Journal des débats 1985-juil-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming Brigadier the Honourable Max Frederick Willis, former Leader of the Opposition and still a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Willis, who is seated in the Speaker's gallery.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I wish to report to the House concerning the Ministry of Labour's actions in the light of recent developments at White Farm Manufacturing Canada Ltd. in Brantford. In the past few months, this company has again encountered serious financial difficulties which have culminated in receivership and the sale of certain of the company's assets to Massey-Ferguson. It now appears that approximately 600 employees will be affected by this closure.

The failure of White Farm is a tragic blow for the workers affected and also for the community of Brantford. The contraction of the agricultural implement industry has delivered a series of shocks to the economy of Brantford in the past few years. The magnitude of the economic crisis which has beset the work force and the community of Brantford warrants special government action.

I wish to advise honourable members that the following special employment adjustment initiatives are in progress or will soon be undertaken in the Brantford area.

First, the government will make up to $75,000 available through the Ontario help centres program, which funds local labour organizations and other community groups to provide employment counselling and job search activities across Ontario. The Brantford Unemployment Service Centre, which has been operating in the community for some time, would be eligible to receive funding under the new help centres program.

The decision to extend funding in the Brantford area is consistent with our government's commitments enunciated by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) earlier this spring. In the coming days, my officials will be in contact with their federal counterparts and I am hopeful the federal authorities will contribute to the funding of this initiative.

Second, Ontario is prepared to participate with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in the establishment of an industrial adjustment program for the workers of White Farm. This program is intended to identify employment opportunities and to provide a referral service for workers displaced by an industrial closure. I understand federal officials have been in contact with the company regarding the establishment of the adjustment program.

The third thrust of our effort will be to help the employees of White Farm prepare for new employment opportunities through the ministry's employee assistance program. This program, offered through local community colleges, involves vocational counselling, together with advice on available benefits and training programs. The ministry will be contacting officials of the union immediately to institute the program.

The federal government has recently announced the development of a community futures program as part of its overall employee adjustment strategy. The available information indicates that this program is designed to assist single-industry communities of fewer than 50,000 people affected by a plant closure. Regardless of any limiting guideline, I intend to press for the extension of the program to Brantford. Ministers of Labour will be meeting in Calgary on Monday of next week. At that time, I will be personally urging my federal counterpart to consider a community futures program for the community of Brantford.

Obviously, if the workers are to take advantage of new employment opportunities, effective retraining programs must be made available. The government has made a commitment to provide necessary funding to evaluate training needs in the community and to develop the appropriate training programs. Consultation with interested parties and the local community colleges will begin immediately.

The measures I have announced today demonstrate the government's commitment to assist the people of Brantford. I believe these measures will alleviate some of the hardships experienced by the workers of White Farm Ltd. and will prepare the community of Brantford for future growth and renewal.

HOUSING MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said earlier this week in response to questions raised by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I want to present a summary report on the conference in Calgary attended by ministers responsible for housing from across Canada.

I was very impressed with the strong spirit of co-operation and understanding demonstrated by the participants. I was most appreciative of the warm reception offered to me as the most junior minister attending. Most important, the conference provided an excellent opportunity to obtain first-hand information about the challenges facing us in the housing field.

It is very clear that each province has its own unique problems and must search for its own unique solutions. Still, the opportunity to work together to reach those solutions is invaluable. Federal and provincial co-operation in the housing field is, as the members know, an ongoing process. Just as this conference built on the achievements of last year's conference held in Ottawa, the next conference will build on the achievements of this one.

I admit this is a fairly lengthy report, but because my colleague opposite expressed such interest in the Calgary conference, I want to be sure I provide him with all the information I can.

The discussions covered four very broad topics: market housing, mortgage rate protection, mortgage-backed securities and social housing.

1. Market housing: A report prepared by the senior housing officials of British Columbia set out suggested principles to guide relations between governments and the private sector. The purpose of these principles is to provide an indication of government commitment to stable long-term policies to provide a more stable investment environment for the housing sector. Following the tabling of the report, it was agreed that the housing industry across Canada would be consulted before final approval of the recommendations. One of my responsibilities is to make certain that all interested groups in Ontario are consulted on these recommendations during the next few months.

2. The mortgage rate protection program: This federal program was launched in 1984 to provide long-term security for home buyers faced with uncertain interest rates. It is interesting that only 100 people have taken advantage of the program since its introduction.

My ministry, along with other provincial ministries, has urged changes to make the program more helpful to the public; that is, the reduction of premiums from 1.5 per cent to one per cent, increasing the maximum allowable mortgage in the program from $70,000 to $100,000 and extending coverage to existing mortgages. The federal minister, Mr. McKnight, agreed to incorporate changes in the program once the details have been worked out with all the provincial housing ministries.

10:10 a.m.

3. Mortgage-backed securities: As another initiative to enhance long-term mortgage financing, the federal government proposes to provide a pool of funds to provide 10-year term mortgages with a secure guarantee of payment for investors. The securities will be sold to investors by financial institutions. Ontario and other provinces supported this plan, and Mr. McKnight said that appropriate legislation will be introduced this fall.

4. Social housing: All the provinces joined Mr. McKnight in co-signing individual memoranda of understanding to recommend to their governments the approval of a new global agreement on social housing. Each province will enter into bilateral discussions with the federal government with the intention of signing the global agreement no later than September 15, 1985.

The intent of the proposed agreement is to provide better and more cost-efficient methods of delivering social housing in each province. Based upon principles agreed on by all the provinces, it would result in better targeting of social housing to low-income groups, optional provincial delivery of all jointly funded social housing programs and simplified administration and controls.

The majority of the provinces were ready to execute the agreement, but the federal minister felt there was a need for further development of program design and cost-sharing agreements before signing it. Meanwhile, I will have the opportunity to study the features of the new agreement and to make the appropriate recommendations to my colleagues in cabinet.

In addition to the four major areas of discussion, I took particular interest in a report that my ministry submitted which detailed ways to reduce expenditures and increase revenues in the social housing field. I strongly approved the recommendations that included simplified reporting procedures, improved management of certain social housing programs and numerous cost-efficient measures.

Following the submission of the report, there was considerable discussion among the provincial ministers on changing the rent scales for social housing, rent scales that currently range from 16.6 per cent to 25 per cent of gross income.

This completes my summary of the discussions in Calgary. I found the conference to be highly educational, not only in the discussion of the business of the agenda but also for the opportunity to become acquainted with ministers and housing officials from across Canada. The experience only confirmed my awareness of the major challenges and responsibilities that face all of us concerned with providing housing for all Canadians.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am pleased to inform the honourable members about the government's plan to improve the provision of services to the elderly.

As minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, I am undertaking a review of the programs and services for seniors which are available in Ontario.

A special focus of this review will be an examination of the programs and services offered by the Ministries of Health and Community and Social Services. Our objective is to determine ways and means to rationalize responsibilities for funding, delivery and management of services to seniors.

Our overall goal is to create a system of care which will meet the individual needs of seniors everywhere. We intend to develop a sensitive and efficient system which will deliver services effectively, taking into account the full financial implications. Through this approach, we will be responding to the needs of the increasing number of seniors in our society.

I intend to review the outstanding issues which have been identified by the senior citizen organizations and professional groups involved, and I will develop proposals and recommendations which will address these principal concerns, including the following topics: the quality of life in our institutions; the funding of different levels of care; expansion of community support services; the roles of the public and private sectors in the provision of services; an assessment and placement system for the elderly, and the development of a continuum of care, from community supports to institutional care.

As my first step in this project, I have begun a series of consultation meetings with representatives of senior citizen organizations and with professionals and provider groups throughout the province. The aim of this consultation process is to provide a full airing and an opportunity for broad input from those involved.

My discussions with the representatives of organizations and informal meetings with people across Ontario will contribute substantially to the formulation of proposals and recommendations I plan to bring forward at the earliest possible time.

A critical part of our review will also address issues such as pension reform, income support measures, housing options and transportation alternatives. This will be done in close consultation with my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), and the Ministers of Housing (Mr. Curling) and Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton).

I look forward to the support and counsel of the members of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens as well as other senior citizen organizations and experts in the field of ageing.

ONTARIO PLACE RIDE

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Recently I had a preview of the new wilderness adventure ride at Ontario Place, and I must report it is quite spectacular.

It gives me great pleasure to announce the ride opens later today and to invite the members of this House and the general public to experience its excitement.

It features a series of authentically detailed, lifelike animated scenes depicting turn-of-the-century northern Ontario.

This innovative ride is part of the $10.8 million revitalization of the west island, which has already seen the opening of the new water stage.

The west entrance, restaurants and other facilities have already been renovated and expanded. With these improvements, the new water stage and the wilderness adventure ride, Ontario Place enhances its standing as a world-class entertainment complex.

It is anticipated the west island's new attractions and general improvements will increase Ontario Place's net revenues by approximately $2 million per year. This will allow a reduction in the level of government subsidies required.

The revitalization has had significant direct and indirect economic benefits. Construction provided an estimated 400 person-years of employment, generating $12 million in employment income and $10 million in goods and services purchased in Ontario. Approximately $1 million was generated in income and sales taxes.

Ninety-three per cent of the expertise, labour and materials that went into building the ride, including the life-like animated scenes depicting turn-of-the-century northern Ontario, was provided by Canadians. The remaining seven per cent includes the design and construction of the boats in California and some engineering expertise which I understand is not presently available in Canada.

I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to experience the beauty and excitement of the wilderness adventure ride, the new west island and, indeed, all of Ontario Place.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: I rise today to address this House on the matter of the governance of French-language schools and classes. As honourable members are aware, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on this matter over one year ago.

Je tiens à préciser que notre gouvernement a pris des engagements fermes en faveur de la gestion des écoles de langue française par des conseillers scolaires élus par la minorité de langue française. Nous avons l'intention de respecter les droits conférés par la charte canadienne des droits et libertés à la minorité de langue française et de respecter l'esprit de la décision rendue par la cour d'appel de l'Ontario en juin 1984 sur la prestation des services enseignants en langue française.

On June 18, 1985, Bill 28 was introduced by the former Minister of Education, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). It provided for the governance of French-language schools and classes by elected French-speaking trustees, representing those who qualify for minority-language educational rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These additional trustees would have exclusive authority to make decisions pertaining to the provision of minority-language instruction and facilities within their jurisdiction. This legislation would also apply to English-language schools and classes in a minority position.

10:20 a.m.

However, in the light of the results of recent consultations, it appears the provisions of Bill 28 are not the most acceptable way of recognizing the right of the Franco-Ontarian population to administer and manage its own schools. The implementation of Bill 28 would produce complex regional and local difficulties about which the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) made some comment last evening. The bill does not fully satisfy many of the concerns raised by various associations, by school boards and by francophones across this province. Bill 28, as it was introduced, would have fundamentally altered the structure and character of many school boards in this province.

As well, Bill 28 would be implemented in the context of another initiative, Bill 30, which provides for the extension of funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools. Bill 30 also provides for the en bloc transfer of French-language secondary schools to the Roman Catholic school boards and affects trustee representation on boards of education.

Therefore, to bring about the desired result and to achieve effective implementation, the matter of French governance requires further consideration and consultation. Since Bill 28 has numerous technical difficulties and does not meet the legitimate needs of the francophone population, the government has decided it cannot proceed with this legislation at this time.

I want to make it clear that this government is committed to compliance with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. We will proceed as quickly as reasonably possible. I am therefore announcing today that after consultation with boards and interested groups, this government will introduce new French-language governance legislation at the next session of this Legislature in the fall of 1985.

This new legislation will be based on principles to be established through a process of genuine consultation. We are confident this new bill will provide solutions to governance of French-language education that will be more sensitive to regional diversity and more responsive to local situations. We believe that consultative process will permit the exploration of all possible models of French-language governance. I trust the people of Ontario, and especially the francophones of this province, will understand the situation in which we find ourselves.

Let me summarize the position of the government. We will comply with the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal of June 1984 on the provision of French-language education. We are committed to the principles of French-language governance of education. We will introduce new legislation to provide for the governance of French-language education by francophones of this province. The new legislation will recognize the entitlements of the provincial linguistic minority. We will ensure solutions are provided that will respond to local needs. Those are our objectives, and we as a new government will meet them.

Avec la collaboration des membres de l'Assemblée et des citoyens de cette province, nous veillerons à la satisfaction des besoins d'enseignement de la population de langue française.

ANNUAL REPORT, PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to lay before the assembly the annual report of the public complaints commissioner for 1984. This report will be the last submitted under the old pilot project legislation, which was replaced in December 1984 by a new, revised statute that places the office of the public complaints commissioner on a permanent footing.

The report is a very strong tribute to the present commissioner, Sidney B. Linden, QC, and all his staff. Great strides have been made in recent years in bringing a greater amount of fairness into the process. Equally important, the process has come to be perceived as a more open and fairer one. For this, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, as well as the commissioner, deserve a great deal of public appreciation and support. The system is not yet perfect; however, with the goodwill that exists between the commissioner's office and the police, and with the continuing trust of the public, this important experiment can and will become an even greater credit to our province.

I would like to use this occasion to express my regret, which I know I share with previous Attorneys General, at the decision of the current public complaints commissioner, Mr. Linden, to resign from his position. This decision, which was conveyed to the previous government in May, brings to a close this particular chapter in Mr. Linden's very distinguished record of public service.

Much of the credit for the great success the office has had to date must go to his wisdom, tact, ideas and perseverance. Working with two chiefs of police, Jack Ackroyd and Jack Marks, who were able to take a forward-looking posture in this sensitive area, Mr. Linden has created one of the most important institutions in metropolitan government in the province.

I draw to members' attention that Mr. Linden is present in the gallery today. I know all members of the assembly will join me in regretting very much his decision to leave, but I am confident the office he has placed on such a firm footing will stand as a permanent tribute to his period of great public service.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later this morning I will be introducing a bill entitled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I do so to meet our long-standing commitment to give the citizens of Ontario greater access to the conduct of their affairs.

It should be noted that for decades in this province we have discussed the concepts of freedom of information and protection of individual privacy, but no significant action has been taken. Indeed, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) observed in his statement of July 2, six years have elapsed since the previous government first promised such legislation.

At each and every turn, difficulties have been posed and action has been forestalled. As G. K. Chesterton once said in a different context, "It is not that the idea has been tried and found wanting; it is that the idea has been found difficult and left untried."

Let there be no doubt that, notwithstanding the difficulties the concepts of freedom of information and the protection of individual privacy may pose, they are fundamental principles for this government. it is thus with a sense of historical moment that we today honour our commitment to our fellow citizens to move ahead with legislation as expeditiously as possible by introducing this bill. We do not now and never will accept the proposition that the business of the public is none of the public's business.

The legislation I will be introducing is based on the model bill introduced in this assembly in 1983 by our former colleague James Breithaupt, QC, now the distinguished chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. All of us here are in his debt for the dedication, knowledge and skill he brought to these complex issues. I draw attention to the fact that Mr. Breithaupt is present today in the gallery to observe the completion of his work.

The Breithaupt bill was, in turn, largely founded on the recommendation of a commission chaired by Dr. Carlton Williams, a distinguished Canadian educator and president of the University of Western Ontario at that time. Over two years that commission gave detailed, thorough and scholarly consideration to the issues presented by legislation such as this. It goes without saying that our task would be much more difficult without the firm and sound foundation laid by Dr. Williams and his fellow commissioners.

10:30 a.m.

The freedom-of-information portion of this legislation is based on three principles: (1) government information should be more readily available to the public; (2) the necessary exceptions to access to government information should be limited and specific; and (3) decisions by ministers and government officials on what information will be disclosed should be reviewed by an independent commissioner accountable only to the assembly.

The goal of the privacy aspect of the legislation is to strengthen protections for the personal information in government files and data banks and to give individuals access to personal information relating to them.

The enactment of legislation such as the proposed bill requires not only a commitment to principle but also an act of political will. Indeed, a former Conservative member of parliament, Gerald Baldwin, a proponent of legislation of this type, noted in an article in the Globe and Mail in 1982 a direct relationship to the previous government's support for freedom of information and its change in status from minority to majority. He wrote:

"There were some provinces where the leadership had in public been most deferential to the idea of freedom of information. Ontario had established a first-rate royal commission which, after sitting for some time, produced several excellent reports. When the Tories were in a minority position, they appeared to accept the views contained in these reports and in fact started the introduction of legislation. Then came an election, a majority government, and open government started to fade into the distance."

I also am aware and draw attention to the fact that two of my colleagues opposite, the members for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), have in previous administrations had responsibility for the important issues that are represented in this bill. I hope and trust both will be enthusiastic proponents of the principles this bill advances.

As this is a new government committed to reform and change, it may be easier for us to move on this issue than for those long entrenched in power. We propose today to seize the opportunity to act now. We have the commitment; we have the political will.

I recognize that over time every government, every established public agency may become less sensitive to public needs in respect of information. I also recognize and have no doubt that at some point in the future information may be made public under this new bill that could embarrass or harm the political fortunes of the government of the day. We recognize that possibility; however, it is a fact of life and a natural consequence of an open, consultative government. It will achieve the greater good of parliamentary democracy, open administration and thus the good of society as a whole. That potential risk, that potential cost, can and must be borne in the interest of freedom.

When there is true openness in government, we will have a society that is trustful of its government, not fearful of it. We will have a society that is enlightened by information and able to make thoughtful choices as to the future shape of our society.

Let me repeat what our former colleague from Kitchener said when speaking on his own bill: "We in Ontario cherish the traditions of our own society. If we are to ensure the preservation and vitality of those traditions, we need reasonable, fair legislation dealing with freedom of information and the protection of privacy. Those among us who believe the welfare of the community comes before the welfare of its government will support this bill."

I am confident there will be many detailed arguments in the days ahead as our legislation is debated. People in good faith may disagree on how best to strike the appropriate balance in specific cases. In keeping with this government's commitment to consultation, I hope there will be broad and open public discourse on those issues.

Specifically, there may be debate regarding mechanisms provided for in the bill and respecting public agencies to be brought under its authority. There may be concerns about the scope of the exclusions related to cabinet and law enforcement, which lie so close to the central institutions of representative government and the maintenance of public order.

In particular, we are anxious to hear the views of members of the Legislature and the public and those whose special responsibilities in the law enforcement area are particularly affected by the proposed legislation.

What we seek in the end is an act that will strengthen the foundation upon which our free democratic government is based. The bill is a good one. We intend to listen carefully to every reasonable suggestion to make it better.

In conclusion, I draw to members' attention the opening words of the Williams commission report:

"The modern totalitarian state relies on secrecy for the regime but high surveillance and disclosure for all other groups. The democratic society relies on publicity as a control over government and on privacy as a shield for group and individual life."

As I said in opening, the idea of freedom of information and protection of privacy has not been found tried and wanting; until now it has been found difficult and left untried. There are many who would encourage us to postpone, to prevaricate, to study, to put off decision-making to another day. We echo the exasperation of Robert F. Kennedy confronting a similar issue and similar considerations when he said: "If not me, who? If not now, when?"

With respect to the great democratic principles this bill espouses, we echo the same cry and proudly assert that this government will act now.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member for Carleton-Grenville and I were referred to in the statement by the minister. We never received a copy of his statement or a copy of the bill. Is this part of the freedom of information package?

ORAL QUESTIONS

FORMER GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENTS

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a copy of the Toronto Star of two or three days ago, which poses a question for the Premier; it says, "Hospital Grants Not Guaranteed, Peterson Warns." I want to ask the Premier a question about the $43 million in hospital grants that seem to remain in jeopardy. On Wednesday, as quoted in that article, the Premier said, "Who knows on what basis they were allocated?" Does he now know?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is the one who allocated them. Maybe he should tell us.

Mr. F. S. Miller: The Premier does not now know. That is the point we are making. He is making threats to the hospitals of this province, and after several days he does not now know. What are our members going to say to their hospitals when they go home on the weekend? What are his members going to say when they talk about it?

Does the Premier know, for example, our statement of June 17 spelled it out? Does he know the Ontario Hospital Association has expressed its appreciation to this government of ours, not to his, about that important increase in their operating spending? He should listen to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), because he appears to know. I should have posed the question to him.

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I find this new advocacy of the member's very strange. He is the one who bragged about closing hospitals. If he had not been mugged by his colleague, he would have closed Doctors Hospital. It is a good thing he was stopped; if he had not been stopped by my colleague, he would have closed the Willett Hospital. If he had not been stopped by the current Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Ridden), he would have closed Clinton Public Hospital.

We understand these issues very well. If his question is what our members should tell their hospitals when they go home this weekend, he can tell them to tell the hospitals that we will deal sensitively and carefully with all these matters. We are reviewing all the expenditures, but everyone will be dealt with absolutely fairly and we will fulfil our commitment to quality health care.

No matter how the member tries to raise the spectre -- he is the one who considers himself Frank the Knife, but I do not consider myself David the Knife -- we are going to deal with those issues sensibly. We are going to be very tough-minded about some of the expenditures we do not think were in the public interest -- no question about that -- but we are committed to quality health care. Let him tell his members to tell their hospitals that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is fine for the Premier to say he is going to deal with this in a sensitive way. The fact is that hospitals are considering the closure of beds and the laying-off of hundreds of hospital workers because they are underfunded and they need that one per cent. Actually, they need a little more than one per cent to avoid layoffs totally. When is the Premier going to tell the hospitals what his intentions are, so hospital beds are not closed and workers are not laid off?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There will be no beds closed or layoffs as a result of any cutbacks the member suspects we may bring in, because we are not going to do that. We have fairly good communication with these people and none of them is listening to the kind of concern that some would try to demonstrate is there. They know how we are going to deal with these things.

The minister is very much on top of this situation. In talking to administrators and others concerned with health care, my sense is that they are far happier today with this government than they have ever been in the past.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: In his answer to the original question, the Premier indicated he does not know the basis upon which the $43 million was allocated. On June 17, 1985, the then minister announced that it was one per cent to every hospital in the province on an across-the-board basis. I presume his Treasurer or his Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has brought this statement to his attention. He was in the House that day -- it is no excuse, but he was not coming to the House much then. The statement was made in this House indicating one per cent to every hospital in this province.

How can the Premier come in this morning and threaten every single hospital in the province with a one per cent reduction? That is what he has done. He says he is doing that while not knowing the basis upon which that allocation was being made. Is this the delicacy with which he treats the health care system? The hospitals across this province will be shocked to know he does not know the basis upon which that allocation was made. It was announced right here in the House on June 17. How can he not know?

Is the Premier now prepared to withdraw his allegation that the one per cent was based on political whim? Why does he not know the basis on which the grants were raised?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not blame the member for being angry and upset. It is not easy being a Minister without Portfolio in a shadow cabinet.

I think members heard a very thoughtful explanation from the Treasurer yesterday on the wrinkles the former Treasurer used with respect to hospital financing, how he tried to give the impression there were high transfers and he rolled in the capital costs with the operating costs.

Mr. Grossman: Does he think these are wrinkles? Is he saying these are wrinkles?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think we understand these things very well, even better than the member does. He can tell the people at Doctors Hospital, the hospital he defended and prevented from being closed by his close colleague, that we will be there with great sensitivity to help them in their current year.

Mr. F. S. Miller: All the Premier came into this House with today was a set of prepared funny lines, no matter what the question. He did not answer the question. He had Senator Keith Davey's latest fun lines; that is all. He has given no answer at all. Or was it Jerry Grafstein or Michael Kirby today? Which of the three gave him that line?

Will the Premier end this nonsense right now? Why does he not tell the hospitals of Ontario they have that one per cent for sure?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The interesting thing is to sit here and watch the two members spar.

The hospitals know they have nothing to worry about. They are not nearly as exercised as the Leader of the Opposition. They know we are going to deal with these things effectively and well. The member should stop getting so excited.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Is the Premier retracting what he said? Is it political whim? Is he telling us the 7.7 per cent increase as announced by our Minister of Health was too much?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will repeat it. When we are talking about Deerhurst and some of the things the former government did in the last little while, in the last series of commitments the member signed as he was going out of power -- the timber licences; the appointments; the expenditures he made, knowing he would never have to honour them; all the mayhem the government tried to create as it was going out -- I said they are all reviewable. The Leader of the Opposition had better understand that.

Mr. Grossman: I think the Premier has given an answer to that question, that the hospitals do not need to worry.

Could he now explain whether they get the one per cent, i.e., 7.7 per cent, or whether the Premier believes a 7.7 per cent increase may be too much money for the hospitals in this province? Which one is it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is one of the member's famous yes or no questions, I gather.

I told the member we are going to deal very sensitively with this issue. The hospitals have no reason to fear that we will deal insensitively with the whole matter. The members opposite can continue to yell, hoot, holler and outshout each other and decide who is going to get the biggest applause from the opposition back benches. That is their problem. I do not have to deal with their problems; I have to deal with the hospital problems they created.

LEARNING DISABLED

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Education which arises from a great many concerns that have been expressed to members of my caucus and members of other parties as well. It is a concern expressed in no uncertain terms by the parents of children who have special learning disabilities and who know perfectly well that under the current timetable, financing arrangements and changes in the law, which were part and parcel of the previous government's approach to Bill 82, their children will face severe problems come September.

The minister will know it is not just the case of an individual problem. There is a basic policy decision that has to be taken. Is the minister prepared to indicate to those parents that the government will continue to allow certain children, who cannot be served effectively under current circumstances and financing under Bill 82, to attend special schools and continue to receive a subsidy from the government under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act? As the minister knows, they are not now allowed to do this as of September. Will the minister reinstate the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act so those children will be able to continue their schooling in September 1985?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have been reviewing the special education legislation and its impact in September 1985. Like all members, I am concerned about the situation to which the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) directed our attention yesterday. I have asked my officials for a report on the latest approvals for final implementation plans for the fall of 1985. I am reviewing with my own officials, and have asked them to consult with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, to see what options may be available to deal with the problems the member's question concerns itself with.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that guidelines and regulations have been changed quite substantially. He will also know that the leader sitting next to him made a speech a short, few six months ago to the very parents who today are still concerned and are still extremely worried.

At that time in November 1984, his leader said: "`The provincial government just has not delivered on Bill 82. The government is not coming anywhere near to meeting its promise to provide special education to all exceptional children and is putting tremendous pressure on schools and on taxpayers. We have been talking about this problem for a long time,' Peterson said. `We predicted this was going to happen and it did. Stephenson has broken faith.'" That referred to the then Minister of Education.

The minister and his government now have an opportunity to do something about a problem we have all recognized and have all been discussing for a long time. I am asking the minister today whether he is prepared to do something about the situation in order to alleviate a real crisis, not only a financial crisis but also an emotional crisis, for many families across this province whose kids will not be getting the kind of education they need in the public system because of the problems attached to Bill 82, and who now are going to face severe financial problems in order to keep their children in the schools they have been attending for many years.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, the new government is quite prepared to take all necessary measures to ensure we have the highest quality special education in Ontario. As the member can recognize, the education agenda I have faced in the past two and a half weeks has been rather full. I share his concern. I am anxious to proceed immediately with as thorough a review of the status quo as possible to see what additional or supplementary measures are going to be required to deal with the difficulties to which he directs our attention.

Mr. Timbrell: Putting it in its simplest terms, through this assembly, will the minister today assure all parents of children requiring special education that come September 3 those children will be enrolled in the system in the way most appropriate for the requirements of their child or children while he is completing the requirements of Bill 82, whether it be in their local school board or in another jurisdiction such as the Gow School mentioned by my friend the member for York Centre yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Don Mills raises a question that perhaps he might have canvassed with his colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson).

At present, I am reviewing the policy developed by the previous government about which there have been some difficulties. There is no doubt about that, as the member for York Centre pointed out yesterday. I want to say to the parents and children affected that we will take all possible measures to provide for the appropriate special education for the fall of 1985.

Mr. Allen: While the minister is looking at the question of dealing with the special problems of those special learning disabled children in private institutions and the possibility of an additional year's subsidy at least for them and their parents, will he also look at the problem of financing special education in September of this year, inasmuch as in the course of the four years since the funding was provided, the moneys have suffered severe attrition due to inflation?

The $16 million allocated for this coming year has lost appreciably in purchasing power as far as the boards are concerned. Will he at least look at scaling that up on an indexed basis, basing the indexing initially on the 1981 figure and bringing it up to date in terms of real purchasing power?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I can tell the honourable member I have asked my officials for a full review of the financial impacts of the funding arrangements that have been established and we will be looking at them very carefully in the next few days.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Rae: My question is for the Treasurer and it concerns White Farm Manufacturing Canada Ltd. I will say to the Treasurer that I know of his long-standing interest in the affairs of this company and what has been allowed to happen over the space of the last five years with respect to the various sales, resales and refinancing that have taken place.

With respect to the statement made today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), I must confess I am surprised and somewhat taken aback that the Minister of Labour would be making a statement today with respect to some counselling arrangements for people who are going to be affected by the closure of White Farm, rather than having a statement from the Treasurer or from the Ministry of Industry and Trade (Mr. O'Neil), indicating what steps the government took over the last two weeks it has been in office to maintain the company as an integral company, as an effective operating unit.

Can the Treasurer give a report to the House and can he give an answer to me today indicating what specific steps he took as Treasurer -- and obviously because of his personal interest in this field -- to save the company, those jobs and the technology and to keep it working as an operating unit?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The question calls for a little history. In my capacity as private member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, previously, during the last receivership of White Farm, I was not instrumental but certainly was associated with the discussions that led to the support of the company at that time, which unfortunately resulted in the loss, by way of government guarantee, of $4 million.

At that time, it was hoped that a resurging farm economy would improve the markets for their products, particularly the famous combine with the rotating technology that has been seen as among the best in the world. Unfortunately, the economy has not improved and White Farm, although it has received new management in the form of Mr. Sinclair, a business entrepreneur from the Burlington area, did not receive a large infusion of new funds. It received new management techniques and lots of enthusiasm, but the market did not revive. We have heard the farmers in front of this Legislative Assembly and we have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Food on a number of occasions discussing that the future still is not bright.

The American creditors of White Farm were owed about $47 million. In response to this recent difficulty, when Borg-Warner Corp., the American creditor, called the note, there was an indication from the government of Ontario -- and the present member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was the minister at the time and was involved in the discussions, along with the then Treasurer, who is the present House leader on the opposition side -- wherein they made a firm offer of $7 million.

This would be available in conjunction with initiatives taken at the federal level, which would then be made a part of the refinancing package for White Farm, which would have to approach $40 million, or at least $30 million, to keep the operation viable. This was in view of the $47 million that was the note called by Borg-Warner Corp.

After losing $4 million on the previous receivership, we were told the government of Ontario was offering to involve itself in the financial package to an additional $7 million. In opposition, and asked during the election campaign, because this came to a head then, I said we would certainly support the position taken by the then government for $7 million and we hoped the government of Canada would come forward with some sort of support package that would enable the present management to survive this particular funding crisis.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but will you give me just one more moment? The minister federally, Sinclair Stevens, sent a telex to the office of the Treasurer, which I brought to the attention of the Minister of Industry and Trade, who had been dealing with this. The people in the Ontario Development Corp., particularly, had been very knowledgeable in following it on a day-to-day basis. He responded on behalf of the government of Ontario indicating we were maintaining -- or at least my statements had been, and the member is asking the question of me, to the effect that we were maintaining -- the offer which had been made by the previous government.

11 a.m.

I have been told by Mr. Sinclair himself, or somebody at White, that there had been an oral commitment of an additional $3 million, that is $7 million to $10 million. I had indicated, after consulting with the officials of the Treasury, that there was a firm offer of $7 million and there had been no response whatsoever from the government of Canada.

The difficulties of White Farm are not new. The 600 people we have been talking about have not been working for a good long time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is a fairly comprehensive answer.

Mr. Rae: The obvious question is, what discussions did the Treasurer engage in? What discussions is he aware of in the last two-week period to try to get federal funding; and if that is not possible, did he ever consider the possibility of the Ontario government providing for the guarantee?

I remind the minister the market share of White Farm for combine harvesters has virtually tripled in the last couple of years. Relative to the declining market, their sales have been most effective in Canada. There was an overwhelming feeling, certainly within the company, that if it did not have a dramatic debt load on its back it would be able to survive. Did the Treasurer give it that last best shot, quite apart from telegrams coming in from Sinclair Stevens?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The market share was changing but the total sales were dropping. The member will notice that even Massey-Ferguson declared a $10-million loss on the account of combine sales, in spite of the fact that its other revenues were more buoyant.

We made it clear we were supporting the $7-million offer made by the previous government. We certainly examined the possibility, which we certainly did not want to happen, of the company closing -- it was in receivership when the Liberal government took office -- and we were also concerned that the technology stay in Canada. The result of the receiver's decision is that the technology will be transferred on a sale to Massey-Ferguson, along with the research technology and the facility that was built with the dollars of the taxpayers in Ontario and in Canada.

Mr. Gillies: The history of the situation as described by the Treasurer is substantially correct, but I remind him that there was a verbal commitment from my leader, the former Premier, to increase the level of Ontario government support for White Farm if necessary.

To bring it to the present situation, it would appear that the technology for the rotary combine and some of the hard assets are definitely going to Massey-Ferguson. The president of White Farm, Mr. Sinclair, has indicated in press reports that he believed the skilled work force and the remaining assets of White Farm could still constitute a viable company.

Will the Treasurer undertake, along with his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), to meet with Mr. Sinclair and see what support his government can offer to create a new and viable entity at the White Farm Manufacturing Canada Ltd. company on Mohawk Street and keep some of these 600 people working?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: During all the time of the direct commitment of $7 million for White Farm, and the verbal commitment of an additional $3 million apparently made by the former Premier when he was visiting Brantford, the government of Canada did not respond with any sort of offer. I understand it was put under the greatest, I would not say pressure, but opportunity to offer some additional funding. We have to think of our commitment in terms of a minimum of $30 million that would be needed and a note called of close to $47 million.

I will be glad to meet with anybody in this regard. I spoke to Mr. Sinclair on the telephone and I indicated we were standing behind the previous government's commitment.

Mr. Morin-Strom: It seems to me the Treasurer has joined the Conservative Party in abandoning the workers and families of White Farm. What assurances can he give to those workers and their families that they will have jobs in an operating concern in Brantford? Given that the technology has been sold and that operation is left barren of its greatest resource, will he undertake to see that Massey-Ferguson gives assurances these workers will have the first opportunity to get jobs that will be generated from the introduction of the technology on the axial-flow combines production plant?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In response, I would direct the honourable member's attention to the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) earlier this morning. It was a fairly comprehensive statement about this government's program to provide leadership and assistance to the workers and their families in the Brantford area, some of it on a direct basis and the rest in an effort to see their employment opportunities are not lost but, in fact, improved in that community.

I thought the statement was a comprehensive and excellent one, and I hope the member will give careful consideration to it. I will send a copy of it to him.

FORMER GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENTS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question to the Premier. Quite simply, did the hospitals in and adjacent to my riding get the one per cent funding or not? My constituents use many hospitals, namely, Groves Memorial Community Hospital in Fergus, Louise Marshall Hospital in Mount Forest, Shelbourne District Hospital, Dufferin Area Hospital in Orangeville, Palmerston and District Hospital, Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital, Peel Memorial and two hospitals in Guelph. Will they receive extra funding, or not?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have told the honourable member and I will tell him again that we are not going to impair any of their capacity to operate and we are not going to --

Some hon. members: Do they get the one per cent or not?

Mr. Grossman: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: During the election campaign the Premier had tremendous clarity on this issue of hospital funding. I recall that he informed his stable of Liberal candidates across this province to tell every single hospital in this province to expect extra funding under this government.

Would the Premier tell this House, would he tell this House today, what he is saying privately to his members this weekend to go out across this province and tell every single hospital in this province? What is he telling the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight) to tell the Georgetown and District Hospital, the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital and the Milton District Hospital this weekend?

When is the money coming?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have very thoughtful discussions with all the colleagues the honourable member mentioned. We do not shout at each other. We discuss these things in a dispassionate way. We say a compassionate level of support can be expected from this government, and our members are all quite excited because of the response they are getting from their hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Some hon. members: Do they get the one per cent or not?

Mr. Pope: One per cent or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Give them an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will now recess the chamber for five minutes.

11:15 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question period will continue.

Mr. Rae: I have a supplementary for the Premier, but I gather he is being asked some outside the House.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He is coming in soon. Do you want to stand that down and go with another question?

Mr. Rae: Perhaps I could redirect it to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston).

Mr. Speaker: The question was of the Premier.

Mr. Rae: It is a very quick and easy supplementary. Is it the government's intention to grant the one per cent, $43 million across-the-board increase or not?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand everybody wants a definite, specific answer today. Members will cause a fuss and hoot and holler and try to make up for their other deficiencies in conducting themselves as members of the official opposition.

We are going to be sensitive about this matter. We are not going to cut them. We have not in any way infringed on the budgetary planning of any hospital. There is no measurable concern I am aware of from the hospital sector. We are not going to be cutting them back.

We know probably better than anyone, or at least as well as the opposition members, of the real problems of funding in the hospitals. It is not our intention to impair their capacity to operate in any way. Many of them need more money, not less. We have to look at how we can deliver those services sensitively and well. Members will not see services hampered in any way by any cutbacks we would bring in.

FIRST-CONTRACT DISPUTES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the ramifications of the current Visa worker strike at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the fact that 175 persons in that operation, mostly women, are facing takeaways and demands for waivers from minimum wage legislation and are involved in a classic first-contract situation. In spite of the fact this is obviously a federal matter, because it involves union bank employees, is the minister prepared to intervene with his federal colleagues in an effort to settle this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member has properly pointed out this is a matter under federal jurisdiction and that there is some degree of importance to this collective bargaining dispute. Over a period of time, the banking industry has been a very difficult one for the trade union movement to organize. At this early stage of the strike, it would be counterproductive for this minister to intervene with his federal colleague. It may well come up when I am speaking with Mr. McKnight about the White Farm Equipment Canada Ltd. matter and others about which I am sure we will talk privately on Monday. I do not intend to raise it, since I think I should leave the federal minister to deal with those matters that are his responsibility.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am disappointed in the minister's answer. I understand the province has a fair number of dealings with the Bank of Commerce in this dispute. I would like to ask the minister, if he is not prepared to use some influence or clout, whether he recognizes that what we have in the Visa bank workers' strike is another watershed labour dispute in Ontario whereby women, basically professionals in the financial community but among the lowest-paid workers, are locked in a bitter strike for a first contract in which the position of the bank is intolerable in terms of takeaways, no regular wage increases since 1981 --

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is an intolerable situation. Does the minister not recognize that what we are facing here with the mobilization of the trade union movement is a watershed situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

11:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I understand fully, as I indicated in my first response to the member, the importance of this dispute and its ramifications, not only in that industry but also for women generally as well as its ramifications in terms of first-contract arbitration.

As I told the member, it may be inappropriate for this minister to begin to intervene with advice to his federal counterpart at the outset. As we talk about the number of labour issues that face us, and particularly the issue this government intends to proceed upon later this session, first-contract arbitration, but also equal value and other issues of economic equity for women, I am sure the matter of Visa will come forward.

I certainly will be putting my views to the federal minister as to the hope that this matter can be settled. At that point, we will probably explore with him any progress to date.

FORMER GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENTS

Mr. Brandt: I have a question to the Premier. With respect to the hospital funding question, the Premier must know he has created a real shroud of uncertainty among the hospitals of Ontario. If he wants to apply the freedom of information bill in its true form, let him apply freedom of information where it will do the most good: right here in this House.

What we are looking for is a commitment we can indicate to the hospitals in the areas represented not only by members of this party but also by members of the New Democratic Party and by members of the Premier's own party. Hospitals such as St. Joseph's Hospital, Sarnia General Hospital and Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital in Petrolia in my area, and those in my old home town, London, all want to know in a definitive, specific, unequivocal fashion; they want an answer from the Premier today. Are they or are they not going to get the one per cent?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can only repeat my answer to the question that was asked by several others.

Mr. Grossman: Yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I also am very concerned about University Hospital in London, St. Joseph's Hospital in London, Victoria Hospital in London, the Willett Hospital in Paris, Clinton Public Hospital, Doctors Hospital, Kingston General Hospital, McKellar General Hospital -- they all obviously have similar kinds of concerns.

Mr. Grossman: Are you going to roll them back or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told members opposite some days ago, and I tell them again, we are reviewing all the expenditures made by the previous government in its dying hours. I repeat my commitment that we will treat the hospital sector with generosity and sensitivity; the hospitals know it.

Mr. Grossman: Are you going to give them the one per cent?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friends may have determined it is in their interests to try to cause a fuss today; they may be worried, but the hospitals are not worried.

Mr. Grossman: They certainly are worried.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Barlow: Let me ask the Premier, is the one per cent safe? Is it safe with the Cambridge Memorial Hospital? Is it safe with the Freeport Hospital in Kitchener or the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital? Is it safe with St. Mary's General Hospital in Kitchener? Is it safe with Guelph General Hospital or with St. Joseph's Hospital in Guelph? Is that one per cent safe at any place in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure, but I think the member missed some hospitals on his list. If anybody else would like to add to it, he is welcome to do so.

Mr. Elgie: Don't give us this windy talk -- no more whimsical stuff.

Mr. Grossman: Yes or no.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can only repeat what I said to the member, and if members would like to list more hospitals --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question has been asked. If members want an answer, I hope they will wait for an answer.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to point out to you that we have asked several questions --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order or a point of privilege?

Mr. Grossman: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have asked several questions --

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the recess of this House until the Premier is prepared to answer this question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: A motion to adjourn is not in order until we enter into orders of the day.

Mr. Grossman: No; recess.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have already recessed once. They did that once. How many other little gambits do they have?

Mr. Grossman: Just give us the one per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am advised that a similar motion was placed last October and at that time it was ruled out of order. My ruling is that it is out of order.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick and all members that there is no challenge to any ruling by the Speaker during oral questions.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Last October 30, the same --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat. Are you challenging my ruling?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Again?

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick has challenged the ruling of the Speaker. The question before the House is, shall the ruling of the Speaker be upheld?

2:30 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bossy, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fontaine, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grandmaître, Grier, Haggerty, Hayes, Henderson, Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter, Laughren, Lupusella;

Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Morin, Munro, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Offer, Peterson, Polsinelli, Rae, Reville, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith,
D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Ward, Warner, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Brandt, Davis, Dean, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gregory, Grossman, Guindon, Harris, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Lane, Leluk, Marland, McCague, McFadden, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, O'Connor, Partington, Pope, Rowe, Runciman, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve.

Ayes 60; nays 37.

Mr. Speaker: According to my notes, we were in question period. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) had asked a question and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) had asked a supplementary. Is there a supplementary from the member for York South?

Mr. Rae: Let us try again. I have a supplementary question to the Premier. With the benefit of this pause which refreshed us all, I am sure we have had a chance to review the Instant Hansard as to what has been said.

The Premier said in answer to questions from me, "We are not going to cut them." He later said, "We are not going to be cutting them back." Can he confirm that there will not be a cutback from the $43-million supplementary amount that was granted by the previous government to the hospitals of the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In addition to what the member just read, I would like to read his question from Instant Hansard. He asked, "Is it the government's intention to grant the one per cent, $43-million, across-the-board increase or not?" The answer was, "We are not going to cut them." That was in direct answer to his question.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources in connection with the program that deals with the high water levels in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, a program that falls short of a total solution to the problem.

In view of the fact that the US Army Corps of Engineers is planning to build dikes for floodprone areas in the United States from Lake Erie to Lake St. Clair, will the minister agree that kind of action is needed on this side of the border to protect properties from the possibility of millions of dollars of damage? Will the minister --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Hayes: This is the second half of the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hayes: I will ask my question now.

Mr. Speaker: No. You said, "Will the minister agree?" I am sure the minister wants to answer.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, we have some concerns about the flooding in those areas in the high water. There has been some Hydro control diverting water into Lake Nipigon and trying to hold back some of the water that might add to the problem.

In examining this situation, though, there might be some question about whether the federal government should participate in this kind of control. Certainly I should bring that matter to the attention of those in the federal government who might participate in alleviating the damage being done by the high water.

Mr. Hayes: Because these lake levels are about two inches higher than in 1973, which was the highest recorded level of which we are aware, will the minister immediately contact the Department of National Defence to request it provide manpower and equipment to assist the municipalities in protecting the shoreline prior to this fall?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. In keeping with my original answer, I think I would be very much concerned with that process. I also have studies before me looking into relief as it relates to taking more water at the Niagara River end. That is still under study. I am not sure that is an alternative to the request the member is making, but all of those things will be examined. If we are not sitting, I will share the answer with the member in a very short time.

ONTARIO FINANCES

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a question of the Treasurer. I have a couple of press releases here that do not make me very happy or proud. There is a story resulting from yesterday's economic statement. It says we are probably going to lose our triple-A rating.

Will the Treasurer agree that his politically inspired attempt yesterday in his so-called economic statement to discredit our administration has caused enough dismay in the economic community to produce, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy? Now we have Standard and Poor's credit release that says they "are putting the triple-A credit rating of Ontario on credit watch," with negative implications. In their statement they blamed the Treasurer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall that my statement yesterday made public the spending projections established and passed by the Management Board of Cabinet of the previous government, which formed the spending program we took over a week ago. It is important for us as a new government to make public the information that is the basis for decisions we must make.

The particular references to the spending program were quite precise. The priorities for new programs were put forward by my colleague the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in his statement a week ago. I indicated we were going to cut $250 million over the projected expenditures that had been accepted by the previous government, through the good offices of the present Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan).

In that connection, I would say if there is any jeopardy to the credit rating, and it appears there is, it is just what it was when this government inherited the responsibilities of office.

Mr. F. S. Miller: The House may not believe me, or the Treasurer may not. I hope it will believe Standard and Poor's, who said: "In addition, no mention was made in the Treasurer's statement of new revenue-raising efforts. Consequently, the willingness of the new government to address the projected financial imbalance will apparently not become clear until the government presents its first budget." Therefore, they made their decision.

It is as if the Treasurer went to his banker and said: "I think I will soon be broke. I think I am going to go bankrupt. Will you lend me money?" When will the Treasurer learn to make such statements not in a speculative but in a complete way, in a budget, and not cost the taxpayers of this province tens of millions of dollars as, in one stroke of the pen, he has now done?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was apparent in my statement that it was not a budgetary statement, nor a mini-budget. It was quite clear it was a statement reviewing the finances of the province as the outgoing government released the seals of office to our control. It is quite clear, as far as revenues are concerned, this must be part of a budget. I stated clearly that these statements and the budget itself will be in October, and that in the meantime we are doing our best to reduce the costs of government by careful re-examination of the commitments made by the previous administration, many of them in the dying days and hours before it was defeated in this House.

Mr. Rae: Can the Treasurer tell us what kinds of documents have been left behind, indicating projected deficits of $1.2 billion in 1985-86 and in 1986-87? This information, we have reason to believe, was part of the basis for Standard and Poor's decision last summer.

Mr. F. S. Miller: The leader of the third party is on his side again.

Mr. Rae: The member has made a fool of himself once today. If he wants to do it twice, that is up to him. It is entirely in his hands. If he wants to shoot himself in the other foot, he should go ahead and do it; I do not mind.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary. I am sure you have just come to that point.

Mr. Rae: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was just having a bit of fun.

Would the Treasurer tell us, on the basis of material that has been made available to him, whether it is true there were projections lying around the Treasury showing deficit figures of $1.2 billion in 1985-86 and in 1986-87, which were the basis of the reprieve that was granted to the government of Ontario last year?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Of course there were no documents lying around involving the decisions made by the previous government; but as far as that is concerned, it was quite clear from the statements made in this House by the former Treasurer during the debate last fall that if the ratios of our debt payments to our revenues got to the point that they could not be supported by a net cash requirement of more than $1.2 billion, there was certainly an aura of jeopardy around the credit rating. We recall the stories that were written, in the local, reliable press, of the former Treasurer and the former Premier being summoned to New York to justify the jeopardy they had already led the province into as far as its credit rating was concerned.

I have already referred to the House the sorry tale of hospital financing that was postponed by the former Premier -- and acted upon by the present Premier -- in such an inadequate way. The figures presented to this government indicated that the former government had decided not to raise taxes in any significant way and therefore its expenditures, correlated with the growth that everybody is projecting for this province, would leave a deficit of $2.2 billion. This is precisely what the people of Ontario had to have as their information.

MUNICIPAL GRANTS

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is he aware of the study by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on municipal infrastructure in Canada? According to their survey, there will be needed over the next 10 years about a 27 per cent increase for roads, bridges, sewage treatment plants and things of that nature, which really works out to about $250 million a year. What plans does the government have to meet this really serious decline in the infrastructure and funding for municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to assure the member that my ministry is aware of the FCM demands or projections. We are looking into the possibility of accommodating them, but at the present time it is still in the study process.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: According to the study, the provincial portion of funding for projects of this nature has dwindled in some cases to as low as two per cent, 2.1 per cent and 2.8 per cent, but the federal portion has dwindled to absolutely zero in most cases. What steps will the minister take to see that the federal government of Canada returns to the funding of these municipal projects so there is at least some fairness and balance in the funding for this whole infrastructure?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I agree with the member that there are some disparities. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is also doing a study. Once the two studies are finalized, I will be able to give him a fuller answer.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Hennessy: I have a question for the Minister of Health. When is the minister going to make public the details and regulations of the program regarding transportation costs for people from northwestern Ontario who have to travel for medical reasons from northwestern Ontario to Toronto and other areas?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member may or may not know -- I am not certain -- that we have already made initial contacts with a number of members to start discussion processes with respect to our program. My parliamentary assistant has already taken up considerable hours in setting forth some details of the program and discussions have been under way in an informal form with a number of people.

We expect that within the next few weeks or so there will be further consultation, not only in northwestern Ontario but also in northeastern Ontario, to ensure that our program adequately addresses the needs that are there.

I thank the member for addressing this question to me. He will be one of the members with whom I will request my parliamentary assistant to speak directly on the matter.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition from a number of residents of Hamilton Mountain, which reads as follows:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.

"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of the Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

Mr. Laughren: I have a number of petitions to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario concerning the need to have substantial debate on the extension of separate school funding before it is implemented by this chamber.

Mr. Charlton: I have another petition from a number of residents of Hamilton Mountain and the surrounding area, which reads:.

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

MOTIONS

SUMMER RECESS

Hon Mr. Nixon moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until October 15, 1985, provided that, if it appears to Mr. Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice; and that should Mr. Speaker be unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole House shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions and the select committee on economic affairs be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the chairman of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the evidence taken before the standing committee on procedural affairs in the recess between the fourth and fifth sessions of the 32nd Parliament with respect to its 10th review of agencies, boards, and commissions be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.

Motion agreed to.

VENUE OF COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that during the summer adjournment the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions be authorized to adjourn from place to place, and that the standing committees on resources development and social development be authorized to adjourn from place to place in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, first reading of Bill 34, An Act to provide for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Motion agreed to.

CHARITY HOUSE (WINDSOR) ACT

Mr. Newman moved, seconded by Mr. McKessock, first reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Charity House, Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

PAULINE MCGIBBON CULTURAL CENTRE ACT

Ms. Fish moved, seconded by Mr. Brandt, first reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Pauline McGibbon Cultural Centre.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Grande moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, first reading of Bill 35, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

3 p.m.

Mr. Grande: Our amendments to the Education Act are basically to sections 34, 35 and 36 of the act, which deal with the placement of hard-to-serve pupils. They are replaced by a new section 34 that places a duty on boards to provide appropriate educational programs for all children and gives parents and pupils a right to appeal to the Ontario special education board all decisions of placement committees.

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. D. R. Cooke, first reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the city of Niagara Falls.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Mr. Partington moved, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, first reading of Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the city of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, first reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill would prohibit passengers from occupying the part of the bus or streetcar to the immediate right of the driver's seat after the driver has asked them to clear that area.

ENOCH TURNER SCHOOLHOUSE FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Offer moved, seconded by Mr. Polsinelli, first reading of Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Enoch Turner Schoolhouse Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREDITORS' RELIEF AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Creditors' Relief Act.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On behalf of the new government, I am pleased to assume carriage of this bill which was moved by the previous Attorney General.

The bill was originally intended as part of the family law review announced by the former Attorney General in December 1982. It was anticipated this review would take place in time to come into force on January 1, 1985, which is when the amendments to our statutes and the rules of court dictated by the report of the Williston commission on civil procedure came into effect.

Under section 30 of the Family Law Reform Act of 1978, creditors under a support order had a limited form of priority over ordinary judgement debts. The former government apparently never intended to take that priority away, but rather to expand it so it was available not just to creditors who had obtained an attachment of wages to enforce their support orders but also to all support creditors no matter what means of enforcement they chose to adopt. This bill is designed to accomplish that particular purpose.

The subject of enforcing support orders has been discussed in recent years by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, the federal-provincial committee on enforcement of support and custody orders and by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada at its 1984 meeting. All bodies have recommended the adoption of legislation that would give support creditors priority over ordinary judgement debts, the latter two recommending the priority extend to 12 months' arrears.

The bill also contains some technical provisions designed to clarify the procedures involved in the enforcement of support orders.

It is my intention to ask that the bill be considered briefly in committee of the whole House in order to make a further modest amendment requested by the rules committee of the Supreme Court and district courts.

Ms. Gigantes: On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to express our support for this bill. I hope this one works.

Mr. O'Connor: On behalf of my party, I also heartily endorse this bill. I would remind this House it was originally proposed by the Attorney General of the previous government. We are therefore in favour of the bill and will support it at all stages. We agree now it should be referred to committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

CREDITORS' RELIEF AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Creditors' Relief Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Scott moves that section 2 be amended by renumbering subsections 2(1), 2(2) and 2(3) as 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4) respectively and by adding thereto the following subsection 2(1):

2(1) Subsection 4(2) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

4(2) Payment of the debt shall be made to the sheriff of the county in which the debtor resides, or if the debtor resides outside the province, to the sheriff of the county in which the proceeding that gave rise to the judgement was commenced.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTS

Hon. Mr. O'Neil moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. F. S. Miller and Mr. Rae, resolution 8:

That it is the opinion of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the failure of the government of Canada to negotiate an effective agreement with Japan to limit auto imports threatens Ontario jobs and the province's major industrial sectors; that the federal government's failure to deal with other offshore producers further threatens domestic production; and that the government of Canada should move beyond short-term auto quotas and instead introduce Canadian content legislation which will require automotive producers selling extensively in Canada to provide jobs and production in our market.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As many members of this House have stated on previous occasions, the Ontario economy depends greatly on a strong automotive industry. It is a large employer and it provides the largest domestic market for many other sectors of our economy.

While the industry has rebounded from the 1980-82 recession and prepared itself for the future through large capital investments, we are concerned that a significant share of the Canadian market has been captured by foreign vehicle manufacturers. Not all of these manufacturers have committed themselves to undertaking productive investment in our economy.

This lack of investment represents a long-term erosion of our industry, especially when one considers that these foreign vehicle manufacturers have committed over $3.6 billion in investment in the United States, the principal market for 80 per cent of our production. A linkage must be established between success in our automotive markets and automotive investment in our economy.

While we are aware the federal government has been trying to establish this linkage in the formal sense, during the last four years it has not met with much success. Quite clearly, stronger measures are required. Therefore, I am introducing a resolution to the House which asks the federal government to consider all possible measures not limited to, but including, domestic content legislation. The purpose is to ensure that all vehicle manufacturers that enjoy significant success in the Canadian automotive market do recognize their obligation and undertake productive auto-related investment in our economy.

Mr. Brandt: I am delighted to participate in the debate and support the motion that is before the House and to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. O'Neil) on bringing the motion forward.

In many respects the auto industry is not only Ontario's but perhaps also Canada's most important industry. It is an extremely labour-intensive industry and one that brings with it a great deal of technological innovation which our province and our country need very badly.

It is the duty of this House, and certainly of our party, to support this industry. I think it is our duty and obligation to protect the industry in every way we can.

A substantial number of communities depend on the auto industry in Ontario for their economic survival. Communities such as Windsor, Oshawa and a great many others could be enumerated at this time. In many of those communities, enormous investments have already been made in order to improve on the competitiveness of those industries and to secure some of the long-term jobs which are associated with those industries. We are thankful, as the minister has already mentioned, that historic employment levels have again been reached as a result of coming out of the recession and returning to a greater level of buoyancy in the auto industry. At this point, it would be fair to ask: What is the problem?

We have technological innovation, we have a very vibrant industry, we have job levels which are back up to historic highs, but what we have had, in recent years, is a rather massive increase in imports, particularly from two countries, Japan and Korea. With regard to the number of vehicles that they are exporting to our country, these two countries now absorb more than 20 per cent of the Canadian market. To protect Ontario industry and, more important, to protect Ontario jobs, we need some form of quotas. We need some form of protective barriers, if you will, an instrument that will allow us to regulate the market to a certain extent.

I would say for those who are antiprotectionist with respect to the quota system that virtually every country in the world has some form of quota at the present time. If one looks at our European friends and the number of automobiles they allow to be imported into their countries from other parts of the world, it is really a very small percentage of what is allowed into our own country. We are being relatively open and relatively good trading partners with respect to the kind of position we have taken up until this time.

However, with other countries in the world establishing very stringent quotas, we are simply asking for an opportunity in Ontario and in Canada to protect the jobs we have now. I say that because there are a number of differences. When one takes a look at the manufacturing base of Ontario and the manufacturing base of either Japan or Korea, the first and the most obvious difference is that in many of those countries the wage rates are considerably lower. As an example, the Hyundai Co. which manufactures the Pony car in Korea has a wage rate which is approximately $2 or $2.50 an hour, compared to almost 10 times that level here in our own country.

Their environmental laws are certainly less stringent, as are their labour laws and occupational health and safety legislation. There is a whole myriad of legislation which is in place in our country which is good, valid legislation that we have worked hard for with respect to the societal structure we have here. However, that is an expensive part of the total cost component in any automobile. Therefore, we need to be very protective about our market in order to establish a somewhat more equitable relationship between the price of a car that can be exported from another country into Canada and the price it costs us to produce cars right here in our own country.

For all of these reasons, our party will support any measures that protect our jobs in Ontario, and, to the extent that we can, we will protect those jobs from unreasonable foreign competition. I underline the word "unreasonable." We are not talking about stopping the importation of autos, but we are talking about being somewhat more sensitive with regard to the response of the federal government than is the case at the present time.

I realize we are on a relatively tight time schedule with respect to our comments this afternoon, so I will stop at this point, other than to say that we wholeheartedly join hands with the government in taking whatever measures are necessary to protect this very vital, important and critical industry to Ontario.

Mr. Rae: I am delighted to join in support of this jointly drafted and jointly moved resolution, and I am delighted to hear the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) say he is going to be holding hands with the government. As we adjourn for the summer, that is an appropriate note on which to --

Mr. Brandt: On this issue.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I am just quoting from memory -- on this issue.

Just before being elected to this House and before assuming leadership of this party, I was a guest of the European Community as a community fellow. I spent about a month studying the steel industries in Europe as well as its car industry. They have a common market over there. All 10 western European countries are involved with a common market in which there is supposed to be complete free trade among all those countries.

I went from country to country and talked with their trade ministers and trade officials, with their industry people and planners and with the people in the car industry itself, whether it was Renault, Volkswagen or British Leyland, which was a going concern at that time. I talked about the common market. I would say: "How does it work in this common market situation where you have free trade in the car business?" They would say: "Cars are a little bit different. We do not actually have free trade; we have content requirements."

In the case of the French, they did not have content requirements so much as they had all sorts of other nontariff barriers. The wheels had to be a certain distance apart, they had to be a certain kind of wheel, they had to get a certain kind of licence, which might take a year and a half to obtain, to get the car into the country. There are all sorts of ways of dealing with the realities of the car industry and the kind of trade that goes on in that industry.

Not only were all those countries trying to negotiate a collective arrangement with the government of Japan, but many of them had individual relations with Japan. For example, in Belgium, Japan had a commitment to assemble cars; in Britain, they had a commitment to assemble cars there. The trend and the clear direction of public policy in those countries were crystal-clear. They were not prepared to see an industry that was integral to their national economies simply going the way of all flesh. They were determined to see that there was fair trade for that industry and that there was intelligent, aggressive planning by government for and with that industry.

Whether the industry was publicly owned, as is the case in many European countries where state-owned corporations are directly involved in the car business, or privately owned, all those countries had reached a consensus on one public policy. They were not going to let their car industry go by the boards in the name of some abstraction called free trade.

We have been making cars in Ontario for nearly 100 years. If one goes back and looks at the history of the car industry in this province, one will see an industry that has been integral to the life of the people of this province for nearly 100 years. One now sees an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of workers in this province, where the economic wellbeing of dozens of communities across the province depends on the car industry and where governments have consistently taken the position in the past 25 years that the car industry demands some special understanding and some special leadership from government.

Sometimes when we hear about free trade with the United States, people point to the car industry and say: "We have an auto pact with the United States; therefore, we have free trade with the United States. The auto pact should be the model for the rest of industry." I heard that during the election campaign. In my riding we had all-candidates' meetings -- not among the leaders, needless to say -- where people were talking in that language.

I can only say that there is no free trade in the car industry between Canada and the United States. The auto pact is not a free-trade arrangement. It is an arrangement that says very clearly to the Big Three manufacturers: "If you want to trade directly in Canada and to penetrate extensively our markets, you are going to have to add value in Canada." That is the basis of the auto pact.

I believe we should be extending the rationale and the logic of the auto pact to the rest of the car industry and to offshore producers so we say to the Hyundais, Toyotas and anybody else that wants to penetrate extensively in the market in this country: "We have a car industry in this province; invest here. We have no objection to your trading, we have no objection to your coming in and we have no objection to your providing a service for consumers as long as you are prepared to invest in an industry that is crucial for the future survival of Ontario when it comes to its economy." That is what content requirements are all about.

If one goes down the list of other countries, such as Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, South Korea, India, Indonesia and Mexico, and looks at what they are doing, each and every one of them has reached the conclusion and the decision that its car industry is one in which government has to play a leading role and for which it is crucial to have content legislation.

Briefly, Japan has invested about $5 billion in the United States and about $120 million in Canada. If we were to get the same arrangement in Canada as they have in the United States, we would quadruple the amount of Japanese investment in Canada today. One European company, BMW, which sold only about 4,000 vehicles in Canada, purchased more parts from Canadian suppliers than did all the Japanese companies. In 1984, our auto trade deficit with Japan reached $2 billion.

The development with South Korea and the Hyundai car is an indication of how quickly these things can go. Who in this House three years ago had ever heard of a Pony? Who in this House three years had ever heard the name Hyundai? Yet in the space of three years that company has managed to penetrate Canadian markets so that about one sixth of its total production finds its way into Canada. What South Korea has done in the past three years, virtually any other country in the world could do if it decided that was the direction in which it wanted to go.

Members may want to know that Malaysia has just announced it is in the car business with the production of the Proton Saga, as it is called, which has been described as Malaysia's first national car. According to press reports, it hopes soon to have enough production to begin exporting.

That is the first thing we have to deal with. The second thing we have to deal with is what is happening with the Big Three themselves. The development of the world car means General Motors can have an engine plant in Mexico, a production plant in Brazil, an axle plant in Spain and a transmission plant somewhere else in the world. Those decisions are made on a tough and ruthless basis by companies that are in the business of maximizing profit; that is the nature of the game.

If we are to get our fair share of parts production in this country, there has to be a commitment that we will do more to ensure domestic investment in exchange for a share of domestic market. For those who say, "That offends the rules of free trade," all I can say is that when everybody else in the world is doing that and is saying there has to be some protection for the domestic market, it would be incredibly foolish for Canada to say: "We are not interested. We are going to carry on as the last Boy Scout in the world."

I hope the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will take this resolution. I hope it is a resolution we can make stick because it is extremely important. My colleagues the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) have been pressing for years in this House to get an all-party resolution. All of us are determined to take a move on this.

We support the resolution. We participated in the drafting of it and we are delighted it is going to become the policy of the government of this province, because it is a policy that makes sense for all the people in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 26, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act;

Bill 15, An Act to amend the Creditors' Relief Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we understand His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will be attending the Legislature in the next few moments to give royal assent.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Just before that takes place, I have received a note from the pages, and I would like to put this on record:

"The pages would like to thank all the members of the House, the clerks and all House officials for supporting us and being understanding through our term of duty. When we go home, we will remember you and your hospitality. A special thank-you to our supervisor, Ms. Trudy Niesen, and Mr. Speaker. Thank you all."

I know we want to thank the pages for their great job.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Aird: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 15, An Act to amend the Creditors' Relief Act.

Bill 26, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Clerk of the House: In her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

TRIBUTES TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is with a little sadness that I begin my remarks today because they signal the end of one of the happiest associations in this province's history, the term of the Honourable John Black Aird as Ontario's 23rd Lieutenant Governor.

As His Honour will be leaving his post in September, this is the last scheduled sitting of this assembly while he is serving as Her Majesty's representative in this province. I am certain all in this House will wish to join me in thanking him for his able and diligent handling of the duties of his high office.

It has been his task to serve as Lieutenant Governor during some rather tumultuous days. At no time has he taken sides, on no occasion has he displayed even a hint of partisanship. He has always shown humanity in the service of this great province. That will surely form a major portion of his lasting legacy to the people of Ontario.

He has always been just as thoughtful a friend to small children as he is a loyal and conscientious representative of Her Majesty. To those of us in this House, he is known as the Honourable John Black Aird. To Lindsay Eberhardt, whose cause he championed, he is known simply as Uncle John. To the sick and disabled of this province, he is known as a friend.

It was this special friendship that prompted him to learn sign language to better communicate with all people in this province. He has singled out for deserved attention many Ontarians who are considered disabled but possess what he calls special ability.

3:40 p.m.

He has generously served as patron and sponsor of many worthy endeavours, all aimed at allowing people in this province to share in everything it has to offer. He has fulfilled his duties with diligence, integrity and humour, and I might add he serves an excellent glass of brandy.

I began by noting in my remarks that there was some sadness, but that feeling is abated by the knowledge that he will continue to contribute to the welfare of this great province.

On behalf of the government, I am privileged to thank His Honour and his wife, Jane, and to wish them all the very best in their future endeavours.

Miss Stephenson: Your Honour, we too should like to take this opportunity to express our most sincere appreciation to you for the grace, the dignity and the compassion which you have brought to your duties.

Her Majesty's loyal opposition believes the tenure of the Honourable John Black Aird will be remembered in particular for the generous, tremendous amount of time and effort you have devoted to those in our society less privileged than most. I refer specifically of course to those with special abilities.

We believe it is necessary that Her Majesty's representative be accessible to all the citizens of the province regardless of their economic or social circumstance. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has practised that philosophy and has made it a trademark of his office.

The role of Lieutenant Governor has traditionally been seen as primarily ceremonial. The Honourable John Black Aird has respected this required pomp and ceremony of the office; but to this he has added the common touch, the humanity, bringing contemporary relevance to a historical procedure.

As we well know, his tenure was touched by a great deal of drama and tension during the period immediately following the May 2 election. During those difficult weeks His Honour dealt with the situation with great dignity and total objectivity.

We are particularly thankful to him for the social warmth and friendship he extended to all members of the House, but in particular to the leaders on both sides of this House during that period of time. I know our leader will long remember his personal kindness to him.

Lieutenant Governor John Black Aird had very big shoes to fill when he entered this office. I think, however, the person chosen to have the honour of being our next Lieutenant Governor will have even greater shoes to fill and will sense the huge challenge that is inherent in following in the footsteps of the Honourable John Black Aird. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Rae: Your Honour, it is a pleasure for me again to address you and the House on the quality of your service. I was lucky enough to be present at the wonderful dinner that was held for you at the Beth Sholom synagogue. It was an evening I will always remember, an evening of great emotion, where the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) spoke very eloquently on behalf of the Conservative Party on that occasion.

I want to say just a few things that I said at that time, because I really think there are some qualities that you have, sir, from which we and the province have benefited enormously. I think it is very appropriate for us to be taking a special time at the end of a somewhat loony day to express these thoughts.

I said at that time that Abraham Lincoln had a very good phrase which I have always felt was so apt, that when you take the measure of a person you measure him around the heart. Sometimes politicians think you might measure him around the head, but luckily I think that is quite inappropriate.

The Lieutenant Governor has shown tremendous qualities of heart in this job. It would be so easy to allow the pomp and circumstance and the ceremony to get in the way of people, but he has never allowed that to happen. As has been said by the Premier and by the member for York Mills, the Lieutenant Governor has always shown an extraordinary ability to relate to everyone in this province, including the very special relationship he has developed with the handicapped and those with special disabilities.

I think of the times I have seen the Lieutenant Governor at Variety Village, the games he organized for the handicapped and the special time he has taken with people; particularly the moments when there were no reporters there, no cameras going, just he and perhaps a little boy or girl with a special disability, and he was taking the time to talk, to share, to hold them and talk to their parents and show the love and affection he so obviously feels.

In a personal way, if I may say so, the Lieutenant Governor put me at ease the very first time I met him when I went to see him as the newly elected leader of the third party. We have had many dealings since then. Both Arlene and I would like to say thank you for the friendship the Lieutenant Governor has given us and shared with us. It is a friendship I know will last well outside the confines of Queen's Park and the particular job he now holds.

Reference has been made to the tension of the past few months. I do not know what tension anybody is referring to. The Lieutenant Governor certainly acted on the occasions I met him with extraordinary dignity and great reserve. I seem to recall we had coffee at that time, but this was very early after the election. It was at nine o'clock in the morning. It would have been inappropriate to have anything else.

I know I speak on behalf of all the members of my caucus. We want to thank the Lieutenant Governor for his quality of service, for the grace with which he has served the people of this province and to wish him the very best. I know he will keep on working. I understand my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has roped the Lieutenant Governor into doing some work on hockey violence. I know I have several projects I would like to get him involved with, and I suspect others will as well.

The Lieutenant Governor has set such high standards for all of us in public life. It is a great moment at the end of the session for us to reflect that public service does produce some extraordinary people. The Lieutenant Governor is certainly one of them.

Hon. Mr. Aird: This is a rather unprecedented day. Would members mind if I said a few words? Please be seated.

I do not really think one steps into anyone's shoes. I think perhaps one does follow in footsteps. Ontario has had a great tradition of Lieutenant Governors. I think the words that have been expressed here today about me are a reflection of many years of service by those who went before me.

I thank all members. I thank the Premier, the member for York Mills and the member for York South. I accept what they had to say without false pride or false humility. Serving Her Majesty, representing Her Majesty, and through that representation serving the province of Ontario and the people of Ontario, has to be one of the greatest privileges one could have in one's lifetime.

3:50 p.m.

Therefore, when I come here today, I suppose on an historic occasion, I do so with a little bit of a song in my heart because the past five years have been perfectly wonderful for me. I have seen the people and the province, and that is an experience not many people truly have. It has been wonderful for Jane and I to have had the support of every member of this assembly every place we have gone. When I say goodbye this afternoon, as I do, it is with some regret. But it is also with some joy because I believe this tradition will be carried on.

If I might add a very personal note, it is a pleasure to come in here, not to read somebody else's speech, not to nod my head in solemnity, but to be with people I truly regard as my friends. I thank you all.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 3:58 p.m.

12 juillet 1985