Journal des débats 1983-févr-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

As many members know, Mr. St. John was a writer in the field of education for the Globe and Mail for many years. He was both knowledgeable and wise, and was, I believe, one of the few people outside of education systems who really understood the structure and function of systems and particularly that peculiar mechanism known as education finance.

Mr. St. John was an authoritative writer, one whose works were read with regularity by all of those in the education field. He did in fact leave the Globe and Mail at the request of the then Minister of Education and he became chairman of the policy and development council of the Department of Education in Ontario. Unhappily, he died this week at the age of 76.

I never had the privilege of meeting J. Bascom St. John, but I have had the privilege of reading some material he had developed both as a writer and as a member of the staff of the then Department of Education. His writings and influence in the field of education have indeed been profound, and he has been rewarded for that through a number of awards from the Ontario Educational Association and from the Ontario Association of Home and School Associations.

The world has lost someone who had a rare gift, someone who could sort through the maze of educational activity, language, jargon and multiplicity of directions and provide for his readers a clear and concise report of where education was going and what it should be doing. We will miss J. Bascom St. John, and we offer his family our deepest sympathy.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of regret that I read in the paper this morning about Mr. St. John's death.

Some years ago I had the responsibility of being Education critic for my party, and I might as well admit now something that was generally known then: that all my good ideas came from Mr. St. John's articles. As the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has said, he did have the tremendous talent to co-ordinate many facts and attitudes into a cohesive whole that was understandable even to laymen in the field.

One of the great disservices that I felt was done the community by the then Minister of Education was when Bascom St. John was hired away from the Globe and Mail and disappeared into the maw of the ministry, unfortunately for all time. The minister and the former minister are smiling at each other, because I am sure they are aware that his good work and capability were not lost to them, and no doubt some of the good things that have happened in the ministry over those years can be credited to his analytical mind.

We will certainly miss him in the community and we extend our sympathy to his wife, his sons and grandchildren.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the sentiments that have been expressed about Bascom St. John.

As I said last night, I remember when my own community of Thunder Bay did not have a book store, a community college or a university. One of the things that was stimulating in terms of writing about education was that one was able to get the Globe and Mail -- two or three days late -- and read his columns. He wrote with directness and simplicity, and although one may have disagreed with some of his views, one always knew exactly where he stood. That is one of the marks of a leading educator.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Education has expressed the regrets of the government, I would like in a very personal way to add my own remarks.

The House leader of the Liberal Party suggested the then Minister of Education had asked Mr. St. John to join the ministry to spare him the anxiety of reading in the Globe and Mail every morning all of those things that were wrong within the --

Mr. Nixon: I did not suggest that. Guilty conscience is finally surfacing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He sort of hinted at it. I would just like to set the record straight so there is no misunderstanding. While I was relieved, it was really done with the intent and purpose, supported totally by Mr. St. John, of having his advice available to the ministry on a daily basis. He was one of the very fine people it was my pleasure to know, along with his very charming wife.

I do not know one of the sons but I do know the other, Brian, who is also in the public service of this province, perhaps unknown to the members opposite. He is with the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., and I have sensed that he has a good part of his father's talent.

Mr. St. John was a very able person. More important, he was a very sensitive and very humane individual and his passing is regretted. I wish officially to extend my sympathies to the members of the family.

I want to assure members the suggestion of the Liberal House leader was not my intent when I asked him to join us, even though I know that suspicion does lurk in the minds of some.

SIGNS IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. This fine, historic building, built back in the late 1800s, has stood since that time without its facade being cluttered with advertising signs of one sort or another. Recently, a sign has appeared in the north wing of the building. These eyes will really not detect the words on it, but it is red and white in colour and has a shape similar to that of a stop sign.

I feel signs of that nature, or advertising in any way, shape or form should not be permitted in the windows of the building. I would like you to take that under consideration, sir.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of privilege, I happen to have a sign of that general description in my window. I think what I put up in my own office as a member of this assembly is my own business.

Mr. Speaker: That may be subject to some interpretation.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, I was not under the impression that there was any rule in this House prohibiting that, because those of us who have expressed a view contrary to a certain bill have been able, without objection, at least up to this point, to display our opposition in various ways without causing any clutter.

I too have a sign on my door which indicates opposition to that particular piece of legislation. I do not know why that would be objectionable to the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), since it is a very neat and explicit sign. It adds to the beauty of the north wing in the building, rather than detracting from it.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: A general concern has been expressed about the proliferation of all signs. You will notice them beside the elevators. All these signs are being put up, apparently without permission or consultation with anybody. It is something that is going to have to be reviewed and some kind of policy adopted very quickly.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

STATUS OF UNION LOCAL

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the opposition Labour critics have raised questions with me over the past several days concerning an internal union dispute in London involving a local union of the Laborers' International Union of North America. While I gave a rather extensive answer to the question when it first arose on February 3, I did say I would be prepared to consider it further and report to the House before February 15.

The matter of the internal rules and regulations of trade unions and, more particularly, the relationship between local unions and parent bodies involve extremely complex questions of law and policy. Historically, it has been the position of this government that trade unions, like other unincorporated associations, should be permitted a fair and reasonable measure of autonomy in the conduct of their affairs. Even so, among Canadian jurisdictions, we have in Ontario the most specific set of detailed statutory requirements pertaining to internal trade union affairs. In my answer on February 3, I alluded to section 82 of the Labour Relations Act in respect to trusteeships. I would also refer to sections 84, 85 and 86 concerning financial and other reporting requirements.

In raising this issue, the Leader of the Opposition proposed an amendment to the Labour Relations Act that would substantially increase existing statutory requirements and that would, in effect, enable the Ontario Labour Relations Board to scrutinize and intervene in attempts by any international union, in the construction industry as well as in the industrial sector, to impose supervision over local unions under the provisions of international constitutions.

If adopted, the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition would have profound implications for the way in which matters of this sort are dealt with under the law. Under present circumstances, disputes of this sort are usually dealt with by the courts, where there is power to grant interim injunctive relief pending a final disposition of the merits of the case. Until this situation arose, it was my impression there was general acceptance of the adequacy of existing court procedures and remedies.

It has been asserted that this matter was first raised with senior officials of the ministry eight months ago and the suggestion has been made that the matter did not receive the ministry's attention. It is quite true that discussions were held on the general subject of international trusteeships and the possibility of legislative changes.

I would point out, however, that these discussions, while they related generally to the construction industry, did not involve the London local of the labourers' union, nor is it accurate to say that my officials did not respond to the proposals that were put forward. Two meetings were held, the proposals were carefully studied and my officials advised the proponents of certain substantive and technical problems which they identified.

The particular dispute in London came to my attention approximately two weeks ago. I have personally met with officials of the London local who have expressed their concerns to me. Subsequently, my officials met with the Labour critic for the Liberal Party and discussed some of the broader ramifications of that party's proposal for statutory change. The same offer to meet with the Labour critic for the New Democratic Party has been extended, although the meeting has not yet taken place.

In addition, my officials have met with other officials of the trade union movement, including the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. As a result of those discussions, I think there is an evolving consensus that further consultations are required concerning this highly complex matter before any final determination can be made about the necessity for, and appropriate form of, any legislative change. These further consultations will take place without undue delay.

In the meantime, so that there is no misunderstanding, I want to say that if the London local of the labourers' union believes its problems are immediate, I cannot candidly foresee any prospect for immediate legislative change. I am advised that the local has retained very experienced counsel and will, therefore, be fully aware of its common law rights.

I believe the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour critics of both opposition parties will find labour spokesmen agree that consultation is, in fact, necessary and precipitate legislative action would be undesirable at this time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STATUS OF UNION LOCAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to his statement today. I am very disappointed with his statement. What he has said to us is that he will "consult" and that "the problems are difficult and complex." Let me remind him that almost every problem we face in this House is difficult and complex, and ultimately decisions have to be made.

The minister knows the Ontario Labour Relations Board was set up as a quasi-court with special expertise to deal with these kinds of problems. He has now thrown these people back to the courts, asking them to seek injunctive relief. We do not know if that is possible. We do not know if any relief will be granted.

We do know the Laborers' International Union has power to trustee that union, and there is a very distinct fear that will happen before February 15. The minister knows all of that, and he has been consulting for eight months now. Ultimately, the minister is being paid to make decisions. As the minister responsible, now apprised of what is admittedly a very difficult situation, does he not feel there is a very important principle here? Does he not feel he has to address it?

It speaks to the question of local autonomy in the unions, the right to self-determination and democracy. It speaks to all those questions. What is the minister's agenda? Are we going to consult for another eight years with nothing happening? How soon is he going to move on this? When is he going to have his meeting? When is he coming back to this House with a specific set of suggestions for us to discuss?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, before I came into the House today, I made a note here. I will just read it to the Leader of the Opposition at this time. The note said "difficult decision." I feel I made a decision. I could have made a popular decision and referred it to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and brought forward some legislation for this House to study next week. That would have been the popular decision. That would have been the easy decision for me to make.

But the responsible decision is to communicate and consult with all the labour leaders in this province. We have not had the opportunity to do that, and there are divergent views within the labour movement on such an action. It would be irresponsible for me, as Minister of Labour, to make a snap decision, popular as it may be, a motherhood type of decision, and then suffer consequences later on down the road in the labour movement.

Mr. Peterson: The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say it is popular and then say it may not be popular because there are different opinions on it. Which is it? I do not know whether it is popular or unpopular. The point is there is a very important principle involved here. We have a local that is threatened with trusteeship.

The minister knows about the Laborers' International Union and the questionable nature of some of its carry-on in the past few years. He knows the circumstances that brought Local 1059 into these circumstances with, should I say, a fixed or rigged election that brought this to his attention. The minister is saying today in the House: "I have never heard of this problem before. It never really arose until Local 1059 got into this trouble."

There is a very important principle here. If the minister is not prepared to address the general principle, which I feel is very important, I am asking him at least to use his good offices to help these people out in the short term. Surely we can do that and then we can use whatever device the minister wants to use, be it a committee or a white paper or legislation or whatever, to discuss the principle. I am very dissatisfied with the minister for just sweeping this under the rug and saying, "We will consult." Knowing the government, we will never hear about this again until it erupts.

10:20 a.m.

I have had phone calls from other unions with the same kind of problem in the last day or two. I want to know when he is going to address this specifically. Is he going to do it next week, the week after, or when? This problem is starting to get away from him.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I sought legal opinion on the decision I have reached and presented to the House today, legal opinion that I very much respect and that is very experienced in matters of this nature. They have assured me that recourse to the courts is not new. It has been working, and working very well, over a period of time.

The point I want to make is that we are not leaving the London local hanging out to dry. They do have an alternative. They have recourse to the courts, and recourse to the courts is not something new and different.

In direct response to the member's question, the matter will not be left sitting there. We are planning to move ahead on it. We have a meeting with the Labour critic of the New Democratic Party planned just as soon as we can. It was not his fault that he was not able to attend this week. We did have a meeting scheduled. We will be meeting with him and with other labour leaders. In fact, one meeting with a very prominent labour leader is already scheduled for the very near future.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that the problem we have relates not generally to unions but to the building trades. He is also aware that we cannot just isolate the problem that has now occurred with the London local, because the ironworkers' union has gone through a very long and bitter experience to achieve some autonomy for itself in the province.

We believe the answer is not through the courts. Furthermore, we believe there is a general consensus that the problem deals specifically with the building trades unions and the answer is through the board and not the courts. Does the minister not feel there could have been a resolution of this case through the labour board?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the meeting that will be held shortly with my officials and the honourable member and whoever else he may care to bring. He may care to bring some labour leaders, and we would welcome them and solicit their input. We plan to continue looking at this very carefully, and I want to give both opposition parties my personal assurance that I will not let this matter drag on.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is obviously looking for the opposition parties to create the policy in this matter. Does he want to consult or whatever? We are prepared to consult. We have given him ideas on the whole situation. But recourse to the courts in these circumstances is insufficient because the labour relations board is there with special expertise to make these kinds of determinations.

I will ask very specific questions. What is the minister's agenda? How soon after he has his meetings and consults widely and tries to alienate the fewest people will he be back to this House with proposals? In one month, two months, six months? What is his agenda? We want specific action.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is a reasonable question, but it is one I cannot answer today. I will provide that information to the member as soon as I can.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As a farmer, I get sick and tired coming in here day after day and listening to the debate, the concern and the uproar over trying to help people who have deposited $60,000 in Crown Trust when the farmers of Ontario not only have no money to deposit but are having trouble making ends meet.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your own member has the floor. Let us recognize that.

Mr. McKessock: We worry about the person who has $60,000 to deposit when farmers cannot make ends meet. Could the minister get himself, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and his cabinet to put their minds to the plight of the farmer for a few days and get some assistance in here before the end of this session to allow Ontario farmers to refinance their operations over 30 years at eight per cent interest?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I missed the last part of the member's question. With the greatest of respect --

Interjections.

Mr. McKessock: I will give the minister the last part of the question. Would he get assistance in here before the end of the session to allow Ontario farmers to refinance their operations over 30 years at an eight per cent interest rate?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the honourable member knows, the provincial government does not have any plans to get into the long-term credit field. For a number of years now, ever since the late 1960s, the Farm Credit Corp. has been involved in long-term credit. If it is such a great idea, why has his party not adopted it in Ottawa? Until recently, they were charging over 15 per cent on Farm Credit Corp. loans.

I just want to point out to the member that if he is talking about priorities, why is it that since I have been Minister of Agriculture and Food -- one year this Sunday -- his leader has asked only one question on agriculture? If it is such a great priority, why is this the case?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just remind the minister that his responsibility is to answer the questions, not to ask them.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is just an observation on my part about the relative priority of agriculture in that party when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) shows that much interest.

As the member knows, we have had in place for over a year now the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program which was based on a task force report prepared in the fall of 1981, involving the president of our federation, which program, to date, has helped almost 3,400 farmers, including assistance with the interest they are paying on their existing operating debts.

In that period of time, with no assistance from the members opposite, we have also led the fight in this country for the development of a better income stabilization program for all farmers of all commodities not under supply management in Canada.

Mr. Elston: I hear you are the stumbling block; we have been told you are the stumbling block.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I have been very open about the views of the government of Ontario. I have never promised meetings that never come off. One can compare that with what is going on in Ottawa. We have led the way in this country for the development of such a program, which will go a long way to assisting in the long-term stability of agriculture.

We are not in the long-term credit field. There is something in the order of $4 billion to $5 billion of outstanding credit in agriculture. If the member is suggesting that Ontario should start to give eight per cent loans on $4 billion to $5 billion, he is not living in this world.

Mr. McKessock: I know the government is not in the long-term credit business. That is what I am asking the minister to get into, as the other provinces in Canada are doing.

Is the minister going to keep the promise of the throne speech and get assistance here before the end of the session? Is the minister going to put it off, or is he going to put it off until there are more penny auctions and violent demonstrations at the farm gate, as we had this week? Would the minister also contact the banks and ask them to hold off until he gets his new program in place?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We discussed this yesterday, but I think it bears repeating. In the program which we have put in place to date, one of the most important features is that each and every one of the individual farmers whom we have assisted has come to us with an application that shows his present situation and his farm plan.

Mr. McKessock: It is not doing the job.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is doing the job and the member knows that. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture itself, when I met with the executive recently, acknowledged that.

Mr. G. I. Miller: What happened there?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member knows what happened there.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In his presentation in estimates in December, his own critic acknowledged it is impossible to help everybody. Nobody on either side, the member's critic included, is going to say there will never be another person get into difficulty. Even in the so-called good days, people went bankrupt.

10:30 a.m.

What we are trying to do through our program is to help those people who can help themselves, and to date we have helped almost 3,400. We have assumed responsibility for interest rate rebates on over $600 million of outstanding debt. That is a substantial contribution to the stability of agriculture.

Mr. Swart: To put it mildly, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed at the smugness of the minister, as though everything is fine in the farm community.

Does the minister not realize he is doing less than any other province in Canada for the farm community? Does he not realize that OFAAP is a failure? He said it was going to apply to 5,000 farmers. Even by his own figures there are just over 3,000 who have availed themselves of it.

The minister was going to spend $60 million in the first year. Now he has extended the program for two years with the same $60 million, and he will not even be spending that to help the farmers out. Does he not realize it is the young farmers who are being hurt -- that 80 per cent of those who are going under are farmers under 45 years of age? Does he not realize the effect this is going to have on the future of agriculture in this province?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Is it not reasonable that before the end of this session he should put a program in place so that the farmers are able to plant their crops this spring and save a few more of them from going under?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point in extending the farm assistance program through 1983.

Mr. Swart: With no more money.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would never suggest the honourable member would intentionally mislead the House, but he keeps saying it was $60 million in one year. It was $60 million to cover the life of the program, and he knows full well --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that every commitment that is given for an interest rate reduction or for a new line of credit is for one year from the date of the approval. In other words, an application approved on December 31, 1983, runs to December 31, 1984. So our potential liability is for a much longer period than one year, and nobody was misleading anybody at the time the program was introduced. It was never confined to one fiscal year, so he should please stop using phrases that are not correct.

We recognize there are problems, not just with young farmers but particularly for young farmers. That is why we are working on developing a new program for beginning farmers. But again I would point out I have been the minister for only one year. We recognize this is a priority, but everywhere I have gone in this province, meeting with federation representatives and with people in affiliated and related groups, they have recognized that the farm assistance program has done a job. We never pretended or claimed we could help everybody, but certainly we can help those who will come forward, make application and, working with our staff, develop a viable farm operation plan.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in dealing with the unjustified condemnation of our leader by the minister, is the minister aware that our leader delegates authority to his colleagues who know something about the portfolio? That is a little more than can be said for the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier knows a lot about corn.

Mr. Riddell: In dealing with the question, why is it that only 3,000 farmers out of the 85,000 who farm in this province actually received any assistance from OFAAP? Does it not tell the minister there is something wrong with OFAAP when either they are not eligible or they do not even apply for the program?

Is the minister also aware that many of the farmers do apply for the program but their applications never get off the banker's desk? They never get into the provincial committee in order for them to make a determination as to whether these farmers are eligible or not.

He is aware that even with OFAAP it is the high interest rates compounded with the low commodity prices that have the farmers in very serious trouble. They have only one recourse, and it is for the minister to come in with a low-interest-rate program. Why does he not do it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this on many occasions, and the honourable member knows very well the reasons for that. You only have to look at the facts, as I mentioned in answer to the question from his colleague the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock). Is he suggesting that Ontario should introduce a program of eight per cent loans on $4 billion to $5 billion of outstanding credit in the farm community? The government itself borrows at 13 per cent or 14 per cent. Is that a serious position of his party? If the member is serious, why is it that his own party in Ottawa has not produced the $500 million more for the Farm Credit Corp. that was promised, even though it put through legislation last spring?

When anyone on that side of the House, or anywhere in the province, has drawn to our attention problems where applications have been delayed at the bank, the credit union or trust company, we have put staff on it right away and tried to clear up those logjams. To date, we have only had about 100 applications turned down. The secret of that is that we work with each and every single applicant to be sure they end up putting forward a viable farm plan to the decision committee. We do not want to put people even further behind the eight-ball. We want to help them to develop viable plans.

We need the help of the members on the other side to get the federal government to come forward with a position. We have repeatedly said we are prepared to work with them and are prepared to pay our share in the development of a better national income stabilization program. Earlier this week, the federal minister said he has a better plan. If so, all well and good. We are not so precious over here to think that what we are trying to do is the only way. He may very well have a better plan; but, for goodness sake, let us see it.

WESTON TORONTO SANDBLASTING AND PAINTING LTD.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. It concerns the tragic circumstances of an accident at Weston Toronto Sandblasting and Painting Ltd. which occurred in July 1981, to a young man named Rob Longstaff, who was an apprentice at that company.

As a result of this accident, this young man suffered very serious and extensive burns to his body, and was in hospital for eight months. He is now making something of a recovery but the doctors feel he will be permanently disabled in that he suffered 60 per cent burns, most of which were third degree.

My concern has to do with the charges which followed this accident. Six charges were laid against the company and against the individual owner. At the same time Mr. Longstaff hired his own lawyer, whose name is Laura Bradbury, to take an action under section 72(3)(a) of the Provincial Offences Act and thereby possibly be able to gain restitution and compensation from the owner, in addition to any fines levelled against the owner as a result of whatever convictions might have followed.

Unfortunately and, indeed, tragically for Mr. Longstaff, the lawyer for the Ministry of Labour at the last minute dropped five of the charges against the company and all of the charges against the individual owner. As a result, Mr. Longstaff and his lawyer were not able to bring the charges under section 72(3)(a) of the Provincial Offences Act and, therefore, were not able to get the restitution and compensation.

As a result of this, Judge Yonge, who presided in a judgement on July 26, 1982, fined the company $1,000 on a conviction of the charge under section 75(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act industrial regulations.

The judge said he regretted in a sense that he could not hear the complaints of the lawyer for the plaintiff. I would ask the minister, can he please explain why in this instance the ministry's lawyer dropped all the charges against the individual owner, and five of the charges against the company? Does he not realize doing this had the effect of depriving the injured worker of the right to intervene on his own behalf in this situation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the tragic circumstances of the accident. I am not aware of the reasons that our legal branch dropped the charges. I will be prepared to find out. The member said that was in June 1982.

I am aware there has been concern expressed by the opposition, which is shared by myself, about the level of the fines that were being provided by the courts for a while. However, I notice there have been some appeals to higher courts of late and the level of fines for successful prosecutions has risen. We have also put this matter in the hands of the Attorney General's office to give us an opinion on increasing the level of fines in order to make the legislation more effective and to give the courts greater latitude in this respect.

I will be happy to look into the matter and find out why the legal branch dropped the charges and will report back to the member.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Rae: The minister will appreciate that neither Mr. Longstaff nor his lawyer were informed of meetings that took place between the lawyers for the Ministry of Labour and for the company. which resulted in a dropping of the charges. They did not have any opportunity to object to the strategy followed by the ministry's own lawyers in this case. I am sure the minister will appreciate the sense of real frustration and anger Mr. Longstaff feels as a result of the decisions that were taken by other people supposedly acting on his behalf.

Does the minister not feel the conclusion one would have to draw from the facts as I have described them in this case is that, whatever protestations he may make to the contrary, the ministry's own lawyers do not seem to be as determined as he says he is to see that justice is done in these cases? They do not seem so determined that employers who are guilty of negligence in these circumstances are fined, are brought to justice, and are treated in a very tough manner indeed. How can one draw any conclusion other than that the conviction the minister says he feels -- and we have no reason to question it -- is one that is not always in force and seen to be done in all circumstances in the courts?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I cannot comment on this circumstance. I will have to look into it and draw my own conclusions after I have had an opportunity to assess the information the member for York South has provided me with and the information my staff will provide me with. I realize I am repeating myself, but I do feel there has been a greater effort towards prosecutions that will serve as a deterrent to others as far as the enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act is concerned.

Mr. Rae: The other aspect of this case is Mr. Longstaff's rehabilitation. He has lost the opportunity, under the Provincial Offences Act, to get restitution and compensation directly from the company. He is also experiencing some difficulty with the Workers' Compensation Board. He has applied under subsection 45(7), which would allow him to apply to receive compensation for his disability as if he were a regular worker in that field although he was an apprentice. That section has been very rarely tried or heard. It is one in which the board does not have vast experience.

I simply want to indicate to the minister some concerns we have. First, he is being forced to go on to an appeal under an application under subsection 45(7). Second, Mr. Longstaff was informed this morning that his appeal would be heard next week, and his lawyer has not yet been informed officially by the board with respect to a decision.

I wonder if the minister could not intervene in this circumstance and try to clear it up with respect to this application under subsection 45(7), given the responsibility I believe the ministry has for Mr. Longstaff having lost his rights under the Provincial Offences Act. I hope very much the minister will intervene on Mr. Longstaff's behalf with respect to the application of subsection 45(7) under the Workers' Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: If the honourable member would be good enough to send me over the information he has I will certainly take that under consideration.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It concerns the question of property tax reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto and throughout the province. I noticed in several stories that he apparently had a meeting with some members of his own caucus about this matter, as a result of which several statements were made by members of that caucus as to what they thought the Premier's decision would probably be. Is the Premier prepared to make a public statement and a public commitment today that no general reassessment of property taxes will be imposed on the city of Toronto or any local municipality without the consent of city council or the local council?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I can go this far today in trying to explain to the honourable member the existing law -- which is quite simple. As I understand the legislation in this province, there is no law that would permit the second-tier level of government to impose assessment on all the participating municipalities. If the honourable member would like me to reaffirm that as being the law, I am certainly prepared to do so. I am also prepared to indicate that the government is not contemplating a change in the law.

Mr. T. P. Reid: At this time.

Mr. Rae: The Premier forgot to add the words "now" or "at this time," which would end up totally discombobulating the answer he has given.

The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) has been quoted -- and I have not heard a direct denial of this quotation -- that the province was considering giving the Metropolitan Toronto council and other regional councils the right to impose market value assessment on local councils. Is that true? Is that something the government of Ontario is considering now, in the near future or in the next four or five years?

Can the Premier tell us why the province is considering such a reassessment? We know the major impact of that reassessment on the city of Toronto is not a redistribution of wealth away from Toronto towards Scarborough. It simply means residential taxpayers will be paying more and commercial and industrial taxpayers will be paying less. It is a redistribution of wealth away from lower and middle income people towards wealthier people in Toronto. How can the Premier justify that kind of change?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to see the member for York South taking an interest in this matter. I wish he had a little more knowledge of the subject matter itself. I think he is working on a set of assumptions that are not accurate.

I do not pretend to know all the details relating to the city of Toronto except to know it is not a shift from residential to commercial. There are shifts within classes. I think the member knows how the assessment system works.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, he doesn't.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That may be part of the problem.

We are really talking about shifts within classes of property. While obviously there would be some shifts in terms of what people would be paying for residential taxes, it is also fair to state that a number of people would be paying less and some would be paying more. Please do not portray it as being a shift from the residential to the commercial. There would be a readjustment within the commercial and industrial class. Perhaps with a little study, the member would understand that.

I was not there when the minister made his statement, nor do I necessarily feel it was reported with total accuracy.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did he say that or not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: How am I to make that judgement? I was not there.

I have great respect for most journalists. They have a very tough job to do, writing everything down in shorthand if they do not have tape recorders. They have been known to make the odd error. I do not say it happens very often. The electronic media never make errors of course because they are reporting it as we speak. The only problem with the electronic media is that their editors sort of interfere with the free flow of information. I do not say that in any critical sense; it is just an observation.

To help the member for York South as much as I can, I will repeat what I said, which might negate a supplementary question. The government is not contemplating a change to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act that would give to the Metropolitan Toronto council the legal right to have Metro-wide reassessment imposed.

10:50 a.m.

May I give the member a little of the history, because it has been a fairly tough issue for government? There were some days when his predecessor three times removed was pushing the government to move more expeditiously in terms of real property tax reform. The Liberal Party was pressing us until the heat became more than it could tolerate in terms of real property tax reform.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), who interjected yesterday that we impose regional government, should look at his former leader's platform. He should look at the pamphlets of the leader of the Liberal Party of not many years ago when the Liberal Party really was a liberal party. It said: "Move with regional governments. Move with county school boards. Elect us, the Liberals, and there will be reform in Ontario." I just wanted to remind him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the Premier make a commitment not to introduce market value assessment in Toronto. I would like to ask him why his government is trying to introduce trial balloons and one disastrous plan after another. I am talking about Bill 127 and the minister's statement saying he will introduce --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You may ask a supplementary question, but you may not introduce a new subject.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am simply --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I accept entirely what you have just said, but I sat and listened to the Premier introduce an entirely new subject in this whole debate, namely regional government. What is fair for one has to be fair for the others.

Mr. Speaker: Had the member for Renfrew North been paying attention he would have noticed I stood up and called the Premier to order when he did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: I do not want to give any point of view to the member for Renfrew North, who is the spokesman for the leader of his party these days; however, if he does not understand that one cannot deal with a question of market value reassessment related to Metropolitan Toronto council and its right or lack of right to have that related to the city of Toronto without getting into a question of regional government, then he does not understand the system.

Ms. Copps: The Premier was not speaking on the point of order at all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Just a moment. I want to deal with some interjections made by the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) in her wisdom or perhaps lack thereof. The point of order was raised by the member for Parkdale when he strayed from the subject. I called him to order and the Premier responded.

Ms. Copps: The Premier was not responding to your point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not my point of order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to that point of order because obviously --

Mr. Speaker: There isn't one.

Mr. Peterson: I want to speak on a point of order --

Ms. Copps: You just spoke to an alleged point of order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand the issue is not whether he introduced Bill 127 or the Premier introduced regional government. The issue is the uneven hand with which you are running this House. The Premier stood up and mugged for the cameras and the gallery, all of which is fine and we tolerate it, but when my colleague mentioned --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Leader of the Opposition will please resume his seat.

Mr. Peterson: It is important that you understand the duties of the opposition in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition he is in no position to criticize or give me directions. The member for Parkdale.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are involved in one disastrous plan after another; let me --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was totally uncalled for.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, as the members know, there are hundreds of Toronto home owners with modest incomes who are watching their property values rise, and those property values have no relation whatsoever to the income of those people who live there. To tax these home owners in this way will force many of them out.

I want to know whether the Premier and his minister are planning to provide assistance to those people whom he will necessarily force out if this is implemented.

Mr. Speaker: The Premier.

Mr. Ruprecht: My second question --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that supplementary question. If the honourable member wants two questions, that is up to you, Mr. Speaker, because I think you know something about it.

I will point out a bit of the history to the member. This government is acting as a result of a request from the Metropolitan Toronto council, acting by way of response -- I think I am right in this -- to some of the boroughs. It is their decision as to whether they move ahead; it is not the government of Ontario's. I hope the member understands that and I hope the media understand that.

There has been no suggestion the government of Ontario is going to impose anything on anybody. That has not been the route we have travelled with section 86; we have done it with some success in some 300 to 400 municipalities. Metropolitan Toronto will not be an exception; they have to make the request.

The member should not try to put it on our doorstep or on our shoulders. He should talk to the Metropolitan Toronto council and the city of Toronto council. That is the law, that is the tradition and that is the way it is going to be handled. We are not contemplating any change to the Metropolitan Toronto Act. Surely the member, as knowledgeable as he is in matters of assessment, can understand that simplistic answer.

Mr. Rae: The hard fact is that the Minister of Revenue did say the province was considering making some changes which would give a majority of the boroughs the ability to impose a certain kind of assessment on the city of Toronto, against the will of the city of Toronto. That is the implication of what the Minister of Revenue said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am saying what the policy is.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Does the Premier not agree it is possible that a reassessment within classes for all of Metropolitan Toronto, as shown by the staff study that was done by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, will have that effect on the city of Toronto? Does he not agree it would increase the share paid by residential taxpayers and decrease the share paid by commercial and industrial taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not have all of the figures and so on, but I think the shift would be really marginal in total. I have lived through it in the great community of Brampton, in the region of Peel; we have been through it twice.

What the honourable member is talking about is a shift within classes. Let us be very honest with one another: there are some residential properties that are underassessed and there are some that are overassessed. We know the system needs some refining. His party has reminded us of this in many communities for years. To say this does not exist would be to hide our heads in the sand; it does exist.

I know what I am saying to the member disappoints him, because he thought he might prolong this debate. However, we are not contemplating a change to the Metropolitan Toronto Act. It may be, because I recognize the unique characteristics of Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr. Rae: Does that mean Bill 127 is being withdrawn too?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, Bill 127 --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am glad the member interjected that further supplementary. Bill 127, and make no bones about it -- he can talk to his friends in the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not really a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh. I thought it was a further supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not.

PORT COLBORNE QUARRIES LTD.

11 a.m.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and concerns the lengthy labour dispute between Port Colborne Quarries Ltd. and employees who are members of United Steelworkers of America, which has caused the complete shutdown of the company.

The company, which employs some 50 union members, has been shut down since December 1981. The shutdown is now entering its 14th month. The company has not bargained in good faith; the present labour dispute may well be considered a lockout by this American company and, in fact, may be considered in violation of the Foreign Investment Review Act.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable member that this is a troublesome and lengthy dispute. Our conciliation and mediation services have been actively involved, particularly in the month of December when several meetings were held. I must admit there have been no meetings since the end of the year simply because it was felt they would not be productive.

Mr. Ray Illing, our senior person, has been actively involved and is ready to go back there any time either party requests his presence and any time they feel the talks can be productive.

As for the member's reference to bargaining in good faith or bad faith, the union has recourse to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in that respect.

Mr. Haggerty: I understand there may be difficulties with the present new management, and there may well have been a violation of the Foreign Investment Review Act when it was taken over by an American firm, which purchased it from Power Corp. of Quebec. It has been a lengthy dispute.

All I ask of the minister is that he apply all his resources, in conjunction with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), to get this company back in production so that we can have some additional employment in the Niagara region, where unemployment now is hitting about 22 per cent. Anything in this area would be a great help.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I share those concerns, and I do believe everything that can be done has been done by our conciliation and mediation services. Despite that, we will make another move within the next few days to see what we can do.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, has the minister considered appointing Mr. Joyce to a disputes advisory board to look into this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is an alternative that has been looked at.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT MOVEMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General.

On January 4, the Alliance for Non-Violent Action wrote the Attorney General a letter complaining about harassment by the prosecuting attorney and by the police concerning the arrests around the peaceful demonstrations at Litton Systems Canada Ltd. To date there has been no reply.

On January 21, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked a question regarding his concerns of the government House leader (Mr. Wells) in the absence of the Attorney General, which was to be passed on to him. Again there has been no reply in the House on that matter.

On Wednesday afternoon and again on Thursday night, the member for Riverdale and I raised with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), in his concurrences, our concerns about this being a fishing expedition by the police, the question of the impropriety of the crown involved and the strange suspension of civil rights for these demonstrators.

The Solicitor General decided to respond to the very controversial notion of having a memorial Sunday for firemen, rather than touching any of the more controversial issues such as those involving the police.

Can the minister tell us today whether there is any evidentiary connection between the Direct Action bombing and the organizations and individuals in the Ontario peace organizations who have had material taken from them and warrants brought against them in the past number of months?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall this letter, but I will certainly inquire about it.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must caution our visitors in the gallery that they are not allowed to participate in any way in any form of demonstration. I further caution them that if there is another display or demonstration, I will have to ask them to leave.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I gather there are a number of these matters that are currently before the courts. Obviously the courts are the appropriate forum in the first instance to debate any of these issues.

I remind the member for Scarborough West that the Attorney General does not administer the Metropolitan Toronto police. If there are any allegations against that force, there are existing mechanisms in which they can be pursued. The complaints bureau in the first instance and, I am sure, the independent public complaints commissioner, Mr. Linden, will entertain any specific complaints.

In so far as there are any specific complaints against any crown attorneys, I will respond to any specific allegations.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Attorney General must be aware of the integrity of the peace movement in western Europe, especially the growth of that as a popular, nonpartisan movement. He must understand the damage that is being done, the dislinkage between Direct Action's deplorable violent action at Litton and the peaceful demonstrations by people in the peace movement here, especially at a time when this country's role as a US subsidiary for testing weapons of death and our potential annihilation looks like it is about to grow.

Is there not a need for the minister to acknowledge in this House that there is a distinction between the nonpartisan and broadly based peace movement, and the goals they have, and Direct Action? Direct Action is not before the courts at the moment; it is these peaceful demonstrators. They are being linked in the public mind to what has been done by Direct Action. Surely we have to make those distinctions clearly so these people can fight this much larger battle that needs to be fought in terms of our future security and that of our children.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I must admit I just do not know what that supplementary question was. I do not think it was a question. It was a statement, and I have no reason to debate the statement at this time.

RAILWAY CAR INDUSTRY

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade regarding National Steel Car in Hamilton.

In view of the announcement some weeks ago by the government of Canada that it was considering the establishment of facilities in Winnipeg for the construction of railway cars, and in view of the fact that the employees of National Steel Car in east Hamilton -- a stone's throw from my riding -- many of whom live in my riding, have been on layoff for some time because of lack of orders, what has the minister done to persuade the federal government to abandon such a foolish idea and, instead, to place such orders with National Steel Car, which is ready and able to take them on, to give employment to workers in Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has spoken to me a number of times, as have other members, about the matter. There is no doubt we have protested the action of Canadian National Railways to build 970 coal cars, which would be very big in contract terms, at their Winnipeg facilities, which would necessitate the creation of a new facility or a rebuilt facility in Winnipeg to see that accomplished. All of us resent the fact that public funds might be dedicated to this kind of building program for these 970 cars when there are idle facilities in Hamilton and other centres in Canada that could very well do that project.

I have had personal meetings with the president of Canadian National Railways on the matter as well as with the Minister of Industry, Commerce and Tourism of Quebec, Roderigue Biron. We have talked on it because there is an interest in Quebec as well; there is a facility there. Both of us have lodged a protest about it with Mr. Lumley.

I think it is fair to say it appears a solution is at hand, and it is a solution that is likely to resolve the interests of the various communities involved. I rather think there will be a reasonably happy resolution of the problem, based on the objections and protestations that have been made, not just by myself but by others as well. The union has had an opportunity to meet with the minister involved with the case in Ottawa.

Frankly, there would appear to be a reasonably good solution in process. I am quite optimistic there will be a number of those cars built here in Ontario.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Dean: Does the minister have any more definite indication of the timing on this and the extent of the relief that will be available?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think there will be some kind of contractual arrangement that will result in something for National Steel Car in Hamilton. I do not know the details. I have not had any of that information shared with me. I rather think there will be some announcement in the not too distant future relating to it. I suspect that by this time next week, maybe even sooner, we will have some clear indication of the answer.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, considering that this government brought us the Urban Transportation Development Corp., which potentially displaced 1,000 workers in Thunder Bay,I find the minister's remarks on private and public involvement the height of hypocrisy. Bearing that in mind, I want to know whether the minister has met personally with Jean-Luc Pepin and whether the situation will be resolved by this time next week.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have not met personally with Jean-Luc Pepin, the minister, but I have talked directly with Mr. Lumley and met personally with the president of the Canadian National Railways on the matter.

With respect to the honourable member's preamble, unrelated to the question, 92 per cent of UTDC's work is contracted out, as I understand it. That makes it a company fairly oriented to private enterprise.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows the specific question raised by his backbencher was raised a week and a half or two weeks ago in this House. The question of the order for 1,240 hopper cars was also raised. That is going to be issued in late May, as we understand it now. One of the other things the union has been after is to get this order stepped tip so that even Hamilton's share of that, which nominally would be 40 per cent,could mean another 500 jobs on stream almost immediately for at least a three- to four-month period in Hamilton. Has the minister looked into expediting that order, as we requested?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member will hear something on that very shortly.

SPARTON OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question to the Minister of Industry and Trade regarding the questions put to him some time ago about the Sparton plant in London. It relates to the site selection service provided by his ministry.

When his officials were approached by Sparton of Canada Ltd. of London in May 1982 to assist them in locating what was to be an additional production facility to the existing operation in London, was he not concerned that the employment at the existing plant had decreased to less than half the level it was the year previously?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, of course there was a concern about that; the matter was addressed in correspondence. If I may have a moment or two to review a couple of paragraphs of that correspondence, I think that will answer the question adequately. It was a response I provided to Mr. Flynn, the president of Local 27 of United Auto Workers, saying that when the matters were raised with us, there might be some concern.

One has to appreciate there is a site selection committee and that the site selection division of my ministry merely provides an inventory of facilities that are available for any plant to any interested party in the province. The request came forward to that division, which responded and provided the information. This is not unlike the information that might be provided a local real estate company or some entrepreneur. The information was given out.

We did, however, check out the matter with the people in the company in Michigan. A Mr. David W. Hockenbrocht, the president of Sparton Corp. in Jackson, Michigan, stated in very emphatic terms that Sparton Corp. has no intention of closing the London operation. In fact, he foresees an increase in the activities of the London plant because of the Campbellford operation. There is a new product to be assembled at Campbellford, and when the new product is assembled at Campbellford, engineering and testing will be carried out at London. The other assemblies at London will continue to be carried out there. This will also contribute to increased employment when the markets improve or the contracts are regained.

There is substantial reason to believe that our officials checked out carefully with the Sparton people initially what the situation would be and received assurances at that time. When a challenge was put to it in the fall, our officials went back to the senior people in the parent company and again received the indications I have just now revealed.

I can never guarantee that what we hear is 100 per cent accurate, the honourable member has to appreciate that, but on the basis of the information our people acted honestly in providing the information. As I say, it was nothing more than handing over a list of the available facilities -- vacant buildings -- in the province. Because they needed a vacant building with certain specifications, certain aspects of sterility and certain aspects of newness, they chose one that happened to be located in Campbellford.

That is the sum total of it. There is nothing more to the story and there is nothing that is devious in the whole process at all, so I think it behooves those who are raising the issue to realize they are treading on very dangerous ground.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister says the company assured him and his officials that some testing and engineering of the product, which will be manufactured at the new Campbellford plant, will be done in London and will thereby effect a recall of some of those laid-off employees. Was he given any indication of how soon this spillover effect of the new production process would be felt at the London operation? In other words, when can we expect to see those indirect effects providing a positive impact on employment in the London operation?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am sorry, I do not have that information but I will go back to my people and see whether they have it there. If they do not have that information, we will make inquiries directly to the company.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 219, An Act to amend the Family Law Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to close two serious loopholes in the Family Law Reform Act which have been brought to light by recent legal decisions affecting the sharing of nonfamily assets -- the Leatherdale case -- and matrimonial home rights -- the Stoimenov case.

The bill provides that in assessing a claim for a share of nonfamily assets, the courts have clear authority to take a spouse's assumption of household and child care responsibilities into account in making an award under section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act. That section deals with a spouse's contribution to nonfamily assets held by the other spouse.

The bill also clarifies the authority of the courts to set aside a transaction that encumbers or otherwise affects the matrimonial home in certain situations. In this respect, it amends subsection 42(3) and subclause 45(1)(f)(ii) of the act to make it clear that a purchaser or mortgagee of real property cannot rely on the vendor's or mortgagor's affidavit that the property is not a matrimonial home if the purchaser or mortgagee has other information on the subject that would lead a reasonable person to investigate further.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: May we have permission to revert to petitions?

Agreed to.

PETITION

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present to the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario a petition signed by 639 people in the area of Etobicoke and Mississauga. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that the honourable member seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as is the case with most of these concurrences, we start out with the preamble that we are not about to rehash the estimates of the ministry, but there are a couple of items I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. They relate in a very parochial way to my part of the province, that being the Niagara Peninsula and specifically the city of St. Catharines.

Mr. Conway: The member is not going to talk about the gallery?

Mr. Bradley: I will not talk about the McMichael Canadian Collection because it is no longer the responsibility of this minister, who was likely pleased to relinquish it at the time he did. Knowing the minister has a special interest in a couple of other items of parochial interest to those of us in the Niagara Peninsula, I will dwell briefly on those.

It is my understanding from recent reports that there is to be a very attractive facility in the Niagara Peninsula in the form of a tourist booth at the Garden City Skyway so that travellers to our part of the province, particularly those from the United States, will be welcomed and will have the opportunity to obtain as much information as possible about our part of the province.

In addition, and as an aside to the minister, let me say that for years I have attempted to encourage the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to erect a 50-foot-high sign at the border crossing points, indicating to our American friends that the left lane is for passing only and that the right lane is for travelling at 52 miles per hour, if I may use the old-fashioned method that the federal Tory caucus seem to feel is the best method to pursue.

There are few things more annoying than travelling along the Queen Elizabeth Way with two American cars, one in the right lane doing 52 miles per hour and one in the left lane doing 55 miles per hour, while I am trying to get here in time for question period so I can direct a scintillating question to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) or someone else on the government benches.

I suggest the minister review this matter with the Minister of Transportation and Communications, if he will. We want to welcome our American friends, and we like to see them visit our country, but we do wish they would learn that the left lane is for passing and not for holding up those who have pressing business, particularly in this community.

I also want very quickly to give my congratulations to those who are volunteers. Through the Wintario grants that are dispensed, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation recognizes there are a number of people who are volunteering their services in minor hockey, minor baseball, soccer and a variety of other sports. I am pleased that from time to time the government, through either this ministry or the Ministry of Culture and Citizenship, when it used to be the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, provides some recognition to people of that kind.

I brought to the attention of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) a Mr. Nelson Laframboise, a man who has worked for many years in the field of minor baseball. The minister has the opportunity through this ministry to recognize these people. I commend his ministry on that. Certainly I am supportive of his efforts and I encourage him to increase those efforts to recognize the volunteers in our society who save so much of the taxpayers' dollar by volunteering their time, effort and energy, in many cases taking money out of their own pockets to ensure we have these kinds of activities and recreation available to young people.

I also want to deal very quickly with a matter of great interest to those of us in the Niagara Peninsula. I directed a question to the minister back in the fall session concerning this matter, and I was very pleased with his reply. I am referring, of course, to the suggestion, proposal or plans to move the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta from the world-famous Henley rowing course in St. Catharines to the city of Montreal.

I want to commend the minister for his answer at that time, in which he indicated to me he was prepared to use his good offices to ensure the Henley was located in St. Catharines for many years to come. I recognize it is not the minister's decision to make, but I did implore him at that time to use his considerable influence to suggest it should be retained in St. Catharines. I was pleased with his answer at that time, and I will look forward to an updated report from him on his efforts.

In addition, I suggested that while I did not see this as primary at this time, he should give some consideration, if it were to be necessary, to some additional assistance from the government of Ontario to ensure that the Henley was not moved to Montreal for monetary reasons. I did not ask the minister for a specific monetary commitment, but at the time he did indicate he was willing to consider it as one of the possibilities.

I need not dwell on the importance of the Royal Canadian Henley; I think everybody recognizes that. The news media, electronic or written, have done a number of stories on the Royal Canadian Henley, and I have yet to find one that would indicate we would enhance this regatta by moving it to Montreal. So I will be looking for an updated report from the minister in that regard.

As I say, I promised at the beginning not to go into any great detail during these concurrences since we have a number of areas to cover and I am sure there are other speakers who want to indicate some areas of concern that they have.

Another item I want to bring to the minister's attention, and I have directed a letter to him in this regard, deals with associations of festivals. I believe a Canadian Association of Festival Events is in existence at present and has been, I think, for some four years. Their meetings are attended by various people from the various festivals. For instance, in Welland, the Rose City, they have the Rose Festival. They have a great festival in Welland. They have a Peach Festival in Niagara Falls. I know that in St. Catharines and district we have the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival, which draws more than 100,000 people just for the main grand parade, and there are other activities during the week.

There are people such as Al Hannahson, a former alderman for St. Catharines who served with me for a number of years, who are interested in having an Ontario association of festival events so they can have workshops where they can exchange ideas.

it is amazing the new ideas and the new thrusts that can come from these meetings. They are not simply a boondoggle where people get together and have a great time. They are working meetings where they want to exchange ideas and determine what works. My friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), who sits beside me, would understand because Oktoberfest is a matter of great concern to the people of Kitchener. It is necessary for them to exchange these views to update their information on what is working and what is not working in festivals.

I encourage the minister to provide some funding and some logistic assistance other than funding to those who wish to establish an Ontario association of festival events.

I think this minister recognizes, as do all members of the House, the importance of these events not only for holstering the pride that a particular community has but also most certainly for attracting tourist dollars to the various communities and, therefore, revenues to the government of Ontario if we want to get financial about it. I implore the minister to give that suggestion favourable consideration.

11:30 a.m.

I could go on to a number of different areas. I know my friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), who is the Liberal critic in the field of Tourism and Recreation, could spend considerable time on these concurrences, but he did dwell for some time during the estimates on a number of items and had some good exchanges with the minister in that regard.

We must recognize the purpose of the concurrences is not to rehash the estimates but to bring up a couple of new items and ask the minister to respond. In a parochial way, I have done that this morning. I know we cannot speak twice and I am wondering if there is anything I have missed. If there is anything, I will be sure to mention it to one of my colleagues on this side and I am sure it will be raised with the minister. I look forward to his comments on the matters I have raised in the House this morning.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on at great length. We had an opportunity in the standing committee on resources development in November to do a good job in reviewing the activities in the brief life of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. We did not have sufficient time to go into the recreation aspect or the sporting aspect of the activities of this ministry and there did not seem to be any problems. There still do not seem to be any problems in that part of the operation.

We were preoccupied more particularly with the tourism aspect of the responsibilities of this ministry but, in reading something of more recent vintage, I notice the minister has made a statement that, "The time has come for the Ontario government to develop and articulate a formal statement of policy in regard to sports." To that end, the minister says, "While guidelines exist for specific government programs, an overall policy framework has never been created and a task force has now been set up to bring in a new system involving everybody dealing with all aspects of sport to give some sense of direction and some focus on an overall sports policy for Ontario."

Knowing of the initiatives taken by this minister and his assistant deputy minister, Mr. Secord, I can readily understand why he would want to put a much sharper focus on this ministry's responsibilities for sports and I applaud him for that. I notice some of the people who have been seconded to the task force are people who have all the credentials to come in with what I hope will be recommendations that will provide that focus.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada Winter Games are due to get under way next week in Chicoutimi and Jonquiere. You will also know that Ontario will be represented there with a good contingent of people who are involved in the sports that will be participated in. If the success of our athletes at those games is manifested as it was at the Commonwealth Games, I am sure that will indicate the degree to which they are able to compete nationally and internationally.

I welcome this initiative by the minister to put a sharper focus on it. I know in these days of austerity and constraint, money is not easy to come by, but it may be the vehicle whereby we can spring more funds for the development of the athletic prowess of all athletes in Ontario.

More important, we can make an assessment of the dollars we are dedicating to that area of activity now and perhaps find a way of getting better value for the dollars we are spending. I think that is very positive. Along with the minister, I look forward to seeing copies of the recommendations of that task force. It is something that has been needed for a long time.

In that statement, the minister also made reference to a cost-share study of Exhibition Place in Toronto. I am not too familiar with everything that goes on there. If this ministry can assist the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto in making Exhibition Place more relevant, that too is an initiative I applaud.

Last night, I asked my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) to explain to me what takes place at Exhibition Place. My understanding was it was just the Canadian National Exhibition. I know it has been in some financial difficulty in recent years. I asked him what he thought of what was taking place at that Fred Flintstone kind of exhibition at Maple or Georgetown -- I am not sure which -- northwest of Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Canada's Wonderland.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He tells me Exhibition Place does not need to feel threatened by what is going on at Canada's Wonderland. If there is an opportunity to provide something at Exhibition Place that will enhance the overall economy of Toronto, and if it attracts people here in ever-increasing numbers to add to the tourism dollars in the province's capital, it is worth while pursuing.

11:40 a.m.

I want to spend a few minutes on something I did discuss during the estimates, but I want to put it in a bit sharper focus because a good many events have taken place since the estimates, one of them being the annual meeting of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association in Thunder Bay.

We get The Tourist Outfitter on a regular basis, in which NOTOA explains the things that bug the association or concern it at any given time, and the minister and certainly all northern members of this assembly will know it has been preoccupied for a number of years with the parks policy of the Ontario government, the overall strategic land use planning for Ontario and how any future direction --

Interjection.

Mr. Stokes: I am going to get to that. They are preoccupied with how initiatives taken primarily by other ministries will have a very profound and lasting effect on the viability and the future of the tourism industry.

My colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) is much more familiar with an organization which is an adjunct or a sort of subcommittee of NOTOA: the Northwestern Ontario Tourism Association. I notice my colleague attends their annual meeting and even writes to them on occasion. I will not bore members of the House with the communications he has had.

In this little bulletin they put out, they mention the report on the northern Ontario tourist outfitters convention that was held in Thunder Bay from November 22 to 26, and they mention that three Ontario government ministers attended. One was the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), another was the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the third was the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz).

They mention in passing, "The only minister we were allowed to question was the Honourable Leo Bernier, the Minister of Northern Affairs." I am wondering whether that was just by coincidence or whether visiting ministers such as this minister are tongue-tied in any way when they come to northern Ontario.

I am not sure it is wise to have just the Minister of Northern Affairs speak from the ivory tower for everybody, because that brings me to the very interjection the minister made a few moments ago, the fishing agreement that was signed by his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs just before Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Minister of Natural Resources signed that agreement, not the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Stokes: I am sorry. Did I say that? No, the Minister of Natural Resources signed it with the chiefs, who speak for our first citizens in Ontario, and took the document to Ottawa. Ottawa had some reservations about its possibly being unconstitutional in the form in which it existed. It is my understanding there are some negotiations going on now to refine that document to meet any objections that were raised by the Honourable John Munro, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Honourable Pierre De Bané, who is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I think it is fair to say, if one can believe what one hears from the Minister of Natural Resources and what one hears emanating out of Ottawa, that once they refine that document it will, in fact, be signed. That gets me to the process. I think everybody would agree the process left a lot to be desired.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I think that is a fair understatement.

Mr. Stokes: One wonders. I have some knowledge of cabinet meetings that were held, certainly of subcommittees of cabinet, where there was a fairly open and frank discussion of what the Minister of Natural Resources was attempting to do to put a damper on what was a very serious confrontation between a good many Indian bands across the province and the Ministry of Natural Resources in its responsibility for the enforcement of our fishing laws in Ontario.

I find it inconceivable, unbelievable and incredible that over a period of eight months the Minister of Natural Resources could have engaged in consultation, in dialogue, in planning and in drafting an agreement without the knowledge of the Minister of Northern Affairs.

While I do not attribute any statement to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation -- I have not heard any public pronouncements from him either -- it seems to me if the Minister of Natural Resources is doing something to put in place some kind of an agreement that will regularize a practice we have condoned for many years, for decades -- that is, the treaty and aboriginal rights of our first citizens -- to set down some kind of policy whereby we take care of serious situations before they get to the courts and before violence erupts, particularly in areas like Moraviantown in southwestern Ontario, and in northwestern Ontario in the Treaty 3 area, it was obvious to anybody who was close to the scene that the Minister of Natural Resources had to do something.

11:50 a.m.

If one looks at the agreement and the intent of the agreement, not only does it recognize the right of our first citizens to fish for food, but to the extent that it is possible -- in very selective areas of the province it would be possible -- it is intended to enhance the economic chances of our first citizens without unduly encroaching upon the traditional sharing of the fishery resource

I agree with what the minister was attempting to do. My reading of the agreement is that all he was trying to do was formalize the existing practice. In addition to that, for the first time it involved native peoples in conservation of the resource, so that in the areas where they do have the right to fish there would not be excessive exploitation but it would be managed in essentially the same way we manage the fisheries resources in any other part of the province.

The minister will know that we have about 250,000 lakes in Ontario. Not all of them are viable fisheries, but a good many of them are. We have not seen it, but we are told by the Minister of Natural Resources that this agreement will essentially cover 40 or 50 lakes throughout the province and these are lakes where native people traditionally harvest that resource, primarily as a source of food for themselves.

I am sure there are a few areas, and I think most of them are north of the 50th parallel, where they will have the right to harvest fish commercially, areas where they have traditionally done that. They will have not only the right to use the resource in that way, but if this agreement is ever signed, they will have for the first time the responsibility for managing that resource and enforcing the existing game and fish laws through 20 conservation officers, who will be paid for by the federal government, trained by our own conservation officers in Ontario.

What is wrong with that? I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. True, we do not know the specific areas. We are assured by the minister he is only regularizing what is the present practice. Yet we get these letters from a variety of people calling it reverse apartheid, racism. We get journalists associated with this gallery saying it is becoming increasingly more difficult every day to be a white man in this province.

Members will know that in recent days a letter was sent to the Premier (Mr. Davis) from the five chiefs who signed the agreement on behalf of our first citizens, trying to put into perspective what the agreement means in terms of managing the resource, in terms that might accrue from the management of that resource and regularizing the sharing that has been going on in an informal way for far too long. I am not saying the sharing has been going on, but the informality of it and the uncertainty of it have been going on for far too long.

If the government is serious about coming to grips with that very serious problem and putting this agreement into effect for a period of five years, as the agreement calls for, until such time as it may be possible to enshrine in some document as an adjunct to our Constitution, what is wrong with that?

I doubt that the Minister of Northern Affairs will get up and intervene in this debate; I invite him to do so if he has anything to say. I think he has a responsibility, not only as the Minister of Northern Affairs, but as a member representing a northern Ontario riding where a goodly number of those lakes will be located, to impress upon his colleague -- if he wants to defuse this whole debate and give some kind of focus and rationality to this debate -- and persuade his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources to tell us where this agreement is likely to apply.

That is not an insurmountable problem. We are talking about only 40 or 50 lakes. If there is going to be a zoning on those 40 or 50 lakes where they traditionally have had first call on the resource, our first citizens will continue to have first call. There now is going to be some sharing -- I know there is going to be in the case of Big Trout Lake, for instance, which is a very productive lake trout area where the native people for generations have felt the primary call on those resource was theirs almost exclusively.

That exclusive access is not going to be the case, I am told, when this new agreement is signed. It is going to be a headland-to-headland thing where, because of the size and irregular shape of Big Trout Lake, they are not going to have first call on all of the fishery resources on Big Trout Lake. There is going to have to be a sharing with others, non-native people. The chief of the Big Trout Lake band is not very happy.

There is a case where, after this agreement is signed and if it is signed in its present form, the native people will have less under this agreement than traditionally what they thought they had. One does not hear that in the Toronto media, one does not hear that from the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. One does not hear that from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

12 noon

There is a story to be told, but people on this side of the House, like the member for Rainy River, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and myself -- maybe even like the Minister of Northern Affairs -- are not in a position to comment. Until we know those areas where the agreement is likely to apply, we are not well enough informed to be able to answer all the speculation and the hysteria that surrounds this fishing agreement.

I want to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to join me in prevailing upon their colleague the Minister of Natural Resources to put it out on the table. We should join in saying to him, "These are the areas where we hope this agreement will apply." There is nothing in the document to indicate that now. The Minister of Natural Resources has admitted the process left a lot to be desired. He has assured municipal representatives, tourist operators, anglers and hunters, and anybody else who is interested, that he will set up a committee once the agreement is formalized with Ottawa and becomes a tripartite agreement.

He knows now, in general terms, where the agreement will apply, but he had better share it with us so that, when this implementation committee sits, it will be able to iron out any difficulties with all interested parties. Strangely enough, in all the dialogue that has gone on since the signing late in December, the people who have tried their darnedest to defuse the issue and shed some light about how they expect the agreement will affect our fisheries in Ontario have been the native people.

The two ministers in the House will know of the letter -- I do not expect the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) knows much about fishing --

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Try me.

Mr. Stokes: All right then, if he knows that much about it --

Mr. Foulds: We will ask him next week. He asked for it.

Mr. Stokes: I want everybody over there, even the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), to prevail upon the Minister of Natural Resources to say these are the 40 to 50 lakes we are talking about; and before any final decision is taken, the legitimate concerns of everybody -- whether it is the chamber of commerce, the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters -- will now be a part of the process.

I could spend the next couple of hours talking about all the misconceptions and how people are trying to blow this thing out of all proportion, but I think the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Northern Affairs in particular have a responsibility to assist the young Minister of Natural Resources.

Interjection.

Mr. Stokes: That was a play on words. I mentioned the member for St. George. If there is anybody who knows about fishing, it should be that member.

Mr. T. P. Reid: She sounded like a fish out of water on the radio.

Mr. Bradley: I liked her fishing on Bill 127. She was good on 127.

Mr. Foulds: I think it was totally unconscious.

Mr. Nixon: Go ahead. Let's have some more of this good stuff.

Interjections.

Mr. Stokes: I wonder why there has been this confrontation. Let us not fool ourselves: there has been a confrontation on this overall fishing agreement between the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources. There need not have been because the agreement itself, as I understand it, is entirely defensible. It is a great idea.

There is an absence of concrete information to allay the fears of so many people out there who are saying the agreement gives carte blanche to native people to go out and dynamite any lake in Ontario with complete impunity. If we do not come up with something that will put a lie to those things, people have a right to believe them. They think they have a right to believe what they hear or what they read in the paper.

What the Minister of Natural Resources is trying to do is conserve one of the most important components of the tourist industry throughout the province. It does not matter whether it is Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe, any of the Great Lakes or whether it is in northern Ontario. If fishing is removed as a component of the tourist plan in Ontario, the minister is not going to enjoy the kind of statistics we spoke of during his estimates last fall, where the tourist industry has actually held its own over the last couple of years. Some of the occupancy rates have been down in a few areas, but I was surprised and pleased that our tourist industry has been able to hold its own, notwithstanding the general recession.

The Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation will know that fishing is an extremely important part of tourism throughout the province. The Minister of Natural Resources, along with his moose policy, his crown land camping policy and his licensing policies -- all of those, one would hope -- has designed an approach to look after the legitimate needs of everybody in Ontario. If there are ministries that should be more concerned about what the Minister of Natural Resources is attempting to do, it should be the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

I do not understand the reluctance of those two ministers to remove themselves from the whole dialogue. We all agree the only way to preserve a renewable resource is to manage it wisely, to husband it, to make sure there are sufficient safeguards in place and to make sure there is sufficient enforcement to allow our managers to manage that resource. This agreement is making our first citizens a part of that whole process. I think these two ministers have a responsibility to stand up and be counted on an issue as important as that.

12:10 p.m.

I am not going to read all the things that have been said by the various groups. We all know them. I have attempted to speak out in order to explain what I think are the implications of this agreement, but there should be specific details. I do not mean crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's, but at least the areas should be identified, the 40 or 50 lakes where the agreement will apply. Then it should be stated how it will be applied and the zoning that is required to take care of the legitimate needs of traditional users.

That is something that will be determined in the consultative process of this implementation committee the Minister of Natural Resources speaks of. We should have the right to know in general terms where it is going to apply, and then rely on these groups who are going to be a part of the implementation process to come up with the best deal possible.

I hope in the next three or four months, after we get the signatures of those two ministers from Ottawa, that process will get back on the rails. I hope we will have in place, for the first time ever in any jurisdiction in Canada, something that will allow us to manage our fishery resources -- the sharing of those resources and the conserving of those resources that we all hope for. I think the Minister of Northern Affairs must get involved and I hope the Minister of Tourism and Recreation will get involved too.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on the concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Some of my comments may be repetitious, because I had the opportunity to bring the matters up in the ministry's estimates.

However, my first comment is one of thanks to the minister -- as I have said before, I do not hesitate to express appreciation when something is done for my community. I thank him for finally having the Kentucky Fried Chicken sign at the end of the Detroit-Windsor tunnel changed so that when one enters Canada, one sees, instead, a sign which reads, "Yours to Discover, Windsor, Ontario and Canada."

It is a nice sign. I would have appreciated if "Windsor" had been emphasized a little more, but we will accept it as it is. We hope the tourists crossing through the tunnel connecting the two great countries on this continent at least will know that they are entering -- and it will be the first time for a lot of them -- a real part of North America that is Canada and Ontario.

As I did in estimates, at this time I would like to bring to the attention of the minister two extremely important celebrations which take place in the city of Windsor. One is the Freedom Festival celebrated by Canada and the US in honour of our national holiday on July 1 and that of the United States on July 4. Our two countries do get together, and we do share various events on the Detroit side as we do on the Windsor side. One of the nice things about it is they are directly opposite from one another along the riverfront, On the American side it is held on parkland directly across from the park in the city of Windsor.

We have what we consider the biggest international celebration anyplace in the world. It is the Freedom Festival, which will be incorporating in the near future, if not this year, the multicultural festival. At that event the many nationalities that compose the Canadian mosaic will have an opportunity to celebrate not necessarily solely with their own, but also with their own from the American side intermingled with the many peoples who come into the area.

As I mentioned to the minister in the discussion of his estimates, within one day's drive of the two great cities, Detroit and Windsor, live approximately 50 million people. I expressed to him how important it was to attract some of those many people who live south of Canada as well as north of Canada. One should know that Windsor, by its location, is the biggest city in Canada south of the United States and Detroit is the biggest city in the United States north of Canada. That comment might sound strange but on the map southwestern Ontario projects into the heartland of the United States -- as an arrow into the centre of the country.

I hope the minister realizes this is an extremely important event. Any assistance his government can give by way of funding, by way of expertise, by way of publicity through the various media into the United States, will be helpful. We will appreciate anything that will appeal to our friends to the north, west or south of us to come into the city of Windsor to get a taste of it -- and then come into Ontario and see the rest of this great, free nation.

Another event that takes place in the community is Emancipation Day, and in my estimation it should receive a little more attention from the government. The slaves, during the Civil War in the United States, had an opportunity to escape through Windsor and come into Canada and find a completely new and better lifestyle. The minister will notice that in the county of Essex we do have several historical sites that could appeal to the large numbers who live north of us, and in the United States.

I would humbly ask the minister to look into that festival to see if he could not provide them with some expertise, some assistance, so that it could continue in the same way it did years ago. That great festival has sort of fallen off in recent years as a result, probably, of lack of expertise in operating it.

12:20 p.m.

Another topic I would like to raise with the minister is that the city of Windsor, county of Essex, hopes in the not too distant future to have a franchise in the Canadian Football League. A task force has been set up to determine the feasibility of having a team in the area. They are looking into all types of statistics to see if the catchment area for fans of the great sport of football warrants the construction of a stadium.

This is all going on without any government assistance, to the best of my knowledge. If the minister is approached by the group, I hope through his ministry he will do everything he can to assist it in developing that franchise in the Windsor area. We could cater not only to the hundreds of thousands who live in the county area but also could appeal to a lot of ex-Canadians who live in Detroit and the surrounding municipalities. Hundreds of thousands of former Canadians live in Michigan -- if not in the state, within several hours' drive of the Windsor area. I believe they would be more than pleased to see Canadian football played as a professional sport once again in the great city of Windsor and in the county of Essex.

I also wish to comment on the river front in the Windsor area. At present there happen to be railroad sidings along the river front extending from the Hiram Walker distillery to downtown Windsor. The federal government plans to eliminate those railroad tracks eventually, and I hope that when and if this happens -- and I believe it is to take place in the not too distant future -- land will be set aside for the development of a multicultural park. In such a park, each of the various ethnic communities in the Windsor area could lease a given area of the waterfront along the Detroit River so they can build remembrances of their native lands. They could also fix up the area to hold their own celebrations -- such as flag raisings on their own national days -- in one central location.

Instead of being scattered throughout the whole community they could build ethnic parks, one next to the other, stretching for the mile and a half or two miles of the waterfront. It would be right in the downtown area and in an area that would be readily accessible to anyone who wished to partake in any ceremonies or celebrations that would take place along the river front on the national days of the various ethnic groups.

The other topic I was going to ask of the minister deals with boxing. I hope the minister has finally reached some decision as far as tightening up the rules and regulations of amateur boxing is concerned. We should not look upon boxing as a game whose sole purpose is to knock an individual senseless, physically and even mentally incapacitating him for the balance of his life; yet this could be a result with boxing regulations as they are now.

We should be extremely stringent when it comes to amateur boxing. We should not punish amateur boxers and render them public charges for the rest of their lives simply because they had their brains battered to the point where they are almost vegetables. Personally, I would prefer to see the sport banned completely; however, I am not one to tell another individual who wants to partake in the sport, either as an amateur or a professional, that he cannot have his brains knocked out if he wants to. A few episodes have taken place in the United States recently that should be a warning to us to look at the rules of the sport and decide whether we will even allow the activity or call it a sport. It is really a business now and not a sport.

Those are the comments I wish to make. I hope the minister will cover some of those topics in his reply. We in the Windsor area would like to know that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is concerned about the southwestern part of the province and is doing everything he possibly can to encourage and promote multiculturalism and develop tourism to appeal to the 50 million Americans who live within an eight-hour drive of Windsor. Once they get a sample of the hospitality in Windsor and Essex county, they will want to find out what the rest of the province is like and more than likely in future travels will come in greater numbers to Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: I want to make four points quickly and leave the minister enough time to respond to the comments of the other members.

First, I want to associate myself entirely with the remarks made by my colleague, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), about the fishing agreement. I think there has been far too much hysteria generated in the media in southern Ontario. It is about time we recognized in principle that the native people of this province had a right to resources that are larger in size than a postage stamp. It is courageous of the member for Lake Nipigon to express it as directly and movingly as he has.

It is also the responsibility of this minister to reassure the people in the tourist industry that their livelihood is not going to be threatened by the signing of this agreement. Any misconceptions to that effect are without foundation to the best of my knowledge, and to the minister's, I would assume. There is some legitimate concern, but I would suggest that is minimal. It simply arises because of some of the secrecy surrounding the development of the agreement.

I want to emphasize strongly that the position put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon is one that I wholeheartedly endorse, not only as an individual northern member but also as deputy leader of this party.

12:30 p.m.

There is a second point I want to make. I want to commend the minister and his ministry on two things. Last night, I was talking about the arts, which was previously the other half of his ministry and in which I have some direct interest and experience. Since my own children got into sports such as swimming, I have been impressed by this ministry's programs for developing coaching and leadership in the recreation and athletic fields. I think that branch is doing a first-class job, often in difficult circumstances. If I may say so, the politics of sporting activities and athletic groups are as bad as the politics of arts groups, which are much worse than the politics of politics.

I think the staff in the recreation section of this ministry is doing a first-class job. In my view, the programs that have been developed are the kinds of programs we want in Ontario based on community development and input. For example, in the sport of swimming, in which my two boys are involved, it is one of the ways we have developed some world-class athletes. It is not just by emphasizing the world-class athlete in that competition, but by emphasizing community development that one actually develops that recognition of the sport and the expertise. I want to pay tribute to that.

Third, I want to pay tribute to the programs that have been developed, if I may be parochial for 30 seconds, at Old Fort William. I do not mind admitting I was one of the doubters about Old Fort William way back in the late 1960s when the idea was first being promoted. I think the key to the success of Old Fort William is not only the authenticity of the reconstruction but also the programs developed at that attraction. Even though tourism is down throughout Ontario because of the worldwide economic situation and the high cost of gasoline, the fact that Old Fort William has withstood that to the extent it has is a tribute to the program.

Finally, I would like to know from the minister what is happening and whether the ministry is still involved, as I would hope, with the preservation of the Wendell Beckwith cabin on Best Island at Whitewater Lake. It is of continuing concern to me and I know --

Mr. Nixon: We have been wondering about that too.

Mr. Foulds: I am sure my friend has been. It is an issue the minister and I have had correspondence on in the past. I hope the ministry has taken a position, along with the Ministry of Natural Resources, that because of its unique nature, albeit it may be in a Rube Goldberg way in some respects, it should be preserved. It is instructive as to why in the 20th century a man would go to the wilderness to seek solitude and the hermit-like life he did. I would like to see that preserved.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the concurrence for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I want to speak principally on the area of tourism for a few moments.

There are a couple of items I wish to deal with. One has to do with a tourism facility in the eastern part of the province, an area the minister represents, and an area I also share representing parts of eastern Ontario. This facility is located in the constituency of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I am referring to Upper Canada Village, which we all know is a very beautiful facility and a lovely tourist attraction.

I have been to Upper Canada Village many times -- maybe because the minister kindly gave me a pass to get in there free with my family -- nevertheless, every time we go there, it is a new experience. The children and adults really enjoy it. I am sure many people would travel quite a few miles to go back again and again to Upper Canada Village, because it is such a lovely place.

There is just one small area that might be improved. When I was there one day last summer, I was circulating through the parking lot and noticed that approximately one out of every four cars had Quebec licence plates. Of course, that is very good, since we are trying to attract out-of-province tourists and the park is only about 30 or 40 miles from the city of Montreal. There are enough people in Montreal to keep facilities of that size going, even if no one comes from anywhere else. I think it is very important for us in eastern Ontario to capitalize on tourists from Montreal.

Although there are some signs that are bilingual at Upper Canada Village, there are not many. One or two of the little folders are bilingual; the staff generally is not. I recognize the minister perhaps has difficulty in finding a full complement of bilingual staff, but a few of them, especially at the entrance and at places where people seek information, would go a long way towards making the Quebec visitors to that facility a little bit more welcome.

On a few occasions I acted as an interpreter for some of the French-speaking tourists -- I do not really know whether they were from Quebec; maybe there were Franco-Ontarians from my riding as well -- and some of the people working at Upper Canada Village. In a private discussion with the minister earlier, he did state he was striving to improve that, and I encourage him to continue in that area because I think the facility could be made much more viable if he increased that component.

One area I have difficulty with -- and it is not really under the ministry, but it has an impact on the ministry -- is the whole business of highway signage in this province. Recognizing that we want to keep Ontario beautiful and all those other nice things, I have a little difficulty figuring out why a highway sign on Highway 401 has to be 1,100 feet from the white line. That is a bit much, as far as I am concerned. The signs are so far away they cannot be read, and I think that has an adverse impact on the tourism industry.

I recognize there may be differing opinions on that between the minister and his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). I just want the record to show that I am with the minister on that one. I think those signs are too restrictive. I do not think we want signs such as they have in South Carolina on Interstate 95. stating "Pedroland two miles," "Pedroland one and three quarter miles" and so on, until at the end there is one about every 300 feet as one approaches Pedroland, or whatever the place is called. Perhaps we could have regulations for the highway that restrict billboards to one every mile, or one every half mile, but at least the billboards could be used for the tourism industry.

Another difficulty I have is with gas station signs, again on Highway 401. The signs on Highway 401 are okay. Actually they are just great. That is not the problem. I am talking about the signs at interchanges. Unless one is driving on the same side of the highway, one cannot see the gas bars, because usually the overpasses tend to hide them. To use the Quebec example or the American example, they have erected signs that are far higher, mounted on a steel pole. One must be cautious not to have nine or 10 of them side by side, but perhaps permission could be given for one at each interchange to assist tourists to find places where they can get gasoline, accommodation and so forth. I do think improvements are needed there.

12:40 p.m.

The reason that is so important in my view is that the present laws tend to discriminate against rural areas. If you travel from Toronto to Montreal -- or to use an eastern Ontario example to which both the minister and I can better relate, from Ottawa to Montreal on Highway 417 -- the odds are you will not stop anywhere because there is nothing to stop for, and whatever is there is so hard to find because of the highway signing policy of the government that one tends to forget about stopping in St. Isidore de Prescott or any other place and keeps on going to Montreal.

One sign was erected recently on Highway 417 near Casselman, but because it is 1,100 feet from the road, the sign would have to be about 60 feet long and 20 feet high to be seen and read from a car. Any sign smaller than that cannot be read at all.

The policy, in my view, is unfair to rural areas. I certainly hope the minister succeeds in persuading his colleague to ease up somewhat on the restriction, but not so much as to pollute our environment with billboards the way they have in some areas of the United States. I hope the government recognizes there must be a happy medium between the almost total ban on signs that we now have and the proliferation of signs that we see in some other areas.

I was very pleased last fall about the ministry's winter advertising blitz on television and radio. it was quite colourful and dealt very well with the skiing and other things that there are to do in Ontario in the winter. I thought it was just great. I do not know which advertising company put the whole thing together, or who authored it, but I thought it was very catchy and appealing. I encourage the ministry to do that not only for the winter season but also for summer attractions in the special way in which it was done in that last round which appeared some time before Christmas. I thought that form of advertising was quite good.

Last Christmas, like some others -- not all of us, as the Prime Minister says, but some of us -- I took a holiday. I spent a week down south in Orlando, Florida. While there, I listened to an open-line show. In response to an invitation for calls from those who had never called before, I phoned in and spoke for some time with Morton Downey Jr., the announcer. We talked for a little while, and several people subsequently phoned in to ask to speak again to that Canadian who had spoken previously.

I was invited to telephone him and to be his guest on his show the following night, to which I agreed. We had an interesting conversation about Canada, and I invited Americans to come and visit our country and our province.

I wanted to bring a little gift to the radio announcer and happened to have with me the calendar that was sent to all MPPs before Christmas. What I was trying to explain to this fellow was that despite what so many Americans think, there is something else in Canada besides polar bears and mountains and that we do have nice things to see.

In my hotel room, I leafed through page after page of that calendar and decided that was exactly what I should not give him. I think nine of the 12 pictures were scenes of places such as Upper Canada Village, Black Creek Pioneer Village and so on. I wanted to show him a picture of the CN Tower, our Legislative Building or scenes such as that, which would perhaps be more modern and attractive to the American type of thinking, and I must say I was unable to do so with that calendar.

Perhaps the minister should have another series of calendars depicting other things. If that is the only one he has or is going to have in the future, I hope he will have a better mix of the photographs in there, because it confirmed the stereotype of the province that those Americans had. I thought it was a very difficult situation, and I just wanted to bring that to the minister's attention.

To tell the truth, I had looked at the calendar many times before leaving home and I had thought it was quite a good-looking calendar with excellent photographs. Only when I went to give it to somebody from another country to show him how nice our province and country are did I suddenly realize, "Gee, I cannot give him this thing." There is something missing from it. The scenes were nice, but maybe there were just too many of them in relation to other kinds of photographs that should have been there.

I have only one more point I want to discuss, and that is the Hawkesbury travel information centre at the intersection of John Street and the bridge crossing into Quebec. I want to make an appeal to the minister, if he can just pay attention for a moment, because this is very important to the community of Hawkesbury.

I hope the minister will find some place in his heart to keep that tourist office open for one more season. Even if he wants to close it at the end of this season, I will reluctantly accept that. But with the very difficult economic situation we have, we need all the help we can get; we need the jobs that are there and the jobs that come in because of tourism in the town of Hawkesbury.

If the minister can find some way to keep it open for this winter, even if he announces today or next week that he is opening it for this year only, then we will know and we will prepare other things for next year. Again I appeal to the minister to keep that travel office open. The people of the town of Hawkesbury would be most appreciative if he found some method of doing that.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I just have one question I want to ask the minister to consider, but it is a very important question concerning the problem of providing access for handicapped people to recreational buildings and recreational affairs. I think this comes under his jurisdiction, although I have some difficulty sorting out where the allocation of Wintario grants for this kind of service and for culture is divided between him and the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey).

The government's original program under Wintario provided 100 per cent grants for ramps and other facilities to help handicapped people get into public buildings. Then in 1981 they cut it down to 75 per cent and in 1982 to one third. This seems to indicate the government does not put as high a priority now on providing access for handicapped people in spite of the fact that we have now extended the Human Rights Code to handicapped people.

I want to ask the minister whether he would consider raising the allocation to provide access for handicapped people to recreational facilities and to make sure they do not put a cap on the funds, as appears to have happened this year. I understand that while one can get one third, the funds have run out by now and people have to wait until the next fiscal year to get any money.

I think we should have this program reviewed if we really mean that we do provide access to recreational facilities for the handicapped.

12:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, I shall not comment specifically on the many excellent observations made. I will certainly pass on to my staff the many commendations members made about my ministry. I have made notes of the other comments and proposals. I shall be in touch with individual speakers on those and write to them.

In response to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the more I look at this question of the Henley moving, the more convinced I am that it should not move. We will certainly keep in touch with them.

I want to make a public statement to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that I concur with many of the observations they made about the fishing agreement. I will be in touch with them. I want to assure them and the House that we will be actively participating in the negotiations and in the development of the specific arrangements that will be made in terms of which lake is zoned for what and so on.

Beyond that, in the interest of time, I want to thank the members opposite for their comments. We hope to see the member for Lake Nipigon in Chicoutimi at the Canada Games.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a few items to raise with the minister. In the very few moments we have, I am going to hit a theme on the shop-Canadian program, which was initiated by his ministry prior to his taking over. The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has on many occasions raised examples of how we are not adhering to a buy-Canadian program when we should be.

A matter of specific importance I want to bring to the minister's attention is that of a circumstance that has arisen at Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology in St. Catharines and Welland where a major contentious issue has arisen because Niagara College has chosen to buy from an American manufacturer 100 per cent of the machinery required to train welders.

According to an individual who called me from a rival Canadian company, this company, which is located in Toronto, has the material which can be provided to the college, but the college has decided not to purchase Canadian. It is a matter I will be raising with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) next week.

What has happened is that the college, for its own reasons, has decided the product it is purchasing directly from the United States, and therefore causing employment opportunities in the United States rather than in Canada, is one that is most suited to its purpose. One reason they use is that they already have that product and therefore will continue to buy it. The second reason is that industry in the area uses the American machinery.

This individual, from the Lincoln Electric Co., informs me that such is not the case. He appealed to Niagara College about their decision to accept the tender from the United States. I understand he was very competitive in his tendering, but they ignored his appeal at that time and purchased 60 new machines from the United States. This, he says, was done even though they had never seen his equipment. They still bought 60 more machines from that company. They now have 130 machines for the teaching of welding, all of them purchased from the United States.

He asked them to come up to evaluate his product. Initially they did not. When they finally did come, they recognized his product was a good one and one that should be considered for purchase. Lincoln Electric Co., according to its spokesman, sells more equipment in the Niagara Peninsula than anyone else. It sells to General Motors, E. S. Fox Ltd., Foster Wheeler Ltd., Port Weller Dry Docks and so on. The company also puts more money into education than any other company of its kind. It sells books and teaching aids at cost to those who want to teach welding. It has hired Niagara College and other community college students upon their graduation. Finally, at long last, it has received some consideration it wanted and that was on Wednesday or Thursday of this week when Niagara College looked at its equipment.

In the last four times during which equipment was purchased, it was not considered as one of the companies that could supply. The owner tells me they filled out Canadian content forms but found these were not considered to be important. The content in his product is 70 to 95 per cent Canadian. He says his parent company, which is an American company, is now asking, "Why should we expand in Canada and in Ontario when we are not getting co-operation from community colleges to purchase our equipment?"

I know we are not in a situation where we can demand that everybody buy Canadian-made equipment. Certainly private industry has a right to purchase what it wants. But when the federal and provincial governments combined are providing $1.5 million of additional funds for the purchase of equipment for this training program, then companies such as Lincoln Electric have a right to expect that they are going to be allowed to bid in a fair way for the contracts.

As I say, I will be raising this matter with the Minister of Colleges and Universities on Monday or Tuesday of next week, whenever I can during question period. I hope the minister will use his considerable influence -- because I know he is interested in promoting Canadian industry -- to encourage places such as community colleges to purchase Canadian where we have a good product, a competitively priced product and, in that case, a product that is suited to the school and ultimately to the industry. I simply urge that.

I know there are only a couple of minutes left, so I will just state quickly my other concerns, which the minister knows about.

On Inter-city Manufacturing Ltd., I hope he will continue to work to summon the people to Toronto -- perhaps it is going through the motions -- and explore all possibilities for keeping this plant open.

I also ask that he think about the situation with the steel being used on Highway 406. I understand they are still within his requirements; that is what the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has suggested. I think we have to be pretty vigilant at this time, because probably a lot of contractors purchased this steel offshore at one time when they could not get it here.

I know it is a complicated system, and I do not pretend the steel purchasing system is not complicated at specific times. I ask the minister to look into that and always to keep in mind, as I know he will, the health of the automotive industry which is so important to the city of St. Catharines.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we certainly will pursue the three points raised. I was unaware of the specifics on Niagara College but I am glad to have that information, and certainly the other two points will be pursued with gusto. I would urge concurrence in the resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kolyn): Excuse me. I neglected to ask whether there was any other honourable member who wished to participate in this debate.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, there is, Mr. Speaker, but I will forgo the opportunity.

Resolution concurred in.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this leaves us one concurrence in supply, that being for the Ministry of Health. We will call that as the first order of business on Monday and follow it with several pieces of legislation: Bill 177, and four municipal bills, Bills 146, 190, 192 and 195. That leaves us with two others on the Order Paper that we intend to call: Bill 138 and Bill 127.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

11 février 1983