Mr. Roy: These are some of the things that could be emphasized -- this type of exchange between citizens. We could have more exchanges on the basis of our schools between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. These are some of the things that the Premier could be looking at --

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you abolish the post of House leader over there?

Mr. Roy: -- which would be positive steps toward the debate on national unity and the role to be played by the Premier and by this province.

The final thing I want to say is --

Mr. Young: Good.

Mr. Roy: -- the whole debate has brought forward a statement that’s used repeatedly by all sorts of people. I hear politicians at all levels and all platforms saying, “I believe in the unity of this country. I’m a Canadian.” If there’s a word that certainly means different things to different people -- what is a Canadian? I hear John Diefenbaker keeps saying, “I’m a Canadian.” But his perception of the country is certainly not that of other people, certainly not of the Canada as we know it, the Canada of minorities, where there is respect for all minorities. I hear Richardson, who makes a statement saying how he’s a Canadian and I see some of the attitudes that he espouses -- of his vision of what the country should be like --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Leave. Don’t stay for this. Leave him with an empty House.

Mr. Roy: -- and I say to you, thank God that there are not people who espouse that sort of approach or there is really no future for the country, at least for the country with Quebec as a participant in it.

I heard just a couple of weeks ago at the Conservative convention in Quebec City where one of the leaders of the opposition party, Mr. Biron, went up there and pleaded with them about accommodations that have to be made to assure the future of the country. He was followed on the platform, for instance, by the Premier of the province of Manitoba, who comes along and says to the delegates, “we in Manitoba don’t understand you in the province of Quebec. You’re walking to a different step. You’re following a different drum.” It concerns me that the same type of people would get up and say, “I’m a Canadian. That’s the way I feel about it.”

It seems to me important that people who truly feel they are a Canadian, be really that. Being a Canadian means having respect and understanding for your fellow Canadians -- for your minorities. We espouse the policy of allowing people in from all across the world, on the basis that we would respect their origin, that we would encourage that they keep their culture and things of this nature, and at the same time there are certain people -- just briefly, my colleague, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), brought to my attention a letter where --

Mr. Deans: Oh, come on, Albert -- this is an abuse.

Mr. Roy: -- a person who says he is a strong Canadian --

Mr. Makarchuk: I think being a Canadian means keeping some agreements.

Mr. Roy: -- states basically that he’s sorry my colleague had gone down to make a speech and apologized to the people in Prescott and Russell that he couldn’t speak their language. The person stated there was no apology to be made. He suggested to my colleague that what he should be doing is getting a copy of the book “Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow” -- that this was a good book.

Mr. Lewis: No, no. From Yakabuski?


Mr. Roy: No, it was a letter that a citizen from Prescott and Russell had written my colleague from Renfrew North, saying to him that there is a book recently published, “Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow,” which I have not read since it is already out of date here, which he suggested that my colleague should read. What he says is that it is unfortunate that those of us who are in fact Canadians did not put more pressure on the politicians, and that Canadians should have taken the approach of the US, a melting-pot approach, saying that “those of us who believe in Canada and this country should believe basically in one language.” He was extremely frustrated by the fact that in that area, where there is a strong French minority, they happened to put up a sign in French saying there was a swimming pool. He was extremely annoyed about this.

The reason I say this is that I suppose on the other side in the province of Quebec there are people who are intolerant as well. It is the role for us -- and I think there is a great role to be played by this province, and by the Premier of this province, because I sincerely feel that he believes in that -- but I think that there is some assistance that those of us can give. This is why I make this suggestion, and this is why I participated in this debate on concurrence.

Having said this, I thank you and I thank my colleagues for the opportunity of having participated. I look forward to some time in the future in this House where we can get opportunities, where all of us can have some input as to how we feel and what we feel the province, the government, the Premier of the province should be doing to work towards the unity of this country.

Resolution concurred in.


Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I mean no disrespect through partial disrobing, but I was extremely hot under the length of time the lights were on, and because I want to speak not at undue length but with some feeling during the course of the next half hour or 45 minutes, I decided to be as comfortable as possible.

I must say that I approached this, my last day in the Legislature as leader of the New Democratic Party, feeling largely that it would be just another speech in that eternity of speeches to which politicians are addicted, an eternity of speeches which I intend to go on in the future because I meant what I said earlier in this debate. To embrace a phrase which animates some of my colleagues from time to time, now that I have been radicalized in the twilight hours of my career, I want to be able to smash capitalism from this side with occasional frequency.

Mr. Conway: Oh, no. In the words of a more recent phrase, “A protest movement becalms.”

Mr. Lewis: You know that is Leo Zacuta, “A protest movement ... ” The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is an arcane fellow. He shouldn’t be a politician and subject himself to this.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He’s not.

Mr. Lewis: I thought, therefore, that it would simply be that kind of episode. I admit freely that I had a kind of sleepless night last night and that must mean, I guess, the moment in time means more to me than I care to admit.

One learns the hard way as a democratic socialist. You wouldn’t know that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you who were born into grace as a member of the western Ontario establishment. You wouldn’t understand what it is like to claw your way up the ladder. You are the Horatio Alger incarnate. Just look at you, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Nixon: Have you ever tried to sell rubber boots in Mitchell?

Mr. Lewis: The member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) sold rubber boots in Mitchell?

Mr. Nixon: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: If I were receiving a 75 per cent commission on each foot, I probably would as well. But to be a democratic socialist, it seems to me you learn that the surest route to affection and esteem is defeat and retirement. That is what is involved. Success brings abuse, perfidy, notoriety and occasionally shame. But failure is a wondrous thing. My daddy always told me that, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Conway: What did Hazen Argue say?

Mr. Lewis: My father said to me, “Son, there is no need to starve in a garret; just lose at the polls.” And that is, alas, a prescription which I have on occasion helped to follow. As it happens, I come to this last minor hurrah without regret or malice or envy. The leadership years that I have experienced with the New Democratic Party and my excellent colleagues in this Legislature have been difficult years, but very good years for me.

I may say to the government House leader, who is a man I am very fond of, that we have shared much; we came into the Legislature at the same time. I quite like, from time to time -- I guess most of the time -- this oft-vilified chamber and those who grace it. It is absurd sometimes in here -- has been over the last number of years. In those moments of chaos, the moments of seeming disintegration, one would think that the democratic process was forged at the anvil of anarchy on occasion, and that mellifluous and lovely English language that we use is often reduced to gutteral snapping. Many is the time I have had to slide a nitroglycerin tablet over to my colleague from Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) just to reduce his palpitations under the provocation of one or two members opposite.

Mr. Conway: Is that why he is now a little less than idolatrous?

Mr. Lewis: And yet fine and important things happen in this chamber and I refuse to diminish it as is so often fashionable, although I have often been myself one of its critics. Taken all in all, even when we think the place is reduced to a motley rabble, suddenly it is followed by a splendid debate and the strength of the parliamentary system reasserts itself again. I am proud to have been a part of that in the role of leadership. I have never doubted for a moment that politics can be a profoundly noble profession. I have never liked those who heap gratuitous imprecations upon the work of many members of this Legislature. Some we have differences with. Sometimes we get mad at individuals in the various parties but you learn over time, and I guess, with occasional moderation through the years, that even those you would disparage have a terrific public commitment in their own very specific way.

What I want to say to everybody in this House who is here now -- if you can accept this insufferable mellowness on my part -- is that I salute all of you as colleagues. I personally like a great many of you; those I know and have shared time with, quite a lot. As a matter of fact, I have tried to destroy some of you by expressing that affection in public, and, of course, it has not always been successful.

I suppose one of the crazy strengths of this chamber is the separation which is made -- politics from personality. We hurl epithets across the floor. We heap calumny on each other. We have bitter ideological disputation and argument, and yet when it is all over we do manage, as parliamentarians, certain civilized relationships. There lives in my mind an episode that goes back to 1971, I guess, when I saw outside the door of this chamber the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) embracing the then still Premier of Ontario, John Robarts, in a very friendly embrace just after that member had come out of the House and accuses the Premier of everything from fraud to embezzlement -- forgive me for using this word -- to manslaughter. It mattered not at all.

Mr. Nixon: “Hand in the till” was the phrase.

Mr. Lewis: “Hand in the till” is correct. That is true of this place. With the Tories it is a very practised art. They have really honed it well. After we do battle with them in the Legislature, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) invites you to his lodge in Muskoka, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) takes you to La Scala, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) offers to autograph your son’s hockey stick, the Premier (Mr. Davis) gives you tickets for the opening Blue Jays game, the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) whispers in your ear what his bishop has lately said to him. Oh, I remember that moment. And the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) is the cleverest of all -- ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) -- he invites you to Sault Ste. Marie.

I want to declare, even in his absence that I continue to support the Minister of Housing as the natural successor to the Premier (Mr. Davis). I want that known. The acute agony of discomfort on his face every time I say it, is almost more than I can miss.

What I am saying is that despite the deep philosophic division I too have valued friendships with colleagues in all parties in this Legislature. You have been extremely decent and straightforward with me. I hope it isn’t invidious for me to say one or two words about specific people.

I told the member -- I must get the constituency right -- for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that I was thinking of him last night in a moment of weak and self-indulgent nostalgia. We shared a couple of political campaigns together in 1971 and 1975 and have been through a great many political battles together. I wanted to tell the member something which I have not before. When he used to get up in the House in his previous role as leader, and recount the history of the Liberal Party, the province, his own involvement in rural Ontario, and his knowledge of the hinterland of the province, I used to sit here with considerable envy. That just is not my world; I’ve never really been a part of it. How it was conveyed was always amazing to me. I’m a radical urbanite, if you will, and I have obviously never succeeded in embracing or understanding fully that sense of Ontario. I am glad to have the opportunity to say now how I appreciate that being expressed through those years by someone who so clearly embodied it. I value that.

Of course, the former leader of the Liberal Party had the same kind of momentary malaise I have experienced. I don’t know whether psychiatry can succeed where agriculture failed. I have never been able to establish that in my mind, and obviously we have only had --

Mr. Nixon: We are wondering the same about a fireman.

Mr. Lewis: I want to tell my friend something: If this man succeeds to the leadership, as the embodiment of the working class struggle the leader probably would do better than the doctrinaire dilettantes who now inhabit it. Tuck that away --

Mr. Nixon: But with a suit like that --

Mr. Lewis: The suit? The suit is splendid. Don’t attack him for that.

Mr. Roy: He is beautiful.

Mr. Lewis: Was the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk deliberately distracting me when I was going to say something nice about his leader?

Mr. Nixon: I knew you were going to say something nice.

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I have had only a short acquaintance with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) -- one embattled campaign. Obviously he has moved his party from the depths of gloom to a glimmer of light. I acknowledge that. Despite the horrendous and crippling barnacle of Liberalism which he carries with him, I want simply to wish him well, feelingly and honourably.

Mr. Conway: You can say that with Fraser Kelly looking on?

Mr. Sweeney: If it weren’t for Liberals you wouldn’t have got as far as you did.


Mr. Lewis: You mean my bête noire. I also want to say of the Premier that I don’t suppose I could have faced a more effective and more successful adversary through the years. I’ve thought a lot about that, because it rankles, naturally, to find one so artful across the way. I think on careful study I have discovered the secret. I have watched carefully and learned that the Premier is the only politician I’ve ever known who never takes a breath between sentences. What that means is that they pile up one atop the other, paragraph upon paragraph of mountainous, incomprehensible prose, and what the electorate cannot understand they cannot repudiate.

Therefore, in the process of thanking my colleague from Brampton for his really generous and thoughtful remarks earlier, I want to say in very personal and human terms -- and I know he had to be away; I don’t mind that for a moment -- he has my admiration and respect as a colleague in this chamber. I’ve appreciated sharing this chamber with him as leader for almost seven years now. I know the gulfs which exist between political parties, but I value the friendship and the regard which exist because those too are things one salvages, perhaps even treasures, in a stormy political career.

But the government members across the way, and the party infidels on our right, that fractious lot -- oh, they’ll have their comeuppance one day. They are all my opponents, if I may put it in very personal terms. Here with me on these benches, Mr. Speaker, as you would discern with a perception and insight given to few, gather the finest of men and women in the democratic process. Why do I hear no applause?


Mr. Conway: By the way, where is the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)?

Mr. Lewis: They are my caucus mates --

Mr. Sweeney: It depends on where you sit.

Mr. Lewis: -- to whom I owe an incredible debt, and not only just to my caucus mates but to all of those with whom I have worked in the caucus environs in this legislative building over the years, the staff who largely made the stuff of the speeches which I faithfully disgorged. These are the men and women in the vanguard of socialism in this province, whatever vanguard it may be. No leader could have had harder-working colleagues. No leader could have had more loyal colleagues. No leader could have had more committed colleagues. These people here understand. I can frequently be a prima donna. I’ve made pretty stupid mistakes over the course of campaigns and as leader in the last number of years. There’s seldom been a whisper of criticism. There’s been immense moral support, and that, I suppose, it what makes it all bearable.

If I can be very personal for a moment there are two members of my caucus whom I wish were here today but who cannot be here. One is the member for York South, whose mantle I inherited. Let me say I’ve always thought it almost supernatural that from the moment of that campaign when I was lucky enough to become the leader, which caused the member for York South, I think, some concern at the time, from that day to this I have had from him only the most total and absolute friendship and assistance as a continuing mentor.

The member for York South speaks, as does the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, to the reality that leaders, who have been and who come back to sit in this Legislature again, never fade away. They’re just here in the fray to the extent to which they wish to participate.

I also want to say that I wish by my side today could be one of my very closest associates. I owe a lot to this man. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) is recovering magnificently, I may say to my colleagues. He will be back in February to illumine this chamber yet again.

I had difficult moments in time, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, such as the Attorney General himself pointed out the other day when, during that period from 1971 to 1973 when the New Democratic Party was rescuing Canada from subversion by discharging the Waffle. That was a pretty major task for us to shoulder, and all of that took a bit of the substance out of the party and its leadership and it will be a pleasure when it all comes together again, here, in February 1978. Then, with a new leader, we will be a force to be reckoned with. We’ve already got three candidates verging on perfection. That is hardly arguable. It matters not who wins. The socialist hordes will then crash the gate and put the others to rout. There isn’t a Tory or a Liberal in this chamber whose days are not numbered.

Mr. Sweeney: We’re prepared to take over.

Mr. Lewis: Aha! Do I hear the voice of doubt? Let me tell my friend that anything is possible in this crazy political world.

Mr. Breithaupt: The odds are about the same.

Mr. Conway: What is all the talk about the fourth option?

Mr. Lewis: If Joe Clark can be Prime Minister, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) could be Pope.

Mr. Roy: We’ll take the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Lewis: You will forgive me for that. Normally I consult in advance; I’m sorry.

Mr. Roy: Our money is on the member.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I look back, there are some things which have made it all particularly worthwhile. Achievements -- perhaps they’re small in the minds of some but I think they’re achievements which we New Democrats look upon with some pride. I don’t mean they are confined to what we ourselves have effected. I understand the way the process works. The opposition joins together, the government participates and embodies stuff but, in an odd way, some of the things I want briefly now to refer to, speak as well as to the political evolution in this chamber, how much we win and yet how much there remains to achieve.

I don’t want to pretend any analysis of the times over the last seven years because I’m just not up to it. I don’t pretend any profundity but I did want to mention very briefly, five areas which, as I thought back on it -- if I am allowed that -- really have meant something to me personally and, I think, to all of my caucus mates who have participated.

First is the whole realm of services to children in the province of Ontario. That whole area of political intervention has been a long, dramatic, sometimes heartbreaking struggle, but we’ve made significant advances and I refuse to diminish them. It is true that facilities for the emotionally disturbed child across this province have increased a thousandfold; that we’ve taken section 8 out of the Training Schools Act; that we have a consolidation, however fragile, of children’s services within a given ministry. Just yesterday, in this Legislature, we had a green paper acknowledging a number of areas of important change. My colleague from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who has fought very hard for that, pointed out that it doesn’t by any means deal with some of the more gripping controversies but it does say that we are measurably ready to improve the system. I suppose that what it says when we reach that point is that the fight must never stop, that there is always more terrain to conquer. While we have improved facilities for the disturbed child and other disabled children inordinately at the very early ages, we’ve still not done the job for adolescents.

That’s really what these desperate suicides in the training schools speak to: the dilemma of how we deal with the adolescent who has problems in the broadest sense. We’ve still not resolved the funding problem in terms of social priorities.

I don’t know whether I agree with my colleague from Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) that the Ontario Arts Council should have been denied a 15 per cent increase, because it’s nice to provide a cultural dimension in this province to the Arts Council, and I think it does a first-rate job.

I certainly agree with what my colleagues from Sudbury East and Bellwoods and other members put through the private members’ hour yesterday, that the priorities are all wrong in human terms in certain social services in this province. We still haven’t begun to tackle day care. As we heard the other day, we are only verging on a solution to the desperate question of learning-disabled children and how we will provide an environment for them adequate to their rights as citizens of this province. So the battle goes on, but I concede, with a little pride, that we have managed to take it a fairly long way.

The second area I want to mention, if I may, is the area of occupational health and environmental health and, again, we have come a long way in the province of Ontario. I admit that almost with pleasure. I have been a part of it, but so have a great many of my colleagues and other members of this House. I think back on the Ham commission. I think back on the ministry consolidation within the Ministry of Labour, if I can be forgiven the observation, so that finally we have got control out of the hands of the Ministry of Natural Resources and into a more human and creative environment.

We have some standards in the work place, in certain work places, which to this day are preserving the lives of people, I have no doubt. We even had the occupational health bill, Bill 139, and I am personally glad to credit that. Having said that, I also want to say again that as part of the process there is so much irrationality and resistance yet to overcome I want to remind the members of the Legislature we have had all of these battles and we have still introduced a Bill 70 in this session which isn’t even as good as its predecessor legislation.

We have had all of these battles and we have an occupational health branch which appears not to have clout, which will not take a high profile, which won’t deal with occupational or environmental health as though it was a cause célèbre rather than some kind of series of cocktail meetings. We saw, if I may say -- may I be allowed a digression -- that in the field of occupational and environmental health even in respect of this fire in downtown Toronto, we still, as legislators, have not succeeded in persuading senior people within the Ministry of the Environment that when there is a clear environmental hazard they should react with urgency rather than with paralysis, and that’s what this last episode has demonstrated.

I could see that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) today could scarcely contain himself, that he was an angry man, that he would probably like to throttle certain people in his ministry. Throttle away. I think heads should roll. May he be successful. Leave it aside. What worries us about it is that with all of the work and all of the progress and all that we have achieved, here we come to deal with the evaporation of a toxic substance, a known carcinogen with enormous implicit dangers, and people in his ministry can’t even rally around to do the job.

I want to say one last thing, because I and some of my colleagues, particularly from the Sudbury basin, feel this as strongly as possible -- I wish the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) were here, but I guess she cannot be -- there remains in Ontario, despite all of the battles around occupational health, a symbol embodied in one person of how tough it is to persuade government and the agencies which implement legislation policy of the validity of certain exceptional individual cases. That person is Aime Bertrand. To this day, he is afflicted with the consequences of laryngeal cancer and he still lives and waits in Sudbury, hoping that the Ministry of Labour and the Workmen’s Compensation Board will one day grant him what I think most reasonable human beings would recognize is his absolute entitlement.

I don’t know why there is this incredible resistance. It really bothers me. I think it has to do with the way in which a civil service kind of withdraws into itself, feeling that it gives too much and it will be damned if it gives another inch. I think it has to do with a certain obstinacy on the part of the politicians involved.


If I may say as carefully and sensitively as I can, I have always been a politician who believes that you shouldn’t have a doctor in the Ministry of Health. It is a little difficult sometimes, when doctors try to deal with occupational health, because there is the same constant tension between the sense of medical and professional expertise and the other arguments that mere laymen are putting forth.

So everybody rallies around a defence of the system, irrationally and prejudicially. They even say and do things which are entirely unjustified. We have talked about this matter in the House many times. My colleagues from Nickel Belt and Sudbury have raised this whole business of asbestos-induced laryngeal cancer. I wrote a piece about it in the Star, and there was a letter sent to the Star from the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I want to show what happens in the province of Ontario because it really bothers me. It doesn’t bother me at all to be attacked by Michael Starr; that’s almost a blessing. But it does bother me to see what is inherent in this. Just let me share it with the House because I think it may interest my colleagues as well. In the process of an attack on what had been said and written -- and it is not different from anything which has been said in this Legislature a hundred times before -- Mr. Starr writes:

“What Lewis conveniently ignores is that the data used to prove a relationship between asbestos fibre and stomach cancer (mesothelioma) had to be developed from independent control studies directly devised for those specific diseases. It is not scientifically valid to use the research results from one study to be applied to a totally different situation and then to expect that any compensation organization would categorize that industrial disease as compensable without establishing any direct medical-work relationship.”

I want to say something that I very rarely say in this Legislature: That is a direct fabrication. It is not true. It is just not true.

The reality of how we established the compensability of stomach cancer is very simply this: Dr. Ritchie of the University of Toronto reviewed literature all over the world in 1975-76 and drew connections between that literature and the case of two or three workers who had died in the Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough. Dr. Ritchie came to the conclusion that he could not say with finality, based on the world literature, that a relationship could be established.

So the Workmen’s Compensation Board brought in Dr. Tony Miller, associated with the Cancer Institute. Dr. Tony Miller saw immediately that the single most important study in the field was that of Irving Selikoff of the New Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. Tony Miller said: “I will go to Irving Selikoff and I will talk to him in person.” He went to him and he talked to him and he reviewed the data in person. He came back and he said: “Yes, there is an established link between stomach cancer on the one hand and exposure to asbestos on the other.”

There were no case studies in the province of Ontario to make that specific link. It was done entirely on the basis of the international literature, precisely the point which Michael Starr eliminates. It was done specifically on the basis of Irving Selikoff’s study, precisely the point which Michael Starr repudiates. There was no case study; the workers at Johns-Manville aren’t even included in the Selikoff study.

That really bothers me because it is playing games with those who are entitled. The same Selikoff study says that Aime Bertrand should be compensated. Quite simply. In fact, the ratio is even higher than that for the others. But these people will not comply. Why won’t they comply? Let me read one more paragraph. “The article also conveys the erroneous impression that any worker who files a claim must prove the relationship between injury and work. The worker is under no such onus. That responsibility lies with the board.”

Mr. Martel: The government should fire him.

Mr. Lewis: That really sticks in the craw. I know who wrote this. Dr. McCracken wrote this letter; Michael Starr just signed it. I am sure of that as I stand here. But that really sticks in the craw.

I want to remind my good friends and colleagues opposite -- do they remember the case of Gus Frobel, that absolutely magnificent man who lives in Elliot Lake who single-handedly forced the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Ontario to provide him with the first case of compensable lung cancer by virtue of exposure to radiation in this province? He did it by reading the Senate subcommittee hearings in Utah and Colorado and bringing them before the board and bitterly, painfully arguing his own case after the board turned him down flat.

Do they remember the widow of Mr. David Smith in Sault Ste. Marie, who had to bring representations before the board for the first compensable case of lung cancer caused by coke oven emissions, after the board had time and time again refused to agree to a relationship and forced the claimant to prove it herself?

Do they remember the case of Charlie Nielson representing the Johns-Manville workers in Scarborough, who, with his union, had to go before the board week after week, hearing after hearing, to prove the claims, the cause and effect relationship that the board refused to observe?

Mr. Speaker, it is offensive, it is offensive in the extreme that the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board should believe that kind of stuff, let alone give voice to it, because in the difficult cases in the province of Ontario that’s simply not what’s happening. It’s not happening at all. That’s why my colleagues and I say to you, sir, and to the government opposite, that while we are pleased -- and we salute the government and we acknowledge it, and I don’t want to cavil about the steps that have been taken in the areas of occupational health -- we have a very long way to go and we’re meeting resistance from the Minister of Labour and the Workmen’s Compensation Board. And I alert the government now that we will not give up this battle until it’s won.

Third, I want very briefly to make mention of agricultural land. That, too, is an extraordinary struggle, and I feel, I suppose, a little chagrined at times when I reflect back on the 26 acres an hour. Certainly the figure was valid for the period 1966-71. It was perhaps what might be called a faintly hyperbolic extrapolation for the period 1971-76. But we didn’t know that at the time. It was offered in good faith. What is interesting about the Statistics Canada figures which have since come out is the revelation that we are still in fact losing land, although of more modest proportions than some of us suggested.

We’ve had major battles over Pickering. We’ve had major battles over the Niagara Peninsula. We’ve had major battles over the Escarpment. In many of those instances we have saved land. The battles have been worth fighting. It has been worth having the Minister of Agriculture and Food come down with his guidelines. That is an important process, an important part of the whole social issue. It has made it all worthwhile.

But again we are only in mid-stream; again we have to take it from here. By the end of 1977 the discussion on the green paper is over. By 1978, presumably, we will be able to embody the guidelines in specific legislative commitments, and that’s what we hope to do -- to give legislative authority to the class one, class two, class three land which should be protected in this province and for the abuse of which you would have to prove your case before a significant and independent body.

The fourth point I want to make deals with rent control. Rent control was also a weird and wonderful episode in the life of this minority government, and we on this side of the House have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. The government House leader (Mr. Welch) smiles sheepishly, because he remembers bringing down an entire government for the sake of rent control, wreaking havoc upon his colleagues.

Mr. Breithaupt: Even I remember that.

Mr. Lewis: Do you remember that as well? Issuing us flats and letters -- the government House leader orchestrating the entire machiavellian plot. Who would think within that quiet and sturdy little figure there lurked such a sinister conspiracy? He who has paraded himself as the epitome of honour and virtue, betraying the electoral process as he did. That’s right, let my friend cover his face; blind his eyes to the outrage, slink in his seat. That’s better. I have seldom seen such a ne’er-do-well elevated to office high. He can barely contain himself with the sheer embarrassment of it all. I understand, I understand. Bringing the Legislature down. The government House leader cost Ontario $20 million, and they re-elected him. That is what I meant about not understanding.

But the whole process was worth the battle. We have the rent control. We did give to the tenants their desperately needed protection. Having gone that far, the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) -- I was almost going to use “Protection,” but that would be such a misnomer it would be fatuous -- the new minister, in any event, has apparently extended the controls to the end of 1978. The big question then, as all of these things evolve, is what we do at the end of that time? And again, for our party, knowing that the vacancy rate declines, knowing that the government has done nothing about building additional units of rental accommodation, it again becomes an issue that must be pursued.

Finally, I want simply to make reference to the confrontation over the Reed Paper company. In the political short term I am absolutely prepared to admit that we lost, in terms of the crude political definition. But in the mid-term and in the long term I think it means significant gains for Ontario. That was an episode, as I go back and look at it -- the Reed Paper company -- that I personally handled very badly.

I smiled to myself when the Premier said earlier in the day that there were times when I was provocative when I should have been conciliatory and times when I was conciliatory when I should have been provocative, and that was certainly one of the times when I was foolishly, almost wantonly, provocative. Sometimes, I guess, one gets a little too emotionally enmeshed in a subject matter.

I can remember seeing on television, a couple of times, that exchange, at the height of passion, between the Premier and myself, and sitting and watching it and thinking, “My God, how did I get ensnared thus? How did it happen that I should portray democratic socialism as though it was cutting sugar cane in Cuba?” For the first time there was some validity to that phrase. I know, when I look back on it, that was not how to handle it.

And yet we have the Hartt commission. We have an entirely new reforestation policy in Ontario. We have attention being paid to our natural resources, which might not otherwise have been paid. And again we are pleased and have no regrets, all in all, at the battle.

Mr. Laughren: A new minister too.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, yes. But I am charitable today. My colleague from Nickel Belt, who still has aspirations rather than commiserations, points out that we have a new minister as well.

May I throw in a footnote? The Reed Paper company relates to something which I feel very sad about, in terms of the frustration of dealing with politics and the impotence one sometimes feels. That’s Whitedog and Grassy Narrows. We have not come to grip with that in this Legislature. Despite all of it over all these years, we have not been able to come to grips with those two little reserves in northwestern Ontario. That is a commentary on the whole process. I don’t know of what kind. I feel as involved and complicit in it as anyone else.

That is as I look back. I assure members of this Legislature that my looking ahead will not take quite so long -- and not because the horizon is so distant. As I look ahead, I hope without belabouring it that I might be able to pick up on the intervention of my colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) here this morning. I hope, if I may say to the Legislature, briefly, that we in this House collectively can make a more substantial contribution to the debate on national unity than we have hitherto.


I thought it was ironic. As a matter of fact, it was Norman Webster in one of his Globe columns who pointed out just the other day that it is remarkable to have gone through an entire session of the Legislature without discussing Canada. Think of it with me, my colleagues. We have sat for an entire session of the Legislature and for whatever reason -- I impugn no one and I attach no guilt particularly -- we have not set aside time to discuss, if it isn’t too maudlin, Canada. We sat from mid-October to mid-December and that subject of all subjects has not been focused on in this Legislature. There was no pressure for it and no feeling for it -- not no feeling but apparently no sense that it must be done.

I am sure the government would have done it happily. I am sure the government would have offered it and did perhaps, but none of us responded, because somewhere something is missing in it. I think there is a consensus emerging in English Canada, particularly a consensus for constitutional redefinition. But the rumbles of the referendum are beginning. The surveys taken latterly show a more conciliatory attitude towards the Péquistes than one would wish. Surely we in this House must do something.

I agree with the member for Ottawa East, who spoke earlier today. I know that Pierre Trudeau is not the route to salvation this time. That is why history is so important. No person who presided over the emergence of Rene Levesque to power and watched it all happen through the tenure of his Prime Ministership will be conciliatory or flexible enough to resolve it. I do agree that there is a vacuum in the province of Quebec which Gerard Levesque may fill or maybe somebody else. Maybe Chretien will change his mind, maybe Ryan will change his mind, maybe Castonguay will enter the race. But it looks like Gerard Levesque and one senses there isn’t a match there for Rene Levesque and that Rodrique Biron is not going to be the alternative.

So what do we do? I think there is very strong merit in saying that the province of Ontario has a profound role in reaching out to Quebec. I think it is important to say that the Premier can be and is a crucial figure in this confederation debate, far more crucial than he has ever permitted himself credit for. I say that not out of simple regard for him but because he is the Premier of Ontario, because on those occasions when he has talked feelingly about the country he has communicated and because it is important that we enter this debate in a way which says from Ontario the best thing we could possibly say to all of those federalists in the province of Quebec who want to hear it, that we want them to stay in this country and that there is no country without them.

I was reading in the last few days -- and may I commend it to my colleagues in the Legislature -- a very excellent book called “Divided We Stand,” edited by Gary Geddes. It is a series of articles and reflections on the state of Canada. When my colleague from Ottawa East was talking about finding an identity, about what is a Canadian and how does one define it, I recall as I was listening to him one of the two finest entries in this book, something written by Margaret Laurence. The other is by Margaret Atwood. Margaret Laurence had this paragraph. The member triggered it in me and I want to put it on the record.

“Our identity, to me, it is as rich and many-faceted as the names of our people. There has never been any doubt about that identity in my mind. Further, I feel no more need of defining it than I do of defining God. I simply know it is there. I can see it and feel it and relate to it in the works of our writers. Wole Soyinka, the Nigerian writer, once said in reference to negritude, ‘Does a tiger have to define its tigritude?’”

I thought at the time as I read Margaret Laurence’s essay what a remarkable expression it was. I thought also as I read at the time the first of Margaret Atwood’s “Two-Headed Poems” what an amazing way she has of capturing the entire fluid situation we are in at the moment. Out of a simple reverence for and testament to my lovely, engaging colleague from Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) I want very briefly to read this one poem on the record at this point because I really think it says something poignant and important.

Well, we felt

we were almost getting somewhere

though how that place would differ

from where we have always been, we

couldn’t tell you

and then this happened,

this joke or major quake, a rift

in the earth, now everything

in the place is falling south

into the dark pit left by Cincinnati

after it crumbled.

This rubble is the future,

pieces of bureaucrats, used

bumper stickers, public names

returnable as bottles.

Our fragments made us.

What will happen to the children

not to mention the words

we’ve been stockpiling for 10 years now,

defining them, freezing them, storing

them in the cellar.

Anyone asked us who we were, we said,

just look down there.

So much for the family business.

It was too small anyway

to be, as they say, viable.

But we weren’t expecting this,

the death of shoes, fingers

dissolving from our hands,

atrophy of the tongue,

the empty mirror,

the sudden change

from ice to thin air.

What we in this chamber are saying is that it is time the atrophy of the tongue ended and the empty mirror was filled with a considered and thoughtful response from this Legislature, from this government and from the Premier of Ontario.

I want to end my observations by speaking to the present. If I have indulged myself in a reflection on the past and a view of the future, I now look at the present in the province of Ontario. While I see a very fine province, of which I am immensely proud to be a part as a citizen and a politician, I also see an enormous crisis that lies within the economy.

And I say to my colleagues opposite in the government, that the Conservatives collectively, however earnest or sincere they may be, are in the process of failing Ontario. Let them look around; they feel they are masters of all they survey, but they are traumatized by what they see. If I may coin a phrase, the Tories are creating an industrial wasteland in Ontario. That’s what they are doing.

Let me point out just how they are doing that. The unemployment is extremely high and continues to persist. There is not a single initiative coming from this government. Do the Tories realize that? Do they realize how crass the politics have become over there? They read statistical data showing increasing unemployment month after month, or at the very least showing a levelling off at an intolerable height, and there is not a single initiative from their government. They are almost proud to stand in their places and say, “We have nothing to offer.” Never has initiative been honed to such a fine paralysis as it is on that side of the House. Adam Smith would have reviled them. Edmund Burke would disown them. Nothing comes from that side of the House on the question of unemployment.

Now the layoffs have begun -- Falconbridge, Inco, Anaconda, Ford, Chrysler, International Harvester. Does it make the Tories proud? Do they see it as some kind of achievement? Is it a matter of major initiative that they can come in here, week after week, faced with those kinds of layoffs? My colleagues from Sudbury, Sudbury East and Nickel Belt have raised that with the government and there is utterly no response. Ontario becoming a place to stand with the unemployed: is that what the Tories would wish to visit as the current legacy for the province?

Out of fascination I asked my associates in the caucus research group to take a look at the layoffs in the province of Ontario through the year 1977 and into 1978. I phoned the Deputy Minister of Labour. We were given access -- I thank the minister for it -- to all the files which exist for layoffs of groups of 25 and more workers in the province of Ontario through 1977 and into 1978. It doesn’t include temporary layoffs. It doesn’t include groups of less than 25 employees. We put it together with some of the most recent clippings. You cannot imagine what this demonstrates, and what it is doing to communities.

Mr. Speaker, with great rapidity just let me put some of it on the record for you. In Toronto, listen to the companies that have laid off workers within the last few months, in numbers ranging from 30 to something close to 800: The T. Eaton Company; F. W. Woolworth; Philips Electronics; WesteelRosco Limited; ACME Chemicals; Canada Wire and Cable; Savoy Foods Limited; TRW Electronics; Cameron-McIndoo Limited; Kambley Canada Limited; Sklar Furniture Company; FMC of Canada Limited; Frankel Structural Steel Limited; AP Parts of Canada Limited -- Notice how many are in the auto parts sector -- Bad Boy Appliances; Diebold Company of Canada Limited; Savarin Tavern; SNC Geco Limited; McGraw-Edison of Canada; Emanuel Products; Quasar Electronics; Massey-Ferguson Industries; CCM Bicycles; Montgomery Elevator; and probably we will be facing Anaconda.

In the area which the Premier of Ontario represents himself just west of the city of Toronto, Mississauga: Becton, Dickenson and Company; Canadian Admiral Corporation; Canadian Rexall Corporation; Reed Paper Limited; Fruehauf Trailer Company of Canada Limited and Sayvette Limited.

In Bramalea: Success Display Company; B. F. Goodrich Canada; Northern Telecom; OSF Industries; Wagner Brake Company and Tung-Sol International Corporation -- one after the other, to the immediate west of Toronto.

In eastern Ontario, where there has always been this blight of chronic unemployment, now complicated by the layoff patterns, in Peterborough: DeLaval Company Limited; Outboard Marine Corporation; Canadian General Electric.

In Cobourg: General Foods and Uniroyal.

In Kingston: just in the social services alone.

In Ottawa, Bowmar Canada Limited and Provigo (Ottawa) Incorporated.

In Renfrew: Terry Travel Trailers Limited. In Almonte: Zephyr Textiles. In Brockville: GTE Automatic Electric.

In Brockville: Black and Decker.

In Cornwall: Crane Canada Limited.

In Trenton: Fabricon Manufacturing Limited.

In Picton: Hullmaster Boats Limited. This in a part of the province already under-nurtured.

In central Ontario, in Barrie: Bombardier Limited has laid off.

In Midland: Bausch & Lomb Company Limited and Motorola Canada.

In Orillia: Shakespeare Company Limited and Fahramet Limited.

In Collingwood: Harding Carpets.

In Parry Sound: Rockwood International.

Is it evident what’s happening in this province? Is there a community in Ontario which is not in the process of experiencing or anticipating a layoff that has taken place over the intervening 12 months?

In southwestern Ontario -- Cambridge: Franklin Manufacturing Company Limited; Commodore Mobile Homes and Electrohome. In Guelph: Pirelli Cables Limited; Gilson Manufacturing Company and Harding Carpets Limited.

I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the great majority of these illustrations and the numbers of workers associated with them, which I’m not bothering to read, come from the documents which we have not had tabled before us yet from the Ministry of Labour. One wonders why the pattern was never explored.

In Brantford: Harding Carpets; Robbins & Myers Company Limited and Abex Industries Limited.

In Dunnville: Lundy Steel Limited.

In Kitchener: Electrohome and Kevco Canada Limited.

In Waterloo: Sayvette Limited.

In Owen Sound: in the Ministry of Health alone a very large quotient, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

In Markdale: Junior Footwear Limited.

In Southampton: Sklar Furniture Limited.

In Mount Forest: Trimfoot Company Limited.

In Huron Park: Dayton Tire Canada Limited.

In Douglas Point: Lummis Company.

In Sarnia: Holmes Foundry Limited and Prestolite.

In Meaford: Globe Mills Limited and Amerock Limited.

In Fort Erie: Horton CBI Limited.

In Port Colborne: Algoma Steel and Inco Refining.

In Thorold: Haynes Dana.

In Welland: John Deere.

In Stoney Creek: Inglis Limited.

In Talbotville: Ford.

In Grand Bend: Bell Aerospace.

In Courtright: Beker Industries of Canada.

In Woodstock: Standard Tube; H. K. Porter and GNC Homes.

In London: Sayvette Limited; Kemp Products Limited; Silverwoods; McCormicks Limited; and Ridout Tavern and Garage Restaurant -- we know of that dispute.

In Windsor: Rockwell International; Bendix Automotive; Chrysler engine plant and Chrysler truck plant.

In Stratford: Johnson Matthey & Mallory.

In Hamilton: Kennametal Tools; the recycling industry and International Harvester.

In Niagara Falls: Provincial Crane (Division of Dominion Bridge).

In Niagara-on-the-Lake, Shepherd Boats.


I come very nearly to the end, Mr. Speaker, but I do think it’s worth having it on the record.

Northeastern Ontario: in New Liskeard: New Orleans Dynamics Limited, 100 people. In Timiskaming: United Asbestos Incorporated, 287 people.

In Elk Lake: Grant and Wilson Lumber.

In Sudbury: Weston Bakeries, Falconbridge and Inco.

In Iroquois Falls: Abitibi Paper Company.

In Sturgeon Falls: the St. Jean de Brebeuf Hospital.

In North Bay: Jarvis Clark Company, H. D. Lee of Canada Limited, Canadian Johns-Manville, Craig Bit Company.

In Mattawa: Mattawa Forest Products.

In Sault Ste. Marie: Abitibi Paper Company.

In Callander: Sportspal Enterprises, Hudson, Abitibi Lumber (Hudson) Ltd.

In Manitouwadge: Willroy Mines.

In Pickle Lake: BACM Mine Developers Limited.

In Thunder Bay: Loblaws Marketplace, Abitibi Fine Paper -- Fine Paper Mill.

In Ignace: Matagami Lake Mines Ltd.

In Longlac: Weldwood of Canada Ltd.

And northwestern and northeastern Ontario are represented that way.

Let me tell the House what it comes to. It means that in a fairly short period of 1977, moving into 1978, we have chronicled within the Ministry of Labour something like 22,252 jobs lost by layoff alone. If you provide the smallest index possible of 1.5 jobs lost in the service sector for every job lost in manufacturing or resource, it means that by sometime in the middle of 1978, or the end of 1978, we will have lost effectively in this province something like 55,000 jobs through layoffs alone -- and that is a very cautious estimate. It is an estimate which is not fleshed out by the new information which comes to this Legislature, day after day and week after week, of additional layoffs.

May I say to the members opposite, they’re just taking it laying down. They record it all as though they were good, clinical statisticians and they do absolutely nothing about it. They refuse to engage in any public sector investment. There have been no private-public investment initiatives. There has been no assessment of the layoff pattern across Ontario. There have been no specific plans for the manufacturing sector, despite the presence of sectoral analyses and sectoral studies within the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. All they’ve done for natural resources is the establishment of a select committee of this Legislature.

I have said it, my colleagues have said it a thousand times before and will say it a thousand times again, Mr. Speaker -- this government is no longer fit to govern.

I feel no qualms in a kind of parting shot to put that to all the government members over there because, as I went to elaborate pains to point out in the beginning, even though we vilify them now, we will occasionally wish them well for the festivities of the season. But what has happened in this province in the last year is really witness to the deficiency of government. Therefore, in cumulative terms, speaking to the issues we have to deal with now, speaking to the hopelessness of the Treasurer’s budgetary response when it was tabled, speaking to what the future may hold for this province, I don’t think I have any alternative but to do what I am now about to do.

How I wish, as the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) would know, we could bring the government down. They’ve done it once before themselves. They may wish to rise to the bait again. I leave that largely up to the Minister of Culture and Recreation. But as my last official act as leader of this party, I would like to move, seconded by my House leader colleague (Mr. Deans), an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lewis moves that the motion “that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government” be amended by striking out all the words after “that” and substituting therefor the following:

“Whereas unemployment remains acute in most regions of Ontario; and

whereas a calamitous pattern of layoffs is in process; and

whereas the government has shown neither capacity nor willingness to cope with either persistent unemployment or the realities of accelerating layoffs; and

whereas every useful, reasonable and creative suggestion to repair the economy put forward by the opposition parties, in the plural, has been summarily dismissed,

therefore, this government, at this time, no longer has the confidence of this House.”

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I know that no one in this chamber would envy me the task that I have following the leader of the NDP. We had a draw in our caucus; I lost. I am charged with the responsibility to follow a speech that moved me and that delighted me and that made me laugh and almost made me cry. It was typical of the very fine contributions that he has made over these great number of years to this House.

I say with some pride that I don’t think I have ever missed a major speech that the leader of the New Democratic Party has made and I don’t think I have missed very many of them. I regard that personally as one of the highlights and one of the perks of being a member of this House to have a ready and easy access to the leader.

I must say in addition that he was quite modest. He won the honour this morning as chief newsmaker of the year on the Metro Morning show. He edged out Ed Ziemba by a nose. I think that the House should know about that rare honour bestowed upon him.

We all know of his obvious qualities, his dedication, his hard work, his eloquence which is so obvious to all of us. But I know that every single member of this House would have something personal, a personal anecdote, a personal incident that would endear Stephen Lewis to them even more than is obvious through the media or through the external view that one would have of this House.

If I may just recount very briefly an experience of my own. We were in a debate. Stephen Lewis and I had a disagreement on a particular point. That being said, he phoned me the next morning and said: “You know, I have reflected a little bit and I am not sure I was completely fair.” It wasn’t as if the power of my oratory had convinced him. He had reflected a little and it just showed to me, as a member to whom he owed no apology or no explanation at any time, the kind of personality that he has -- his warmth, his humanity and his humility, albeit occasionally in measured amounts.

It’s interesting what his leadership of the party has done to him. As you know he is now Ontario’s renowned and outstanding authority on children’s books. I guess that’s what happens to leadership of that party after seven years. There is no other recourse. The mind boggles in fact at what will happen to his successor in office. It may drive Ian Deans back to the firehall. One never knows the process that sets in.

But I am very happy that he will continue to serve, because it is my view as a member that some of the finest contributions in this House today are made by past leaders. I point to my colleague on my right, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who never ceases to amaze me and everyone else here with his energy, his refreshing new insights, constantly tempered with a sense of history, and a real feeling for this province. I admire that; I respect it; I hope it continues forever. In his usual fit of modesty he just kicked me.

But I say the same thing about the member for York South for whom I have a great deal of admiration. I think that this club of three ex-leaders will continue to make a very valuable contribution. I have this feeling that in the very near future there’s going to be a fourth for bridge -- a portly edition from across the hall. You chaps that have so much mutual respect and affection will have just a wonderful time.

There is also a club for those who haven’t been quite successful, those of us who have lost and there are many of those in the House. I will welcome the three new additions from your party to that club shortly.

Mr. Foulds: Just two.

Mr. Peterson: We are still expecting a fourth option will arise. We don’t know where it’s coming from.

I think the leader of the New Democratic Party put the matter so terribly well when he said, “It really doesn’t matter who wins.” How right he is. Because what we saw with the last election, and we are in the middle of the process, is the return to the two-party system in this province. And I am proud to say, as official opposition, that we are one of those surviving parties.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Name the other one.

Mr. Peterson: It is a budget debate, and I want to address my remarks to the budget. I am happy that by a quirk of fate I had the opportunity to speak twice on this budget. As you know, my original response was prior to the election, and because of an interpretation of the rules it allows us to briefly sum up and present our point of view at this time, I am grateful for that prospect.

I don’t want to spend a lot of time. We are here much longer than everyone expected we would be to hear some very important remarks from my colleague from Ottawa East. I totally associate myself, and I know the party associates itself, with the very sensitive position put forward by the member for Ottawa East. I am not sure whether we associate ourselves completely with the time he took, or the place he took to do it, but that’s immaterial. What he said was valid and worthwhile, and I am glad it was said; and I am glad it was said in this session.

Mr. Conway: Sidney has awakened.

Mr. Peterson: I am going to cut down my remarks somewhat, and I don’t want to deal with a whole litany of economic problems that face this province at this time. I don’t want to deal in detail with capital investment, which is down 10 per cent; the prospects for capital investment, which are dismal; the fact that on most economic indicators we are running behind the national average on almost every count.

But I do want to say a very few words about unemployment. I respectfully submit to you that that is probably the most significant issue facing this industrialized -- in the process of being de-industrialized -- province that we will be facing in the near future. We are seeing troops of disaffected young people, frustrated, who are highly educated with no prospects and no place to go.

I say therein lie the seeds of the major change of the system as we know it today. We are obliged to take as a fundamental responsibility of this House today -- not tomorrow -- to go on constructive job-creation programs.

I say with pride that this party and my leader have constantly come to this Legislature and to the government with constructive, positive programs. I am so very proud of this party since the last election, and before the last election. Every single thing we have done has been constructive. We have come up with many programs to present to this government. Each one has been rejected out of hand. That disturbs me very much. We were constructive and we will continue to be constructive as best we can in the circumstances.

The only response from this government has been, day after day, that man with the grey hair across the House stands up wringing his hands, just oozing concern about almost every issue presented. And you know automatically that the first response he will have on any question is, “Mr. Speaker, I’m very concerned about this issue -- ” and then he goes on to do nothing. There has not been one economic initiative from this government in the past six months that I am aware of.

Mr. Conway: Sidney Handleman quit.


Mr. Martel: Your Moodie rating; that’s all you worry about.

Mr. Peterson: I could talk about housing starts, which are away below the projected promises in that great and famous Brampton charter -- the charter that the Treasurer two or three weeks after the election admitted was unrealistic, ambitious and -- . At least the Treasurer in those circumstances realized it wasn’t worth anything more than it is.

But all of the premises upon which this government deceived the people before the election have almost inevitably come to naught and none of them has reached fruition. Our projected growth of four per cent in the first six months and six per cent in the last six months, for an average of about 4.7 per cent, is completely shot. We are experiencing no more than half that kind of growth -- below the national rate, I hasten to add, of about 2.9 per cent.

What has been pointed out earlier in this debate is that Ontario is in the process of being de-industrialized to the point of becoming an industrial wasteland. Believe me, we have so much more to lose than everybody else. I understand that. I’ll tell you, we are going to have some very rude adjustments for the people of this province without some new economic initiatives.


I want to deal briefly with the four or five budgets that we’ve had in the last six months. The numbers have become so distorted in the last six months that in my judgement the Treasurer has lost any credibility that he ever had. It never ceases to amaze me -- this political game is an extraordinary one -- that what is so important often goes unreported or uncared for, while what’s trivial gets played up and becomes a focus of all the collective attention of this House or whatever.

The Treasurer has, in the process, somehow managed to keep some credibility -- I think -- with some people in this province. To me that’s incredible, because we have had a series of budgetary distortions the likes of which have not occurred in recent history.

I could take the members through the four occasions: 1. The budget, when we had a net cash deficit projected of $1.77 billion.

2. Ontario Finances, June 30, there were major distortions; revenues were down, expenditures were down to match them; by one stroke of Darcy McKeough’s pen, he cut his expenditures, tailored to his revenues.

3. September 16, following shortly thereafter, before the Provincial Municipal Liaison Committee, revenue was down -- $309 billion, the cash deficit, the net cash requirements, were up $217 million.

4. By September 30, some 15 days later, our revenue was down again and our deficit was up again, close to $1.5 billion, the second highest deficit in the history of this province.

All this from a Treasurer who professes confidence and restraint and belt-tightening. He’s got the belt up so high that it’s getting around the people’s necks in this province and we are going to suffer very substantially for that kind of irresponsible spending that has gone on in this province in the last seven years. The distortions that I am talking about have occurred in the Davis-McKeough regime. These are not things that are indigenous to the Tory regime. These are not the good management principles that we experienced though the 1960s and the 1950s. These are all recent phenomena. They are all functions of two personalities who happen to sit across the floor and who control these matters at this time.

I want to allude just to one other issue that concerns me greatly. We have had, in the last week, a lot of play from the Provincial Auditor’s report. He has talked about the abuses, the $658 worth of limousine fees and the 12,000 missing crying towels that maybe Eddie Goodman got after the election -- I’m not sure where they went -- and all of these things. None of them can be supported and we don’t support any one of them and we’re not condoning any of them.

What bothers me so very much is the focus on the trivial. Why aren’t we putting more attention -- and I believe the press is partly responsible for this -- into the very critical issues that were revealed in that report? The fact that, for example, the teachers’ superannuation unfunded liability went from about $500,000 to $1.4 billion. That is money that the taxpayers of this province are going to come up with in the future to pay for legal obligations created up until now. Through some fancy footwork and juggling, through the improper use of Management Board orders, money was shifted from one year to the other year in a very complicated series of transactions to disguise some of this ineffective budgeting and inability and their incapacity to reflect ahead and to provide for these kinds of things.

When the unfunded liability takes that kind of a jump in a three-year period, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that creates problems for this province that our sons and our daughters are going to have to pay.

We’re going to end up paying two and three times for some of the jobs that are now in existence. We are going to be robbing the productive capacity of the future, and if we think we’ve got economic problems right now, let me say it’s nothing like we’re going to see 10, 20 and 30 years from now, without some planning and vision now.

This government has no further vision than the next election, and it’s going to have to change. I’ll say with pride that on behalf of our party my leader has stood up on numerous occasions and taken the tough decisions that are going to leave something for our sons and daughters some 10, 20 and 30 years from now. I say that with a great deal of pride.

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

Mr. Nixon: Come on, Bette, admit he’s right.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No way.

Mr. Conway: After that singsong by the Minister of Labour this morning, anything would be an improvement.

Mr. Peterson: I have a list of jobs and companies that have been closed down or where major layoffs have occurred. The leader of the New Democratic Party has read some of these into the record and I won’t reiterate because I don’t think it would add any contribution to that. That process, particularly in the mass that it is occurring, has to worry any sensitive observer of this scene.

Heretofore I have seen not one initiative from the Minister of Labour, from the Treasurer, from the Premier or any other member of the cabinet or any member of the government in any way. I respectfully submit that these aspects are probably the competence of the Minister of Labour. She may be all right in occupational diseases, but I can’t judge that.

Mr. S. Smith: They take the credit when the economy is good but they blame the feds when it is bad.

Mr. Peterson: I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker. she is not very good when it comes to these kinds of industrial matters that need sensitive and intelligent co-operation by government in order to prevent some of these major layoffs.

I saw a little ad in the paper this week which, it seems to me, is going to stand as a mute testimony to the folly and the lack of action of this government. It read: “Used factory equipment sale on December 15, 1977. All tools, benches, bins, cabinets, chairs, components, conveyors, desks, dollies, fixtures, instruments, lockers, pallets, shelves, small tools, stools and tables. All sales cash or certified cheque. Quasar Electronics Canada Limited.”

One more industry has closed up completely. This wasn’t a layoff. This closed up completely. There is no chance of resurrecting that kind of company, those jobs or that kind of contribution to our gross national product.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Labour is a failure.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It would be useful if your member would understand the background to these problems, which he obviously doesn’t, unfortunately.

Mr. Peterson: As I said with great pride earlier, we have attempted since the last election -- and you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the things my loader said in the last election -- and subsequent to then to offer as many constructive, positive suggestions as we possibly can. We have not once offered a ritualistic motion of no confidence. We haven’t opposed any bills on first reading. We haven’t done anything that in our judgement is irresponsible. We have attempted at all times to make a positive, solid contribution to the economic debate in this province. Not one of those suggestions was taken up.

I want to reiterate some of those because we will continue to push the government for them. We suggested a job-creation program whereby there would be employment tax credits up to 20 per cent so that we could assist small business, particularly Canadian-owned small business, in job-creation programs. We suggested that we liberate the pension funds that are now being consumed, almost in entirety, by this government from current consumption in the very high deficits that they are running. It should be liberated and put back into the free marketplace to build investment, to build the kind of capital programs that we need in this province, and in this country and to build some kind of economic future.

We have talked about looking at the whole educational program through apprenticeship programs and polytechnical programs to educate people to work with the kinds of needs we are going to have in the future. It is a continuing disgrace that Ontario Hydro is bringing in workers from England to do jobs that Canadian people can do. There is no excuse for that kind of thing.

I want to point out too that our task force on tourism, chaired by my very able colleague, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), has today made several suggestions for assistance in that particular area, which is one of great concern to the people in Ontario. I want to be specific about his suggestions. This is an interim report. They will be filing a complete report later on in the spring. In the process they have travelled to many communities in this province. They have visited with many resource operators and with many people in this business. They have sensitively received many suggestions and distilled them. I want to give members three major suggestions that they have, all of which in our judgement are constructive and positive.

They suggested the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be realigned so that tourism be joined with Culture and Recreation -- that will give that little guy something to do -- in order to place the emphasis on the function of the Ontario Heritage Foundation more in line with the interests of the tourist industry. Consideration should also be given to coordinating the provincial parks sector of the Ministry of Natural Resources with the tourism sector of the realigned ministry. We also proposed, in the light of the overwhelming support on both sides of this House for the Small Business Act, that the industry side of the realignment become a Ministry of Industry and Small Business.

We have these ministries at present operating at cross purposes. One minister is running around handing out money trying to ingratiate himself with the artsy-craftsy people in the province. The other minister isn’t doing anything except running around the world. We need some help here and now. That realignment and emphasis on the wealth-creation part of our economy -- tourism in one area, industry and business in another area -- would be a very distinct asset to this province.

Mr. Conway: And a new minister.

Mr. Peterson: We also recommend that the provincial government undertake to re-establish a committee along the lines of the legislative committee on natural resources and tourism, whose last report was filed in 1970. This would provide an opportunity for the tourist sector to meet with the government every year to discuss its current problems and provide an ongoing dialogue, which the people in the tourist sector were very happy with. We have no idea why that was discontinued. It should be resurrected in a meaningful form to provide that kind of dialogue.

Mr. Martel: That was a farce, though.

They presented their briefs and never acted on them.

Mr. Peterson: I want to make one other suggestion that the provincial government should redirect its expenditure of funds from the ongoing consultant studies. The good Lord knows this government has studied to death, for example, a recent $138 study for eastern Ontario that didn’t say anything that local residents couldn’t have told the ministry themselves. We have to get the funds out of things like Minaki and the ridiculous expenditures into the hands of the tourist operators, the actual independent Canadian operators who own and run these things where the money can really make a contribution. Those suggestions, in our judgment, will give some attention to this neglected industry that provides a very major contribution as one of the largest employers in our province.

I want to just talk very briefly about industrial strategy. The Treasurer constantly wrings his hands. Every time this is mentioned he denies it. He thinks it’s like getting smallpox to talk about industrial strategy. I can assure you we have no such compunctions. We think the time is long overdue for an industrial strategy encompassing various components, and I want to talk briefly about that.

The elements of that, in our judgement, are the following. We would have a sector-by-sector, industry-by-industry analysis, with a review of our strengths and weaknesses and potentials. That is the first step. We would be initiating, working with, by way of joint venture, by way of tax assistance, by way of capital assistance, the new kinds of industries to create a new capital boom in this province. That is one of the potential ways of dragging ourselves out of this economic slowdown we are in.

Let us talk about some of the areas in which we think Ontario could take a lead: solar energy; the whole area of renewable resources we think is a valuable one; the area of toxic waste disposal. The good Lord knows we have spent a lot of time talking about that today. In mining machinery and equipment, where Ontario could lead because we do have a lot of accumulated expertise, in the whole waste management area, where my colleague for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) had a private member’s bill on this issue last week or the week before, I’m talking about new areas in which Ontario, in conjunction with private enterprise, could create wealth-creating, capital-creating industries that would create jobs, would retain our natural resources and would recycle and help Ontario to go into the new phase as we understand more and more our diminishing natural resources.

As I have said before, we would assist in stimulating labour-intensive small business. I revealed the program we have for that. We would be into a massive energy conservation program that we still think is necessary to take Ontario into the next few decades. We talked about that in our campaign. Insulation programs and various other things that are job-intensive, labour-intensive, highly decentralized and cater to small business -- those things can be done and they can be done early with the right kind of government initiatives.

We are not at all against assisting those companies in this province which have a potential for world-scale or world-class competition. Let us assess our strength: our steel industries or whatever. We should not be creating the hostile kind of tax climate and adversary system that drive their initiatives out of them and drive them out of this province. And we must be, in my judgement, much better negotiators than we have been.


Mr. Conway: You can’t send Claude Bennett.

Mr. Peterson: I think Ontario has lagged dramatically in the whole tariff fight. It is our view that the government has not fought to protect the industry of this province. The Treasurer today is part of the crisis in confidence in the investment sector in this province. He is running around, perceived as the bearer of free trade, as the person bringing the news about free trade, the plastics industry, the confectionery industry. Day after day I get letters across my desk saying, “We will be driven out of business if this, in fact, happens,” the way the Treasurer is talking. We must take a stronger, tougher stand on behalf of Ontario industry when we are in this perilous economic time.

We need an immediate renegotiation of the auto pact, and the $2-billion deficit. This highly job-intensive industry should be here in this province. Ontario must take the lead. Our response to all of this is going to be, “Well, they’re not provincial responsibilities; they’re federal responsibilities.” I say, “Humbug.” Because 40 per cent of the industry belongs here. We are the ones who are suffering. The right Premier in this province could have a very large voice in the governing of this country. He could have a large voice in the Confederation debate. He could have a large voice in the economic debate. And so far, he has defaulted on both counts. We won’t have it.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s exactly true. He understands neither.

Mr. Peterson: There are a couple of other areas that I think the government has not been forceful enough in. Let me just take a couple of examples.

Look at the major purchasing that Canada is doing abroad today, the whole matter of the Leopard tanks from Germany. Why couldn’t we insist as a quid pro quo that we have a decent kind of return in job-creating programs, highly research- and technology-oriented, in this province? There is no reason, for example, when we are buying tanks in Germany that we couldn’t insist that all the communication devices be built by a world-class outfit like Northern Telecom. And, in the process we will develop markets and technology that we can take to other places in the world and develop our export business. We just can’t take a passive role in these negotiations.

Why, when we are now on the verge of signing a $1-billion order for airplanes, can’t we insist that a very high degree of the research and technology is here in Ontario and areas like this? Through perhaps the inability to negotiate, or the lack of understanding of these problems, we are, in my judgement, taking a far less tough line than most countries in the world would take on these kinds of matters. We should be driving a much harder bargain for Canada and for Ontario. And, I will tell you, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), the Premier and the Treasurer should be up front shouting for Ontario’s place.

My colleague from Niagara Falls has brought up many times the whole question of the pipeline. We support that. We think there is absolutely no excuse if Ontario does not get a very major share of that contract. We are, therefore, saying to the government, as I have said many times that you have to take the initiative on that one. You should be up front insisting, as a condition precedent to that pipeline going across Canada, that Ontario gets a very major share of those jobs.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to add one other thing that has disturbed me. I think the style of leadership of this government maybe doesn’t admit, or maybe won’t admit, to the kinds of new programs we have talked about. It has disturbed me, as a private member in the last couple of weeks, the litany of waste and irresponsibility, albeit perhaps some of it is our collective fault -- all of us as individual members of Parliament. I am not sure that that isn’t partly the case, but I tell you, we need a new style of leadership from this government that we have heretofore not had.

Number one, we have to recognize there are some new economic realities facing this province, this country and this world. So far, the leader of the Liberal Party has been the only one, in public, and I exclude the leader of the New Democratic Party from this too, to say that the conditions have changed and we are prepared to adapt to those conditions. He was the only one who had the guts to stand up and say, “We are going to have to change our expectations. We are going to have to have some major overhauls in the way that we have been used to doing things.”

The Premier blithely and naively said, “Well, Stuart, you are a crepe hanger. You are a prophet of gloom and doom and you are unrealistic.” He blithely goes on with the same old pat answers that are the cause of our problems today.

Even the leader of the New Democratic Party, I say to him with great respect, has not had the guts to face up to these very new realities facing this province. In spite of that marvellous speech that he gave today -- and I must say, I enjoyed it and I would have paid money to hear it -- did he offer one constructive suggestion to the economic problems facing this country? Not one, Mr. Speaker, because I listened very closely.

The only semi-solution they have given at any time in public sector involvement -- nationalize it, buy it out, appoint the member for Sudbury East as chairman, and let it go bankrupt under government hands or whatever. That is not the answer. The answers are complex and they are not simple. The suggestions that we have given today and the other ones that we have given in the past, and will continue to give, are in our judgement the start to some economic recovery. We are going to continue to press the government. We will give them constructive suggestions. We will work with them. We will do anything that’s positive.

As I’ve said before, we have at no time taken a destructive attitude. When the government’s tough on spending, you don’t hear the Liberal Party standing up and saying we should be spending more for ridiculous things. When we talk about an increase in spending at all, it is always for job creation or constructive things that are going to contribute to the gross provincial product of this province, not more in terms of waste at this time.

We must concentrate on the creation of wealth, not on the distribution of wealth, at this time in our history. That is why we are going to continue to support and press this government. We are going to put forward constructive suggestions. We will push them and we look forward to forming the government.

I say to you right now that we fear an election not one jot. We would go to an election tomorrow morning if we thought it would do any good for this province. We have the people who are making a marvellous contribution in every area. I say that with great pride about all of my colleagues. We could form a cabinet tomorrow morning three times as good as that one sitting right across there.

Mr. Gaunt: And on top of that, Mr. Speaker, we’re modest.

Mr. Peterson: We said that an election was ridiculous last June and we were right.

Mr. Conway: Boy, were we right.

Mr. Peterson: An election would be ridiculous now because it’s not going to solve these economic problems. But fear not, we are ready any time the government decides to have one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Bradley: The minister of beer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No beer.

Mr. Martel: At least not in the ball park.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to participate in the debate on behalf of my party in winding up the budget debate.

Mr. Sweeney: Winding down -- you haven’t wound up for years.

Mr. Kerrio: Winding down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a pleasure to be performing this function, although following the member for Scarborough West, I feel as I sometimes feel when I’m caught standing between and beside the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Mr. Martel: Two wounded moose in a snowstorm.

Mr. Peterson: We feel that way too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But then again, having heard the contribution made by the member for London Centre, I suddenly felt as though the member for Nickel Belt came over to stand beside me.

It is appropriate today for all of us in this often unreal place to acknowledge the immeasurable contribution made over the years by the member for Scarborough West to the elevation of the significance of this chamber as a place where informed and persuasive debate may bring the real world in and reshape and actually improve it, to reaffirm the very relevance of this place which is sometimes questioned. As the member for Scarborough West so eloquently put it today, it should not be questioned. The place is relevant.

Today is his last day with us as leader of his party, barring a draft movement, of which I and at least three other members of his caucus are unaware at the present time. I know we all hope it doesn’t occur. If the draft movement in fact happened, it would kind of be the last vengeance of the RCMP against the Waffle.

Mr. Conway: Let’s draft Darcy. It’s the only way he’s going to get it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member for Scarborough West has taught us anything in this place, it is that our thoughts, principles, good intentions and convictions means so much more to people in the real world outside of this place, when they are articulated with a precision that is laboured at and polished and always purposeful.

Mr. Bradley: Who writes this stuff?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As his peers, our chief solace in seeing him give up the leadership of such a burdensome party, as he shakes off the albatross, is to know that he will have more time to spend with us in this chamber, even if he is mostly reading children’s books as we on this side make our contributions.

Mr. Kerrio: Who wrote that speech? The ghost of Christmas past?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: From there, he can teach us even more how to be true parliamentarians in debate as well as in conscience. This room would be diminished for us and for the real world out there if the hon. member were not here. As I listened to his address today, what he himself would describe as a cathartic exercise, I was thinking of the many words which will be absent at least during the first two questions of the day from his party -- words like, “mellifluous,” “insufferable,” “philosophical,” “exhilarating,” “happenstance” -- I like that one -- “effrontery,” and one of his favourite turns of phrases, “ ... it speaks to your insincerity.” No one can say it the way he can say it. “It speaks to your insincerity.”

Mr. Kerrio: Why don’t you do your own thinking, Larry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This morning he said he was going to continue to barrack and declaim raucously us on this side of the House. He was going to “disgorge,” when others of us would simply say we were going to “state.” Those words will not soon leave this chamber and, indeed, many of us hope they don’t.

Mr. Kerrio: Bring back Elmer Sopha.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This morning as he was talking about how he was going to continue to barrack and declaim us, going to continue his efforts to fight off capitalism to the death, I was thinking back to some words I had heard earlier: “I haven’t the slightest intention of bringing any of the major sectors of the natural resource area under public ownership. It doesn’t make any sense to me.” Who do you think that was? Bill Davis, Darcy McKeough, Sterling Lyon? No. Jack Horner?

Mr. Martel: Right on, a friend of yours.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wrong again. Bill Bennett? Wrong again.

Mr. Martel: Don’t remind me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it was the member for Scarborough West. But as he would say, “Well, it’s to be forgiven. It was all in the heat of an election campaign. It was just political posturing.” We understand that.

Mr. Kerrio: You invented it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Although we suffered so terribly when he was so viciously hitting us during the heat of election rhetoric, we did understand it. Most of us on this side, I might say, had the joy of experiencing a camaraderie with him at the conclusion of those attacks.

Mr. Lawlor: We are gradually being driven to it, aren’t we?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to close the budget debate on behalf of the government. In doing so, I would like to make a few comments under two general headings which are rather appropriate today.

The first, I would call “internal” or “unreal,” the second “external” or “real.” The motion before us today brings the two together.

By “internal” I mean comments relating to activities among ourselves here in this building. Despite our sweat, frustration and overwork -- and even the sometimes theatrical behaviour in this chamber -- from time to time it all seems very unreal. We all feel, from time to time, that what goes on here would be understood by few visitors. As we look up to the galleries, some days we think that may be true. Few of our constituents can really appreciate what goes on here.

Some of my colleagues of the class of 1975 joined with me in the early days of the fall of that year, to reflect on what we could accomplish here as opposed to what we might be able to accomplish out in our ridings, working at the grass roots and solving individual problems. Since that time, a lot has changed.

One thing that has changed is that we now have publicly funded constituency offices, designed to help us have more time to dedicate to the very important roles we play here. In that connection it’s appropriate here to acknowledge the contribution made by the Premier in funding those offices.

Mr. Philip: Some of us had them before.


Hon. Mr. Grossman: I had them before as well. What I want to say seriously is that members of this House, who enjoy with me the benefits of constituency offices; and indeed more important our constituents, who enjoy the benefits of constituency offices today; ought to acknowledge that the Premier and the government House leader volunteered their support to the concept and their commitment of government funds to that concept. Members on the Morrow select committee and the member for Scarborough West and the member for Wentworth made compelling representations and deserve credit for those representations, but the ultimate decision was, indeed, with the government, and the Premier made that commitment and stuck with the commitment because it was the right thing to do.

We should note here today that the commitment to those constituency offices was made exactly two years ago as we rose for the Christmas break. Earlier this week, we passed the bill giving all members of this House an increase in compensation. Again, it was not just because of representations, as Tuesday night’s debate here made clear --

Mr. Kerrio: Yakabuski voted against it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- but because the government had made a commitment to such a bill last summer, and the government House leader’s bill and his statement in the debate earlier this week made it clear that commitments on this side of the House do mean something.

Mr. Kerrio: You forgot to tell Yakabuski.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In that respect, Mr. Speaker, the passionate but totally unreal aspects of debate here on Tuesday night, as I look at the member for Renfrew North, seems simply to have been unneeded. However it was good if graceless ventilation and that, I suppose, on occasion is what Parliament exists for.

Mr. Roy: What about the comments of your member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski)?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Go back to your seat.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t do that. He might make a contribution like he made earlier today.

I want to make reference, as part of my comments on the internal workings of this place, to the Leader of the Opposition. It is a reflection of his mellowing leadership that today there is not an amendment moved by his party, in order that the amendment of no confidence already placed might be further complicated. Such further amendment, while it might fulfil an ancient ritual in this place in earlier years, of course, in minority situations becomes a matter of rather volatile importance.

We have indeed, Mr. Speaker, since the presentation of the sum and substance of this budget, had a slight consultation with the people of the province and, notwithstanding the barracking opposite earlier today, the people of the province have indeed spoken on the budget presented by the Treasurer --

Mr. Conway: They sure have.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and the vote of that ultimate jury, which those of us on this side acknowledge and respect, is clear.

Mr. Roy: Yes, well why did you have an election June 9?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are more of us over here than there were when the budget was originally presented.

Mr. Roy: Not as many as you wanted.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It cost you guys a seat.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are more popular votes behind the people sitting here than there were before that budget was presented.

Mr. Roy: And it cost millions. It cost you 20 million bucks.

Mr. Kerrio: And there is a bigger deficit.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am glad and happy to report that the wisdom of the people of this province, which we trust on this side of the House --

Mr. Kerrio: Tell us how you are going to balance the budget.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- was once again vindicated by the Treasurer’s recent statement indicating that job creation in the past year had, in fact, grown beyond the 100,000 target set by the Treasurer earlier this year.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Most of them in the Niagara Peninsula.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To be sure, the future going will be difficult, for all the reasons the Treasurer had been citing, but the readiness of this government to take steps which will not break our faith with the people of Ontario is there.

It will, in fact, be the job of this government to deal with further economic problems, or the continuing lack of confidence which we experienced during that period of time when the then official opposition, the NDP, was able, from time to time, having the luxury of rather more employment, to attack the government on environmental matters, for example; we just don’t hear them talking so much of that these days --

Mr. Roy: What are you suggesting?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The biggest and most disturbing regional economic blow during this session came, of course, with the news of the approaching job reductions in the nickel industry in the Sudbury basin. All of us on this side were anxious to take all reasonable steps to satisfy ourselves that the layoffs could be justified by those employers and that the dislocation to employees and their families could be minimized.

The Premier promptly offered to have a House committee examine the matter, and the terms of reference were acceptable to us all. I hope that the responsible qualities of the select committee’s imminent scrutiny of Inco and Falconbridge will increase public respect for this House. I hope it will demonstrate the responsiveness of this government to the problem, rather than decrease the respect of the public for this Assembly, as some columnists and some editorialists have speculated.

I want to reinforce that it was an example of this government’s immediate responsiveness to what was an urgent and pressing public matter. It was a situation in which there were unanswered questions in the public’s mind. It was not a situation to set a precedent for this Assembly, opening up the books of every company in the province, or calling down every company cited by the leader of the NDP today in his litany of layoffs. It was not a situation to call each of those companies before a public body for a public analysis --

No, sir; it was an effort to respond to justifiable concerns in the Sudbury basin and throughout the province with regard to the enormity of the situation, to analyse what could be done in view of the fact that there was some trust among all of the parties involved and in view of the confidence that this government had in the two companies and their union’s leadership. We believed that the two sides themselves could work hard to reach arrangements to offset dislocation. Such trust has been significantly vindicated by the two sides and I hope it will be further assisted by the select committee.

The position of the government, that nationalization was the last so-called “answer” that we should try, that position as well is being fully vindicated. The nationalization cry of the NDP members from Sudbury is being accepted as relevant only by some of their very pure partisans.

Mr. Conway: What about Marv Shore’s cry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I note here that one of the NDP members moved a non-confidence motion on the Inco layoffs. At that time it was entirely legitimate in this forum as a device for allowing parliamentary debate on that important matter. Let’s understand that the motion was just that and no more.

As the opposition parties take full advantage of their supply-day confidence opportunities, I only hope that we here, our observers in the gallery, and especially the people out there in the real world, will also remind one another that such motions, while definitely a risk in substance, ought to remain debating devices only as long as we wish this Parliament to continue.

Mr. Conway: You didn’t express that very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It may well be that the foreshortened time we have contributed to the budget debate this session is one reason why we haven’t had any amendments put up for debate, until today. In that connection, on behalf of the Premier and the government House leader, I want to thank the other parties for their genuine and hard-slugging support of our target of completing the vastly extended supply process in a much reduced time frame before Christmas.

As a back-bencher until not that long ago, I also want to acknowledge the hard work of government back-benchers in participating through the endless hours of estimates. I can’t let this opportunity go by without acknowledging as well the outstanding contribution made by our new members over here, those who have shown up since the first presentation of this budget. It is a vastly reinforced caucus on this side, something our friends opposite cannot say about their caucus.

Mr. Conway: What about the member for Timiskaming’s (Mr. Havrot) contribution?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, what about the member for Timiskaming? How happy we are to have him as one of our three returnees on this side of the House.

Mr. Makarchuk: For $20 million they bloody well should be.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As my friend opposite, who suffers from having had to live in the shadow of Paul Yakabuski throughout his entire parliamentary career often calls them -- the “good burghers” of Timiskaming, Peterborough and London South now have had time to reflect on the mistakes they made in 1975.

Mr. Sweeney: And they’ll have more time to reflect on the mistakes you made in 1977.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How pleased we are to have those three members returning here.

Mr. Makarchuk: Try it again. For $20 million you should be.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You see how we inspire him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We do hope they learned more in their short absence than the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) learned in his absence from the House a few years ago. We’re also pleased to acknowledge the new Durham representation on this side of the House -- l00 per cent. The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) should get a special award from this caucus -- the Purple Heart perhaps -- for having sat through an incredible number of hours of debate this session listening to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). What a heck of a way to start a parliamentary career.

As a member from Metropolitan Toronto, I am encouraged by having the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) join us, my colleague behind me, who is just coming in as promised. He has made a valuable and important contribution already in this Assembly.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s what I call timing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed, talking about the good burghers, I notice the good burghers in Armourdale and Wilson Heights have now thought better of their flirtation with outspoken, forward liberalism, and now have decided to opt for Progressive Conservatism, sending us some hard-working and thoughtful members.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is there a difference?

Mr. Gaunt: They’ll regret it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If you leave him alone long enough, maybe he’ll say something nice about me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In view of the representation Ottawa suffers through, in Ottawa Centre especially --

Mr. Bradley: How many seats did you get in the Niagara Peninsula?

Mr. Kerrio: Talk about the Peninsula for a while.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- it is good to know that area has replaced one of our very fine members, and sent us the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz).

Mr. Sweeney: That sounds like a comment the Premier would make when he went to the wasteland. It’s still a wasteland.

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t forget the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The independence of members such as the member for Carleton-Grenville is admired, respected, and important on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Look where it got me.

Mr. Sweeney: How is your high blood pressure?

Mr. Bradley: All you have to able to do over there is pound your desk.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed, I know members opposite wouldn’t want me to complete my remarks about our caucus without referring to that fine soft-spoken addition to our caucus, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

Ms. Gigantes: What does all this have to do with the budget?

Mr. Sweeney: What about the budget, Larry? Why aren’t you talking about the budget? There’s nothing to talk about. You’re ashamed of it; that’s why you’re diverting yourself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Cochrane South is indeed in a position to do what his predecessor couldn’t do; that is actually produce for the people of the north.

Mr. Makarchuk: He is another of the $4-million members. Four million dollars a member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But of course his ability and his stature, not only his location in this House, will make the major difference.

Mr. Sweeney: Cancel the budget; it’s not there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How about it? Every time I hear mention of Minaki Lodge in this House -- and it’s daily -- I love to turn around just behind me and see the new member for Fort William.

Mr. Conway: He and John Rhodes went to the same school of political conversion. He doesn’t know which side he’s on. He’s the biggest farce and embarrassment you’ve had for years.

Mr. Sweeney: Where is he? Turn around. He’s not here. He’s not in the House. Now how much did he cost you?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He has likely gone back to serve his good burghers in Fort William.

Mr. Sweeney: His chair is the same as his speech -- empty.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The good judgement and sensibilities of the voters when the chips are down is amazing. Whether they’re standing in front of the NDP campaign bus or going to the ballot box, they know which party is for the people of the north. My colleague from Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. Taylor), who has made such a valuable contribution, will, we know, live up to the great service record of his predecessor, and we’re happy as well to have him with us.

Mr. Swart: Talk about Hamilton Mountain.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know I’ve taken more time to talk about the additions to my caucus, but that’s for an obvious reason -- I’ve got more to talk about.

Mr. Riddell: When are you going to say something that’s relevant?

Mr. Makarchuk: Four million dollars a member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Really, I quite enjoyed listening to and reading the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, congratulating himself on his great election victory where he only lost one seat and several points in the popular vote. I just hope I’m not here long enough to experience a victory such as that.


Mr. Sweeney: He has also achieved what he set out to achieve.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know I won’t be here that long. I’ll never be here when our party goes through that exercise.

Mr. Bradley: You thought you were going to run away with it.

Mr. Conway: Minority bill.

Mr. Deans: When won’t he be here? I missed that. I’m sorry.

Mr. Conway: Typical of your budget.

Mr. Sweeney: $20 million fiasco.

Mr. Swart: The quality of your speech is told by the attention you got.

Mr. Conway: The question is, is he going to stay on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: On where?

Mr. Kerrio: Back to the budget.

Mr. Deans: Larry, I think your dad delivered this same sermon about five years ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It improves with age.

Mr. Deans: I am not so sure.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are some differences in the dynasties, I must say to the member for Wentworth. I heard his leader saying that his daddy -- that is, your leader’s daddy -- had reported to him that defeat is a wonderful thing. My daddy never could report that to me. That is not part of the dynasty on this side.

Mr. Deans: You’ll be able to report it to him.

Mr. Bradley: Now I know why you are in the cabinet.

Mr. Sweeney: You know what? You’ll find out!

Mr. Conway: With the $28,000 sinecure he was given, I’m not surprised he would say that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was really not going to be provocative today. My colleague the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea) has to catch a train. Will you let me complete my remarks, please?

Mr. Kerrio: Get the hook.

Mr. Sweeney: He’s the only sensitive one on that bench.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That makes us one ahead of you guys. The member for London Centre was sort of flirting around the budget and economic policy. But I thought I would take a moment or two to give him some facts --

Mr. Bradley: He talked about the budget; you haven’t.

Mr. Conway: You are not a flirt. We know that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that Harold and others haven’t been able to dig up for him. I heard the member talk about a lack of contribution by the very fine Minister of Industry and Tourism. Let’s look at what is happening in Ontario manufacturing. From January to September 1977, Ontario manufacturing shipments were 9.8 per cent higher than a year ago. What about it? Is that a lack of contribution by the minister or was it accidental?

Mr. Conway: Resign.

Mr. Deans: It should have been higher.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s look at the merchandising trade. Ontario retail sales consolidated their third-quarter recovery in October with a 5.1 per cent jump over September levels.

Mr. Deans: Disgraceful.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Canadian sales were two per cent lower, at 3.1 per cent. Was that all accidental here in the province of Ontario?

Ontario sales, unadjusted, for the first 10 months of 1977 were 7.6 per cent higher than the year-earlier levels. For Canada the increase was again lower -- 7.3 per cent. And on jobs -- we have heard so much about jobs.

Mr. Deans: This is the industrial heartland, for heaven’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We know that all unemployment, if you listen to the opposition parties, is our fault. It is all our fault over here.

Mr. Deans: You have done absolutely nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But let’s look at the jobs that were created. I suppose they are accidental. Is that right? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that we are responsible only for the ones that disappear --

Mr. Deans: Not one single program.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- but we are not responsible for the ones that are created.

Mr. Deans: You haven’t brought forward one initiative, not one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And let’s look at how many have been created. The charter promised 100,000 a year; 137,000 new jobs have been created.

Mr. Deans: And the need is 170,000.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait a minute. That was only for the last 11 months since December 1976, so it will be higher than 137,000.

Mr. Deans: And the need is 170,000. You are falling short every year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s look at jobs some more.

Mr. McClellan: So what?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s look at the job creation initiated through the budget.

Mr. Kerrio: Talk about how you are going to balance it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The acceleration of the provincial government’s capital spending by $75 million in 1977-78 added 3,356 jobs in the following areas: Accelerated road projects; agricultural infrastructure; repairs to university and college buildings --

Mr. Bradley: Even the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) is leaving you.

Mr. Riddell: Let’s hear about agriculture.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- accelerated water and sewage treatment plants; repairs to government buildings; insulation of government buildings; health capital projects -- 3,356.

Mr. Deans: You had to make the repairs or the buildings would have fallen down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Jobs for youth: Unemployment among youth in all western Countries is serious.

Mr. Bradley: How about jobs for barbers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But what about Ontario? An outstanding record for initiative. Regular summer employment 10,000 jobs. Summer experience program, 11,492 jobs. Ontario career action program, 2,950.

Mr. Conway: Your father must have written this.

Mr. McClellan: Tell this to the unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Youth care for senior citizens, 250. Total 24,692.

Mr. Conway: Has John Yaremko got any kids?

Mr. Deans: And 50,000 jobs lost.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You were pretty quiet when you were hearing the litany of layoffs over there. Why don’t you sit down and listen to the jobs that were created?

Mr. Kerrio: Your job creation is like your budget; you are in deficit.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Ontario youth employment project attracted applications from more than 23,000 businesses and farms and approved funding for the creation of more than 35,000 positions for Ontario youths.

Mr. Conway: Bill, has John Yaremko got any kids you could bring in here?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In November, Ontario’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 6.8 per cent, the same as in October.

Mr. Deans: Which you find quite acceptable, no doubt.

An hon. member: This is really full employment, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Canada’s unemployment rate has risen from 8.3 per cent in October to 8.4 per cent in November. There it is -- as always we continue to outperform the rest of Canada when it comes to job creation.

Mr. Deans: This is the industrial heartland of the nation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We must remember that, when those --

Mr. Deans: Are you comparing yourself with Prince Edward Island?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- opposite suggest there is no initiative in the area of job creation from this government.

Mr. Kerrio: Compared to Newfoundland, you look great.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are not outperforming the rest of Canada by accident.

Mr. Deans: You are the main cause of the problem.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Certainly, you do a great deal in your party too, a great job? You talk about everything under the sun --

Mr. Deans: That’s right -- give us 12 months and we’ll outproduce you three to one.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- to diminish the importance of Ontario in the eyes of the public of the world. You are doing a great job! Keep it up.

An hon. member: Don’t worry, Claude is being dumped.

Mr. Deans: Ever since you became minister, there has been more unemployment than there had ever been.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: With that kind of helpful information, we can do a great sale.

Mr. Deans: You have done absolutely nothing. You haven’t created a single job.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You had better go back and check your records because they are about as false today as they have been for many years.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Wentworth and the Minister of Industry and Tourism carry on their debate outside?

Mr. Kerrio: It makes more sense than the one that is going on here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, he would rather be in here. It’s better than debating with the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). It’s at least at a higher level in here.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the economic record of this government. It isn’t one which is easy in these times. But, in fact, when we hear the barracking from the members opposite on the whole topic, they don’t want to look at the picture relative to those problems that all of Canada faces.

And, you know, when they talk about those things, what they don’t talk about is the initiative of the Premier of this province in forcing the federal government to finally agree to have a first ministers’ conference --

Mr. Bradley: Keep talking; you know why they are not talking about it.

Mr. Deans: Oh, another conference, another conference.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- in order that these problems which are obviously so national in scope can be dealt with on a joint federal and provincial basis in February of next year.

Mr. McClellan: Is this the Christmas laugh?

Mr. Deans: How many jobs will the conference create?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s easy. If you want to say it’s totally provincial, then acknowledge that we are outperforming the rest of Canada in job creation. If you want to say it is totally federal, then acknowledge the initiative of the Premier of this province in saying we have to have --

Mr. Deans: I say you are producing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- a federal-provincial conference to deal with this; it’s a national problem. One way or the other, this government has acted and will continue to act in that field.

Mr. Deans: I will acknowledge both the Premier’s initiative and your lack of initiative.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we should conclude the debate today without a reference to the matter of Confederation, a topic of major concern to all of us in this assembly. We are not terribly close to the total resolution of this problem, as we close this session.

Mr. Deans: You are not even moving in the right direction.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course we are. You weren’t here to listen to your leader.

Mr. Deans: I was listening.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You were here but you weren’t listening.

Mr. Deans: I was here and listening to my leader; it shows how little attention you pay.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are confusing his remarks with the remarks of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Deans: I would never confuse my leader’s remarks with his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Destiny Canada conference, held at York University in June, provided a much-needed forum for discussion on this issue. It shows that people are interested in the future of Canada and that there exists today an opportunity for change -- change that can and will meet the needs of all Canadians.

Mr. Conway: Why don’t you stand up?

An hon. member: That’s just a blinding analysis -- scintillating.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You couldn’t have been here for the member for Ottawa East’s speech.

That conference focused on the views of people of varying background and cultures and it was a success because the participants addressed directly the directions that have been raised in the minds of all Canadians on this matter.

The Premier, in his presentation to the Task Force on Canadian Unity, stated this government’s position with regard to Quebec and the changes required in the structure of this nation.

An hon. member: You can stop now; you are in the front row.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This government remains optimistic about the future of Confederation and the role that all Canadians will play in that future. We realize, however, that the ultimate solution to this problem depends upon the personal commitment of all of us to resolve the differences that exist and at the same time preserve our individual and collective heritage. We have called for a disentanglement of federal and provincial responsibilities --


Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, about three of us on this side were polite enough to stay -- it was difficult -- through the junk thrown out by the member for Ottawa East during his comments on Confederation.

Mr. Kerrio: We’ll do the same for you, Larry; we’ll hang in here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On this delicate topic the members opposite could at least show the same restraint we tried to show over here.

Mr. Bolan: Can’t you stand the heat?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Admittedly a number of us chose to leave the House while the member for Ottawa East was suggesting this party brought it out during the election campaign --

Mr. Bolan: We were not suggesting anything.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and said you must vote for Bill Davis to save Canada. That sort of rhetoric by the member for Ottawa East ill lies in the mouth of someone who periodically stands up in this assembly and tries to hold himself up as the sole saviour of Confederation. It’s hardly constructive, it’s hardly fair --

Mr. Cunningham: That’s exactly what he said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and, as usual, it’s not at all accurate.

An hon. member: It’s totally misleading.

Mr. Sweeney: It is dirty pool.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have been constructive on this side. We have called for a disentanglement of federal and provincial responsibilities, which we hope will result in a clearer understanding of the role each level of government must play in our daily lives.

We have called for a new constitution which allows for the free flow of people, a commitment to increase regional economic opportunities, regional representation on all federal bodies, and language guarantees in education. The debate is far from over, and this government is an active, willing and leading partner in that debate.

We on this side of the House understand the vehicle being used by the leader of the third party today in proposing an amendment to the budget motion. It obviously has been a time of some frustration for the opposition. They have endeavoured, as is their right, to blame the government for all ills and evils, ranging from plant shutdowns to difficulties with the Children’s Aid Societies in our province. Fluctuations in the offshore price of coffee, along with increases in energy costs and difficulties encountered at the Bruce generating station have all been lumped into a general opposition criticism --

Mr. Kerrio: Who is in charge of the works?

An hon. member: “Companies wouldn’t lie to me.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- of the government responsibilities to the overall economic circumstances in Ontario. In reality, the province has been performing relatively well, economically, despite levels of unemployment --

Mr. Kerrio: Compared to what?

Mr. Martel: That is why you should be defeated. You don’t even recognize the problem.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- which no one in this House finds acceptable. In fact, the unemployment trend in this province is far better than in the rest of the country.

Mr. Kerrio: Especially Newfoundland.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The government has met its commitment with respect to the creation of new jobs to respond to an ever-increasing work force. It is totally appropriate and unavoidable that the government will face the blame and rancour of the opposition on an ongoing basis. That is the way in which our system operates, and that is the premise upon which the adversary element of the parliamentary system is based.

Mr. Conway: Now you are not doing too badly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But we would do well, Mr. Speaker, to understand that the very worst thing the government could do would be what in fact the opposition would have us do -- thrash around changing directions, policy and emphasis as every new apparent crisis came along.

Mr. Swart: Stay right in the mire where you are.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That would not be government, but rather administration by press release. You guys know what administration by press release is all about.

Mr. Martel: Where it says McKeough planned the last one. It was staged.

An hon. member: The master of political propaganda; I don’t know how he can accuse us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It would be tantamount to serving the public through involuntary reflex as opposed to thoughtful policy and programs. Thoughtful policies and programs are the hallmark of the last 34 years in the province of Ontario.


Mr. Warner: You shouldn’t clap, Davis; he’s trying to get your job.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is critical is that the most important aspects of our overall economic strategy, the broadening and deepening of our economic and competitive base, are continuing.

Mr. Martel: You don’t even recognize the problem.

Mr. Warner: Planning out unemployment

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Dislocation and rationalization in industry is painful and causes much hardship. It is a process --

Mr. Martel: That’s usually what McKeough says. It was a very calculated gamble to allow ourselves to be defeated in the House. That’s McKeough.

Mr. Conway: Is that what made the mighty Darcy run?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a process Canadians will have to face, simply by virtue of the degree to which we have become a non-competitive nation as a world trading partner.


Mr. Martel: Our Premier’s visit to Japan was a failure.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and the efforts made by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism were clear indications of this province’s commitment to broadening its economic base through continued export activity and meaningful and responsible investment from other parts of Canada --

Mr. Sweeney: Before they only thought we were crazy. Now they know for sure.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and beyond, something the NDP decries every chance it gets.

Mr. Warner: You should open up a tourist agency.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The unsolicited comments about the Canadian trading position which that evoked probably helped more Canadians realize --

An hon. member: Boy, you really know how to polish shoes, don’t you, Larry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- how serious things had become than many other initiatives previously. The message, admittedly, has not got through to the third party yet

Mr. Martel: No, I know.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This effort, taken within the context of the leadership provided by the Premier in convincing the Prime Minister and the government of Canada of the obvious necessity of a federal-provincial cooperative effort on economic matters --

Mr. Warner: You couldn’t lead seals down an iceberg.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- represents singular advances in the economic well-being for Ontarians. It is the kind of leadership that Ontario has traditionally provided and which we must continue to provide as the industrial heartland of the country.

Mr. Deans: And from which we are suffering terribly at the moment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have talked much of the budget being discussed today.

Mr. Martel: There is no budget.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s right. There isn’t much of the budget being discussed here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have noted the success of that budget. We have noted that to take the initiatives offered by the Liberal Party from time to time would lead us at once in a thousand directions and in no direction.

Mr. Kerrio: If we only took your word, it would be balanced by 1980.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s only one more direction than you’re going in already.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have noted that the party that likes to walk around the province -- the Liberal Party -- walks around the province --

Mr. Conway: Unlike the Tories who crawl and grovel.

Mr. Sweeney: We talk to the people and find out what they really want.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- saying “You can’t afford another Davis government” --

Mr. Bradley: We don’t have the planes to fly.

Mr. Sweeney: Our feet are on the ground, not up in the clouds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it back. You have to crawl before you walk, and Lord knows they’re crawling. The party that likes to crawl around the province, talking about the size of the deficit --

Mr. Sweeney: You’re getting pretty heavy now.

Mr. Bradley: Who flies around at the taxpayers’ expense?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the party that likes to have its little pocket calculator, to tell everyone what it works out to per capita, per hour, per minute, per person --

Mr. Deans: Who paid for Lorne Henderson’s Christmas cards?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- stands up here and talks endlessly about the amount of money we should be putting back in --

Mr. Martel: All $50,000 of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- or taxpayers’ money that we should be throwing out for whatever purposes strike them from time to time.

Mr. Sweeney: Like Edwardsburgh, and Minaki, and Pickering and Townsend.

An hon. member: Where did they find you, Larry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I, myself, was very interested to hear the suggestion that we ought to save upwards of $500,000 by closing such essential services as taking a couple of hours a day off liquor stores. That was the high point of the Liberal Party’s contribution to the problems the taxpayers of this province are faced with.

Mr. S. Smith: Larry, let’s get out. Come on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before my colleagues leave --

Mr. Swart: You’re driving them away.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I must draw their attention -- well, I sat here all day and it wasn’t easy, even through some of the debates on the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Swart: I hope you learned something.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There has been far too much heard today about what is alleged to be a lack of direction and a lack of initiative and a lack of goals coming from the government.

Mr. S. Smith: You have certainly driven the point.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, --


Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I want to deliver a few hundred thousand more words.

In conclusion, I want to draw the attention of the members to a solid statement of the future in this province.

Mr. Bradley: There have been a lot of solid statements over there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And if they had been paying attention, they would already know this. It’s called “A Charter for Ontario.”

Mr. Martel: Oh, don’t punish us with that. Two for one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As you go home and dig out your canned responses to both the Throne Speech and the budget --

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you mail it out? This is cruel.

Mr. Deans: You’re not going to read it, are you?

An hon. member: Who writes your speeches?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I want to tell you you have this period of time to be even more ingenuous.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s excessive cruelty to the Premier to remind him of the charter. He doesn’t deserve it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You can pull out the same responses you’ve been using for the past five years --

Mr. Roy: You should be in the mushroom business.

Mr. Bradley: Yours should go into a can.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- or you can have a sneak preview by looking in fact at “A Charter for Ontario.” I’m going to give you a few highlights so you’ll have something to take away with you as a Christmas present.

Mr. S. Smith: We know. We are grateful for your patronizing position but don’t you think it is embarrassing?

An hon. member: Please, bring back the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski).

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Embarrassed? Far from it. Do we sound embarrassed on this side? No, sir. On this side, compared to the lack of policies from over there, we’re not embarrassed about any policy. Any policy puts us one up on the Liberal Party.

Mr. Martel: You don’t have any. How can you be embarrassed by it?

Mr. Sweeney: Did Darwin Kealey write that one too?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to a target of 100,000 new jobs each year for the next decade. Done.

Mr. Martel: Done. John Robarts would tick them all off.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And we’re 37,000 ahead after only 11 months. A commitment to a target of 900,000 starts over the next 10 years in Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Tell us how many trees you planted.

Mr. Peterson: How many have you got this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I’ll tell you how many we’ve got. We’re just a little bit behind target, and, you’ll see, by the time you get up to read your canned response to the budget, we will have proven to be dead on target. I predict that now and you can call me wrong if that doesn’t happen. We’re almost right on target in housing starts.

Mr. Kerrio: You even lie about the part you’re playing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to reduce the municipal tax burden on senior citizens. A commitment to reducing unnecessary waste in all social spending --

Mr. Roy: Give or take $200 million or $300 million.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to ensure that the truly needy, and those who serve them, get adequate and fair support.

Mr. S. Smith: So will the property taxes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to continue the battle against inflation while providing the private sector --

Mr. Kerrio: What about that “in conclusion” part?

Mr. Martel: Throw it to the ground.

Mr. Hall: Back to the “in conclusion” part.

Mr. Warner: You’re the ones who caused the problem.

Mr. Peterson: They are all in Edwardsburgh.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- you remember them? -- with opportunity and example for job creation.

A commitment to replacing at least two trees for every one harvested.

Mr. Sweeney: Battle of the Bulge.

Mr. Conway: How are the trees coming, Larry?

Mr. S. Smith: This year or next year while the property taxes go up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to increasing the sale of Ontario goods and services outside of Canada by five per cent a year.

Mr. Swart: Great progress.

Mr. S. Smith: Sit down before you embarrass yourself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to containing the size and expense of government in Ontario, resulting in a balanced budget by 1981.

And you know, when we talk about a commitment to containing the size and expense of government in Ontario -- I have to tell the leader of the Liberal Party, I read his private member’s resolution, the sunset one, and he may feel the need for externally imposed sunset provisions but on this side of the House we don’t have to have it externally imposed --

Mr. S. Smith: Let’s call a halt to this.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s because he can’t depend on you to do it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the commitment says that we are going to work towards that goal.

Mr. Kerrio: You can’t even handle an “in conclusion.”

Mr. S. Smith: Put a sunset in your speech.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to containing the size and expense of government, and we conduct that review without private members’ resolutions, without externally imposed sunset provisions. That review goes on daily in each ministry in order that we can meet that commitment.

Mr. Sweeney: Your speech is a prime example of why we need a sunset clause.

Mr. Martel: Don’t you hire Betty Kennedy any more?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No unnecessary rules, regulations and legislation on this side of this House. We have self-discipline over here. No thanks, you don’t have to externally impose it.


Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to maintain the highest quality of health and hospital services.


Mr. Speaker: Order. Order! I hope when you leave this building within the next hour that you will all go home and tell your constituents and, particularly, your children, how you’ve conducted yourselves here in the last hour.

Mr. Kerrio: That won’t embarrass me after that speech.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A commitment to preserve an educational system. Mr. Speaker, after that note of admonition I should quit so that they’ll remember that when they go home.

Mr. Makarchuk: That is the only sensible thing you have said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hopefully, they will remember it when they come back, although I somewhat doubt that.

Before concluding, for the third time, my remarks on the budget speech, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge your efforts, Mr. Speaker, in this first full complete session as Speaker. You’ve done an admirable job.

Mr. Peterson: He just asked you to sit down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You’ve bagged two socialists so far. You fought the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) to at least a draw and, indeed, you tried to help me correct Claire Hoy’s drinking habit, albeit yours was related to coffee, and mine was related to beer in the baseball park. But your contribution to this House, notwithstanding the last few minutes, has been marked and important. I would hope that this House would continue to reflect your guidance, control and leadership in becoming an even more relevant --

Mr. Peterson: Too bad he didn’t prevent you from speaking.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- more cautious, more deliberate chamber than it has developed into over the past few months.

Mr. S. Smith: We would have even preferred the Premier to wind up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is indeed a credit to you, Mr. Speaker. I know that you will relish your job as Speaker, especially in the next few minutes, when you find you don’t have to be one of that small cadre of persons sitting in this assembly voting to support what is surely a futile, repetitive, ordinary, and perfunctory effort, by supporting that amendment moved today in his last cathartic act by the member for Scarborough West, the leader of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker: Order, will all members take their seats please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Lewis moved that all of the words after “that” be struck out and the following substituted therefor.

“Whereas unemployment remains acute in most regions of Ontario; and

whereas a calamitous pattern of layoffs is in process; and

whereas the government has shown neither capacity nor willingness to cope with either persistent unemployment or the realities of accelerating layoffs; and

whereas every useful, reasonable and creative suggestion to repair the economy put forth by the opposition parties has been summarily dismissed,

therefore, this government no longer has the confidence of this House.

The House divided on the amendment by Mr. Lewis, which was negatived on the following vote:

























































Newman, W.

Newman, B.










Smith, S.

Smith, G. E.




Taylor, J. A.

Taylor, G.






Ayes 20; nays 57.

The House divided on the original motion by Hon. Mr. McKeough, which was approved on the same vote reversed.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I would like to table the answers to questions 53, 54, 55, 58 to 64, and 65 standing on the notice paper.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We never stop working, I have to tell you. We were up till midnight last night getting them ready.


Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment on a point of something or other -- point of interruption, I guess -- to say how grateful I am to members of the House for making my first term as Leader of the Opposition so enjoyable.

To show my gratitude, and being a person of the mental health profession and so on, I have here for the Premier a set of worry beads, which are an ancient Greek method of coping with nervousness and agitation.

Mr. Lewis: They are excellent. They are excellent.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Keep them, you need them all.

Mr. S. Smith: As he considers shuffling his cabinet over the holidays, I hope he will derive satisfaction.

Mr. Lewis: I have used them for years.

Mr. S. Smith: At the same time I have a set for the outgoing leader of the New Democratic Party, but only on condition that, since he’s really getting rid of a whole lot of worries, he will hand them over to his successor, whoever that mildly unfortunate worthy may be.

So I’ll send this to the Premier and this to the leader of the New Democratic Party and happy holidays to both of them.


The following bill was given first, second and third readings on motion by Hon. Mr. McKeough.

Bill 130, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978.


The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took her seat upon the throne.


Hon. P. M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 43, An Act to revise the Audit Act.

Bill 98, An Act to revise the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Bill 102, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Bill 103, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 112, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 115, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 122, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowance Act, 1973.

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the County of Peterborough.

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the City of London.

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the Township of Georgina.

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

Bill Pr36, An Act respecting the City of Thunder Bay.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, we, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and faithful subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty’s person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour’s acceptance, a bill entitled an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978.

Clerk of the House: The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty’s name.


Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: I am pleased to address you at the close of this first session of the 31st Parliament of Ontario. As the Silver Jubilee year of our Sovereign also draws to a close we take pleasure in knowing that thousands of Ontarians were able to participate in according a warm welcome to Her Majesty and Prince Philip during her special commemorative royal visit to Ottawa in October.

During her visit, Her Majesty accepted a collection of contemporary Ontario art as a gift from the people of the province. Following a provincial tour the art works will remain in the collection of various public art galleries for the benefit of present and future generations of Ontarians.

The current state of Canadian Confederation remains a major preoccupation of government and thoughtful citizens across Canada. On the initiative of the Ontario government a three-day conference on Canadian destiny was held at York University in Toronto in June to promote constructive dialogue among concerned citizens from all parts of the country.

It bears emphasizing that it is up to Ontarians, as to all Canadians outside Quebec, to become actively involved now in meeting this challenge which faces us all. As is already apparent it is a challenge whose implications transcend the realm of mere political ideology. In this vein, it is worth noting that hon. members from all sides of this House took the opportunity afforded by the recent Ontario public hearings of the federal Task Force on Canadian Unity to appear before this nation-wide forum.

The people of Ontario, as elsewhere in Canada, continue to be plagued by serious problems of unemployment and inflation throughout the uncertain economic climate of another year. It remains the view of the Ontario government that a healthier, long-term solution must be sought, and continued restraint on government expenditures combined with stronger, more productive private sector initiatives.

Recently announced layoffs by the two major nickel mining companies in northern Ontario are of grave concern to the government. Unprecedented action in the appointment of a select committee of the Legislature should ensure joint, in-depth examination and consultation by legislators and the mining interests to produce useful, workable alternatives from both immediate and longer-term perspectives.

At the same time, the province is facing the need to reverse a decline in overall mining activity in the north by augmenting existing mineral developments and exploration activities with a $2.5-million program to be funded by the Ministry of Northern Affairs over three years.

Legislation has been passed to establish province-wide single-trade bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry. This reform, achieved in full consultation and co-operation with industry and labour, is seen as a major aid in simplifying and streamlining negotiations in this crucial segment of the economy.

In the interests of the consumer, legislation has been passed to require tax discounters in Ontario to pay their clients at least 95 per cent of any anticipated income tax refund. A provincial consumer information centre will open early in the new year to help consumers across Ontario by making information more accessible to them. The centre will offer facilities and assistance for students, consumer educators and business. It is the government’s intention to replace the present rent review program with comprehensive tenant protection provisions when the program ends in December 1978.

In the meantime, in keeping with federal wage guidelines, the new maximum rent increases have been set at six per cent. Legislation has been enacted to give municipalities power to regulate the removal of good topsoil from agricultural land. An amendment to the Farm Products Payments Act will encourage the establishment of funds by farm commodity groups to protect producers in cases of bankruptcy in the agricultural community.

Similarly, legislation passed in June will provide a means of mobilizing new sources of risk capital for small businesses. Complementary measures introduced in the fall through amendments to the Corporations Tax Act provide for special tax incentives for investors in venture investment corporations.

The province’s social services have been expanded by a new home support program for the elderly and the handicapped to enable them to maintain their own homes. Allowances for family benefits and general welfare assistance recipients were increased by eight per cent on July 1. On the same date responsibility for administration of all services for children with special needs was transferred to a single ministry. A green paper is now before you containing recommendations for revisions to legislation pertaining to the care of children for public consultation prior to enactment next year.

Services in French for French-speaking Ontarians have seen continuing steady improvement over the past several years, and these were expanded in two significant areas of activity during this session. An Act to require construction of a French-language secondary school by the Essex County Board of Education received support from all sides of the House. As well, expanded French-language court services in five northern communities this fall now makes such services available in areas inhabited by some 66 per cent of our French-only population.

Greater co-ordination of overall services to the north is being provided by the Ministry of Northern Affairs which received the legislative sanction of the House early in the session. Its mandate to respond to northern needs was effectively tested even before then when the ministry organization was called on to marshal speedy assistance for the town of Cobalt following the disastrous fire in May.

In a similar commitment to meet special needs in eastern Ontario, an agreement has been signed by the province and the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion covering a number of projects to increase opportunities for development in the upper Ottawa Valley region.

Electrical energy is of paramount importance to Ontario’s energy future. Aspects of Ontario Hydro’s role in providing electrical power are being reviewed by a select committee of the Legislature. This review includes implementation of recommendations made in 1976 for bulk power rate increases. In addition, new terms have been assigned for select committee study into Ontario’s nuclear commitment and construction costs of the Bruce nuclear power development heavy water plants.

Ontario’s transition to metric units for highway distances and speed limits has been effected. The final report of the select committee on highway safety has been tabled in the House, as has been the report of the royal commission on Metropolitan Toronto. Both reports are being reviewed in preparation for government action relating to the recommendations made.

The Municipal Elections Act has been extensively revised. Among the changes, municipal polling days will in the future be the second Monday in November.

A new Audit Act has been passed, strengthening the role and the office of the Provincial Auditor.

A significant new policy initiative has been adopted by the Ministry of Correctional Services for a community work order program whereby petty offenders who are not considered a threat to society will work on projects and carry out needed services in the community. Provision to improve the administration of the courts has been enacted.

In the summer, the government set in motion the long-awaited inquiry into the northern environment as a royal commission under the Public Inquiries Act. The terms of the commission, developed in consultation with the native people, lay the ground for long-term social and economic planning for the area north of the 50th parallel and for the future of its residents. Public hearings of the commission on freedom of information and individual privacy have been in progress for the past two months at meetings in communities throughout the province.

At the same time, the government has seen fit to establish a judicial inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act in response to serious concerns about the confidentiality of medical records. A review will be made of all legislation administered by the Minister of Health as well as other pertinent legislation as part of this assignment which is due to get under way early in the new year.

Honourable members, it is evident from this review of your activities that the work load of this session has been extensive. It is fair to add that you have not been sparing of your efforts in meeting the demand. In all, some 60 government bills have been passed by the House and have received royal assent during this relatively short sitting.

In declaring the session prorogued, may I take this opportunity to express sincere greetings and every wish for a pleasant and safe holiday season to you all.

In our Sovereign’s name, I thank you. God bless the Queen and Canada.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, and members of the Legislative Assembly, it is the will and pleasure of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued and this Legislative Assembly is accordingly prorogued.

The House prorogued at 4:01 p.m.