Hansard Transcripts 1978-Apr-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and, I suspect, representatives of some parties opposite are, even as I speak, at the council of Metropolitan Toronto this morning where there is a commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the inaugural of Metropolitan Toronto. It would seem to me to be appropriate that this Legislature might wish to express its best wishes and congratulations on this anniversary.

Metropolitan Toronto came into being not without some controversy and some disagreement. It has stood the test of time and I think on a world-wide basis it is looked on as an example of how local government can adapt to change and come together. I think it is fair to say that some part, perhaps a large part, of the vitality, the lifestyle even, and the enthusiasm, to say nothing of the services and the social amenities which are part of this great metropolitan area --

Mr. Sargent: Now they are going to scrap it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- have been, in some measure at any rate, due to the form of government which this Legislature bestowed on the then 13 municipalities some 25 years ago.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved that the second session of the 31st Parliament of Ontario extend its congratulations and best wishes to the council of Metropolitan Toronto on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the establishment of Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I believe those good wishes will no doubt be conveyed in any case by the Premier, perhaps even at this moment, but I thought all members would like to join through you, Mr. Speaker, in sending best wishes to Metropolitan Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FLECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Labour: Can the minister explain why it seems to have taken six weeks of one of the most bitter and unfortunate strikes in recent memory before she has been able to somehow convince herself about certain aspects of this case? Why has the minister not previously made herself aware of all aspects of this dispute; and why did it require a visit from a number of young women who work at that plant in order for the minister to be able to come out with a flat statement on one side or the other on some aspects of this dispute? Isn’t this a peculiar way to conduct the business of her ministry?

Mr. Deans: Welcome, welcome aboard.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, first, it’s obvious that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not informed about the activities of the ministry, for one thing.

Mr. Haggerty: You are not.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Second, he has obviously not read the newspaper article but only the headline. Third, there were some presentations provided to me by the workers at Fleck yesterday, for the very first time, in which there is some discrepancy with the reports I have from my inspectors. I promised them that I would investigate those discrepancies.

Mr. Haggerty: It was brought to your attention weeks ago. You have done nothing.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have been talking to both parties, to the people involved in the strike and to the UAW, for more than six weeks, unbeknownst, I suppose, to the Leader of the Opposition. I shall continue to do so because the role of the Ministry of Labour in this province is to attempt to help both parties in the dispute to arrive at a solution. We shall continue that role.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, can the minister explain what new information she received that led her to take the viewpoint she expressed in support of the striking workers? Can she, at the same time, tell us what she has been able to learn with regard to the discrepancies between the workers’ description of the accident rate and the working conditions and the description she has had from her own officials and inspectors?

Particularly, can she comment on whether she has information to confirm the point of view expressed by the workers on the radio today, that whenever the inspectors show up at that plant there is a rapid cleanup and the dangerous equipment is turned off and so on? Has she made it her business, after six weeks, to know whether these allegations are correct or not, instead of letting this thing fester and then making a public relations statement when 15 or 20 workers come to see her?

Mr. Swart: Why didn’t the member ask before instead of the member for Huron-Middlesex?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s question is that the report of the inspectors in this case was provided as a result of the question of a member of the third party in this House some five or six weeks ago. I provided within this House -- and it was well publicized -- the report of my inspectors. That’s precisely what I provided. It has, apparently, taken this long for the striking workers there --

Ms. Gigantes: That’s wrong. We told you so.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- to establish the position which they wanted to present to me, They did that yesterday.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, come on.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I had not heard it before.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister heard it in this House.

Mr. Swart: The minister heard it a dozen times.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There were some allegations raised by the members of the third party. I did provide the information which the inspectors of the Ministry of Labour had gathered.

Mr. Warner: Obviously they didn’t check it out.

Mr. Swart: And we told the minister it was wrong.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There has been ongoing activity in the area of occupational health and safety in our division to look at these differences in opinion, apparently, about what has been going on there.

Mr. Warner: The minister was told weeks ago that she was wrong.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There was some additional information in the document which was presented to us yesterday afternoon, which is again different from what was presented in the House and what my inspectors have provided me, and we’re certainly going to investigate that as well. There wasn’t any public relations statement yesterday.

Mr. Germa: Yes, there was.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Somebody asked me a question and I answered it.

Mr. Martel: I have a supplementary. The minister is reported in the Globe and Mail as saying: “It is inappropriate there should be any question of union security in this day and age when enough membership cards have been signed.” What legislative steps is the minister prepared to take to guarantee union security once certification has occurred?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If the member would read the rest of the quote, I also stated that union security is in all instances a matter of negotiation.

Mr. Martel: I have read it.

Mr. Germa: The minister is weaseling.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I’m not weaseling. There are instances in which union security -- there are various kinds of union security which can be negotiated.

Mr. Swart: The minister is not weaseling. She is talking out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think it’s inappropriate in this strike, when a number of modifications to the standard variety of union security could be discussed, that there is an impasse on the basis of lack of discussion of this specific item. That seems to be the only item which is at variance right at this point. I do think that’s inappropriate in a strike of this sort, in this specific strike, at this rime and in that place.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the management at this plant is adamant against having a union established in that plant, has the minister been able to convince the management to move into the 20th century and accept the union there, in which case the whole dispute will be resolved?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have had reports of this state of adamancy on the part of the owners of the plant. I do not know for a fact that this is so.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, come on.

Mr. Makarchuk: Ask them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I do not know that for a fact and I doubt if the hon. member knows that for a fact either.

Mr. Makarchuk: For a fact, I do.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We shall continue to attempt to persuade both parties to sit down to negotiate this one item which seems to be in question at the moment. We’ll try to help them find a solution.

Mr. Warner: Why does the minister think there is a strike there?

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Given that the minister believes union security should be a matter of course -- and we believe it should be a matter of course and I assume the Liberal Party believes it should be -- and since we’re prepared to support an amendment by the minister of any type that will bring about union security in Ontario, guaranteed after a sufficient number of employees of any operation have signed union cards, will she bring in legislation and let us get this thing cleared up?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As I said a few moments earlier, there are a number of variations of the theme of union security --

Mr. Deans: Bring in one of them.

Mr. Renwick: Bring in the minimum requirement.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and to impose one of them universally across this province I think would be entirely wrong. I still think it’s much more appropriate for the parties to negotiate the type of union-management relationship that is best for the individual situation being discussed during negotiations.

Mr. Deans: Let’s have a minimum.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: In view of the interesting statement that the minister made in our discussion of energy conservation the other day -- and I want to quote it here to remind him of his point of view; he said he was “quite flabbergasted” that I would suggest a conservation program, which “at this particular stage in our history would result in the loss of thousands and thousands of jobs in this province” -- can the minister tell us what his intentions are with regard to the conservation program currently being employed by Ontario Hydro? Is Hydro to continue its process of putting ads in the paper and on television, encouraging people to conserve electricity? Are they to continue to cause the loss of jobs, according to the minister? Have they been instructed in some way to stop their entire conservation program because of the minister’s philosophy?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that one reason the revised load forecast for Hydro was down was that conservation had, in effect, taken place. We said that in our statement.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That was one reason. It wasn’t the only reason; there was a lagging economy. But one reason is that Hydro has been preaching, and I suppose the consumers have been listening, to practice conservation.

Mr. Kerrio: Maybe they can’t pay for it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: On the whole question of jobs and conservation, the reason I found so much difficulty in following the logic which the Leader of the Opposition had developed was -- and I quote here from Hansard -- that the Leader of the Opposition asked me: “Why would he” -- namely me -- “not instead go for a major conservation policy and cot all 3,000 megawatts, remembering that 3,000 megawatts is approximately $4 billion in capital costs?” With that kind of a question, I frankly could not understand --

Mr. Sargent: Taylor couldn’t either.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- how, by cutting back on expansion programs, we could immediately translate into conservation programs that kind of a capital expenditure and find that kind of jobs for workers.

I think it’s relevant in connection with this subject that I have in front of me here a telegram I have just received from William Hamilton, president of Local 508, United Electrical Workers, in which he says:

“Decision announced in Legislature April 17 re cancellation of two Wesleyville generating units means immediate and continuing layoff of workers in CGE’s Scarborough plant. As representative of these workers, we strongly urge the decision be reversed, especially in view of bleak employment situation. Employment this plant down now to 400 from a high of 1,000 workers.”

When we start talking about cutting back on expansion programs and simply taking those jobs and transferring them to conservation programs, I don’t know how you do it. I am very concerned about the immediate impact of this kind of a move --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and I think this kind of telegram should keep all of us just a little more relevant than some of the pie-in-the-sky stuff we heard the other day.

Mr. Hall: Which side are you going to come down on? You can’t have it both ways.

[10: 15]

Mr. S. Smith: It seems to me, by way of supplementary, we should find the minister on one side of the issue or the other. If it’s a matter of spending billions to create construction jobs in unneeded electrical plants, and I would hope, if that be his policy, he might consider building 50 unneeded plants and think of all the wonderful telegrams he’ll get then. The question is this: Is the ministry going to do away with the conservation program that’s presently in place, given the fact that by the minister’s reasoning it must be costing at least hundreds of jobs if not thousands? Surely he should be encouraging people to waste electricity, according to his philosophy, so that he can create even more jobs and receive even nicer telegrams?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s nonsense, even for a hypothetical question, for goodness’ sake.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister on this planet, or not? Is he going to build billions of dollars’ worth of stations that we don’t need just so he won’t get nasty telegrams from the construction industry?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I regard that as a ridiculous question --

Mr. Sargent: Because you can’t answer it, that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- I mean, this all or nothing at all approach; for heaven’s sake we can surely do both. We can conserve energy and at the same time we have to plan and expand our generating capacity to take into account the still growing needs of our electrical consumers.

Mr. Sargent: You’re exporting power.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are going to export you next.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The two things are not mutually exclusive, we have to do both. I just don’t understand the member’s logic.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the minister inform us if the Ministry of Energy has done any studies to see what job creation would take place through conservation projects?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We have not done any specific studies as to what might take place through conservation programs. If one wants to lump conservation in with the development of renewable energy sources I can imagine there could be a substantial number of jobs created eventually. I suspect, for example, that in the solar energy field 10, 15 years, 30 years down the line we will have a very substantial industry as we research and develop solar energy possibilities.

The point is that at this moment, this year, next year, now, it is very difficult and we can’t in a very precipitate kind of way, in an immediate way, in a total way simply transfer thousands of job possibilities from the hydro-electrical generating capacity work to conservation programs, I don’t think it can be done overnight and I suspect most members opposite wouldn’t say it could be.

Mr. Mackenzie: What are you going to hang your hat on next year?

Mr. Foulds: When are you going to start doing the research?

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that a number of prominent people throughout the world have made rather profound statements about the impact of conservation programs, saying that conservation programs and the road into the new age of renewable energy is actually job-positive, compared to the construction of large centralized utilities? One of the obvious comparisons is that the capital cost per job in a centralized utility construction program, to keep one man employed, is roughly a quarter of a million dollars --

Mr. Speaker: This is a speech.

Mr. J. Reed: -- Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am asking the minister if he is aware of the obvious -- whereas in the private sector the investment is roughly one-tenth of that. Does he understand that if the government had introduced its insulation program, which it withdrew last year, many new jobs would have been created for half the capital investment of building new generating facilities?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Of course, we are aware of that. As I tried to indicate a moment ago, we are aware of the eventual, tremendous potential for jobs in the energy conservation field, whether we are talking about renewable energy or whether we are talking about actual conservation such as insulation. I think the hon. member opposite knows that one reason why we have not gone into the insulation program the way we might have is because of the substantial intrusion of the federal government into that particular field.

Interjections.

Mr. Cunningham: You are worse than the last guy.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Again, we have to be careful that we don’t start crash programs; one has to move into this slowly or one ends up with egg on one’s face.

An hon. member: You are familiar with that.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would just like to make this one point one more time -- I’ve made it about six times now -- we are not expanding our generating capacity for Ontario Hydro to build huge unnecessary surpluses of power. That is just not the case.

Mr. Breithaupt: How about a federal nomination for you?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The 3,000 megawatts are the required reserve. Above that, for the period 1981-86, we are building a surplus of only four per cent of our total generating capacity. It is not the huge surplus we are being accused of here, not at all. The 3,000 megawatts are the required reserve.

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t even understand.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The four per cent between the years 1981 and 1986 is surplus and we hope to export that for the benefit of the consumers of Hydro and Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: That will increase jobs on the other side.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, why is the minister following a policy designed to export electricity from fossil fuel-type stations, or any other type of station, when the Americans are quite capable of building their own? In view of the fact that the load forecasts are down, why isn’t he using that capital, and the money it has cost him to get that capital, to do the research here in Ontario in order to produce a technology of conservation in Ontario which we’re going to need on this planet? Why is he instead leaving us in a position where we will end up as a client state of Japan, Western Europe and the United States, where they will be doing the research in conservation-oriented industries and we’ll end up having to go hat in hand to buy those types of technologies from them, while we’re sitting around exporting fuel-fired electricity from our own stations to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would like again to draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that the one place where we did cut back and where we reduced by half our generating capacity, namely, Wesleyville, was an oil-fired generating station. Much of our electric generating power will be coming from nuclear fuel which happens to come from uranium and which happens to be an indigenous Ontario product. I frankly don’t see anything wrong with using an indigenous product. We are trying to get away from being the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition can’t see that exporting some hydro is in fact exporting a processed product. I don’t understand.

Mr. Kerrio: Your uranium might as well be on the moon for what it is going to cost you.

Mr. Breithaupt: At borrowed prices.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s a new philosophy of power.

Mr. Kerrio: How are we going to make any sense out of that?

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware that injured workers with as much as 10 or 12 years seniority are being laid off their light duty jobs at Inco because Inco is eliminating the jobs?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have been aware for some time that there was a potential for such an occurrence within the Inco plant. My first awareness was as a result of the information that was given to me about the closing down of portions of the Port Colborne plant, because of the fact that the areas affected are those in which some of the injured workers capable of doing light duty are working. Yes, I am aware of it.

Mr. Martel: Can the minister then indicate to me, since these men have adequate seniority and are being laid off because jobs are being removed and because of their health, in view of the fact that they are willing to work, why it is that the Workmen’s Compensation Board under section 41 refuses to make payments to these workers who have lost their work because of their injuries?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s my understanding that most of these individuals are already on some sort of pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board --

Mr. Haggerty: At $60 a month.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and have been taken back on by the company, in many instances because they were capable of doing light work. I am sure that if and when -- and hopefully it’ll be when and in the not-too-distant future -- the activity at Inco increases again there will be opportunities for employment.

Mr. Mackenzie: What are you going to do in the meantime? Put them on welfare?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The vocational rehabilitation officers and the employment adjustment service of my ministry are ready to try to assist these individuals to find alternative work at this time.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that not only are the workers being laid off by Inco and not only are they not receiving full benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, but they’re also being denied rehabilitative services from the board because the board is claiming they’re not being laid off because of their injuries but because the job no longer exists? Does the minister not think that that’s compounding the problem?

Mr. Lewis: It’s called a triple bind.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I suppose it could be considered to be compounding a problem and I shall certainly take this into consideration and discuss it with the board.

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister not go one step further and demand that the board cease and desist in that regulation entirely?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, because that would deny a number of other injured workers throughout the province the kind of assistance that the board could provide for them under that section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. Martel: Further supplementary: In view of the fact that as the minister said, some of them are on pension, is it not possible that supplementary benefits could be paid? These men are prepared to work and have been working for a number of years, therefore they should be entitled to protection under the very legislation for which the minister is responsible.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not hear the full context of that question.

Mr. Martel: The minister indicated that some of them were on pension; they are then in a position to obtain supplementary benefits. Because they are prepared to work and have been working, is she not prepared to give them the protection under the Act? The Act says if one is prepared to work, the board is prepared to rehabilitate you and in the process provide supplementary or full benefits.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I just said that I would be most willing to discuss with the board, if this has been a problem, the full area of vocational rehabilitation for these individuals. I am aware that the vocational rehabilitation branch of the Workmen’s Compensation Board has found 50 jobs in the Sudbury area for injured workmen since January 1. It is not an impossible situation. I shall certainly take it into consideration and discuss it with the board.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Your second question.

Mr. Martel: I would just like to know what they are supposed to eat in the meantime.

CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS

Mr. Martel: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: In the proposed short-term legislation, particularly of the Child Welfare Act, which is still all crisis-oriented, can the minister not change the direction of that Act and make it preventive?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As the hon. member knows, the short-term proposals are just that. They are for the short term while we work on a major change in the omnibus bill which I hope to bring before the House, realistically, I think, within the next two or three years -- God willing, and the Premier, and the electorate.

Mr. Martel: That’s what I am talking about.

Mr. McClellan: Five or six years.

Mr. Lewis: If that is today’s realism, it will be five to 10 years.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But on the shorter term, we were trying to address those things that were obviously of greatest and most critical concern.

I do have plans to announce in the very near future, a clear set of priorities for expenditures in the next fiscal year and this fiscal year, which I think will indicate to the members a very clear emphasis upon preventive programs as opposed to crisis reactive programs. I would think that within the next two to three weeks I would be in a position to present the members with that list of priorities for spending.

Mr. Martel: Fine. Could the minister indicate when he intends to introduce his short-term legislation?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I intend to introduce it this session, as I have made the commitment to do. There has been a problem in that the response to the consultation paper has been much greater than we had anticipated. We originally hoped that the public consultation process could be wound up by the end of February this year. As that date approached, it became more and more evident, as we got requests from across the province for extensions, that there were many people and organizations who had devoted a lot of time to an examination of those proposals and were preparing briefs in response to it. They were requesting an extension of time so that they could get their response to us before we wound up that process. So I made the decision towards the end of February to extend the consultation process to the end of March.

At the same time, we would proceed with the next step, in fact doing two things at once: Continuing to receive responses to the green paper and processing those responses we had received and beginning to develop the legislation. At the present time, the deadline that I have established for the introduction of that legislation is not changed; it would be by June 1.

[10:30]

There is some concern on my part. I had originally hoped we would have it passed this session. There have been indications from the hon. members opposite that they would like to see the legislation go to committee. In view of that I think, being realistic, the legislation will probably be introduced by the target date of early June. It will probably receive second reading, I would hope, and go to committee. That may be a process that requires it to go to committee over the summer so there can be an adequate period of time in which the committee could hear it, given the load of the committee with estimates and so on during this session.

I would hope that if that is the case it would be a high priority for early introduction and passage in the fall session of this year.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can we add five minutes to the question period, Mr. Speaker?

An hon. member: That was a long answer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It was very precise and to the point.

An hon. member: You sound like Jimmy Auld.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He is a master.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, may I ask the minister whether he intends to change the most odious feature of his green paper, which is recommendation 46 dealing with the right of biological parents to appeal a wardship at the moment of adoption placement? That has, I think, been universally denounced as destructive. Does he intend to proceed with that course in legislation or does he intend to change those recommendations for legislation?

Mr. Warner: Yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member is correct. There has been a very significant response to that recommendation. It is under review and I expect that it will be changed when it is in the form for presentation to the House.

Mr. McClellan: The minister doesn’t know? He had better instruct his staff to stop saying it is being changed then.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I listen to the people.

HYDRO POLICY

Mr. Sargent: Is the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) in the gallery, or has he gone?

A question, then, of the Minister of Energy. In view of the fact that our leader is zeroing in on the hopelessness of the situation in Hydro -- and we are going to zero in on you too pretty soon, McKeough --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I tremble.

Mr. Sargent: -- and because we had hoped the minister would have some intelligence when he took over.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you implying otherwise, Eddie?

Mr. Foulds: Why would you have had that hope?

Mr. Nixon: What a hope.

Mr. Sargent: We now have the biggest nuclear program in the whole world; and to quote Robarts, we have “ten new Niagaras”; and in our contract with Denison, we have the biggest contract in the history of the world, which is what I am concerned about. In my area we have hundreds of layoffs now.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Question.

Mr. Sargent: We will get to the Treasurer in a moment.

Mr. Nixon: Bob Welch is going to fix him.

Mr. Sargent: We have hundreds of layoffs in my area now -- permanent layoffs.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is one more I’d like to see.

Mr. Sargent: We have a great capital program going on, and yet the government is exporting power contracts to the States.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are going to export you, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: Bette, you have been in Labour a long time, and you are still labouring.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And I will continue.

Mr. Sargent: I want to ask the minister where the democratic process, as he sees it, comes into this picture. Who makes the decision between the elected people and a $30 billion program? Is he the only link between the eight million people in Ontario and a $30 billion program? I want to find that out.

Mr. Warner: He is the missing link.

Mr. S. Smith: He is the visible link.

Mr. Conway: Are you the visible link, Reuben?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t know whether Friday morning fatigue is setting in for my friend across the road or whether it is me, but I really have difficulty responding precisely to that rather long and many-dimensioned question.

Mr. Sargent: I will give it to the minister again.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you read it in Hansard?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Is he talking about the decision-making process? What is the $30 billion program?

Mr. Sargent: My supplementary will be this then: In view of the fact that we have a capital program going on, a layoff program going on and a power export program going on, how does the minister justify that? How are the elected people of Ontario being protected? Through him? Is that the only source we have? Is that it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Justify what?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, first of all I don’t even understand the logic of the question; therefore, I can’t justify it.

Hon. W. Newman: Nobody else can either.

Mr. Kerrio: You had the same problem with the last one. You have the same problem with every question.

Mr. Bradley: The real question is, what happened in Hastings last night?

An hon. member: You can’t justify anything, Baetz.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Perhaps if the hon. member opposite would ask a further supplementary, maybe we could get down to something here. He wants to beef up the layoff program and he wants to expand -- I just don’t understand it.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t blame the minister; I don’t understand either. And the public of Ontario doesn’t understand --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Then don’t confuse them.

Mr. Sargent: I ask the minister a simple question: How does he justify hundreds of layoffs, expansion programs and a capital program -- all in one box? How does he justify all that? Does the minister know what layoffs are? Does he know what export is?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Does he know what a capital program is? Does he know those three things? How does he mix them all together?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: How do you mix them all together?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The hon. member is the one who does the good job of mixing them all together.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: How does one explain it? Maybe that’s the question. I really don’t know.

Mr. Foulds: Tell him to put it on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Obviously if this government were to establish a policy -- and it is not the policy now, I should hasten to add -- to substantially export more of our electric power, I suppose that would mean more generating stations would be required; that would mean more jobs for many people, including those in Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: But you are laying off.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: But I simply don’t follow the sequence of the member’s logic there at all.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Take the questions as notice.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I’ll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll try it over the weekend.

Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister of Community and Social Services pulling the strings now?

COMMUNITY LAW CLINICS

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I have a question for the government House leader, Deputy Premier, Minister of Culture and Recreation, and “Wizard of Wintario.”

Mr. Lewis: And friend of Darcy McKeough -- a close and intimate friend of Darcy.

Mr. Warner: Perhaps be could take this important question as notice to the Attorney General and ask that he make a statement on Monday. It’s regarding the People And Law legal clinic; I would like the Attorney General to table for us the criteria used by the clinical funding committee in deciding which clinics will be funded and how much money each clinic will receive, and to inform the House as to whose jurisdiction the clinical funding committee comes under and what kind of effort the Attorney General is prepared to make so that the People And Law committee will not go out of existence. It is important that we get a statement by Monday, since there is a meeting set up for Wednesday and the fate of that legal clinic will be sealed by Wednesday if we don’t have some leadership from the Attorney General on Monday.

BUY-CANADIAN PROGRAM

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. It has to do with buying Canadian. I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that the Ministry of Government Services now is providing members with pencils made in the United States. It may be a small item but it is sort of the thin edge of the wedge, and that prompts me to ask the question: Would the minister provide members of this House with all proposals and details of actions that will be taken or are currently under way, either unilaterally by the Ontario government or in conjunction with the federal government, to promote the buy-Canadian program?

An hon. member: Sharpen your pencils on this one, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member knows, I have indicated that Ontario would produce a buy-Canadian program. We are in the process of doing that. I think we are very close to presenting all the information to the Legislature as to what that program will entail. We still hope we can have that program --

Mr. Kerrio: Are you going to start with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson)?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Do you want me to start with that? Yes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He’s going to start with the member for Niagara Falls.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I certainly cannot explain why that has happened. I have had contact with the Minister of Government Services; I wasn’t aware of the pencils, but I was aware of other items. We have discussed that I would like to see that changed. But I am assuming that maybe the reason for buying the US pencils is the same as why the hon. member was drinking French wine last night.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is no evidence to prove that,

Hon. B. Stephenson: That you were drinking French wine last night?

Mr. Warner: He wouldn’t know; he can’t read.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hall: Free wine in the press gallery; a cheap shot, John.

Mr. Warner: But true.

Mr. Kerrio: In view of the very successful non-tariff barriers used in the majority of industrial nations throughout the western world which effectively exclude many Canadian firms from sharing in government contracts, would the minister not agree that a key element to a buy-Canadian program in Ontario must begin with the government setting the public an example by ensuring that its own purchasing practices give preference to indigenous Canadian businesses and primarily to products with the highest proportion of Canadian manufactured content? If so, would the minister comment on any review of current purchasing practices?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I think the hon. member knows, in Ontario we have maintained a policy when we are purchasing government supplies and equipment that there is a 10 per cent area that we allow which gives preference to Ontario and Canadian suppliers. I should say Canadian suppliers, not just Ontario. As far as the discussions that are going on around government procurement at the GATT negotiations, that is a subject that is being discussed in some great detail by all of the countries involved in those negotiations, in particular those affectionately known as the “big three” -- the European Economic Community, Japan and the United States.

I don’t think anyone can deny that that’s probably quite correct -- that we as a country should be looking at supporting our own industries. We certainly support that position. I would like to ask the hon. member if he would be kind enough to send me over the pencils he was referring to. I have five pencils here, all of which have “Province of Ontario” on them and all of which are made in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He brought them from home.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t know if the hon. member picked one up while he was visiting Niagara Falls in New York, or somewhere like that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Or in the restaurant where he had the French wine.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I also want to say, in response to the comment made by the hon. member about the wine, I certainly can’t prove it --

Mr. Kerrio: The evidence is gone.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- but I understand it came from the township of St. Emilion, down in the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr. Conway: You’ll make a great Treasurer, John.

ASBESTOS WORKERS

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Labour: Can the minister give us any adequate explanation whatsoever as to why for the past five to six months workers at Canadian Johns-Manville here in Toronto with proven, documented, Workmen’s Compensation Board accepted cases of either asbestosis or asbestos fibre dust effects, including one person with a rated 40 per cent disability, are now not being allowed to come out of the plant and on to the special rehabilitation assistance program which was set up to remove affected employees from the plants and get them out of the areas where asbestos lung hazards have been proved?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The program which was set up for asbestos workers is certainly one that has been innovative and I think a leader in this area in the world, and I am surprised to hear that there has been any major impediment to that program. I shall most certainly investigate this and report to the House.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: While the minister is investigating why other workers aren’t being allowed out on the program, and speaking to her reply about the effectiveness of the program, would she also investigate why only two of the 17 people who have come out of that plant on that program have been offered vocational retraining to date?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We will add that to the investigation.

Mr. McClellan: A triumph for the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: When the minister is looking into that, would she have a talk with the chief of the chest disease section of the board, Dr. Stewart, to determine whether or not his attitude has something to do with the reluctance of the board to put these people on a code four type of program, in view of the fact that he said at one point that the board must do everything it could to discourage people from getting into that program?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am aware that that allegation has been made --

Mr. Laughren: What do you mean? It’s in writing.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and I am not aware that it is indeed factual. I have already initiated some investigation of that allegation and will report back to the House.

COLUMBUS MCKINNON LIMITED

Mr. Bradley: Could the Minister of Labour tell us what new initiatives her ministry has taken to attempt to solve a prolonged labour dispute in the city of St. Catharines at Columbus McKinnon Limited, a dispute which has now gone on for several months and has caused hardships to both sides?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am aware that contact was made with both parties by our industrial relations branch this week. I am not aware that any new meetings are about to occur, but I shall look into this and report to the hon. member.

[10:45]

HIGHWAY 17

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, if I could have his attention. Could the minister inform the House of the nature of his reply to the Hon. Hugh Faulkner’s letter to him regarding the Garden River band’s opposition to the widening of Highway 17 through the reserve?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did write to Mr. Faulkner, I believe on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week, in reply to his telegram, outlining basically in my letter the negotiations, the plans that have been made to date and the problems that exist. I have invited Mr. Faulkner to join with me in a meeting with Chief Boissoneau and his band council, hoping that we might be able by a tri-party meeting to resolve some of these problems. Whether he will agree to this meeting or not, I don’t know. I have not heard back from him.

WATER DIVERSION

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware of the present debate taking place in Washington, DC, in the United States Senate concerning the proposal of increasing water diversion flows from Lake Michigan into the Illinois waterway from some 3,200 cubic feet per second up to 10,000 cubic feet per second? The stated objectives of this diversion scheme are to reduce the shoreline damages due to the high waters from the Great Lakes and to enhance the water quality of the Illinois waterway.

The New York State power authority is raising objections to the proposals because the diversion could force it to replace lost hydro-electric power with imported oil, adding $45 million a year to consumer electric bills. Has the minister or Ontario Hydro completed any studies in this area as to the impact on the possible increase in hydro costs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I admit I am not aware of that potential problem. I appreciate very much that the hon. member has brought this to our attention. We will certainly investigate and report back.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the minister have observers and representatives at the IJC, which has control over the Great Lakes water system, as does his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), or does he have to work through Natural Resources on these matters?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In some matters we do work through the Ministry of Natural Resources. I am also contacting the International Joint Commission on a different matter. I am assuming the modus operandi is that if we want to make a direct contact with IJC we can do so.

HOSPITAL SUPPLY PURCHASES

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I think he’s still there, isn’t he? Yes. Has the ministry conducted any investigation into the degree of which, to which or by which -- I can’t get the right word, and anyway it doesn’t matter this morning -- the supplies and equipment of hospitals in Ontario are purchased in the United States? In addition to that, has he looked into the numbers of supplies that are manufactured outside the US and are simply channelled through the United States into Canada through clearing houses and purchasing houses? Has he considered setting up in Ontario a purchasing arrangement whereby we could either buy direct or encourage the manufacture of those products here?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is already a fair degree of central purchasing among the hospitals. They do co-operate with one another to a great extent. Several months ago we began discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association on the whole question of purchasing with the view in mind of supporting the government’s overall efforts towards a buy- Canadian policy. There are certain things, such as the very sophisticated diagnostic machinery which is around these days, which are simply not made in Canada and, frankly, for which there would not be that large a market. It’s questionable whether we could even develop Canadian sources for some of those things. But in the day-to-day operations of the hospitals, our view is to work out with the Hospital Association a means of achieving a greater concentration of Canadian goods and services in their purchasing.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: I assume from that that the minister has conducted some kind of inquiry or investigation into the degree to which the purchasing is primarily from the United States. Can he report to the House on whatever the outcome of that inquiry was, not only in determining how much of the supplies is manufactured in the United States but also how much is manufactured in Taiwan or Hong Kong or wherever else these things are made, exported into the United States and then further exported into Canada, which adds 300, 400, 500 or 600 per cent to the original cost, and whether or not we might be able to take advantage of much lower costs by purchasing directly here?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the ministry to the best of my knowledge does not have studies which are anywhere near as extensive as the hon. member describes. As a result of the first stage of our discussion with the Hospital Association we would hope to have more definitive data on what is actually happening. Certainly whenever I have raised the subject with hospital people, their position has been that where price and quality are equal, they always give preference to Canadian, but the question is --

Mr. Deans: That’s not my point.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know it’s not your point. The problem is broader than that, I fully recognize, and to get at that problem we have established this working relationship with the Hospital Association.

HYDRO MAILING

Mr. Riddell: A question to the Minister of Energy in connection with his conservation program: Is it correct that Hydro sent out 180,000 envelopes at a cost of $18,000, separate and apart from the customers’ normal billing, indicating that in the future there would be a new box added on to the regular billing showing the average number of kilowatts per day consumed by the customers? Would it not be better to have indicated that information in the normal billing rather than charging $18,000 to indicate this, and wouldn’t it be better to turn $18,000 into revenue rather than try to rise revenue by means of a 37.5 per cent OHIP premium increase?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of this particular mailing but I certainly will look into it. I am not at all sure how the $18,000 saved or unnecessarily spent relates to OHIP and I will not comment on that part.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s why you have to raise OHIP premiums.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: But I will certainly look into the question of that particular mailing.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Well, he has taken it as notice.

Mr. Gaunt: I want him to take another part of it as notice as well. Would the minister not consider that this was an abuse of public money and a misuse of public money and is he prepared to so indicate to Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There is no way that I can answer that question at this particular time because I don’t have all the facts.

Mr. Sargent: What can you answer?

PLANT NATIONAL LIMITED

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware or can she let us know if she’s aware of a small plant with 50-odd employees, Plant National Limited in New Toronto, a plastics recycling plant, and whether she has been made aware of any health problems in that particular operation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: I am wondering if the minister would check this operation and also check with the Queensway Medical Clinic to ascertain whether or not reports of a significant number of urinary tract infections and of diabetes among workers in this plant are accurate and if, indeed, workers who have left this plant have been denied employment in other plants due to medical examinations conducted when they applied for employment?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will find that out.

ENERGY RESEARCH

Mr. J. Reed: A question for the Minister of Energy: In view of the much-publicized increase in the amount of research and development money that was stated in Her Honour’s speech, and as it appears that the money has been increased from what was virtually nothing to about half of what we would consider to be necessary for a proper research and development program, how much of the money will be made available to private enterprise as seed money for innovations in renewable-resource development?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t know how far we want to go into statistics, or how much is enough.

Mr. Conway: As much as you know, Reuben.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The budget for renewable energy projects and for conservation is modest, but it is double at least what it was last year. In a period of restraint, I think that is at least a trend in the right direction.

In terms of assisting private enterprise in developing conservation-related projects or enterprises, that is a matter which falls directly within the mandate of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. But we are in touch with them, even now, on two or three projects that are energy-related.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Do I take it from that answer, then, that there will be, or there is, some budget money available for invention and innovation in the energy field, understanding that all improvement and technological innovation comes from individuals and cannot develop any more rapidly in the public sector and probably more cheaply in the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I said, in so far as it entails assisting financially budding enterprises, that falls within the mandate of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism --

Mr. J. Reed: In other words, there isn’t a nickel for private individuals.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I didn’t say that.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Swart: My question is also to the Minister of Energy and follows up on some other questions which have been asked here today. Rather than go ahead with the billions of dollars of likely unnecessary expenditure on the nuclear power plants, would the minister not consider it advisable to embark on a massive program of solid waste disposal for creation of energy? As the minister is aware it is much more labour-intensive in the operation, is beneficial environmentally, and would replace the dangerous practice of landfill that is rather accepted now.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In response to the first part of the question, I again would say that we do not think we are wasting money or spending money unnecessarily on creating electrical energy. The other point here is, of course, that the hon. member opposite is really talking about two different kinds of energy. One is the energy derived from biomass, from waste and so forth for heating purposes, which in some cases perhaps could be used for the generation of electric power. But I really don’t see that as happening generally. Certainly that kind of program cannot replace the much-required and necessary electrical power which is generated from nuclear.

On the question of nuclear power, I frankly do not understand why, when we in Ontario have a very valuable indigenous resource, uranium, and have developed one of the most sophisticated --

Ms. Gigantes: We don’t know that.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- technologies in the world, we constantly keep knocking this. Why aren’t we proud of the fact that we are world achievers in the development of nuclear energy -- instead of knocking it and trying to be late-blooming flower children?

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: May I ask the Minister of Energy, what ongoing studies are there relative to the conversion of solid waste disposal to energy, and is he about to build or will he build a major plant someplace in this province as a pilot project in this field, because in other areas of this continent, solid waste is being used successfully for energy?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Solid waste is being used in a number of places right in this province at the present time.

[11:00]

Mr. J. Reed: Is the minister not aware that refuse or garbage is also an indigenous resource --

Mr. di Santo: He is not aware of anything.

Mrs. Campbell: In this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In some places more than others.

Mr. J. Reed: -- and should get at least equal attention to the nuclear program he is trying to sell to this Legislature on a continuing basis, and that if it is not dealt with it poses a very serious environmental problem on the other hand? Is he not aware that Ontario is probably the last jurisdiction in the civilized world to take up this business of the garbage problem and turn it into useful end products?

Mr. Swart: Always last.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t accept this constant effort of making these things appear to be mutually exclusive. While we develop our nuclear program, we can surely also at the same time develop our waste programs.

Ms. Gigantes: But you are not doing it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We can develop energy sources there and we’re doing it at the present time.

Mr. Swart: Where?

Mr. S. Smith: Where?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In Toronto.

Mr. S. Smith: You are the one who said conservation or jobs.

Mr. Turner: Which would you rather have?

Mr. S. Smith: Conservation.

Mr. J. Reed: And jobs.

Mr. S. Smith: Conservation because then we will have jobs with a future, not just short-term construction jobs.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Go to Westinghouse in Hamilton and tell the workers that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: You heard it. You Neanderthal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FARM STORM DAMAGE

Mr. McGuigan: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Would the minister reach into his briefcase -- I know he’s been waiting to do this -- and bring out the program he has for assisting Ontario businesses who suffered disastrous damage in the January 26 storm?

Mr. Sargent: Better wake him up first.

Mr. McGuigan: Does the minister realize that his policy of waiting for help from Ottawa is costing jobs in Ontario, and when will the minister act on behalf of Ontario as suggested in my original question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Everything costs jobs.

Hon. W. Newman: I would point out that I have that announcement in my briefcase. I was reading over the application forms for the damage caused by that storm and the terms of agreement for the farmers. These forms are ready to go out to the ag offices the minute we hear from Ottawa.

Ottawa has indicated agreement to us on five different occasions, but as late as yesterday they did not get it to the Treasury Board. They are planning to get it to the Treasury Board next week. We have been efficient here. We’ve had it ready for almost 11 weeks now. They said they would offer assistance but I can’t really enact our program unless they go along with it exactly the way I sent it to them, which I think in their wisdom they should.

I have to wait till I hear back from them. If they don’t act within the next couple of weeks, then I may have to look at a different type of program to the one I have put forward to them. I realize there are severe hardships and we want to help those people. Everything is ready at this end.

HIGHWAY NOISE

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In the past I have attempted unsuccessfully to extract some assurance from the minister regarding the noise on Highway 401. In view of the fact that the minister has told me verbally and in letters that the ministry has been assessing the priority areas vis-à-vis the noise on the highways, would the minister tell me at this point if such an assessment has been made and if the area for which I am concerned, as well as my constituents, is one of the areas chosen by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The projects for this current year have been chosen and will be going ahead in this current construction season. I can’t tell the hon. member offhand whether the one he is referring to is one of the ones that’s going ahead or not. The 1979 projects have not yet been chosen.

An hon. member: Are they all in Tory ridings?

Mr. di Santo: I have a supplementary.

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

HANSARD

Mr. Nixon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention that the Hansards for our standing committees are not normally printed to be available until a number of days after the meeting has occurred. In the instance of the standing committee on social development which has been considering the OHIP premium matter, these Hansards are of some considerable interest and importance. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to use your influence and good offices to see that these reports might be available no later than Monday?

Mr. Speaker: We’ll attempt to do that. I see the director of Hansard is nodding in the affirmative and an attempt will be made to do that.

PETITION

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Foulds: I have a petition with 335 signatures. The petition is as follows:

To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: That the recent proposed increase in OHIP premiums is unconscionable and should not proceed, and a less regressive method of paying for Ontario’s health services be instituted.

These signatures are in addition to the 2,194 signatures with petitions of the same wording that I presented to this House on April 4, to bring to a total of 2,529 the people in Thunder Bay, northwestern Ontario, who have signed this petition protesting the OHIP premium increase of 37.5 per cent.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

JOHN A. SCHMALZ AGENCIES LIMITED

Mr. Nixon on behalf of Mr. Breithaupt, moved second reading of Bill Pr12, An Act to revive John A. Schmalz Agencies Limited.

Motion agreed to.