Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NEW PLANNING BILL

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to table a draft of a proposed new planning act for Ontario. As members may recall, this draft act follows publication, earlier this year, of the white paper on the planning act.

The draft legislation translates into legislative terms the conclusions contained in the white paper. Some changes have been made resulting in part from preliminary concerns expressed on the white paper and from technical implementation of some proposals. These changes are clearly identified in the explanatory notes that accompany the legislation. These modifications are a clear indication of the effectiveness of our public participation process and of the willingness of this government to give expression to the views of the community in these important matters.

To further clarify how the revised planning system would work, the second part of the document contains summaries of the main provisions of the key procedural regulations which will be issued at the same time the new act comes into force. Also included is an explanation of the nature and purpose of the new provincial policy statements proposed in the white paper.

One area that has not been covered in the draft legislation deals with the transitionary provisions that will need to be included before the act is introduced into the Legislature. This is seen as a specific technical aspect that should not hinder an understanding of the new act itself.

Beginning late in January 1980 senior staff from my ministry will again conduct a series of workshops across the province for municipal representatives and those in the private sector so that further questions and concerns arising from the white paper and the draft act may be addressed before final submissions are made to the ministry. The deadline for such submissions we have now set as March 31, 1980, and a list of the meeting dates and locations will also be provided to all members.

Finally, I would stress that this document is a proposed act for discussion purposes only. While it represents as closely as possible the content the proposed legislation may take, it is still in draft form. Copies of the draft legislation are now being forwarded to all municipalities and to individuals and groups which have participated in the public review process over the last number of months. All members of this House are of course cordially invited to attend any of the meetings to be held with municipalities throughout the province over the next number of months.

Copies of the draft legislation will be in the mail box of each member. In addition, I would like to say we are again prepared to brief both opposition caucuses on the draft legislation and its implications.

MENTALLY RETARDED FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House today of the government’s intention to increase the provincial funding for the development of community services for the mentally retarded in Ontario by eight per cent in the 1980-81 fiscal year. A news release giving details of this increased funding and what it will mean at the community level is being distributed to members of the House and members of the legislative press gallery this morning.

PEACE BRIDGE ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Hon. Mr. Norton: I must regretfully inform members of the decision taken by the Peace Bridge Association for the Mentally Retarded in Fort Erie to cease operations on December 31 and in so doing to withdraw community residential opportunities and training programs for approximately 50 developmentally handicapped children and adults. I want to emphasize that I remain hopeful this unfortunate decision can be rescinded.

The Peace Bridge association, which has granted its staff extremely high salary awards in the last six months, is contemplating closure as a result of its inability to pay for those increases. I would encourage the association’s board and the staff to search diligently for ways within their current allocation to avoid a complete cessation of services.

The Peace Bridge association currently operates residential services for 27 adults and children. The association also provides vocational programs for 37 clients, some of whom live in the community.

It is with considerable consternation, then, that I report the closure action contemplated by the Peace Bridge association. This ministry has been and continues to be strongly supportive of community-based programs for the mentally retarded. Our commitment to this concept will continue, as will our policy to promote and to provide for an expansion of community residences and programs for the developmentally handicapped.

In so far as the Peace Bridge association’s decision is concerned, the association’s current difficulties stem from the fact that recent salary awards greatly exceed ministry guidelines and the association’s ability to pay. On April 1 this year we, the ministry, allocated funds which permitted the association to award a 15 per cent salary adjustment, which was agreed to by the ministry despite our general five per cent guideline on salaries that had been brought to the attention of all associations. In doing this, we recognized there were large inequities between what employees of one association are being paid and what those in other associations are receiving.

Following that agreement, the Canadian Union of Public Employees was certified as bargaining agent for the association’s staff. The association’s board of directors and the union signed an agreement on October 15. The terms of that new agreement included a 19 per cent increase retroactive to January 1 of this year, plus an additional 12 per cent increase on April 1, 1980. This was in addition to the 15 per cent salary increase awarded by the association in April of this year.

In summary, this settlement and the earlier award combined to give staff a 36.5 per cent increase in 1979 and by April 1980 they would have received considerably in excess of a 50 per cent increase in 15 months.

As I indicated earlier, it is recognized that inequities exist among certain associations in terms of the salaries they pay their staff. It was in that context that we provided in our 1979-80 funding additional allocations to pay extra moneys to those associations whose staff salaries deserve special consideration. Peace Bridge was one association given extra money for that purpose. Overall, the association received a general increase of 12 per cent in 1979-80 over the previous year’s allocation. That allocation included provision for the salary increase of 15 per cent.

As I indicated at the beginning of my statement, it is with deep regret that I announce the association’s decision to end its operations. This termination of services is particularly painful for the mentally handicapped who have benefited by their presence and living in the community. For those people who will be denied community living opportunity I want to assure them, their families and friends, that alternative accommodation has been arranged in our provincially-operated facilities for the mentally retarded. This will only be a short-term solution while we pursue vigorously alternative arrangements for these adults and children.

The only other solution proposed by the Peace Bridge association would be for the employees, the Canadian Union of Public Employees local and the board of directors to review their situation within the context of available resources. I strongly encourage those involved to do so.

The ministry has reviewed a number of possible program changes with the association, but it was jointly determined that the program changes alone could not permit the association to live with such dramatic salary increases. It is possible that program adjustment in combination with the review I’ve suggested above could resolve the problem.

I hope, of course, for a positive resolution of this problem. Whatever the resolution, our commitment to community-based care is well known and will continue to be a priority of this ministry. In this era of slower economic growth, it is incumbent upon all of us to recognize fiscal realities and to accept the responsibilities of working within reasonable financial parameters.

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you and the members of the Legislature of the results of my review of the transcript of some of the testimony during the recent trial in Barrie of a criminal charge against Gerald Stevenson and Robert McLean of the Metropolitan Toronto police department arising out of their use of a fictitious affidavit during the investigation of the shooting death in Toronto of one Bruce Lorenz.

I undertook to the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) and others to make a complete statement on this matter before the House rose.

One of my agents, Robert McGee, deputy crown attorney in charge of the downtown Toronto office, was called as a character witness by the defence in this trial and some of his testimony was the subject of considerable comment in the press. I indicated earlier that I wanted to review the transcript before commenting.

During my term of office as Attorney General I have repeatedly emphasized that equality before the law is a principle of fundamental importance in our society and that one part of that overall concept is the very basic principle that no person is above the law. Recently, the activities of police officers in this country have been the subject of considerable public scrutiny and debate. Throughout this analysis and discussion we have maintained the self-evident principle that the police are not above the law. No responsible person has questioned that principle.

Notwithstanding consensus on this issue, it is sometimes difficult to apply this important general principle to specific cases which arise from the very nature and necessities of police work. For example, may an undercover police officer, investigating an allegation that a highly organized criminal extortion and blackmail operation is being carried on in an hotel, further his investigation by registering under a false name at that hotel, notwithstanding the provisions of the Hotel Registration of Guests Act? This act makes it an offence for any person to register under a false name.

Are apparent breaches of regulatory laws, or even on occasion criminal laws, by police officers necessary in order to ensure that crime is detected and prosecuted? In some cases, what may appear to be a breach is not a breach because by legislation and at common law, police officers have wider powers than ordinary citizens in many areas such as the power to arrest and the right to carry firearms.

In addition, the law of Canada affords special protection to police officers and in limited circumstances to private persons in the work of law enforcement. Whether couched in terms of defences, exemptions, excuses or justification, those involved in the work of law enforcement are, under certain circumstances, protected by our law from prosecution.

To the extent that the law does not explicitly permit the act in question, is it possible for society to permit its law enforcement officers to do the act and yet, at the same time, maintain an honest adherence to the principle that the police are not above the law? If not, is legislation necessary? The question is what degree of protection our laws should provide for police officers acting reasonably and in good faith in the administration and enforcement of the law. It is a very old principle of our law that the state owes protection to those to whom it entrusts the duty of enforcing the criminal law.

The establishment of and the proceedings of the McDonald commission should have put these questions in very sharp focus, not only with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also indirectly with respect to every other police force in Canada. Unfortunately, the provincial Attorneys General in Canada have not been afforded the access by the Solicitor General of Canada and the McDonald commission to factual information that we must have in order to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities as the chief law officers of the crown in our respective jurisdictions and in order to have participated in a meaningful way in the McDonald commission hearings.

In June 1978 my officials were advised by the McDonald commission, through its counsel, that the commission would be concerning itself with some of these very questions and would welcome submissions from provincial Attorneys General in addition to the submissions it was expecting from the Solicitor General of Canada in his capacity as the elected official responsible to the people of Canada for the conduct of the members of the RCMP.

Earlier in the spring of 1978, the RCMP in Ontario had provided me with a report to the effect that the criminal investigation branch of the RCMP had conducted no “intelligence probes” in Ontario similar to those identified before the McDonald commission as having taken place in other provinces.

The Solicitor General of Canada did not permit the RCMP to provide me with a similar report with respect to the activities of the security service branch of the RCMP in Ontario and, despite an early request, the McDonald commission refused my request for observer status for one of my senior officials during the in-camera commission hearings regarding such activities.

I wrote to the Solicitor General of Canada in July 1978 and said in part “As the chief law officer of the crown in this province, it is my view that, over and above what may take place by way of submissions to the McDonald commission, it is essential that you and I attempt to arrive at some mutually satisfactory agreement on these questions.

“I suggest the following general outline for your consideration and for the purpose of further discussions:

“(a) Subject to the possible effect of contractual arrangements in some provinces, you, as Solicitor General of Canada, have the political responsibility for the RCMP as an institution and therefore are politically accountable for the action of its personnel in both criminal operations and security services branches.

“(b) As Attorney General of Ontario I have the legal and political responsibility to ensure that the law is enforced in this province and therefore that any breaches of the law that take place here are properly dealt with.

“(c) The expression ‘ensuring breaches of the law are properly dealt with’ does not mean that an Attorney General of a province should review, either in advance or after the fact, all of the activities of the RCMP. Rather it means: (1) If there are to be guidelines for the RCMP, the provincial Attorneys General should have some opportunity to participate in the formulation of the guidelines. (2) If there is to be a mechanism for reporting acts apparently outside those guidelines to the attention of the relevant provincial Attorney General, the provincial Attorneys General should similarly have some opportunity to participate in the formulation of that mechanism. (3) Notwithstanding any such guidelines and mechanism, neither you nor I can interfere in any way with the right of a citizen to swear an information before a justice charging a police officer with an offence or with the duty of that justice to decide whether process should issue. (4) Similarly, no guidelines or mechanism can alter the fact that I have the ultimate responsibility, as chief law officer of the crown, in this province, to prosecute or stay any proceedings where process has been issued.

“I do not pretend that the answers to the many questions in this area are easy. However, I do want to make it clear that I reject the idea that because something allegedly concerns national security it should be of no concern to a provincial Attorney General. To accept that suggestion would be inconsistent with my responsibilities as chief law officer of the crown in this province for the reasons which I stated above.”

The then Solicitor General of Canada declined to discuss these matters with me. In October this year, the current Solicitor General indicated he was willing to discuss them and I am hopeful these discussions can take place at an early opportunity.

Although we have had no substantive discussion with the federal Solicitor General’s ministry with respect to these matters and although the prospect of being able to participate in a meaningful way in the McDonald commission is still not very encouraging, we have nevertheless discussed the matters at length with our counterparts in other provinces and with our police personnel in Ontario. These discussions indicate that although there is a consensus the overriding principle must be that the police are not above the law, there may be a need for some legislative change to clarify the application of that principle in relation particularly to provincial regulatory restrictions such as those contained in the Hotel Registration of Guests Act.

In addition, it is clear the police are entitled to the fullest possible information and assistance from crown law officers with respect to the extent of police powers, such as under section 25 of the Criminal Code, which provides generally that a person acting under lawful authority in the administration or enforcement of the law is entitled to use as much force as is necessary to carry out that lawful purpose and with respect to the applicability of the relevant common law defences in those fact situations where the police are at all in doubt as to the propriety of any proposed action.

Hopefully the McDonald commission will ultimately provide some guidance with respect to what legislative changes are appropriate. In the meantime, we in Ontario shall continue to do our best to ensure the overriding general principle is followed and the police are given as much guidance and assistance as possible.

In addition to possible legislative change and the fullest reasonable reliance on existing statutory and common law defences, it is important to remember the proper application of prosecutorial discretion may dictate that a particular case ought not to proceed to court even though there may be prima facie evidence tending to indicate an offence has been committed.

In early 1978, I had occasion to advise this House of the results of a police investigation into certain events involving a former federal Solicitor General. I said at that time and wish to repeat now:

“A prosecution is not automatically launched in every case where there is some evidence to support the laying of criminal charges. Police officers and the crown law officers who advise them have broad powers to decide whether or not to launch a prosecution taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the case.

“Henry Bull, the late crown attorney for York county, a highly respected prosecutor, stated that the crown’s duty in deciding whether prosecution is justified is twofold. The first duty is to determine whether a criminal offence is disclosed by the facts in the sense that a prima facie case is made out. The second duty is then to determine whether prosecution would be justified in a particular case.

“This exercise of judgement was best put by two Attorneys General of England, Sir John Simon and Sir Hartley Shawcross, both speaking in the House of Commons: ‘There is no greater nonsense talked about the Attorney General’s duties than the suggestion that in all cases the Attorney General ought to prosecute merely because he thinks there is what lawyers call a “case.” It is not true, and no one who has held the office supposes that it is.’

“Sir Hartley Shawcross supported Sir John Simon’s position: ‘It has never been the rule in this country ... that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution ... the public interest ... is the dominant consideration.’”

Mr. Speaker, I would stress that not merely is this the law of Canada as well as of England, but it also reflects very accurately the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Ontario as I have experienced them during the last two and a half years at that time.

It is obvious that there will be cases where evidence is presented to a crown law officer which tends to show that a police officer has committed an offence in the course of his duties as an investigator, but in the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion it will be the crown law officer’s view that the public interest would not necessarily be served by proceeding with a prosecution. A police officer, like any other citizen, is entitled to have a potential prosecution against him considered by the appropriate law officer applying long-accepted principles of prosecutorial discretion.

The exercise of prosecutorial discretion must however be something done with individual cases, not on the basis of general exemptions or immunities. The exercise of such discretion must never be allowed to interfere with the fundamental duty of the Attorney General and his agents to see that the administration of public affairs, including law enforcement, is conducted in accordance with the law. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion in individual cases does not mean that the police are entitled to come to the crown in advance to obtain permission, let alone encouragement, to breach the law.

After reviewing the transcript in the Stevenson and McLean case, I am satisfied that none of the witnesses called by the accused advocated that the police should be above the law or immune from the same sanctions as any other citizen absent, some saving statutory provision.

I am also satisfied that it is clear from Mr. Skatfeld’s testimony that there is no instruction given at the Ontario Police College which would tend to encourage a breaking of the law such as the use of illegal tricks or stratagems in the conduct of investigations. I regret that on the part of some witnesses there was a failure to distinguish between “tricks or stratagems” which are legal in the sense of not being proscribed by any statute and those that are illegal.

In my statement, Mr. Speaker, I have set out the cross-examination of Mr. McGee, the crown attorney, who was called as a defence witness and who was asked certain questions and gave certain answers. Now these are set out on some four and a half pages and this statement has been provided to the members. I do not intend to read this portion of the statement now, in the interest of time.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that in view of the importance of this statement, the fact that it has been distributed to the members is not a reason for dispensing with the reading of any part of it.

Mr. Speaker: That’s at the discretion of the minister as to what he wants to put on the record.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when statements of the ministry are provided to the members of the assembly, those parts that the minister wishes to put on the record should be in the statement and nothing else, so I would suggest that because of the importance of the matter, the Attorney General do us the courtesy of reading all of the questions and answers that were put to Mr. McGee in the case.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: During cross-examination, Mr. McGee was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

Question: “If they had come to you and said to you that they wanted to do that, to make up a false affidavit, to put her signature on there without authority, what appears to be her signature without authority, to indicate that a JP had sworn that and signed it, what would you have instructed them?”

Answer: “Well, you told me you were going to ask me this question sooner or later.”

Question: “Out of fairness.”

Answer: “I told you it was a very difficult question to answer. I would have to phrase my answer in the context of the type of case that these officers were investigating. As I understand it, they were investigating a man who they believed was a diabolic, hardened, clever criminal and a man who they had great difficulty in getting evidence against. I would have to phrase my answer in the context of those circumstances.

“If they came to me and told me that the only way they could obtain any evidence against this man that they knew to be the murderer was by the use of a document such as this, I think that my advice would be to them that they would have to recognize the risks they were running, the possibilities of legal consequences against them, but if this is what they wished to do and this was the only way they could see to do it, then they should.”

Question: “You would advise them to do it?”

Answer: “I would advise them of the risks they were running in doing it and I would advise them that if they felt as police officers that this was the only way they could gain evidence against a man who had committed a diabolical murder on an innocent young person in a shopping centre in my area, that would be the advice I would give them, quite honestly, Mr. Murphy.”

Question: “Well in effect, Mr. McGee, then what you are telling us is they have to make the decision?”

Answer: “They have to make the decision. I would advise them of the risks they were running, as I am sure you would. But, I, as I say, I can’t control them. They are not controlled by us. They are controlled by their superiors.”

Question: “I am not asking you this as an expert because you are not qualified as one before the court and you are not called as one, and it would be unfair to do so, although I am prepared to admit you are an expert. You, as crown attorney, a crown attorney, are of the opinion that an officer should and is entitled to break the law of our land?”

[10:30]

Answer: “Should and is entitled to break the law of our land? No. I don’t think he is entitled to break the law of our land. But I think it is our duty certainly to advise this jury, Mr. Murphy, that you know very well illegally-obtained evidence is admissible in our courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that.”

Question: “I am not talking about that; I am talking about breaking the law. I am not defining law; that is why I said I am not asking you as an expert. I am not asking you the very thing this jury will have to decide later. I am asking you, as a crown attorney, do you believe it is a proper thing for a policeman to break a part of a section of the Criminal Code in order to conduct a prosecution?

Answer: “Well, I certainly don’t think it is in most cases; but in a case where this was, as I explained to you, a highly unusual case, such as this appeared to be, assuming what you have asked me, Mr. Murphy, is” -- and then the next question intercedes:

Question: “I am not asking about this one. Don’t answer a question I didn’t ask.”

Answer: “Pardon?”

Question: “Don’t ask for the question. I didn’t ask a question, I said, ‘Do you generally think -- “

Answer: “You are talking generally.”

Question: “‘ -- that police officers should break the law -- ’”

Answer: “No, I don’t generally. No.”

Question: “‘ -- in order to further his investigation?’”

Answer: “No, I don’t.”

During re-examination, Mr. McGee was asked the following questions and gave the following answers -- that was re-examination by counsel for one or both of the police officers.

Question: “Just to pick up on that, if I may briefly, Your Honour. You would not advise a police officer to break the law?”

Answer: “I certainly wouldn’t.”

Question: “No. You told us that in a peculiar circumstance of this case, with a caveat you would tell them to proceed?”

Answer: “I would tell him to proceed and I would advise him of the risks he was running.”

Question: “And by virtue of section 21 of the Criminal Code you would be encouraging him under the circumstances?”

Answer: “I suppose I would.”

Question: “And be guilty yourself?”

Answer: “I suppose I would. I suppose I would, but -- I will leave it at that.”

That is the portion of the testimony I believe to be relevant, Mr. Speaker.

I think it can readily be seen that some press reports of Mr. McGee’s testimony were incomplete because they tended to isolate and emphasize one part of his answers without fully reporting the qualification he included in those answers.

Notwithstanding that caveat, I wish to advise the members of this House that I have communicated with Mr. McGee and have made it clear to him that his answers did not reflect what my policy and that of my ministry has been and will continue to be. I am satisfied now that Mr. McCee did not intend to say he would ever advise the police to break the law.

However, in my view a mere instruction to the police as to what the law is, followed by an invitation to them to go ahead and do what they think they should, does not amount to a proper fulfilling of the function of local agents of the Attorney General. I hope in a situation such as that presented to Mr. McGee and the questions asked of him in court that crown counsel consulted by the police would advise the police in the strongest possible terms not to proceed with such a course of action.

It is important to remember that in this very case the investigating officer who laid the charge against Mr. Stevenson and Mr. McLean received extensive advice and assistance from my senior law officers before they made their decision. Mr. McGee’s answers to the hypothetical questions put to him were not consistent with the advice given by my senior law officers prior to the laying of the charges, and I have made my concern about that known to Mr. McGee.

As I have indicated above, I found myself in some disagreement with a part of what Mr. McGee said, and perhaps more so with what he did not say. But he has made it clear to me that he is in full agreement with the policy I believe must be followed. Mr. McGee has been a dedicated and capable servant of the public for a substantial period of time and will, I hope, continue that role for many years to come.

With respect to the ultimate disposition of the case, I wish to advise the members of this House that there will be no appeal by the crown against the disposition. As the members of this House are undoubtedly aware, my agent, the local crown attorney Mr. Murphy, an experienced and competent crown counsel, took the position that an absolute discharge was the appropriate decision.

In Regina v. Aggozino, the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear that it is unfair to an accused for the crown to launch an appeal against sentence on a basis inconsistent with the position taken by the crown at trial and that, accordingly, crown appeals in cases such as this will not be entertained. Although I personally might -- and I stress the word “might” -- have taken a different position than what was taken by Mr. Murphy -- and I emphasize the word “might” because I was not there in court hearing and seeing the witnesses -- I support not only the right but the duty of my local agents to exercise their discretion in accordance with well-established principles and traditions of the office of crown counsel.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Hon. Mr. Wells: I wish to inform the members of the House that I have written today to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto Council, Mr. Paul Godfrey, to let him know that we will not be proceeding with Bill 153, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act during this session of the Legislature. As members know, this legislation deals with residences on the Toronto Islands. However, I want them to know that it is my intention, and the government’s intention, to introduce a new bill which will be essentially the same as Bill 153 during the next session of the Legislature in the spring.

In my letter to Mr. Godfrey, I also made the following observation. I asked that in the interval between now and the introduction of the new bill the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto refrain from any action under the writs of possession which were issued in October 1978.

AID TO CHRYSLER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I have stated on numerous occasions, our government is deeply concerned about the future of Chrysler Canada, its employees, the city of Windsor and the impact that closing down the company would have on Ontario. We are pleased with the recent actions of the US House of Representatives and the Senate in responding positively to a request to support the Chrysler Corporation. At this time, the House and Senate are meeting in an effort to finalize the package of financial assistance for Chrysler. We look forward to a positive resolution of this issue within the next few days.

The actions of the US Congress are of particular importance to Ontario, since our estimates indicate that the failure of the company could result in the loss of 23,500 direct jobs and between 20,000 and 40,000 indirect jobs; an increase in the unemployment rate in Windsor to between 30 and 40 per cent; and a cost to the federal and Ontario governments totalling up to $1 billion including forgone tax revenues aid costs associated with existing UIC programs.

We have not only remained in constant contact with the government of Canada and the management of Chrysler, but I have conferred regularly with the Honourable Robert de Cotret, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My deputy minister has met with his counterpart in Ottawa on several occasions, and we have also met with the union members representing the Chrysler locals of the United Auto Workers.

We have reviewed the various studies which have been carried out, including those of the US Treasury, the American consultants Booz, Allen and Hamilton, and Data Research Incorporated. We have also reviewed the draft bill forwarded to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of the US, by the secretary of the US Treasury.

We have, naturally, reviewed the Chrysler submission to the government of the United States and their proposals for the Canadian company. I will repeat what I have said previously. We are willing and anxious to assist Chrysler Canada. However, we are seeking commitments from the company with regard to new investment and employment, as well as the assurance that any assistance provided by the province will be adequately secured.

Contained in the Chrysler proposal for the development of its Canadian activities are two items which will allow for the updating of operations in Windsor for the manufacture of new generation commercial vehicles and engines. We want to see those established in Ontario, together with appropriate provision for research and development and the manufacture of in-house parts and components, possibly plastics.

These operational changes would substantially increase Chrysler’s employment in Ontario. The company is in a position where it must update products to compete in the North American market place. However, given the current financial status, incentives will be required to develop those facilities. Manufacturing locations for the new products are dependent to some extent on assistance available. We know that various states in the USA are prepared to commit loans or grants to the corporation. Much of Chrysler’s supplementary financing, apart from US government aid, will be from various jurisdictions that have an economic stake in the future of the corporation. Those states are our competition.

In the general consolidation of Chrysler’s activities, Ontario will not risk losing Canadian operations as the corporation rationalizes its production facilities. We have an opportunity not only to maintain the company’s presence in Ontario, but also to expand that presence, with a resulting increase in the company’s payroll.

There is an opportunity for Ontario to take a major step toward strengthening and restructuring the auto industry in this province. We intend to capitalize on that opportunity, while at the same time negotiating safeguards which will protect the province and the public interest, until such time as public funding is no longer required or has been reimbursed.

Presuming the details of American government assistance to ensure Chrysler’s continued existence are completed within the next few days, we are ready to undertake immediate negotiations to achieve the objectives I have outlined in this statement this morning. We will be meeting with the federal government within the next few weeks to co-ordinate our efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to assure both the members of this Legislature and the people of Windsor that we will remain on top of the situation and seize every opportunity open to us.

I am confident the federal government, together with ourselves, will be able to ensure every job in the Chrysler Corporation that can be saved will be saved.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the Ontario government has approved an Employment Development Fund grant of $10.5 million to assist Domtar Incorporated in a five-year, $112 million program to modernize its pulp and paper facilities in Ontario.

The federal government has allocated an additional $5.25 million in assistance over the next three years. This will be one of the largest capital expenditure programs ever undertaken by Domtar at its pulp and paper operations in this province, and will involve major improvements to three of its mills.

Approximately $62.4 million will be invested in the Red Rock operation; $43.3 million will be spent in Cornwall; and $6.3 million will be invested in Trenton. A portion of Domtar’s expenditures will be directed towards environmental improvements at the three mills. The Red Rock, Cornwall and Trenton operations employ approximately 2,570 people and have an annual payroll of $46 million. The company’s investment in modernization is expected to stabilize these jobs and add a small number of new jobs. While there will be some job changes at each facility, it is expected that they will be achieved through on-the-job refraining. No layoffs will result from the program.

Domtar anticipates that 85 per cent of the goods and services used in this modernization project will be purchased in Canada. The company will be working closely with both the federal government and our government to ensure that their shop-Canadian commitment is met.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is in Cornwall this morning to conclude the agreement, the third to be signed under a program in Ontario to encourage improvements in the province’s pulp and paper industry through incentives for mill modernization, energy conservation and pollution abatement investments. The governments of Ontario and Canada expect to offer a total of $150 million to Ontario pulp and paper producers. Our government will fund two thirds of the incentive program, with the federal government providing one third.

While he is in Cornwall, the Treasurer will also be announcing our decision to provide Employment Development Fund grants to two additional firms in that area. Atlas Hoist and Body Incorporated of Cornwall, a major producer of original equipment bodies for off-highway earth-moving machines, will receive an EDF grant of $300,000. In the interests of time I will not read the balance of my statement relating to Atlas Hoist and Body Incorporated but the details of the program are contained in my statement.

As well in that area, an Employment Development Fund grant of $140,000 has been approved for Henga Canada Limited. Details of the employment program and the investment program are also contained in this statement.

I would add the Henga Canada Limited program typifies the kind of development we are looking to support through the fund. It will provide stable long-term employment, foster the development of needed job skills, stimulate export development and contribute to export replacement.

Finally, I would also like to announce our government’s participation in a major investment project in Sarnia. As the members of this Legislature know, in December of last year, the Prestolite Division of Eltra Corporation closed its Sarnia plant, laying off 220 employees. This division manufactured automotive electrical accessories and fractional-horsepower motors.

[10:45]

Since that time, the Ontario government, former employees of the Prestolite Division, the plant’s previous owner, an outside investor and the local community have all been involved in active negotiations to put together a financial package that would permit the plant to be reopened. I am pleased to announce today that our government will be providing an Employment Development Fund grant of $200,000 to Sarnia Electrical Motors and Appliances Incorporated. As a result of this grant, the former Prestolite plant is expected to reopen early next month. There will be 99 new jobs created in the first year of operation, increasing to 296 jobs by 1984. The project will result in an investment of $3.7 million and fractional horsepower motors will be manufactured for the North American market. Approximately two thirds of the projected production will ultimately be exported to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, our early discussions with the parties involved clearly indicated that our government’s participation would be key to the success of the project. For $200,000 we have ensured the reopening of the Prestolite plant, levered significant private sector investment and created much-needed new jobs in the great city of Sarnia.

REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, Christmas is always special, but this particular Christmas is more special than most. The fact that makes it so extraordinary is the presence among us of thousands of dispossessed men, women and children from southeast Asia.

During the last 12 months the compassion and goodwill of the people of Ontario have paved the way for a remarkable refugee settlement here. More than 10,000 refugees, sponsored privately by more than 2,000 community groups, have come here to settle in more than 200 communities across this province. The provincial government is helping in this resettlement both directly and indirectly. I would like to report very briefly on what we have been doing during 1979.

Before I do that, though, let me simply re=emphasize that the goodwill of the people of Ontario has been the key factor. Our government has had a role, but that role would have been irrelevant without the deep commitment of individual citizens. As honourable members know, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation has primary responsibility for the long-term resettlement of newcomers to Ontario. Given that, it has been assigned the lead role for co-ordinating the provincial government’s response to the refugee movement from southeast Asia. It is fulfilling that assignment in two ways.

First, it is working with such other ministries as Health, Labour, Education, Housing and Community and Social Services to try to ensure that the government as a whole is playing its part in this resettlement in the most effective way possible.

Second, my ministry is undertaking its own initiatives. The focal point of its activities is the Indo-Chinese refugee settlement unit which runs out of Ontario Welcome House in Toronto. The unit has been set up since the summer and during the last three months it has been providing direct services, information, education and community support.

In the direct service area, it is doing such work as translating documents for refugees and teaching English as a second language to people who are not in the school system. The ministry is also training volunteers to teach English as a second language.

In the information area, my ministry is providing basic background on the refugees to individuals and organizations who are dealing with those refugees. And in community support, it is providing both professional time and money to help deepen the services that community agencies offer to refugees.

All in all the Ontario effort during 1979 and particularly the volunteer effort has been a very substantial one. I take great pleasure in acknowledging that volunteer effort and the outstanding human qualities that have driven it. I know all members on both sides of the House will want to join me in extending deep thanks to all those people who have given so selflessly to help the dispossessed of Southeast Asia take their place in our society.

TRIBUTE TO CLERK OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Before we get to all the questions, I would like to remind all honourable members of the House that we are reaching a milestone in the history of this House that I think is worthy of note, namely that on December 20, 1946, our present Clerk was appointed Assistant Clerk of this House. On October 18, 1951 be was appointed assistant chief election officer. On January 1, 1955, Mr. Lewis was appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, succeeding his father, Major Alex Lewis. On January 1, 1955, he was appointed the chief election officer for the province of Ontario, which means that effective January 1, 1980, he will have served us a total of 33 years, and 25 years as a Clerk of this assembly.

I’m sure that all honourable members would like to join with me in paying tribute to Mr. Lewis for his long and dedicated service and to thank him most sincerely for that service.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will seek the indulgence of the members of the House and allow the Clerk to take 20 minutes to reply. Knowing him as I do, he won’t.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to oral questions, I had expected that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) would be making a statement about Atikokan in response to a question from myself earlier in the week. I know he had a statement with him yesterday. I don’t see him in the House. I wonder if the Premier could indicate if he would be here and when he does, would we be able to revert to statements at that time?

Mr. Renwick: I have a similar concern with respect to a question I asked the Premier last week about the allocation of emergency oil supplies in Ontario, in the contingency of an emergency. The Premier at that time said that early this week there would be a statement either by himself or by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). I notice that this was conspicuous by its absence this morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In an attempt to accommodate the time frame and also the concern with respect to the length of time of statements, the Minister of Energy was going to deal with the question the member for Riverdale raised briefly during the discussions on concurrences of his estimates. He will be here to do that and has something to say on that matter.

With respect to the question raised by the member for Rainy River, I will check with the Ministry of Natural Resources. My information is that the minister intended to issue a press release related to that, but I will check that out and let the honourable member know.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO OHIP SERVICES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Does the minister recall his commitment to me and to this House in March of this year, March 30 to be precise, when the minister was asked how people who are coming into hospital for operations would have a right to choose an opted-in versus an opted-out anaesthetist? He said that if a person insisted he could get one who was opted-out and he said there would be a mechanism. His exact words at the time, Mr. Speaker, were, “The medical association and the hospital association have undertaken to come up with a mechanism by which this could occur.”

Could the minister tell us what this mechanism is?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will just correct the member’s question. It was to have access to the services at the OHIP rates.

Following those discussions in March with the medical association and the hospital association, they have had a number of discussions between them. They have circularized all their members and essentially it’s been left in the hands of the individual hospitals and their medical staffs to ensure this access. We are all of us -- the medical association, the hospital association, the ministry -- watching it very closely. To date I am not aware of any difficulty in any of the hospitals that would indicate there is not access to the services at OHIP rates.

So the mechanism has been a continuing consultation between the associations and keeping their members apprised of this need and this requirement. To date every indication is that it’s working.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the Minister of Health not know what the mechanism is? In most of the instances is it a box that someone ticks off as to whether they wish to have opted-in or opted-out rates when they come into hospital? Is it somebody who comes to them the night before the operation saying; “Do you insist on not paying my full bill?” Is it a question of the anaesthetist deciding who can pay and who can’t; or his or her secretary deciding this? What is the mechanism and will the minister share it with this House? Why has he not reported it to us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it varies. The finite details will vary from hospital to hospital. For instance, a hospital in London has a member of the staff who goes around and sees the patients on admission. In another hospital the patients are seen afterwards; that’s the case with the president of the Ontario Medical Association. It will vary, but the principle of access, to be seen by the anaesthetist or a member of his staff and --

Mr. S. Smith: And he will make the judgement as to who can pay.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, no, Mr. Speaker; the principle in question here is the right of access to services at OHIP rates, and every indication is that that is being applied and is working.

Mr. Breaugh: It is true that anaesthetists have taken to notifying people, but quite contrary to what the minister just said in that field it’s very difficult to notify ahead of time. Isn’t it really time that the minister brought in some form of legislation like private member’s Bill 169, which requires that in a publicly-funded hospital, using publicly-paid-for equipment, and with publicly-paid-for support staff in the form of technicians and nursing staff, that at least in that one clear circumstance the work should be done at the OHIP rate?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr, Speaker, Bill 169 sort of goes both ways. It talks about the services being available at OHIP rates and it talks about opting out as well; maybe the member didn’t intend it to come out the way he drafted it, but Bill 169 goes both ways. If there were indications that services are being denied at the OHIP rates, yes we would have to look at something like that, but I have to tell the honourable member there’s no indication whatsoever that sort of thing is required. The community hospitals, in his community and in mine, working with their medical staff are ensuring the services are available.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I must ask, by way of supplementary, that the minister clarify this matter. Do I take it that the minister is satisfied with a situation where the patient, either pre-operatively or post-operatively, is visited by an anaesthetist and then somehow out of that meeting there comes a decision as to whether the bill will be an OHIP-rate bill or something above that? I take it he’s satisfied with that without knowing whether the decision as to whether to pay the OHIP rate or not lies in the hands of the patient or in the hands of the doctor. Surely that’s the essential matter. Can the patient simply state, without having to beg, without having to stand up against any implied threat or any implied bad feeling, easily when he or she enters the hospital, that they insist it be at the OHIP rate and hear nothing more about it; or do they have to engage in conversation with a doctor, does the doctor make the decision as to whether they have to pay above the OHIP rate? Could you please clarify that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it couldn’t be any clearer than in the March 29 statement I released. It says the services will be available at the OHIP rates where the patient is --

Mr. S. Smith: I asked the minister a fair question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am giving the honourable member a fair answer, but he never listens. It’s very clear that the patient has the right to insist, and the medical association and the hospital association have agreed they will ensure the patient has the right of access to all services at OHIP rates. When the member talks about anaesthetists, that is the most difficult area because they aren’t always assigned ahead of time, sometimes it’s on call and that sort of thing. That’s why the president of the medical association has suggested that in those cases where it’s not possible, because the patient is in great pain or is partially sedated or whatever, to make the arrangement in advance that the anaesthetist at least talk to the patient afterwards before billing. To my knowledge, and I have discussed this extensively with the hospital association as well as the medical association regularly since March, there have not been any difficulties in ensuring that is being carried out. It is being monitored by the hospital board, the administration and the medical staff of the hospital.

[11: 00]

Mr. Cassidy: Given that more than half of the specialists are opted out in many specialties, and in many communities across the province and not just in isolated instances, is the minister aware of the proportion of claims that are charged on an opted-out basis by specialists across the province? Is the minister also not aware of the fact that a general practitioner will generate many more claims which will tend to be opted in than a specialist because a specialist’s fees for each service will be much higher?

Is it not, therefore, the case that the material filed in this House up until now may not give a truly accurate position in terms of the amounts that people are having to pay to opted-out specialists? Does the minister have the information on the proportion of claims by specialists on an opted-out basis and will he provide that information to the House?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t have the information broken down. I’m told that the bulk of opted-out claims do come from GPs and anaesthetists, they make up the majority. I’ve not seen them broken down by specialty in making up the nine per cent of the claims that are billed directly to the patients.

EMIGRATION FROM ONTARIO

Mr. S. Smith: I have the last question initiated by yours truly in the 1970s, the Davis decade in Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t count on it. We might be here tomorrow.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right, we might be here tomorrow, but I’m assuming we won’t. Does the Premier find it ironic that now, at the end of this decade, for the first time in living memory the net migration figures show 5,000 more people have left Ontario than came here, despite a very large migration here of anglophone Quebeckers? The boast, “Is there any place you’d rather be?” has, under the Premier’s leadership, been answered embarrassingly in the affirmative by thousands of people who would rather be somewhere with a better opportunity of working or owning a home. Would the Premier agree that his policies have taken “a place to stand and a place to grow” and turned it into “a place to leave”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I won’t become provoked this close to Christmas by the rather immature, facetious and non-serious question being asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t be condescending.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not condescending at all. I’m just telling the facts the way his party, if it were honest, would express them.

Mr. S. Smith: When you engage in personal insult you make a personal fool of yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not being personally insulting by saying I think it’s an immature question, I do think it is.

Mr. S. Smith: Migration from Ontario has been disclosed for the first time in living memory. Why doesn’t the Premier comment on it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, with great respect, it is not the first time. It all depends how long one’s memory is. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying that in his view the strength of this province, the opportunities that are available here and the potential that exists are significantly less, that’s fine. I’m sure that happens to be his point of view. It doesn’t happen to be mine. I have no quarrel with the fact that some people have left this province, whether on a permanent or part-time basis, to travel to western Canada, particularly Alberta as a result of the economic growth that is taking place there.

Mr. S. Smith: To work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, they’re going for some other reasons too. Some have even gone to British Columbia. If one traces the economic history of the United States, one will find that certain people have moved to the state of California. There has always been a tendency to move in a westward direction. That’s why our policy of “GO east” with respect to the Toronto-centred region has been in defiance of historical tradition even within this province. I’m just speaking for Brampton. There has been that tremendous growth in that direction.

I really could become almost enthusiastic over the way the Leader of the Opposition has worded the question. It really does indicate a degree of cynicism and pessimism on his part. This province represents, in terms of the economy and in terms of the social and educational programs, which he doesn’t think are so hot, still represents the best place to do business, the best place to raise a family, even the best place to be involved in the political process. This still happens to be so in the province of Ontario, and will continue to be so into the 1980s; and I expect it will be a Progressive Conservative administration that sees us through the 1980s, as it has been in the 1970s, the 1960s, the 1950s and part of the 1940s.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the question has nothing to do with the great potential of this province but rather the sad waste of this potential because of the poor leadership it is now receiving. This province has a very great future, but a future it will only enjoy properly once it is given proper leadership to use the human resources intelligently rather than squander them in the way that is the case at present. Since very shortly, as we go in the 1980s, that responsibility will lie with members on this side of the House --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary question?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes I am getting to the point of it.

Mr. Speaker: Put it forthwith.

Mr. S. Smith: Given that Ontario, as a partner in Confederation, entered the 1970s as a lion and is going out as a lamb with the lowest rate of growth in manufacturing, would the Premier explain to us how, during his leadership, manufacturing growth in Ontario fell to 10th among the provinces of Canada, and exactly what it is he intends to do to make Ontario something other than the sick old man of Canada, which it has become under his dreadful and dreary leadership?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am a very modest person, I certainly wouldn’t want to quote back to the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario the views of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada on how he sees the Premier of this province, especially now that the member has endorsed him so enthusiastically What he has been inferring here this morning is in contradiction to what his leader said. I know that would be hard for the member to accept now that he has become so enthusiastic again about his federal leader.

When he made that commitment the other day, did he know that Pierre was going to be the leader again, after the member advised him at OISE he was doing the country a great service by resigning?

However, I won’t get involved in a political debate. I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition if, when he asked the question the way he did, in the rather sarcastic and cynical tone he uses, he would just look around at some of his colleagues as he asks those questions and see the smile upon their faces as they listen to their leader asking a question they know themselves is totally silly.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, Patrick; you know better, I know better.

Why doesn’t the leader talk to some of his colleagues in his own caucus on occasion? Why doesn’t he let them share in some of the decision-making? Why doesn’t he take their advice and assistance? His political life would mature more rapidly if he would accept some of their judgements.

The member agrees with me; I know he does.

In relation to the economy of this province, the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the manufacturing sector. I can only tell him once again that in terms of the jobs created there is not another province in Canada that has done as well. There hasn’t been another jurisdiction in North America in the past two years that on any comparative basis has created as many jobs within the manufacturing and service sectors as has taken place here in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: The dollar fell off just like that; more layoffs, more bankruptcies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on; what does the member mean more layoffs? We have made better progress economically in the manufacturing sector than anywhere else on a comparative basis, and the member knows it. This is in spite of his opposition to our assistance to the pulp and paper industry. It is in spite of his opposition to our assistance to the automotive industry. The Leader of the Opposition totally embarrassed the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) for months by his opposition to the Ford contribution. Of course he did; I read the Windsor paper more regularly than he does. My in-laws send it to me. I know what he says back home and what he says here.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, I know how you supported the Ford deal. Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition, for once, show a little enthusiasm, show a little confidence. I would urge him to join with us as we move --

Mr. B. Newman: I would like the Premier to tell the House just exactly what I say back in the Windsor area if he knows so much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know on a very personal basis that the member for Windsor-Walkerville was very enthusiastic about the involvement of this government with respect to the assistance to Ford Canada. Is that not correct?

Mr. S. Smith: We supported it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In support of my leader’s question, I would like to ask the Premier, being the modest man that he is, if he can recall over the years -- the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s -- anywhere in the history of the free world where there has been a contract let for $7 billion such as he signed against the recommendations of a committee? When is he going to get that money back for us? What is happening to Ontario when he can do that; arrange a $7 billion contract for a scandalous deal with Denison Mines Limited? When is he going to get that money back for us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Grey-Bruce is looking for any personal contribution he certainly is not going to get it from me. I must tell him I did not --

Mr. Sargent: Don’t be smart, you know you are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh I know the member is smarter. I mean that has been clearly demonstrated in this House for the past number of years, I do not quarrel with that. I mean he demonstrates it with great affection every time we meet in the press gallery. I will not tell people what he says to me on these occasions, which is totally different from what he says here in the House.

Now I am about to answer the question.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege. Every time I see the Premier in the press gallery it is a joy to be with him. But every time he sees me he offers me a deal to cross the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member for Grey-Bruce has invited me to lead his party and I had to reject that invitation. I had to reject that invitation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear to the member for Grey-Bruce that I did not sign any contracts. It is fair to state that members from his own party on that committee ultimately came to the decision that it was in the best interests of the public of this province and some --

Mr. S. Smith: It is false, you know it. Why do you keep saying it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, it is.

Mr. S. Smith: It is false. You made a false statement just now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: False? Oh, well, all right. Mr. Speaker I will rephrase it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would rephrase his interjection, because it is clearly out of order.

Mr. S. Smith: The interjection was, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has just made a false statement. If that is out of order I will say then that the Premier has made a statement which is factually incorrect? Is that better?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will certainly accept the Leader of the Opposition’s judgement as to what his members genuinely felt. I find it difficult sometimes to translate what people really think and what they express in documentation. I will say, then, that his party is not enthusiastic, he did not think it was in the public interest and we will let it rest there. I just happened to know there are a lot of people who feel it does. I just emphasize to the member for Grey-Bruce I did not sign any contract.

[11:15]

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just sending over to the Premier some figures, which we prepared yesterday, on the amount of opting out by specialists across the province. My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: does the government remain committed to universal access to health care in Ontario? If so, now that the Premier is aware of the various high rate of opting out among specialties -- such as psychiatry, anaesthesia, obstetrics, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, ophthalmology, and plastic surgery -- will the Premier undertake to rescind the fee agreement with Ontario Medical Association until these specialists agree to stop billing their patients over the OHIP rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Heath has really dealt with this rather extensively, not only in the past few days but number of months. If the member is asking if we’re going to terminate the agreement, the answer to that, of course, is no. I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party would understand that answer. I think it’s also fair to state that all doctors who opted out don’t in fact do what he suggests.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the Premier explain why it is that the government tolerates such high rates of opting out among certain specialties, when those specialties in fact, are the areas where medical incomes are already the greatest? If I can be specific, why allow a high degree of opting out when psychiatrists are earning an average estimated income in 1980 of $60,000; when anaesthetists will get $66,000; when it will be $80,000 for orthopaedic surgeons; when it will be $76,000 for the otolaryngologist; and when it will be $71,000 for the ophthalmologist?

When those figures are the estimated net incomes for those specialties, for those who remain within OHIP, why is it the government tolerates those specialists adding a 42 per cent surcharge to incomes which are already extremely high?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The government doesn’t tolerate them adding because a lot of them do not add. As I explained to the leader of the New Democratic Party, who I know would terminate the agreement, legislate everybody in and put everybody on salary, that is not the approach we’re taking. We’re trying to encourage the profession, some of them, to move hack onto the OHIP schedule.

Mr. Lupusella: That is not the approach we’re taking.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course he is advocating it. There is no other alternative the way members opposite present it. He wants a confrontation with the medical profession, we want to see solutions and we think we are achieving them in a much better fashion than the leader of the NDP and his people would.

Mr. Conway: I’d like to ask the Premier, since he has been reported and since I have heard him indicate a personal dissatisfaction with the present rates of opting out, would he indicate to this House today the basis of his personal dissatisfaction with present rates of opting out and what he plans and proposes to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that I’ve registered a personal dissatisfaction in that sense of the word. I believe I was asked a question about whether I was content with it and I think my answer was, “We would, as a government, obviously prefer to have more doctors within the plan.” That’s not news. It’s something I have stated on a number of occasions, as has the Minister of Health.

I said in answer to a question, I believe from the leader of the New Democratic Party, although it might have been the member’s leader --

Mr. S. Smith: Why are you not content? What is the basis of that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he will listen. Is he going to let his health critic ask the question?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s the question he asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I intend to answer it. Don’t get so excited; relax, enjoy life a little bit. Have a bit of fun.

Mr. S. Smith: Why? What is wrong with the present situation? Every word you’ve said indicates satisfaction.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member mean why am I not content? I would prefer to see more doctors in the plan, that’s why I’m not content. It’s as simple as that. If he wants it as simple as that, that’s the way it is.

Mr. Breaugh: A supplementary to the Premier, who I understand takes great pride in being a reasonable person. Does it seem reasonable, as a taxpayer as well as being Premier of the province, that we, the people of Ontario, pay the overhead; we, the people of Ontario, pay for the equipment; we, the people of Ontario, pay for the technical and nursing staff; but the doctor has no obligation, particularly if he functions in a hospital as most of the specialists do, to charge the approved rate? The Premier is a reasonable man, would he try to give us a reasonable response on that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people who are involved in a form of public service have certain amounts of the overhead paid. I’m not going to argue with the member for Oshawa that some members of the medical profession don’t utilize the hospital for which the public has paid, no question about that.

But let’s be very honest with one another. As a private member, he gets -- and I wouldn’t say for a moment too much by way of compensation -- but a constituency office, which is overhead; an office here in the building, which is overhead, and secretarial assistance, which is a form of overhead. We all get this.

Mr. Foulds: We are all on salary and don’t levy surcharges.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s fine, but this is all in addition to salary. All of us in the public sector have a portion of our overhead paid. It’s always easy to single out others in terms of their overhead being paid by the public sector, but let’s acknowledge that some of our overhead is also being paid in addition to the modest salaries we receive.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that the Premier is prepared to see specialists averaging $80,000 a year opt out and get extra net income, I would like to ask him a question about the lowest paid people in our society, the hundreds of thousands of people across this province who are forced to go through Christmas this year on the minimum wage of Ontario, which was set at $3 an hour in January 1979.

Since the Workmen’s Compensation Board benefits have just been increased by 11 per cent in line with the cost of living, effective in July of this year, since the increase in wages and salaries has been about 10 per cent this year; and since corporate profits are apparently running about 45 per cent ahead of last year; does the government intend to increase the minimum wage in Ontario from its present rate of $3 an hour? When will that increase take place and by how much?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The minimum wage is not being altered by the province at this particular time.

Mr. Cassidy: After the Premier’s compassion for people in medical specialties, who are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in some cases, would the Premier explain why it is that this province has no compassion at all when it comes to the people who do the dirty jobs in this province, who have been earning $3 an hour since January 1979 but whose rate was only $2.65 back in March 1976? While there has been only a 13 per cent increase in the minimum wage since March 1976, at the same time that there has been a 30 per cent increase in the cost of living, why will the government not act now in order to bring the minimum wage somewhat closer to a decent standard for working people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought my answer to the first question was clear in that the member asked if we are contemplating raising the minimum wage at this time. He didn’t ask why.

Mr. Mackenzie: Could I then ask as a supplementary of the Premier: could he tell us whether or not he is now telling this House that the minimum wage is no longer an instrument to see a fair distribution of earnings in this province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer to that very simply is no, I am not saying that.

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Solicitor General. In his statement this morning, he indicated he was satisfied there was no direct course taught at the Ontario Police College which would encourage police officers to break the law in conducting investigations.

I wonder if the minister can give his assurance to this House, as a result of the legal maxim quoted by Mr. McGee at that trial that illegally obtained evidence is admissible in court, that not only is no course directly taught, likewise there is no indirect encouragement by path of acquiescence to that legal maxim at the Ontario Police College, which would tend to encourage police officers to use illegal methods to obtain evidence or go on frolics of their own.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know the honourable member is familiar with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina and Wray, which in effect is in support of the statement that was made by Mr. McGee. I think I indicated to the member, though perhaps not during the Solicitor General’s estimates, that I was reviewing that portion of the course that is given. I know there are senior officers who review the police college course that is related to evidence, the admissibility of statements and what not, to ensure there isn’t that type of encouragement to which the member just referred.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: I’m wondering if the Attorney General can tell us whether the two police officers sought advice from the crown or from the Attorney General’s office prior to the course of action which they took.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To my knowledge they did not.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: In reading the evidence given by Mr. McGee, does it seem to the Attorney General that Mr. McGee seems to have confused the issue of illegal admissions and admissions obtained by criminal methods?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly the transcript might be interpreted as containing some confusion in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Would the Attorney General put to rest another open-ended matter in connection with his statement this morning? Did Mr. Murphy, the local crown attorney, consult with the Attorney General or with any of his senior law officers on the disposition of the case by way of absolute discharge?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, he did not.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question of the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). With the Ontario Energy Board about to produce recommendations for changes to Hydro’s rate structure, which at the very least will probably recommend that Hydro adopt rates related to time-of-day use, why is the government allowing Ontario Hydro to both pre-empt the Ontario Energy Board report and to begin a three-year stall on implementing province-wide time-of-day pricing, a stall that Hydro’s going to effect by two new unscientific time-of-day “experiments”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not familiar with those particular experiments. I would be delighted to have the Minister of Energy reply to the member during the hopefully brief discussion on concurrence of his ministry’s estimates. I will alert him that the member has asked the question so that he will be able to deal with it during that brief discussion.

PREMIER’S MEETING WITH CLAUDE RYAN

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Premier with reference to his meeting with Claude Ryan in Quebec earlier this week. The question is asked in the same spirit of harmony in which I understand the meeting took place. Mr. Ryan is reported to have said: “Mr. Davis’ remarks went further than anything the Ontario Premier has been willing to accept in the past.” It is also reported that when the Premier was questioned about sufficient numbers being required to supply French language education he responded, “No, that’s not necessarily part of it.” Could the Premier advise us what those two statements meant? What will they mean for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not sure I can, because the discussions really covered a variety of topics related to the production by Mr. Ryan’s party of their approach to federation, which paper will be out some time in the early part of the new year. I want to make it very clear, because the press reports may have created an inaccurate impression that I actually saw some of that documentation. I did not, the documentation has not been finalized.

Mr. Peterson: Has Hugh Segal seen it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No one has seen it, because it isn’t finished yet. That will come as a great surprise to the member for London Centre but that, I am informed, is actually correct. I really didn’t see any documentation. We covered a number of issues.

Mr. Peterson: My father-in-law has seen it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I saw the member’s father-in-law the other night and he told me he hadn’t seen it. But I probably see him more often than the member does.

Mr. Peterson: That’s your problem. Don’t come here and complain to me about it.

[11:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not complaining. He complains to me about the member. That’s what I have to suffer through. This is totally irrelevant, I would just assure the honourable member his father-in-law thinks he is all right.

Mr. Sweeney: I am waiting for the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was the member’s colleague who interrupted me. I was trying to give a serious answer.

Mr. Sweeney: I’m still waiting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. We discussed a number of those matters which I am sure the honourable member would expect us to discuss, the question of distribution, the question of declaratory power and all of those things that have been part of the ongoing review of the constitutional process.

What I did say to the press and which I hope I made clear, though it did not emerge in the press report -- because it wasn’t even a press conference, the press just walked into the room, and properly so, at the conclusion of our discussions -- was that in my view the issue that faced us in this province and in this country was total non-acceptance of sovereignty-association, and also a recognition, at least from my standpoint, that the status quo couldn’t be maintained either and that there had to be some other alternative. In my view it has to be by constitutional change or reform. I think this is the general direction that the documentation which Mr. Ryan’s party will be producing in January will take.

On the question of language, I told the Quebec press, in my view and contrary to the point of view as expressed by most, the best way to deal with some of the rights in relation to language and culture, because I still believe education is fundamental to any discussion of language or culture, is within a constitutional context. This wasn’t a new proposal; I mentioned that at the last first ministers’ meeting on the constitution. As the member may recall this was not accepted by the other provinces, but I think there was some indication of acceptance by the then Prime Minister.

Simply put, my argument is rather than reciprocal agreements between provinces as advocated by the Premier of Quebec, if we were genuinely concerned about language rights in relation to education then they should be part of a constitutional change; and while education is without question a provincial responsibility, from my standpoint in terms of principle we would be prepared to have that in any constitutional change. If it is put in with respect to constitutional change, I would suggest it be put in as a matter of principle. The administration is something for which individual provincial jurisdictions have to assume the responsibility.

I am not optimistic that my point of view will be accepted in other parts of Canada. I can’t honestly convey that hope to the member opposite. It may be this point of view would be acceptable in terms of the position that may be developed by Mr. Ryan and his colleagues, but I can’t answer for that at this moment.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given the Premier’s reference to constitutional change, what constitutional changes would the Premier recommend or accept that are not now in fact the law of Ontario with respect to language instruction?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think that question can be answered in a simple way. What I have said we would accept in terms of the constitution is the right of a youngster in this province -- and this would have to have application right across Canada -- to an education in either of the two official languages of Canada. This was the position I took. It was exploratory in terms of the constitutional conference itself.

I would remind the member that people were arguing for unanimity in terms of the amending formula, which meant unanimity in terms of getting constitutional change. There was really no enthusiastic endorsement from any other jurisdiction as I recall, although I may be wrong. Certainly the majority were not in favour of that suggestion.

HIGH-SPEED CAR CHASES

Mr. Germa: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General report on the circumstances of a high-speed police chase last Thursday which involved OPP detachments in Parry Sound, Still River, Noelville and Sudbury; a chase which lasted in excess of one hour and that covered over 100 miles of highway; a chase in which vehicles exceeded speeds of 100 miles an hour; and a chase which resulted in damage to three police vehicles and the hospitalization of one OPP constable? Considering the guidelines for high-speed chases which say that the seriousness of the crime should be a consideration, does the minister think that all of this activity was necessary to recover a carton of cigarettes from a 16-year-old kid in a half-ton truck?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the matter to which the member has referred. I will ask for a report and will advise him accordingly. During the recess I will be quite happy to communicate the response that I will obtain to the member.

WETLANDS POLICY

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Under the Forestry Act, I believe it’s order in council 1348-25, dated May 14, 1975, there is authority that a grant may be paid to the owners of managed forests.

Since conservation authorities and others interested in the preservation of the natural environment would like to see that expanded to cover wetlands, would the Minister of Natural Resources consider including wetlands in that order in council?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at our policy as far as wetlands are concerned. There have been representations made by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and others. We are looking at either that approach or the possibility of a favourable type and lower municipal assessment on that property, or a combination. That’s all I can tell him at the moment. It is being actively looked at. I was discussing it with the federation the night before last.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary: I am pleased with the minister’s answer. To carry out that work, would he consider calling a conference of interested parties who would be able to discuss this matter more thoroughly with him?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will certainly consider that. I believe, though, that there have been a number of discussions between our staff and various interested organisations perhaps not publicly advertised.

REDHILL CREEK VALLEY

Mr. Mackenzie: Some weeks ago the Minister of the Environment made a commitment that he would personally take a walk through the Redhill Creek Valley before he made any decision and took a recommendation to cabinet. I am wondering if the minister has taken that walk through the valley, and if so if he’s brought a recommendation to cabinet on this matter?

Mr. Martel: He took a walk somewhere else.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m afraid I’m getting too much advice from my colleagues on this one, Mr. Speaker. No, I’m not going to sing any appropriate hymns.

If I can turn to the question. No, I have not as yet. I had it scheduled for a Monday morning two weeks ago and it was pouring rain, so I didn’t have the opportunity to do so on that occasion. I would say to the member I regret not having done so on that morning but it just wasn’t logical to do so. However, I do have something to report on that situation. We have had some meetings that I didn’t expect to have on that subject matter. Although I’m not at this minute ready to advise of the outcome of those meetings, in the not-too-distant future I will have something of significance to say and I’ll be glad to communicate that to the member prior to the next session.

I can assure the member that I will walk the valley. That is something I intend to do. I will be glad to discuss it with him, say in the month of January.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: The second part of the question was that the minister had said he would take the walk before he made a recommendation to cabinet. Has he made a recommendation to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, indeed I have not. Without going further at this minute, I am pleased with the progress of the discussions I had on the subject matter. I think there has been real accomplishment. I would certainly like to conclude that discussion, plus make the visitation as promised before I recommend anything to cabinet. I certainly will not be doing so until I have done both of those things.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST. CATHARINES

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Considering the fact that in the Niagara region we have a large number of people on the welfare rolls and that those people are in the category of employable and many of them are young people; and considering the fact that the number of people on the welfare rolls in the city of St. Catharines is the highest in history; has the minister spoken to his cabinet colleagues, specifically the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), to persuade him to take any specific action which would alleviate the unemployment for the people in those specific categories; thus reducing the cost to his ministry, and more important the cost in human terms to the people who are directly affected?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, there are a number of programs that my colleagues in both Treasury and in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism are operating across this province to stimulate employment in communities everywhere, not specifically restricted to any one area. Those programs are developing, as I understand it, very well. I think members have on a number of occasions in this House heard my colleagues who are more knowledgeable in these programs than I, respond and indicate their impact in the creation of employment.

With respect to the specific individuals who may be temporarily out of work and in receipt of general welfare assistance in the member’s community; no, I have not gone to them with a specific proposal for the creation of jobs for a restricted group of individuals.

I do think it is important to bear in mind that there are indications of higher levels of dependency or need of temporary welfare assistance in some communities, but this is not general across the province. I think I can still assure the member that the average length of time an employable person in this province is in receipt of general welfare assistance varies from season to season, but it rarely exceeds two and one half or three months at the most.

So it would appear that in spite of the fact there are periods of higher levels of dependency or of need, that it is not a chronic problem of an overwhelming majority of those persons. They may well be between employment opportunities, moving from one job to another and in need of some temporary assistance. There is no indication at this point that the employable persons who are there for a short term are in need of a major job creation program.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, to the Minister of Government Services: In light of the answer given by the Minister of Community and Social Services, is this minister undertaking to move up the starting dates of any projects within the Niagara region to assist the construction industry and thereby assist all of business in the Niagara Peninsula, creating these new jobs that might alleviate the problem that exists there? Is he contemplating moving up the timetable on any projects in the Niagara region?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I would have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I’m afraid that during the first part of the question I was talking to my colleague to my right, but we will look into that.

[11:45]

FACILITIES FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation concerning the rights of the handicapped as they relate to his ministry. What is the minister willing to do to guarantee that all community centres, art galleries, arenas and other buildings built with Wintario funds are made fully accessible to handicapped people?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member opposite knows, Wintario so far has done a great deal to build facilities which are very accessible to the handicapped -- recreation centres, theatres and so forth.

Obviously there is a tremendous backlog in this, but we are working at it. As I at least hope and assume he knows, we do not require the matching funds when we finance through Wintario to build facilities for the handicapped. I really don’t think we can move much faster than we’re moving at the present time, but certainly we’re committed.

The latest example of this is in the magnificent new Massey Hall that is under construction here in Toronto. We have notified the architects and the people who are leading the project that we are prepared to finance fully -- we don’t expect matching funds -- the facilities that will make it possible for the handicapped to fully participate in that wonderful new centre.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Having no requirement for matching funds is welcome, and I didn’t know that was in the policy. However, is the minister not aware that under regulation 5.2 of the Ontario Building Code Act, which regulates the types of structures which I mentioned as being built with Wintario funds, it does not require elevators to be installed in multi-story facilities? Will the minister not ensure that all new facilities are made fully accessible; will he not change his existing policy, which as I understand it does not provide for supplemental grants to groups which did not make provisions for full accessibility, whether they are already in the building stage or just in the planning stage? I have an example of a group of citizens in Douro township who now wish to make their building fully accessible and are being told that supplementary grants will not be made available to them.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I’ll look into the specific cases referred to, but I simply want to reiterate our basic policy. That is we are determined to provide facilities for the handicapped to make accessibility to all of these buildings more possible. I will look into the specific case to which the member has referred. Our policy on the matter is quite clear.

PROTECTED ENVIRONMENTAL AREA

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. The question concerns the Oneida crushed stone owned by King Paving and Materials in the town of Haldimand, and the 47 acres that were set aside to protect the 22 rare species of plants and frees. According to an article in the Toronto Sun by Dr. Morton Shulman this is not being carried out. I wonder if the minister would care to comment. Are they protected, as agreed in the hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think I have some notes on that. I guess I left them in the office, the article was printed some time ago. I would have to say that Dr. Shulman was somewhat inaccurate in his article.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the statistical details which would refute his statements with me.

However, I will be delighted to send the honourable member a letter indicating where Dr. Shulman was incorrect. I had debated about writing a letter to the editor and decided that it would be too lengthy. I had hoped somebody would ask me about it.

The 47 acres, as I recall, are fenced. They are fenced to keep people other than those who appreciate the frees, and so on, from damaging them.

The Oriskany sandstone deposit that contains the fossils Dr. Shulman is writing about covers only part of the area. That sandstone stands over hundreds of acres of the whole district, far outside the pit, and it’s untouched in much of that surrounding area. He indicated that the dolostone is not available throughout the entire country.

Actually, it underlies most of southwestern Ontario but there are only a few locations where it is potentially accessible for mining purposes. Other factors preclude mining in other areas.

That 47 acre environmental protection area does include the oak hickory forest and the rare plants. Dr. Shulman said it did not. In fact, the area was enlarged on the recommendation of the consultant to King Paving to include a better representation of the forest. According to the consultant, the protected area is the best example of the forest and sandstone.

Dr. Shulman’s article implied a contradiction. His first statement refers to an assessment of all pertinent matters, which the ministry does in considering a licence application in accordance with the provisions of the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

The second reference is to a prepared or published independent environmental study, which the ministry does not do and is not required under the Environmental Protection Act.

I have another page here, but I was trying to shorten it a bit.

I think those are the most important corrections to make. I’ll send the rest of the material to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired; right now.

PETITION

SPECIAL LICENCE FEE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the good people of Deux-Rivieres in the northeastern part of the county of Renfrew, I beg leave to present a petition to the government of Ontario calling for an immediate end of the unfair discrimination against them in so far as the flexible northern licence fee is concerned; and asking the government of Ontario to give the people of the northern part of the county of Renfrew the due that was given to the people of Parry Sound, Muskoka and the far north some months ago; and asking for the immediate implementation of the special licence fee for the good people of Deux-Rivieres in the northeastern part of the great county of Renfrew.

REPORT

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr. T. P. Reid from the standing public accounts committee presented a final report and moved its adoption.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I just tabled the final report of the standing public accounts committee. I hope it might be included in that great raft of other reports that we might be able to debate in the new session.

The report itself is in a somewhat different format. I hope it will be of great interest to all citizens of Ontario, and particularly of course the government.

On motion by Mr. T. P. Reid the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made on committees: Mr. Kennedy for Mr. G. E. Smith on the members’ services committee; Mr. Kennedy for Mr. Handleman, Mr. M. N. Davison for Mr. Germa and Mr. Ziemba for Mr. Isaacs on the public accounts committee; Mr. J. Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) for Mr. Yakabuski, Mr. Grande for Ms. Gigantes and Mr. Isaacs for Ms. Bryden on the resources development committee; Mr. Kerr for Mr. Ashe, Mr. Ramsay for Mr. Hennessy, Mr. Rowe for Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Sterling for Mr. Smith, Mr M. Davidson (Cambridge) for Mr. Samis, Mr. Bounsall for Mr. Laughren and Mr. McClellan for Mr. Dukszta on the general government committee; Mr. G. Taylor (Simcoe Centre) for Mr. Handleman on the select committee on company law and Mr Kerrio for Mr. Nixon on the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Martel be substituted for Mr. Foulds on the select committee for Hydro affairs from January 23, but upon the receipt of a written application by Mr. Foulds to the Clerk of the House, Mr. Foulds will be substituted for Mr. Martel.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL OMBUDSMAN ACT

Mr. Isaacs moved first reading of Bill 211, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of Municipal Governments and Their Agencies.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish the office of municipal ombudsman.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 377, 396 and 401 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 209, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement yesterday on the bill; I don’t have anything to add to that.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly pleased that the minister and his reindeer have arrived on the rooftop in the nick of time with their seasonal bounty; I could even say in the St. Nick of time.

Mr. Laughren: His elves were there too.

Mr. S. Smith: His elves were there too indeed, I have no doubt.

Mr. Foulds: The biggest elves I have ever seen.

Mr. S. Smith: I am pleased this seasonal bounty has arrived at this particular period of time. I feel in general terms this bill is certainly worthy of our support. My concern, if I may express it, has for some time now been the subject of the ceilings which have applied with regard to workmen’s compensation benefits.

You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the previous Minister of Labour told this House there was a 25 per cent increase in the benefits the last time a bill of this kind was introduced. She said to this House that represented an 11 per cent increase for three years earlier, an eight per cent increase for two years earlier and a six per cent increase for the year in question. You will recall that very clearly, Mr. Speaker.

Pensioners across this province were led to believe, therefore, that they would receive a 25 per cent increase in their pension. One can imagine the dismay of many hundreds and many thousands of pensioners when they discovered that because they were already at the ceiling, that the ceiling had not been increased for the first two of those three years to which the bill applied, that they therefore did not receive a 25 cent increase but merely an increase for the current year, which amounted to six per cent and has now retroactively been increased to eight per cent.

[12:00]

Consequently, what happened was a deliberate change in the policy of the board and of the government whereby people who were already at the ceiling did not receive the increase, although this House was never clearly told those people would, unlike all other recipients, not be receiving the 25 per cent increase.

I was in constant discussion at the time with the minister -- constant is too strong a word, but I was in discussion with her -- I remember a discussion with her in the corridor at one time when I asked her whether all people would be receiving that percentage. I was assured they would be. I had a very difficult time explaining to my constituents they were not getting the 25 per cent merely because they were at the ceiling.

Lest one think being at the ceiling is some kind of situation of great wealth, let me point out that the opposite is true. For a person earning $20,000, for instance, if the ceiling were $15,000, one would still take 75 per cent of that as the base. If the individual had a 30 per cent disability it didn’t amount to very much in real terms in these difficult and inflationary times.

Basically what happened, in simple words, was that the former Minister of Labour came into this House, presented what purported to be a 25 per cent increase and it was not. It was not for those people who were at the ceiling, but we didn’t discover that until later on. It was a very unfortunate time. The board had changed the policy without the House ever having had a chance to discuss it properly.

Now another increase is taking place and the question is are we going to increase those ceilings to a degree greater than the increase given to all other people so as to make up for the time the people at the ceiling were deprived of what was their rightful benefit?

Members will understand that the rate of benefit and the ceiling itself must bear some relationship to the going industrial wage. The relationship was a certain ratio before 1975, and there is a certain ratio introduced after the increases announced a year or two ago. The net result was that that ratio went down drastically. Now the problem is we have, little by little, to get that ratio back up where it belongs.

It is hard to know where it belongs. Obviously if the ratio and ceiling are too high, there may be introduced into the plan a positive disincentive to work. Nobody wants to see that, but until we see some evidence there is a ratio which is the correct ratio, then we have to believe the situation as it existed in 1975 was reasonable and a ratio that exists in certain other provinces is reasonable; and that is up somewhere around 150 per cent of the wage index that the ceiling would represent.

There are provinces where that is the case. If the minister has evidence that ratio is a positive disincentive to work then he should present that evidence. He will quote from the recent report, the Wyatt report, which says at 150 per cent you are being humane, but at 125 per cent you are being economic, roughly speaking.

It’s all very well to speak of being economic versus humane, but we in the Legislature have to be a little of both, I would suggest. Therefore we ought to have an intelligent discussion at some point as to what that ratio should he. We should be presented with figures indicating the taxation situation in Ontario, which may be very different from that of other provinces. We have to be presented with figures indicating any of the various forces that are part of the interplay which determines at what point a benefit becomes a disincentive to work.

We are prepared to listen to that. We understand the need to have a work incentive. We also understand that the funds for paying these benefits come from the businesses of Ontario and we are very concerned about the charges made on business people, particularly the small businesses, as a consequence of that. So we’re prepared to be fair, but we do insist on having some reasonable and rational explanation as to the adoption of a certain ratio between the ceiling in the Workmen’s Compensation Board benefits and the industrial wage. It’s not good enough to say that some report suggested it. What’s the reasoning behind it? Show us the figures and then we’ll have much more confidence.

This minister is now prepared, possibly as a result of a number of letters which I have written to him and certain communication as a consequence of these letters, to increase the ceilings more than the benefits themselves are being increased.

I welcome that. I welcome that as a sign of understanding on the part of the minister, a willingness to show a certain flexibility and good will, and possibly even as a response -- and I believe it was a response -- to the communications I have sent him from time to time. I am pleased with that.

The minister, however, will accept that we are certainly not yet back to the ratio that existed in 1975. I am prepared to accept this bill for now as far as it goes, and to thank the minister for what I perceive to be a response to our communication whereby he is at least addressing the question of ceilings, attempting to get the ceilings back up and admitting that those who are at the top, at the ceiling -- and as I say, that’s not a princely income let me assure you -- will get more of an increase than those who are not at the ceiling; just as a few years ago they got less of an increase than those who were in the middle somewhere.

All I can say is they still haven’t made up the deficit which is a consequence of that change in policy a year or so ago, but at least they’ve moved in that direction. After all, if a government in a minority situation makes a reasonable move in a direction which one has asked them to take, then it’s reasonable for the opposition to accept and to support such a move, even to welcome it, while at the same time pointing out there’s room for more movement which ought to occur.

If the minister feels that additional movement should not happen, I hope he will, perhaps by letter or whatever over the break, give me the factual basis upon which he made the decision not to move further in repairing the damage done to this ceiling by the previous Minister of Labour. I therefore ask that if he has figures to explain why $18,500 is appropriate as opposed to $19,500 or any other number, he share those figures with me. If he can’t do so at this moment in the House in view of time, perhaps he would do so by letter on some other occasion.

Apart from that I think the minister is being quite reasonable in these benefits. I hope it’s a consequence of communication he has received from me and other members on all sides. I hope part of his reasonable attitude reflects some of that relationship. In any event, I think his bill is a reasonable bill deserving of support. I just want to draw the attention of the Legislature to the question of ceilings, to welcome the fact that some move has been made to restore what was lost last time, to suggest that a greater move is still necessary and that we would be willing to look at any figures the minister might have to indicate why, in his view, moving to a greater ceiling at this time is still unwise.

So basically, Mr. Speaker, we think it’s a good bill. We welcome it. We simply draw that particular matter to the minister’s attention, and to the attention of members of the Legislature, so that we never again have what happened under the previous minister, a very important policy change without it being flagged for discussion in this House, or even for private discussion outside this House. I was very disappointed with the attitude of the previous minister. The present minister is certainly a welcome change in that regard.

Mr. M. Davidson: We in the New Democratic Party welcome the legislation that has been presented to us with regard to amending the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I suggest that by opening up an amendment to the compensation act, one could probably stand here and discuss the whole act. I have no intention of doing that, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, although some of my colleagues may during their discussion of this bill. As the minister is well aware, we too, in going over the bill, felt there were certain areas where we would like to place amendments. However, having spoken to the minister through our House leader we have been given certain assurances that our concerns will be looked after in any event, either through the presentation of the white paper or what comes out of it. If by next fall nothing has emerged from the white paper, certain sections will again be placed before this House in order to allow amendments particularly, I believe, involving temporary total disability.

We also welcome the fact that the minister has taken a step in bringing to the injured workers of this province some retroactivity to make up for the inequities that existed in the last adjustment made by the then minister. I can understand that happening because it is my personal belief this minister has much more compassion for the injured workers of the province than the previous minister ever indicated. I can well see why it would be that this minister would want to put in those increases that she neglected or failed to do.

We are a little concerned, however, about the timing of this bill and the timing of placing it before the Legislature. Had the minister walked in today dressed up in a Santa Claus suit with a bag over his shoulder, I can assure him we would have placed the amendments we had discussed with him. Given that he did not, and recognizing full well that the injured workers of this province are in vital need of these increases at this time, we did not in any way want to do anything that could very well cause the bill not to pass prior to the House adjourning.

For these reasons, we will withhold any amendments that may have caused that to happen. We do have one minor one which will be placed, with which I think the minister would agree. It is just a slight word change. As the bill was brought in at a time when the House was winding down, so to say, for the winter break, it really did not afford this House the opportunity to go fully into the situation as it exists. We are certainly not placing the blame on the minister per se, but we have faced this not only on this occasion with this bill, but on numerous other occasions.

I refer back to last fall when we were doing Bill 70 and a very similar situation existed. It appears that each and every time major legislation of this type comes before the House, it is brought in one or two days before the House adjourns. That really does not give the opposition, be it the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, the opportunity to scrutinize fully the bill and place any amendments which we feel may be necessary at that time.

Having said that, as I said, we welcome the fact that the minister has brought this bill forward, knowing that the injured workers of this province have waited for quite some time. I might say if there is any credit -- and I noted the leader of the official opposition attempted to take some credit for being partially responsible -- it is only fair to suggest that one of the reasons this bill did come forward and one of the reasons it contained some of the increases it does, is because of the questions that have been raised in this Legislature by the members for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) and various other members who have an interest in and concern about the injured workers of this province. They have on many occasions questioned the minister and the government as to when they would be bringing forward amendments to the pension section of the act. As a result of that, we now have the bill which is before us.

[12:15]

One of the things that also concerns us, as a party, is the ceiling level. I understand that will be referred to through the white paper and will be discussed and probably put into a new bill, if and when this white paper is ever looked at by the committee the minister is proposing to put forward. Hopefully, that will be done and legislation will be prepared and available as early as next fall or earlier than that, if possible.

I would like to go back. This party has always been concerned about the ceilings that exist. Back in April, 1978, I believe, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) through a private member’s bill, attempted to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act. While part of that amendment related to other matters, a part dealt with the ceiling levels. He attempted at that time to have placed in the act a mechanism whereby the ceiling levels would automatically be adjusted. I would like to read that amendment.

“The board shall, as soon as possible after September 1 in each year, review the wages and salaries earned by workers who suffered injury and to whom compensation was paid during the preceding year. Whenever such review indicates that 10 per cent or more of such workers were earning in excess of the maximum wage rate at the time of such review, the board shall, by order, increase such maximum wage rate for accidents occurring on and after the first day of the succeeding calendar year by the appropriate number of increments of $1,000 as is sufficient to reduce the number of workers whose salaries exceed the maximum wage rate below 10 per cent of the workers who suffered injury and to whom compensation was paid during the period under review.”

That was the member for Nickel Belt’s attempt to bring some sanity, if one wants to call it that, into the ceiling levels as they exist in the act. Unfortunately, as is true in most cases, his private member’s bill with his amendment to the act was not accepted. Had it been, it could very well be that the ceiling in today’s bill might not have been necessary because it could very well have been, following that method of adjustment, that the level at the present time might be in excess of $20,000.

I can’t and we as a party can’t understand, since the minister has taken the move to increase it over the 10 per cent, why he has not taken the final step and made that adjustment up the $20,000 level. Even at that, in Ontario that ceiling would be relatively low. He has now placed it at $18,500. We’re prepared to accept that because we want to see this bill go through. Perhaps he could explain to us why he did not take that final step and go up to at least the $20,000-mark, such as exists in Saskatchewan and Quebec, I believe.

The other area of concern we have is that even though in this bill he has filled in the inequities that existed from the last bill and added 10 per cent on top, the temporary disability section still does not really fill the gap that was evident from 1975 to 1978. My understanding is an adjustment was made in 1975, but no adjustment was made for those people in 1978.

If this is an income maintenance measure, then that group of people is still behind what they should have had over that period of time. I don’t know whether the minister has looked at that or whether he feels that 10 per cent is enough to cover that, but that was a concern of ours and one area where we were considering moving an amendment. As I said, we are more interested in getting this bill through because we do believe it is an excellent bill in terms of bringing to the injured workers of this province some immediate income that they have been deprived of for far too long. I would seriously hope in the future, after discussion on the white paper has taken place and possibly new legislation has emerged from that, we would never again have to find ourselves in the situation where every now and then we have to pressure the government through questions, letters and various other means, to bring forward the necessary adjustments in order that these injured workers in the province can maintain the cost of living which they, as well as everyone else, have to face day by day.

It’s all well and good for those of us in the Legislature to adjust our own rates of salary on occasion in trying to keep up with the cost of living. I just question why it is we don’t move as quickly to do the same thing for the injured workers who don’t have the opportunity to do it for themselves.

We welcome the bill. As I say, we look upon it as being something the injured workers deserve and for which they have worked far too long. We're prepared to accept it. A number of my colleagues will be speaking on some very specific sections of the bill itself and to other areas, ways and means of which perhaps you could take note. We think these could make not only a better method of increasing the pensions and the levels of earnings to the injured workers, but also make the act and the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board itself more meaningful.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 209, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I suppose I’d have to follow the almost similar comments of the two previous speakers. Like other members, I will express my disappointment at the minister bringing in a bill of such importance at such a late date in the workings of this session, almost the day of adjournment of the Legislature. I feel he should have provided the members with more ample time to digest and to review the contents of an important bill like this.

We can agree with the amendments that are long overdue in bringing increases in benefits that apply under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, particularly for those who are on the receiving end, the injured workers. But if I were to go through the bill I could find fault after fault.

I thought this minister had shown some compassion for the injured workers in Ontario, but after reviewing the bill and taking a little closer look at it in the short time made available to members, I find the minister has shown little compassion towards a number of the injured workers. One of the things that bothers me most in this bill is that the legislation only goes back to 1970. Nothing goes beyond that level for those persons who have been injured for some 15 or 20 years and are living on meagre pensions from the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

We wouldn’t have to be coming in at the last minute of the Legislature here for amendments to the bill if the minister would consider indexing the benefits to the injured workers.

By indexing I mean that we wouldn't have to have an amendment every year. It would be indexed as for any other employee in the province. I suggest the minister should be looking at this area.

When I look at section 1(1) of the act, the explanatory note says, “Under clause (a), the burial allowance is increased from $800 to $1,000.” I’m sure that the minister and the board members of the Workmen’s Compensation Board know full well that $1,000 isn’t enough to cover the burial costs for an industrial worker who dies as a result of his work. I suggest the minister should be paralleling this section with the Canada Pension Plan so between the two of them there are sufficient funds to cover the burial costs.

I notice too that the minister’s going to give a small pension increase to dependent widows. The more I look at it closely -- $365 to $410 a month -- the more I realize it will not even cover the payments on the purchase of a new home, if one considers the high interest rates and so on. The minister is giving them nothing there. If a widow has to carry on the mortgage payments on a home, I suggest it doesn’t go far enough.

There are other areas our leader has mentioned. It was suggested by the previous member that the maximum should be raised to $20,000. I think that’s an area that should be looked at. If we look at the $18,500 that’s suggested in the bill, that represents about 130 per cent of the average annual wage. I suppose, if a person is injured and only gets 75 per cent of that -- looking down and grasping for figures here -- he's actually only getting 50 per cent of what he would be earning. I suggest these are the areas the minister and the board should be looking at.

Again, I would have to say, since there has been such short notice, there’s another area that perhaps I should bring to the minister’s attention. It’s under section 3, which applies to section 41a of the act. It gives discretion to the board to increase temporary payments. Perhaps this section should be mandatory. I understand the minister has an amendment there. It now says: “Where the employee is not working and is in receipt of temporary disability benefits and has continuously received temporary disability benefits for the immediately preceding 12 months, the board may ... ”

I understand the minister may have an amendment there that would change it to “shall adjust the rate of compensation being paid by adding thereto an additional 10 per cent compensation rate being paid but the compensation rate so adjusted shall not exceed the maximum established by sections 39 and 44.”

I don’t know what adjustments will be made for those persons who were injured before 1978, whether there will be an increase or not. Perhaps the minister can give us an instance showing that these persons will be receiving additional benefits. If not, then I’m going to suggest to the minister that instead of those persons going on welfare -- in many cases they have to if they’ve had an accident prior to 1978 or 1979 -- we should be looking to the consolidated revenue fund to assist those persons and if he can’t generate the funds through the Workmen’s Compensation Act. That relates the assessment to the industries.

I suggest these are the areas we should be looking at. I thought perhaps the Wyatt report would have suggested some of these so there would be additional funds for those persons injured 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Their salaries at that time would have been $95 to $150 a week. I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, when you’re on a permanent partial disability which rates at 10 or 30 per cent, that’s $80 a month. You can’t survive on that. I’m sure the minister and the Workmen’s Compensation Board know that many of these persons in this grey area will never be employed again in industry in Ontario. They have difficulties.

Although it is an increase of 10 per cent for those who’ve been injured in 1978 or 1979, and we welcome this, I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t go far enough. I would hope the minister had something for those injured workers in that grey area. This is the area that really needs assistance. With the inflation over the last number of years and the high cost of living, a pension of $80 a month, $150, $186 -- anything in that area, anything below $450 a month -- just isn’t sufficient for those persons who have had severe injuries in the last number of years.

I just wish there was time for a bill like this to go to a committee of the Legislature so we could go into it in more detail, but with the late hours of this Legislature we don’t have time. It seems to be a normal practice of the Minister of Labour to bring in important bills such as this in the late hours of a session of Parliament. This should never be.

[12:30]

There were questions raised in the House last year by a number of persons on the opposition side, “When are you going to bring in an increase?” We thought it would be coming in July, but in the late hours of this session, what can one add to it? We have to go with what the minister and the board have suggested in the act, whether it is sufficient or not. It is not sufficient in certain areas and I suggest to the minister I am rather disappointed at this stage that there is not sufficient funding for those who were injured a number of years ago.

With those comments, as much as I regret it, I have to support the bill.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I too want to rise in support of Bill 209 and, in doing so, express a number of concerns raised already.

In summary, we do not like receiving the bill on such short notice. It makes it almost impossible for us adequately to assess even the content of the bill, let alone to have any kind of meaningful discussions with constituents affected by the provisions of the bill. To the minister, I hope this is the last time we are confronted with a couple of days of discussion. I appreciate the consultation process that took place, but still there is not enough time for opposition to do its job to assess a bill when we are given a couple of days in total with a deadline of prorogation hopefully today. There is not time even to assess what the minister has done here in the light of the Wyatt report, let alone consultations outside.

Surely the time has finally arrived -- and I hope the white paper will provide the opportunity for us -- to move away from these ad hoc political, with a small “p,” increases. It is totally inappropriate for the Legislature to be adjusting the rates of workmen’s compensation on the whim of either the minister or the cabinet or whatever. Surely we can devise an automatic indexing system that can be built into the legislation so injured workers will not have to suffer a deterioration of their purchasing power for some prolonged period of time until finally this Legislature gets around to redressing the injustice.

We will insist when the act is reviewed there be some automatic cost of living mechanism in the legislation and, second, some provision for an automatic increase in the earnings ceiling, perhaps along the lines of the amendment from my colleague from Nickel Belt, or if we can devise a better system, fine. But we will insist we end this process of ad hockery. The reason I want it in the bill is because it is inevitable that there are long delays between increases and injured workers are suffering, and suffering severely, from the loss of purchasing power during a period of high inflation. That inflation is going to continue into the indefinite future and it is now a matter of real urgency that we amend the legislation to provide for automatic increases.

There was a reference made earlier to Santa Claus and to Christmas gifts. Ho, ho, ho, yourself, Santa Claus in a blue suit. There are some problems with the minister’s Christmas gift. I will concede that for the majority of injured workers, either on permanent or on temporary benefits, these increases appear to restore lost purchasing power from the time of the last increase. That is the basis of our support: this bill does appear to restore adequately the loss of the value of the dollar as a result of inflation from the period of July 1978 to date.

It does not, however, adjust the base. Because of the way the base for many injured workers is calculated, on the basis of 75 per cent of gross to the earnings ceiling, it does not restore the inadequacy of the base. So when we get to looking at a revision of the act we will want to deal with that question. We have made suggestions in the past that it would be more equitable to move to a system of net income in order to protect low- and middle-income workers from what appears to be an unfair discrimination on the basis of the present legislation, so we hope the minister is receptive to moving away from the present computation of the base for pension awards and to a system that is more equitable, particularly for low-income workers.

There are categories of people who remain at a disadvantage even with these increases. Reference has already been made that the earnings ceiling is not adjusted retroactively so persons who are on pensions from a considerable period of time in the past never really have achieved the kind of catch-up that a worker who is injured more recently would have been able to achieve under the most recent changes to benefit levels. The minister just cannot pretend that we can perpetually ignore people who have been pensioned off in the 1960s or even in the 1950s when wages were considerably lower and prices were infinitely lower than they are today and therefore the earnings base was much lower, so people are living on grossly inadequate amounts of money and have remained ineligible for the increases.

There is another category of people not helped by these increases. People who have been on temporary total disability benefits continuously for more than 12 months are, in our understanding, not entitled to retroactivity beyond 12 months. I do not know how many people there are in the province who have been on temporary total disability for more than a year; it is probably a relatively small group. But from discussions with my colleagues I am aware of cases of people who have been injured, in some instances four or five years ago. Their physical condition, their medical condition has not yet stabilized; they are still undergoing operations at regular intervals because of the seriousness of their injuries and yet they are not entitled to an adjustment.

One of the real disappointments I have with the time pressure is that we do not have a chance to try to deal with that continued inequity. And it is an inequity. Perhaps the minister can ask his staff if it can come up with the determination as to how many temporary total disability claimants we are talking about who have been in continuous receipt of temporary total disability benefits for more than 12 months and see whether there is a way of including them in the increase. Their living costs are just as real as yours and mine, Mr. Speaker, and the erosion of their purchasing power is infinitely worse than anything we will ever experience in our lives. Surely they are entitled to a full adjustment.

The reason I am stressing this is because in the past this group has been excluded entirely from the increase. They have never had the catch-up other groups have had. They remain outside the provisions of the catch-up in this bill today.

Moving to another point, we have in the past expressed in the strongest possible terms our anger and dismay at the level of benefits provided to widows and dependent children. We are pleased that the minister has chosen to raise, once again, the rates for dependent widows and dependent children, but I want to point out something to him. The entitlement of a widow with two children under 16, under the new rates, the rates effective July 1, 1979, would be by my calculation an annual income of $7,708. I remind the minister that the poverty line in a city the size of Toronto as of June 1978 for a family of three persons -- and this is the Statistics Canada revised poverty line which is the lowest of all poverty lines used in this country -- is $8,977, or almost $9,000 a year.

I am fully aware that some families in this group we are talking about, widows and dependent children, would be covered by Canada Pension benefits. I am also aware that others are not. One of the problems we have in dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board is the total inadequacy of their statistical data base. Even the minister’s own advisory council on occupational health and safety has talked about the lack of an adequate data base. We do not know how many widows and dependent children on workmen’s compensation are also in receipt of Canada Pension Plan benefits, or how many are trying to live at a sub-poverty level on workmen’s compensation benefits alone. I suspect there are still a fair number of widows and dependent children on workmen’s compensation who are not eligible for Canada Pension Plan, who are not eligible for family benefits allowance and will be still living below the poverty line, despite the increases being brought before us again today.

That is something we are going to have to look at and try to adjust when we get the opportunity to have the whole bill in front of us and have some hearings in the appropriate forum here in the Legislature. We cannot, we simply cannot permit the families of workers who are killed as a result of a work accident to live at a level below the poverty line. I am anxious to hear the minister provide us with the statistical material, which we still do not have, and to tell us how many widows and dependent children, how many members of families of workers who have been killed on the job are still without Canada Pension Plan coverage and are still living below the poverty line. I want that figure as quickly as he can persuade the Workmen’s Compensation Board to get it to him and I know how long that takes.

The minister has prepared a white paper on the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It is entitled, Current Concerns. I am still thinking seriously of introducing an omnibus concern bill for the benefit of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would that affect this bill?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, it would. It would require the Minister of Labour to stop using the word “concern.” I want to just point out that he uses the word “concern” 12 times in the first page and eight times on the second page. He uses the word “concern” 41 times during the white paper.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think there is anything out of order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is not my white paper. Mr. Speaker. It is the paper prepared and presented to me by the board and I was in receipt of it at the same time as the member. That is a point of privilege.

Mr. McClellan: He uses the word “they,” the nameless authors, who obviously have read into the mind of the Minister of Labour his predilection for this most overworked word, 42 times. They use the word 42 times in the course of the document. They use it as a noun, they use it as a verb, they use it as an adjective, they use it as a preposition. Please, I’ll buy the minister a thesaurus for Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Promises, promises.

Mr. McClellan: I’ll keep this promise.

I don’t want to deal with the white paper at this point, but I want to conclude by coming back to a fundamental point this party has made continually over the last decade and that is, we cannot tinker with the Workmen’s Compensation Act and achieve justice for injured workers.

Mr. Kerrio: Tinkers are in the six per cent bracket.

Mr. McClellan: We are going to have to bite the bullet and bring in fundamental reforms which will see the replacement of this act and a number of other social security programs with a small number of comprehensive income-maintenance measures. We will continue to push for the introduction of universal accident and illness insurance.

I’ve had the advantage of seeing a copy of a social security paper prepared by a federal-provincial income security task force which has detailed and documented the tremendous number of income-security programs across this country. There are in excess of 80 separate income-maintenance programs in this country. They are contradictory; they are overlapping one another. All of us who run constituency offices as MPPs know that citizens are totally incapable of understanding the hotchpotch of income security programs that we have in this country.

Secondly, we know as MPPs that even when taken together, all of these 80 separate programs -- some 17 or 18 of which affect residents of Ontario -- are still incapable of providing dependent people with an income which is above the poverty line. That is because of their fragmentation and their lack of rationality or coherence. We all know we have the impossible job of talking to the family of an injured worker and trying to put together an income package from any of seven or eight different programs.

It’s bad enough having to deal with the bureaucracy of the Workmen’s Compensation Board as it tries to determine fault, blame and whether or not an individual worker is entitled to payment, regardless of the fact that he’s obviously disabled. The issue there isn’t disability, the issue is the cause of disability and the relationship of the cause of disability to his pension level. So we have to deal with that. We have to deal with the Canada Pension Plan. If he’s elderly, we have to deal with any of the four public social security programs for elderly people. We have to deal with family benefits and all its myriad bureaucracies. We have to deal with general welfare assistance. We have to ideal with the various tax credit programs, the property tax rebate and the sales tax credit program. It’s a morass of red tape and bureaucracy that tangles up the average citizen. He has to have a crash course in government red tape in order to try to even discover the existence of the programs, let alone understand how to wend his way through the various bureaucracies to acquire the services to which you ought to be entitled as a citizen as a matter of right.

Why do we in this country insist in putting people through such a rat’s maze of irrational bureaucracy? That’s exactly what we do. An injured worker who comes to my office comes there because the services and the programs are utterly incomprehensible. After four years I think I understand a little bit about how the bureaucracy works, but I know I haven’t achieved my doctorate yet in Workmen’s Compensation Board bureaucracy, let alone my doctorate in all of the other 17 or 18 programs. When we talk about universal accident and illness insurance, we’re trying to talk about bringing elements of social justice and equity into the social-security arena and, equally, a measure of simple rationality and coherence.

The thing that was distressing about the federal-provincial income security task force was that it identified the problem fine -- that there are 80 discombobulated programs driving everybody nuts and being at the same time totally inadequate -- but it couldn’t come up with a solution. Their solution was a royal commission and, in the meantime, a few slipshod administrative niceties. On page two of the white paper I see basically the same approach, a kind of the throwing-up of the hands in despair. In the section called A Social Umbrella, the minister seems to reject the notion of universal accident and illness insurance in favour of trying to tinker with the existing machinery.

I say again that tinkering isn’t going to solve anything. It’s not going to solve the fact that we have a Workmen’s Compensation Act which covers benefits to disabled people; we have a Family Benefits Act which covers benefits to disabled people; we have a Canada Pension Plan which covers benefits to disabled people; we have a General Welfare Assistance Act which covers benefits to disabled people; we have disabled people on old-age security guaranteed annual income supplements; we have disabled people receiving tax credits; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Nowhere in this proposal is there the kind of creative breakthrough that can give us the leadership to get out of this morass. We in Canada remain with one of the most archaic and obsolete and Rube Goldberg-esque social security systems in the western industrial world.

Mr. Kerrio: What is this about social security? I though we were talking about the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. McClellan: For the benefit of the member for Niagara Falls, the Workmen’s Compensation Act is part of our social security system and we are dealing with amendments to all sections. If he’s incapable of understanding that, as most of his colleagues have always been incapable of understanding issues with relation to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, that remains his problem. I think the minister understands clearly what I’m talking about.

When we get to the point of looking at the White paper we expect more than what is in it. We expect more than tinkering; we expect more than discussion of net income as opposed to gross income or fiat-rate benefits as opposed to occupational benefits. We want the leadership that can lead this province and this country out of the morass it is in with respect to income-replacement programs, especially for disabled workers and injured workers. Perhaps it is an ominous portent that the white paper is actually grey. The cover is grey; kind of a pukey blue-grey, I may say.

I think the minister should take this as the basis of his approach, but rework it and come back to us with a much more adequate document and a much more adequate set of proposals for the next legislative go-round. We’re not content with tinkering; we’re not content to stand here once a year and deal with marginal improvements in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We want fundamental reform that will protect the right of working Canadians to a decent income in the case of accident or disability and to adequate rehabilitation services to get them back on the job as quickly and as productively as possible. The present act fails to do this.

The proposals in the white paper, I say, are so inadequate to achieve that objective they need to be reworked. We look forward to the attempt in the appropriate legislative forum to hold hearings and to deal with legislation that will once and for all reform measures for injured workers in this province.

Finally and very briefly, I would like to congratulate the minister if I may, for the bill that’s here. I do so, not because I think that anybody representing injured workers has to express gratitude on the basis of charity, but because I think injured workers in this province have an absolute right to a decent standard of living.

I congratulate the minister for getting this through his cabinet. It is substantially different from previous amendments we have had because, as I said at the beginning, it restores fully the loss of purchasing power. That makes it different from previous amendments, which did not do that. I hope it is a precedent and that the government members will understand it as a precedent. If we haven’t moved to an automatic system when we move the statute, at the very least we restore every single nickel and every cent of lost purchasing power. This bill appears to have done that and for that we congratulate the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Hon. Mr. Wells moves that the House continue to sit through the luncheon interval from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. to continue the debate on this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the last time we debated an increase to the pensioners and injured workers I stood in my place and concurred wholeheartedly with the government’s position. I’m sorry to say that in that particular instance one of my socialist friends to my left took about the cheapest shot you can take at a fellow legislator when he suggested that I was against giving increases to widows or injured workers.

I went on the record at that time and stood on a point of personal privilege and explained -- and I shall say it again -- that I concur wholeheartedly with the government’s position in increasing the moneys paid to injured workers and pensioners. I don’t make that particular point lightly, simply because talk is cheap and the people to my left prove that day after day.

The reason I use that particular description of them is because I want to bring into focus something that is very seldom talked about in this Legislature. It is the fact that while we debate what is fair in regard to paying people on pension and injured workers, very little is said -- nothing at all by those members over there and very little from other members in the assembly -- about who picks up the bill. I say to the minister it’s time his government addressed itself to that very significant aspect of workmen’s compensation.

I say again, I want to pay the injured worker what’s fair. I also wonder why we don’t pay someone who sustains injury on the way to work. It would then be impossible for the government to assess that payment to some small company that has five or six people on its payroll. I suggest it’s about time that an injured worker is paid whether he is hurt on the way to the job or on the way home from the job. In that case, the minister would have to decide on a completely different method of payment.

[1:00]

I say to the minister that the way the workmen’s compensation is paid for now is an unfair payroll tax to some people who have a very high labour ratio. I think it’s grossly unfair. If we are going to encourage small companies to hire more people and we are going to put an unfair and regressive tax on their payroll, how could they possibly take on other people when this keeps going up and up and the minister doesn’t do anything about bringing any other kind of funding into the picture? It seems particularly unfair when the government is prepared to make money available through the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to General Motors, to Ford, to some of the large corporations which probably have very small payrolls in proportion to many small businesses. In substance, what the government is doing is increasing a very disproportionate payroll tax to labour-intensive small people.

I say to the minister I concur wholeheartedly with what he’s doing. I did in the past and take exception to some people who say anything different about my position in this matter. With respect, it’s just about time that the government that sits over there and talks about free enterprise practised what it preaches and brought into place something for injured workers that is more fair and equitable to the people paying for it and extend it to those people who might be hurt in places other than the work place. If he does that he would then be obliged to put money in from the general revenue funds. He knows that and I know that.

Isn’t it time we assessed the whole picture of workmen’s compensation and what is generally accepted as the common law of the land to place responsibility where it belongs and payment, in turn, to those people who avail themselves of workmen’s compensation payments? It’s time to take another look at that aspect. It’s never debated, it’s never discussed. The government just passes the bill on to a third party which can do very little about it.

It’s time the government took a very good look at that aspect of it and we stopped putting a regressive tax on payroll that is hurting the fundamental people who make this nation go, the people who hire 60 to 65 per cent of the work force. Those people are hurting and it’s time those people who stand in their place and talk about a grandiose scheme of social benefits rather than injury benefits should be prepared to take the money from the source it should come from.

I hope the minister will look at that aspect of it in the future, that injured workers and pensioners will be paid fairly, but that he’ll also take a good hard look at some other method of funding those aspects that fall into the social rather than what I consider the fundamental responsibility of the person who does the hiring.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to be very short on this bill. I can’t escape though I think the previous speaker invited it. Regressive taxes, the assessments for WCB? I suppose it could be, but there’s certainly a private-enterprise incentive to improve safety and working conditions in it as well. Besides, I’ve always sort of liked the theory that them what has pays. I just reject the regressive tax argument.

I see this bill, and I think my colleagues see this bill, basically as income maintenance and on that basis have no hesitation in supporting it. It’s a good move. I applaud it. I want the minister to recognize that when positive amendments are put forward there isn’t a negative reaction from this side of the House and they will be supported. It’s on the basis that it’s dealing basically with an income maintenance situation that I have no hesitation in supporting it.

I don’t intend to go into the shortcomings. My colleagues have dealt with and probably will deal with a few that concern us. I want the minister to know that the white or grey paper or whatever it may be that’s been presented to us I accept as being presented in good faith and we look forward to the discussion on that paper that will take place. There are, I think, a number of serious inadequacies in the whole workmen’s compensation program in Ontario. Some of them have been well documented. Some of the problems and arguments have been raised over a long period of time. We want to see them dealt with. We hope that the white paper will be that opportunity and for that reason look forward to taking part in the discussions around that particular paper. In the meantime, we accept the income-maintenance proposals presented today as being good ones. Whether people would have liked to have seen more or not, we recognize that they are not trying to resolve all of the difficulties of the past or all of the inadequacy we may feel is there, but they are positive measures. We do accept them, as we accept in good faith the white paper that is being presented to this House.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be relatively brief and just cope with the spirit of this bill and not get into a long discussion, or précis the quality of this bill. I guess what the Minister of Labour is doing is to provide rights for workers who are injured as a result of accidents which have occurred at the work place.

The member for Bellwoods gave quite an extensive illustration about the concern of this party and of individual members who through the years on the floor of this Legislature, in particular since 1975, have been raising questions in relation to problems related to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, its act and the injured workers of this province. We had such opportunities in the past and it seems that from time to time we are dealing with some of the concerns which, of course, are not solving the concrete and the real problems injured workers of this province face.

With this spirit, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give you my contribution to express my personal concern and my party’s concern in relation to the whole area of compensation for injuries in the province. My colleague, the member for Bellwoods, raised the particular issue of the white paper in which the Workmen’s Compensation Board expresses concern about problems. About the tenure and the tone of this word, concern, it seems my colleague read my mind, as it were, because I was trying to give an extensive elaboration about his concern. Our real concern was that the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the government through the Minister of Labour, enact particular legislation to solve the problems of injured workers in this province.

I have to tell you I am not pleased about this situation, Mr. Speaker. This party is not pleased, because we are looking to long-range activities and the changes which are supposed to take place in this province. We are looking forward for concrete changes, because the changes in this bill are not totally relieving the financial pain of injured workers as a result of injuries which, occurred in the work place. We are looking for concrete terms which are going to solve, once and for all, the problems of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which is affecting the social and economic environment of injured workers in this province.

I will be pleased when this government, the Minister of Labour, in co-operation with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, enacts clear legislation which is going to phase out the present bureaucratic structure of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and deals with a universal insurance scheme which is going to ensure the right to benefits to injured workers in Ontario who have been affected by serious injuries related to the work place.

Again, to go back to the principle of concern, of course the Workmen’s Compensation Board has been concerned in the past, and even recently, with decreasing their assessment of employers’ premiums across the province. I do not think the Workmen’s Compensation Board or this government showed clear leadership or a clear indication that the problems are going to be solved. I would like to give you a synopsis of what has happened in this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the concern which the Workmen’s Compensation Board expressed to employers of Ontario about making contributions to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The increase in assessment rate per $100 of payroll in 1977 was nil and in 1978 it was increased by 3.7 per cent. But in 1979, there was a reduction of 9.6 per cent and for 1980 there will be an extra reduction of 8.4 per cent.

This is something which worries me. We are talking about the whole issue of ensuring a just level of compensation for injured workers so that they will not be forced to live at the poverty level, and here we are faced with a position taken by the board and blessed by this government to make reductions in the assessment rate per $100 of payroll, the figures of which I have emphasized.

Of course, I am not happy about this trend because it is taking away money from injured workers so the possibilities of giving extra benefit increases or changes to the Workmen’s Compensation Board procedure are becoming slim. This leads me to believe that no concrete action will be forthcoming, even though I must state I am looking forward to these changes before I make my final analysis on the direction taken by the board, by the Minister of Labour and by this government.

So it is with hesitation, Mr. Speaker, that I support this bill. I have to support this bill, of course, because injured workers across the province are looking forward to these increases. I understand that the increases are in line with the cost of living increase. Again I want to express some positive remarks in relation to that to the Minister of Labour, in that, at least we are not faced with a bill over which we have to fight for adequate increases in relation to the increase in the cost of living.

I want to point out, in relation to that, that if the Minister of Labour and the government introduce an amendment that incorporates a permanent formula of annual increases we will have solved a problem which has been affecting injured workers through the years. Frankly, I am getting frustrated and other members of my party -- and even members belonging to other parties -- are tired of having to raise, persistently and consistently, issues related to injured workers and their level of compensation.

[1:15]

In the past, and recently again, we have talked about incorporating this particular formula into the Workmen’s Compensation Act. At least the minister would not have the pressure of injured workers across the province crying all the time about the level of compensation. At least there would be something in the act which the Workmen’s Compensation Board just had to follow. The minister would not even have the pressures coming from different parties voicing the concerns of injured workers across Ontario. I hope he is going to do that.

I also have something to say about these increases. I hope the Workmen’s Compensation Board is going to implement those increases. The reason I am not enthusiastically supportive of these measures is that the way the Workmen’s Compensation Board assesses the level of permanent disabilities on behalf of injured workers is completely unfair. The numbers I have seen may look attractive but when an injured worker is called by the Workmen’s Compensation Board for the assessment of his disability, the board has the full discretion, as a result of the means chart -- and I want to refer to it in that way -- to assess a low level of pension to that injured worker. We are also aware that the level of pensions is related to the amount of money the injured worker was making before the accident took place. Unless the Minister of Labour wants to introduce amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act to restructure the level of compensation for permanent disability, I think we have not really changed the approach to the concrete problem which is affecting injured workers across Ontario.

The white paper is going to be discussed in the months to come. I would like to hear a statement from the Minister of Labour which in some way will finalize the work of this white paper so we will not be in suspense, maybe that in two or three years the Minister of Labour will gather the responses to the white paper. I would like to hear that there will be clear guidelines to complete this type of work. I would like to hear the Minister of Labour make statements to ensure at least that concrete changes are going to be made to the Workmen’s Compensation Act without any delay. I think the whole process is overdue. I think we should be interested in the financial hardships of injured workers across the province.

Again, I have to convey to the Minister of Labour my frustration that when injured workers demonstrate in front of Queen’s Park or in front of the Minister of Labour’s office or even at the board’s office there is a new attitude that, instead of taking into consideration their demands, injured workers have been arrested and are faced with criminal charges and have to appear before the courts. It is a pitiful, really pitiful process and I am upset about the whole affair.

I have seen injured workers come into my office. They had been going to the board requesting their cheques and so on. They didn’t want to leave because they wanted to talk to the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for some reason. I can understand this reason. Maybe the chairman was not in his office and the injured worker was waiting to get a clear answer about his particular problem. The board in several cases decided to call the police and the workers were charged with trespassing. I think that is cruel. It is unfair. There is an urgency to deal with the whole aspect of the Workmen’s Compensation Board structure and procedure in order that the demands of injured workers are going to be met in some way. They are not supposed to live in this province as second-class citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this Legislature and the citizens in Ontario have to pay a tribute to the injured workers of this province. They have been making their own contribution by working hard, especially on the construction side. Some of them have died as a result of serious injuries. Some of them remain with total and permanent disability as the result of their accidents. They gave their best contribution to make sure that the economic growth of this province would take place. Since 1914 I think that this government and the Workmen’s Compensation Board haven’t shown a clear indication that the human suffering, as the result of accidents sustained at work, has been taken into consideration.

From time to time we have been faced with little changes. I understand that the ceiling has been increased. It sounds quite attractive. From $16,200 there has been an increase to $17,820.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It’s $18,500.

Mr. Lupusella: How much, $18,500? It sounds quite attractive a figure, but how many injured workers are affected by this ceiling? The reason I’m raising this question is that it eventually might solve the problem of the injured workers afflicted with new injuries, but what about workers who were injured in the past when the ceiling was really low? What are we doing to solve this particular problem? The ceiling was low, the percentage of disability was again related to their earning capacity before the accident took place and as a result of that the pension was low as well.

We are dealing with the vast majority of injured workers affected by this particular problem who have been forced to collect unemployment insurance and to collect the money from taxpayers while they have been the victims of injuries in the work place. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister of Labour that I think taxpayers of this province have been subsidizing employers; they have been subsidizing the Workmen’s Compensation Board when injured workers have been forced to collect family benefits, or they’ve been forced to collect their Canada pension.

The anachronistic part of the whole affair is that those who are collecting Canada pensions -- I’m sure that the Minister of Labour is very well aware of this -- that workers in general applying for CPP disability pension are supposed to be declared totally disabled; their disability must be permanent. The anachronistic part is that many injured workers have a 15 or 20 per cent disability, therefore they are not considered by the Workmen’s Compensation Board to be totally disabled. They are faced with another bureaucratic process in Ottawa, just because of the degree of their disability. A lot of injured workers are unable to collect disability pensions from the federal government because there is no clear indication that they are totally disabled. It is something about which I am particularly concerned.

I am also concerned about those who have been injured for a certain period of time, who didn’t have the opportunity to make contributions to their Canada Pension Plan schemes. A vast majority of injured workers couldn’t make their contributions. They are just supposed to get the peanuts of pensions which come from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, thus they’ve been forced to collect family benefits as well.

There is an open scenario for the Minister of Labour, which should be viewed. I don’t want to prolong my discussion. I guess we have processed this bill just for the sake of injured workers, even though we are unhappy about the whole structure of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I hope the Minister of Labour will make an addendum to the discussion paper of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to consider seriously and effectively the universal insurance plan in effect in New Zealand. The former Minister of Labour told us she was looking into it, that she was studying the whole process, but she didn’t want to commit this government to any particular change in that direction.

I think the present Minister of Labour, if he is really concerned about economic and social problems which injured workers face in Ontario, should give serious thought to that, in order that some day we will have a universal insurance scheme in the province which will protect workers 24 hours a day. At the moment, we are also faced with the problem that in going to work the workers may be injured outside of the employer’s property. Long investigations are taking place at the board level to find out where the worker was injured.

I think the universal insurance scheme, beside considering the right level of compensation and benefits, also considers the time when a worker leaves his house to go to work. If something happens and his earning capacity is completely nil, he has to be compensated.

Mr. Speaker, to the Solicitor General -- to the Minister of Labour --

Mr. Bounsall: You’re accurately predicting where he’s going to be shuffled to.

Mr. Lupusella: I hope not, because again, we’re going to talk about concern for the police forces and concern for injured workers. It seems this government is using the general tone of being concerned about everything. I hope some day this word will have a low profile in this Legislature.

Again, I want to terminate my speech. I hope the Minister of Labour will move with high speed towards the completion of this important work on behalf of injured workers. I would like to hear from the minister when the discussion paper will be finalized. I also hope he will give us an assurance about the time when he’s planning to introduce concrete -- and I want to emphasize the word “concrete” -- changes in the Workmen’s Compensation Board Act.

[1:30]

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to be mercilessly succinct this afternoon. I support the bill. I’m unhappy about it, but I do support it. In the sense of the spirit of Christmas and all of that stuff, I suppose we really should be grateful for what the minister is proposing in this kind of legislation. Further than that, we should be grateful that he appears, finally, to be moving to some substantive review of the way we compensate injured workers.

It’s appropriate that many of us are going to be succinct this afternoon because it is near the end of the session and we’re dealing with this particular kind of bill which, in effect, for many of the people I represent is the way it happens. An industrial accident takes only a very small portion of one’s life initially; it is something that happens in less than a second which changes completely the course of the remainder of the life of that human being. I’m sad in relating to the House, as many people here could, I’m sure, that many of my friends are people who have fallen victims to industrial accidents, most of which fit into that category.

One very quick incident occurs in a place of work, which means for the rest of their lives they cannot walk. The operation of their arms and their legs is changed substantively; a great many other ailments might result. For a growing number of people we’re beginning to be just a little more aware that sometimes it isn’t really the accident that causes that kind of change in their life pattern, but something that occurs over a longer period of time. We are beginning to understand just a little bit about that.

What does need to be said about this particular piece of legislation and the companion white paper is that I want to encourage the minister as much as I can to give serious consideration to some other approach to the problem. I do not understand how we got ourselves into this mess with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I do not particularly put blame on the individuals who work at the board. In fact, I have some sympathy for them and some high regard for the chairman of the compensation board; he happens to be a constituent of mine and a very nice guy, but I think he is trying to do an impossible task, one that cannot be done.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how we expect injured workers in this province to be doctors, lawyers, orators and debaters. That’s an unrealistic expectation. I note with regret that in the discussion paper the minister offers as a major concern the element that has been raised by a couple of other members here, that somehow we really can’t afford in this society to offer to an injured worker some decent form of compensation. I find that a repulsive notion. It is a concept which says that this society of all the societies in the world can’t deal with that problem quickly, efficiently and effectively and is sick.

Surely that has to be a priority item. Surely governments, such as we have all across this nation, which can afford to spend millions of dollars on receptions, information programs, printing buttons and literature, can afford to treat injured workers with some respect, dignity and efficiency and provide a level of compensation which allows them to lead what we might categorize as normal lives and which allows them to continue a lifestyle that is satisfactory to them and a pattern for the people around them, their families in particular, and which doesn’t alter dramatically because of some incident which occurred in a place of work. It strikes me that that should not be an unreal expectation in our society.

I do support this legislation. I recognize -- as other members have done in some detail -- that there are many faults and philosophically there are certainly some problems in it for me. I do recognize that the minister is paying at least lip service now to some things which have been seriously wrong with the compensation board for a long period of time. It strikes me that if this is the best I can get at this moment in history I will take it gladly, not for me but for those who are suffering under this program.

I do want to put it on the record because this is something that in my constituency office alone involves something like 4,000 case files a year.

That is ridiculous. That means about 60 per cent of our casework file is devoted to things having to do with the compensation board. My personal measure of whether a government program works or doesn’t work is how deeply I am involved in it. I think there might be one or two things out there for which people do not complain to their member and seek the member’s assistance.

Certainly, the minister could ease the case load immensely in constituency offices around the province if he made substantive changes to that concept called the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It is ludicrous that the members of this House and the people who work in our constituency offices have to expend so much time and effort and money to make this thing work. In my view, in the final analysis, it doesn’t work because it can’t work. The concept is flawed, faulty and more than just imperfect.

I welcome the changes the minister proposes in this bill. I urge him to give extremely serious consideration to altering the entire concept he has in place with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I tell him now and give him notice -- though I might be brief today -- I am not going to be satisfied with tinkering about the process, or the board, or a new chairman, or new office space, or a new filing system or regular adjustments to the payment schemes. I want a substantive change and more and more people in my riding from both sides of the bargaining table want a substantive change. We want something that works, that is efficient and that is fair.

I don’t want to be back here in another six or eight months time looking at a tinkering with the compensation board. I want a substantive change. The people I represent demand that. I think from each side of a bargaining table you may get an entirely different perspective on the problems, but I think you’ll get clear recognition that the system that has been set up doesn’t work. It isn’t fair to anybody. In particular, as always the one who is expected to bear the brunt of the unfairness is the worker and that’s wrong.

Mr. Speaker, to finalize: I welcome that the minister at least recognized an extremely serious problem. I want to caution him to go forward in his examination of alternatives in a clear and concise way that people will understand and to make sure that we do not wind up with another government report which does not change anything anywhere for anybody. That’s a useless and stupid exercise and if that’s what he’s proposing, cut it out now.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I may just say that having been the critic of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for our party for six of the last eight years in the House, I am quite used to having bills brought in at half past the eleventh hour such as in the spring session, when one was introduced to be debated in the last day or two of the month of June. Here one has come in that we are debating for the first time on the last or the second last day of this session in December.

I believe it is rather unfair to the members of the House that workmen’s compensation amendments should always be introduced in this way where the members are continually under some sort of pressure to make their remarks short -- which could be useful -- to get it debated and have as few speakers as possible and to get to heck out of here, be it in June or December. I don’t know why the government continues to do this. It may be that it’s simply such a low-priority item in their considerations that it comes as an afterthought. This occurs virtually every time. There’s nothing to prove otherwise.

I wouldn’t mind having an explanation from the minister, although he is only responsible for one of these situations, the very late introduction of the bill in this particular session. It is certainly a pattern. It may be he has inquired of the Workmen’s Compensation Board or his staff, though this is always the pattern whenever there have been changes.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to say I do support this bill, because for some workers in Ontario it does and will represent a fairly major immediate increase for them. For their sakes, we will certainly not oppose the bill. We will support it for those who are receiving it. Neither, unfortunately, will we make any meaningful amendments to this bill. There are two areas in which there should be amendments which it should be reasonable for every member of this House to support.

We have some sort of an indication, although not in flat terms, from the minister and the government House leader that should there be substantive amendments increasing expenditures above the amounts in this bill, third reading might not take place. It has not been that flat but this is certainly the clear vibe received by those in our caucus now formally concerned with carrying through this bill. For those workers who would receive benefits, we will not take that chance, but I’m going to indicate clearly, as has probably been done by other members in the debate, two areas where this bill is deficient, two areas in which amendments affecting the numbers and the payments in this bill should be made.

Of course, one area is section 3 of the bill, which deals with the adjustments to the amounts receivable under the category of temporary disability payments. I don’t know how many other speakers have addressed this point, but I’m simply going to outline the situation for the minister.

Back in 1975, the first time ever, the Legislature made an adjustment to the temporary disability amounts. As this minister well knows, for the first time backdating for temporary disability payments and for pensions was recognized. It went back to 1949, I believe, and the total amount that anyone could receive as a pension adjustment or a total disability adjustment was 60 per cent. The cost of living over that entire period went up 180 per cent, so the total change back then was one third of what it should have been.

We do not have the proper base on which to make those percentage adjustments now, nor have we ever had since that bill because we did not make it adequate at the time. We had one bill in 1978 for the pensions covered by section 42 of the act, which made adjustments in the pensions in accordance with the cost of living. We did not make it in the final year that was affected by that bill, and so the minister has updated section 4 of this bill dealing with section 42 of the act to make those adjustments according to the cost-of-living changes which have occurred since then. They are derived from an improper base, but at least that has been done with respect to those people receiving pensions.

Nothing, however, has been done between 1975 and now for those on total temporary disability or temporary disability payments, except for this one amendment in section 3 here today which adds only 10 per cent. It does not make any attempt whatsoever to put in the true figure which would deal with the cost-of-living changes which have occurred since 1975. This minister speaks about income maintenance. He has not achieved it whatsoever in section 3 of this bill. He has added 10 per cent rather than the true amount. That true amount, if one follows what was done for the pension and to cover the period from July 1975 to now, would amount to a 42 per cent adjustment, not a 10 per cent adjustment.

[1:45]

This bill is seriously deficient in that regard. For anybody on the board or in the ministry, or for this minister to say this bill makes any attempt at all to provide income maintenance would be patently false. That’s the amendment which should be placed. This minister had better not say he has introduced the principle of income maintenance in this bill whatsoever. He has patently refused to do so. And he stands condemned for not doing so.

The minister can say, and how appropriately, “I have put out a grey paper for discussion” -- it is a grey paper -- and, probably the conclusions and the way in which they’ll find themselves into the Legislature, as a result of whatever discussion this minister is going to entertain, will be in the same vein as the colour of the cover. When we get to that, if this review is anything other than a smokescreen to delay what should be taking place, at some point we will be seeing, in this Legislature, the proper adjustments on those temporary disabilities which I have spoken about under section 3. There’s no question the wording in section 3 of this bill should read, “The amounts payable under this section shall be increased for 1975 by 11 per cent; effective July 1, 1976, for 1976 by eight per cent; effective July 1, 1977, for 1977 by eight per cent; effective July 1, 1978,” and then, according to what is shown in sections 4(9) and 4(10) of this bill, the further increases thereafter.

The minister has failed to include or take into account the first three clauses which should be appearing in section 3 of this bill. I want to tell him how this will affect three people who continually communicate with me on the problem. These people are on temporary disability -- most of the time on total, at various times on 50 per cent. But that is the base on which they calculate the 50 per cent. There’s Fred Wilson from Chatham, who was first injured in 1971 and has been continuous throughout, as far as I can see in his file. In 1975 those amendments brought his total temporary to $216 a week. Four and a half years later, what does this amendment do for Fred Wilson? Four and a half years later, it’s going to give him $21.63 more a week, rather than $90 a week or whatever the weekly maximum allowable under this bill would be if the proper amendments were in here.

I would be very interested in the minister’s reply on this next point. Perhaps he can indicate by a nod. The way section 3 is added, someone would qualify for the increase who has been on temporary total disability or temporary partial disability from the time of the injury and it has been interrupted for some short period but he has none the less continued to receive total temporary as a result of the injury coming at some very early date. I have two cases that date from 1973, both temporarily interrupted but having been continuous in each case since 1975 -- in one case it has been continuous from May 27, 1975, to the present, and in the other case from April 1975 to the present -- and I assume both of these persons would qualify for the 10 per cent indicated in the bill. They have been continuous since the spring of 1975 even though prior to that there were short breaks between 1973 and the spring dates of 1975. The two cases are those of Gerald LeClair and Janet Smith in the Windsor area. Do I take the minister’s nod to mean, if they’ve been continuous since the spring of 1975, that they will at least get the 10 per cent? The minister is nodding and that’s correct. All right.

In the case of Gerald LeClair, under the minister’s amendment he would have an increase of $17 weekly, rather than roughly a $75 increase if the proper income maintenance adjustments had been made.

In the case of Janet Smith, she will receive an increase of $18.50 weekly, the first in four and a half years. Back in 1975 she had an increase of $21. Now, four and a half years later she’ll get the magnificent sum of $18.50. which is a sham in terms of income maintenance rather than a gain still on the improper base. However, the proper adjustment would be a number in the vicinity of $75 to $80. This is what should be done.

I won’t unduly continue to harp on this point. It is a disgrace. I don’t understand the thinking of this minister, the ministry staff or the Workmen’s Compensation Board by which they could come up with this and think an increase of 10 per cent is sufficient or just for four and a half years for those on temporary disability.

My second point is one I have heard others speaking on. I wasn’t able to stay for the entire debate. I was required to attend the members’ services committee. This second point concerns the maximums payable under this act. The mistake was made in 1978 when the maximum was not increased by the same percentages as the pensions were increased. I won’t belabour the point but the minister knows injured workers have been disadvantaged by the maximum not going to the same percentage increase by which the pensions were increased over those years.

It has been a problem for the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- not so much on the calculation, because they worked out a means by which they could calculate it easily enough, but over that intervening time in terms of having to explain the matter to the workers who hear of an increase in their pensions. When the pensions have been increased prior to this point the maximum has always gone up by the same amount. This has been a problem for the board to explain if they were attempting to be honest and rational in their explanation as to why recipients are getting no increase or only a minimal increase and one that is not equal to the percentage increases that occurred in the pensions.

Interestingly enough, back in June 1978, I had made an amendment to that section of the act. I may say it was worked out with Mr. Laughren. When I look at it now, it was one that was moved by Mr. Laughren rather than myself. We put in the maximums that should pertain in those same percentage increases, the one which was not accepted by the Minister of Labour at that time. The $15,000 we struck out in that bill rather than being replaced by the $16,200 which was then inserted -- effectively made the amendment read that that be $16,800 effective July 1. 1976, $18,500 effective July 1, 1977, and $19,600 effective July 1, 1978, to keep those maximums in line with the percentage increases of the pensions.

There has been no attempt in this bill to clear up that problem, a problem which clearly exists. We have in this bill an amendment which simply takes that $16,200 and makes it -- there have been some changes in the bill -- $18,500, as of today; clearly below the $19,600 figure which should have been effective July 1, 1978. If you take the percentage changes which have occurred in pensions since then, it would indicate that the appropriate figure for that maximum today, if one were going to base it on the same increase as the pensions, would not be $18,500 but $22,100. This bill is seriously deficient in this regard by not so doing.

I know that in that same amendment proposed by Mr. Laughren -- and he will no doubt speak to it later -- we also added the very reasonable way in which various workmen’s compensation boards in this country now are operating. This was started by Saskatchewan. I read from the amendment: “ ... and those amounts indicated in this section” -- those amounts that indicate what the maximum should be -- “shall be adjusted on July 1, in each succeeding year, commencing July 1, 1979, by the higher of either the same per cent increase granted under section 42 of the act or by appropriate increments of $1,000 when claims data reveal by December 31 of the year previous that 10 per cent or more of workers have earnings that exceed the maximum rate.”

That was first put into the Saskatchewan act and it has been adopted by some of the other legislatures across Canada as the means of adjusting the maximum. We found that very appropriate, again, provided we got the proper percentage, the proper maximum base, which we failed to do in the bill effective July 1978 and which this minister has also failed to do in this bill. This bill is seriously flawed in these two regards.

The minister, indeed, made no statement which he circulated to us; so I can only go from my recall -- and I have not read the Hansard -- of his remarks in connection with the tabling of the grey paper, appropriately titled, in terms of how this minister talks, Current Concerns in Workmen’s Compensation. This minister is one of the most concerned, but one of the most inactive, ministers in the House in terms of legislation or changes or thrusts that produce any meaningful change in Ontario. Therefore, how appropriately, it is worded. If, however, in the discussion of this, the minister and the ministry and the Workmen’s Compensation Board are not prepared to put a rational base under the figures in these two areas that I have mentioned, then the presentation of this for presumed discussion in the future is simply a cover-up by whomever over there is concerned with these matters, and this grey paper is not worth circulating to anybody.

Mr. Wildman: He would not even put it into black and white; just grey.

Mr. J. Johnson: Send it over in writing and give the minister a chance to read it.

Mr. Bounsall: You presume he hasn’t read it, I take it. That may be a very good assumption from the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, that the minister has not read the grey paper he circulated.

With those comments, I conclude my remarks. It is deficient in two areas; it must be adjusted at some point. Unless this grey paper goes to committee with the intent to so adjust, this grey paper is nothing but another standard sham --

[2:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are really discussing the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: -- delaying tactic the ministers of this government so often use.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, it is a good feeling to stand in one’s place and follow the kind of debate that has gone on here this morning and this afternoon on the amendments to the compensation act. I am sure the minister often looks over here with great envy and wishes he had this kind of expertise on his side to give him advice on how to run the compensation board, because the members who have spoken have outlined our concerns extremely well. The word “concern” should be enacted in some kind of legislation so no one can debate the bill brought forward by this minister without using the word “concern” in at least every paragraph, because there is no more concerned minister. If only his actions matched his concerns, we would have good legislation. But that is the problem. It’s inevitable.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I’m concerned the member might one day be here.

Mr. Laughren: If the minister wants to engage in some dialectic, I suppose we could.

It always make me very happy to stand here and debate class legislation. I like that, because that is laying it all out the way it is in Ontario particularly when it comes to legislation dealing with injured workers.

I am happy the minister is sitting there, and underneath the gallery are the big Pooh-Bahs from the compensation board who tell the minister when to jump and how high to jump. He’s been to obedience school. When I look at this bill and I see what is in it and its timing, which my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) talked about, then I say to myself: “Boy, nothing ever changes. Nothing ever changes on that side of the House.”

They bring in the legislation at the end, when they know that if amendments are put and supported by the two opposition parties, the minister will simply stand in his place and say: “We shall not proceed with this bill.” We know that; nobody has to spell that out for us. That is a shabby way of bringing in legislation when we have a minority government in Ontario. It is saying they will accept legislation as though it was a majority government, and not facing the real world in which we have a minority government

The bill itself enriches the benefits paid to injured workers, and for that reason we are going to support it. There are a number of problems, dealing with the benefits, the ceiling level and the benefits for dependants, which continue to bother us. I thought my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich put the arguments extremely well. I hope the minister doesn’t think that, because we are supporting this bill, that means it is everything we want it to be, because it is not.

As a matter of fact, I dream of the day when the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member for Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson) will be enacting legislation, not debating legislation, that deals with injured workers, because then we will have the kind of legislation injured workers in Ontario deserve. That is what’s lacking now.

There is still a problem. When we talk about the compensation board in Ontario, as long as the minister continues to deal with it the way he has since he became minister, we shall continue to have the problem of an adversarial system; we’ll continue to have an attitudinal problem at the board; we’ll continue to have a decentralization problem, or rather a centralization problem; and we’ll continue to have a problem with rehabilitation of injured workers, because these kinds of amendments don’t go to the heart of the system at all. That is why I ask the minister if he would listen to the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Mr. Starr. He should listen to him, sound him out about his views on a comprehensive social insurance system based on the model used in New Zealand at present.

I wish the minister would talk to Mr. Starr about that. Mr. Strr has said he sees the day when that has to come, and that is the kind of system we will have to have in Ontario. It is a matter of years, but it is only a matter of time, until all across this country we have a comprehensive social insurance system run at the provincial level. One jurisdiction after another will bring it in. Just as Saskatchewan was the model for our medicare system, so it will be the model for our social insurance system as well. That day will come.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It’s a dream.

Mr. Laughren: The minister treats that suggestion rather glibly, but it is a serious suggestion. We’ve put it previously to this minister and to previous ministers, and I think it is the way out of that incredible quagmire called the Workmen’s Compensation Board in Ontario.

It’s not a complicated system, but it does involve something that bothers the minister and that government; it’s called ideology. The minister knows that, to bring in a system like that, you must have a public automobile insurance system, you must have an insurance system for the public at large and you must have a workers’ compensation system. When those three are in place, they can be brought together under one umbrella called a comprehensive social insurance system.

Only then will we be able to deal with the three central problems: (1) accident prevention, (2) income maintenance and (3) rehabilitation after the accident has occurred. Those three things are what we should be looking at when it comes to compensation.

If the minister thinks he can resolve the problems in compensation without addressing himself to those three key ingredients, he is sadly mistaken.

I hear the bleating -- I don’t like to use the word “bleating” -- from the Liberal Party about the cost of such a system. The cost of such a system would be less than the present system. People already insure themselves for automobile accidents, people already insure themselves for accidents in the home and so forth. We already have a workers’ compensation system. What I’m talking about is making it more efficient than it is now. It’s not a case of increasing the costs to anyone. As a matter of fact the costs would be less and the system would be more efficient. That’s what we’re after for the injured workers in Ontario.

I would ask the minister, now that he has tabled his grey report, his concerned report, why he did not at least say to the people of Ontario, the people who are interested in this problem: “We’re not closing the door or closing our minds to the possibility of a comprehensive social insurance system: we would like to know what you’ve got to say about it.”

As a matter of fact, I would have made almost the ultimate sacrifice and gone to New Zealand and dug up some facts for the minister.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Why don’t we both go?

Mr. Laughren: I’m not fussy about the company I keep on a trip like that. Of course, I would go with the minister. We could do that. Seriously, the minister should take a look at that system and throw it open for debate. It’s been thrown open for debate in Saskatchewan; the costing process is going on there now. The minister wouldn’t have to start from scratch. There is a model in New Zealand and there is research that has been done in Saskatchewan. I think the minister dismisses that concept too quickly. The minister is not going to remain as Minister of Labour forever, only as long as his government lasts -- which may not be very long.

If there was one way that the Minister of Labour would like to be remembered, it seems to me that would be it, because the Ministry of Labour is a major portfolio in Ontario. If the minister wants to go through his political career as a blip on the scope, I guess that’s his choice, but if he wants to leave his mark on labour legislation in the province of Ontario, he could do something about workmen’s compensation that would leave an indelible mark in Ontario -- namely, to bring in a comprehensive social insurance system. That’s what he should do. He should leave his mark on labour in Ontario, not in the way his predecessors have done, but in a very nice kind of way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would leave his mark on Bill 209.

Mr. Laughren: I was wondering when I could get to that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

I will conclude my remarks by asking the minister if, when he responds to all the positive suggestions that have come from this side, he would consider aiding people who come to him or make presentations based on his concerned white paper as to the cost of any particular suggestion. For example, if we went to him and said we would like an automatic indexing system for raising the maximum based on the Saskatchewan model, where, if 10 per cent of the claims in any six-month period or 12-month period exceed the existing maximum, that maximum is bumped up $1,000, would the minister put the research capacity of his ministry or the Workmen’s Compensation Board to work to allow that to be costed? In that way, when people make suggestions to the minister based on this report, they can be treated in a serious way and an estimate of cost can be provided.

It seems to me people could make suggestions without knowing what the costs are. That is a factor. We don’t pretend that costs of delivering compensation are irrelevant; of course they are a relevant factor. Often people who have good suggestions to make have no idea what the costs will be and no way of determining what the costs will be. I introduced a private member’s bill in 1978 which would have bumped up the benefits for injured workers a great deal. The then Minister of Labour, the present Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), stood in her place and said, “This is going to cost over $1 billion.”

What I am asking is, will the minister make a commitment that if we can provide some reasonable, positive suggestions he will assure us that a cost estimate will be provided before we determine this is definitely something we want to fight for when the next legislation is brought forth? I hope the minister will think about that.

The other thing is perhaps not a major point, but it really bothers a lot of people; that is, if someone is on compensation -- perhaps one of the other members mentioned this; I am not sure -- the Canada Pension Plan payments end and he is no longer making contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. That is one of the fringe benefits which is very important and which the compensation board should look at in terms of providing coverage for injured workers.

We welcome these increases. We continue to be dismayed at the tunnel-vision approach to compensation which has been exhibited not just by this minister, but also by his predecessors and by the board itself. I won’t get personal about it, but my own views are that massive changes are needed at the board as well, because an attitudinal problem still exists. The decentralization move announced in the last day or so, I believe is a move in the right direction. I very much hope it works so that it can be implemented all across Ontario. We will be watching very closely to see what happens there. They will certainly have our support for the attempt to do it in Sudbury. We will be talking with the Sudbury people on that as well.

We have agreed to support this bill but with the very grave reservations which were best expressed by my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich. I hope the minister will seriously consider the suggestions that were made on this side.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter this debate briefly, because I think it is very important that we express our views on this bill which is long overdue.

We all know that since July 1978 there has been no change at all in the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the level of benefits given to injured workers. As recently as three weeks ago, my colleague the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) asked the minister when he was going to make some improvement to the level of benefit, which was lagging far behind the cost of living, with no recourse at all for the workers to be compensated for what they were losing because of circumstances that are absolutely beyond their control.

[2:15]

If the cost of living goes up continuously and the Workmen’s Compensation Act doesn’t provide any mechanism to compensate the workers, they are the losers. Injured workers make up the only group in our society which is completely defenceless, because they have no way to be compensated for the impact of inflation on their benefits.

This bill tries in a way to remedy that situation, because the benefits are raised somehow close to the increase of the cost of living between 1978 and today. I think this is the wrong approach. Pensioners are benefiting from Canada pensions, and most of the people who are employed in both the public and private sectors have cost-of-living allowance (COLA) clauses; so why is it impossible for this government to consider that the injured workers should have that type of provision in law? It is only human and reasonable that people who are getting pensions, which in some instances are not only absolutely inadequate but are also extremely low, should benefit from the increases every other group in our society get because of the cost-of-living increases.

It is frustrating for the members of the Legislature and for the government to be subjected continuously to the pressures of the injured workers and other groups in our society who come after us asking: “When is the government going to introduce the next amendment to the Workmen’s Compensation Act?”

If the government had introduced an automatic COLA clause in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it would have solved many problems. I feel that, even with the amendment tabled by the minister with Bill 109 which we are now discussing, we don’t solve the problems of the injured workers’ benefits level.

If we consider the widows, the bill provides they will get $410 effective July 1, 1979. I submit that this is absolutely inadequate since it is below the poverty level by any standard. I don’t understand why widows of workers who lost their lives while on the job should be penalized. They have lost the head of the family and, in many cases, the main breadwinner in the family.

Why isn’t it possible or conceivable that the government could understand there has been a loss of income in a family, apart from the loss of a member of a family? Furthermore, that family is penalized by being reduced to a situation where, with the pension, its members won’t get anything near to the poverty level.

We have examples of other jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere where the widows’ benefits are compared to the current wages of the workers in the category to which the worker who died belonged. That is only reasonable. I know it will cost the employer and cost the system but, on balance, we have to consider not only the needs of the surviving widow, children and dependants of the injured worker, but also his rights because it is his right to be compensated for a loss that was a result of an industrial accident.

As my colleagues have stated before me, there are very serious shortcomings in this bill. In fact, one of the points I’d like to comment on briefly is section 41a of the act. This section, as it is now, is grossly abused by the administrators of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. What happens -- and this is my daily experience -- is that at some point, for reasons that are quite often not given to the workers, the benefits are either discontinued or cut by 50 per cent. At that point, as the honourable minister knows very well, the workers have to fight an uphill battle to have their benefits reinstated. Very often, at that point, they have against them the opinions of doctors who are either direct employees of the Workmen’s Compensation Board or who, because they are paid by the board, are not always objective. In that case, there is an interruption of the benefits going to the injured worker. This is a situation that happens extremely often.

For that reason, section 41a will become a matter of contention. I submit to the minister that one year from next month we will be flooded with hundreds of appeals. In these cases the Workmen’s Compensation Board will have stopped paying benefits and we will be fighting to have the benefits reinstated. Then, when we ask for the 10 per cent increase, the Workmen’s Compensation Board will say, “No, we have a bill which tells us that benefits should have been received continuously.” This will exclude a very great number of injured workers from receiving these benefits; it means, in effect, that the workers will be penalized and will not receive this compensation which, as I understand the minister, is intended to compensate them for the increase in the cost of living between July 1, 1978 and now.

Also, as my colleagues have pointed out, the fact that the Workmen’s Compensation Board is given absolute discretion -- in fact, it “may” adjust the rate of compensation -- adds a further level of uncertainty and will create more bureaucratic problems for all of us. In this respect, I’d like to point out that the assessment of the doctors becomes extremely crucial.

As it happens now, and as the minister knows very well, very rarely does the Workmen’s Compensation Board take into account the opinion of the family doctor, the practitioner who knows the injured worker best -- quite often for many years and who is best able to express a recent opinion on his condition. Despite that, the board doesn’t take the family doctor’s opinion into account.

Very often what happens when an injured worker is referred to the Workmen’s Compensation Board is that the consultants of the board express an opinion or suggest that benefits be discontinued. At that point, the worker has no other recourse but to appeal the decision. In many instances, the rehabilitation department and the consultants to the board have no other recourse but to suggest to workers that they cannot do anything any longer and, therefore, the benefits must be discontinued.

As we have said many times, there should be a system for providing injured workers and the Workmen’s Compensation Board with an objective, independent assessment by doctors who are not paid by the board -- doctors who can express their opinion without fear, who are responsible to the general public and who cannot be blackmailed in any way because they fear their income might be cut or because they feel their first loyalty is to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Another point I want to raise is that the board may use this section quite loosely. In fact, even now we know there is a practice -- of which I disapprove; I think it’s totally unacceptable -- of referring injured workers to psychiatrists. When there is a problem about the continuation of benefits because the board thinks the condition of the injured worker has reached a certain plateau from a clinical point of view, quite often, in the cases I deal with, the injured worker is referred to a psychiatrist. Quite often we know the psychiatrists say the worker has an overlay of some kind and, therefore, cannot function for a reason other than the injury. In that case, the benefits are discontinued. That happens very often. Quite often I am very resentful because I know many workers in this situation.

I had three cases last night of people who had been working for 25 years and who then had an injury on the job, a very serious injury. After six months, section 41a is not applicable any longer. Why? Because the board, in its wisdom, decides to refer them to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist says this worker is not injured any longer from a clinical point of view, but he’s suffering from a psychological or psychiatric problem which pre-exists the accident. In some cases we have workers who have been working for 29 years -- as was the case with one worker yesterday -- and they have been functioning perfectly on the job. All at once they find themselves excluded from benefits because of this so-called psychiatric problem that they never noticed. What happens quite often is that psychological problems and certainly tensions arise within the families because of the fact that they are sent to psychiatrists and doubts are cast on their ability to function within the family. The benefits are also cut in that instance.

[2:30]

In this regard, I would like to raise another point that has to do with the implementation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, specifically sections 41 and 42 of the act. The board’s assessment for permanent disability is based on a chart we all know. Usually it is very low. It is extremely difficult for a worker to get recognition of his disability in terms of his functioning in a job he can perform. This applies even more so for many workers, especially workers of ethnic background, so they may function in the labour market in a different capacity. The actual policy of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in such cases is to suggest that the worker apply to the Canada Pension Plan for a disability pension.

What happens if a worker receives a CPP disability pension given to disabled workers? The Workmen’s Compensation Board washes its hands of the worker and says he is no longer employable. On the other hand, the Workmen’s Compensation Board doesn’t give him a total disability pension; it gives him only a 15 per cent disability pension. In that case, section 42(5) of the act no longer applies, nor does section 41a, which is one of the amendments introduced by the minister.

The minister should take this into serious account and try to change it. We have cases where injured workers are assessed by the board, presumably because they have a permanent disability, and since this situation cannot change they don’t qualify under section 41a of the bill. So at the same time they assess them as having a permanent disability, they send them to the Canada Pension Plan, thus excluding them from the supplement they should receive from the board until they can be reintroduced into the marketplace. But these workers have no recourse at all at that point.

I submit to the minister that either the board should review fundamentally the assessment of disabilities or that they not tell workers to apply to the Canada Pension Plan. I realize in many instances we are giving the board functions that do not pertain to it. Retraining and helping the workers to find a job should not be a function of the WCB. I say to the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Elgie) that there should be a department of the government to look after these problems similar to the departments in many other jurisdictions which are looking after the employment of injured workers.

I understand the resistance of this government to the introduction of a quota system, or any other system, which would make the abolition of work not compulsory by the implementation of a system that would actually re-employ the injured workers. I submit to the minister that the present system doesn’t work. We can find Band-Aid solutions which will work today, but tomorrow we will be faced with the same problems.

Dislocation is enormous among injured workers and their families. I don’t think we are doing justice at all to them or to our society by creating such pitiful situations. So we support the bill because it is long overdue, but we are also unsatisfied. I want to file my answers as unsatisfactory.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I can see the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) has got revenge on the two leaders of the opposition for the time they take up during question period. He has made a significant contribution to this debate.

I won’t go over the material he has covered. He’s gone into, in some detail, some of the problems confronted by individuals in our constituencies who have problems with the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I will say briefly that we in the opposition appreciate this particular piece of legislation in that it has been a long time coming and it is certainly very much needed in terms of those who are to be the recipients of these funds. Nevertheless, I would bring to the minister’s attention, as I’m sure many members have and will, the bureaucratic problems that exist with the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

There are some people in my constituency who would suggest the best thing that could happen to the WCB building, would be its disappearance through the use of fire. Needless to say, I wouldn’t be amongst those who would counsel arson. But it does indicate to us that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that there are many who have spent weeks, months and years of frustration in attempting to deal with the board.

If I were to log the calls that come into my constituency office, I would venture to say -- and I would be on very good ground to say -- the largest number of inquiries I get at my constituency office revolve around the Workmen’s Compensation Board. This is in a city where we have a local Workmen’s Compensation Board office where people have direct access, not only by telephone -- although the lines are always busy because of the number of situations that arise -- but also to the office itself. Nevertheless, the largest number of calls that come into my constituency office deal with various aspects of the problems they are confronted with.

The member for Downsview has enumerated a number of these problems. They cause me concern and lead me to believe that in addition to a bill of this kind which, as I say, is certainly welcome, we do require a substantial change -- and I know there is a study going on -- in administration. I say this even to the point -- and I know it’s almost heresy in these days of restraint to suggest this -- of perhaps employing more people in the board, certainly claims adjudicators, which I believe is the category we talk about, so these files can be processed more quickly.

I think all of us, as members of the Legislative Assembly respect the fact that the Workmen’s Compensation Board wants to eliminate these people who are attempting to get money for illegitimate reasons. Nevertheless the overwhelming majority have a compensable injury and are frustrated in their efforts to get the money and get it on time. So many of these people are living on a week-to-week basis and have very little in the way of savings. With the present rate of inflation, and other situations in the province and right across this country, we recognize there is a need for a quick way of dealing with their particular claims.

After this bill is passed today -- and I anticipate it’s going to be passed, since all parties have approved -- I urge the minister to use his good offices to hurry any evaluation of the present administrative system and create a situation where people can get service as soon as possible and the new funds that are forthcoming will be forthcoming on the kind of basis that is satisfactory to those who are to receive the moneys.

It is with some degree of enthusiasm that I cast my own vote in approval of this particular bill, and I encourage the minister to continue making this a more progressive field rather than a more conservative field in terms of this government.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure members will forgive me if I’m relatively brief in my response.

I would like to advise them that, rather than take the time to cover the many valid comments that have been made, many of which didn’t relate to the particular matter at hand but all of which were important, I am going to ask my staff to make sure those comments are reviewed by the committee that will be set up next month to start considering the paper. I thank members for the contributions they have made. They have all been very important contributions; some longer than others, but all important. I am not even concerned that they are concerned.

I think members have recognized that we are seeing two things here today. One is an interim piece of legislation which I felt -- and we all share the feeling -- was necessary to upgrade the pensions injured workers are receiving, because we all face the same cost increases. There have been some criticisms of section 3, but to my mind it adds a new concept, the concept that injured workmen on long-term temporary disability pensions should receive an annual increment, as well as those on longer pensions. That is the position I took, and I put that in this bill. I feel it should be a regular feature of any compensation package.

By far the most important portion of the dual package, in terms of principle, is the white paper. The paper encompasses many of the things members have raised, such as the need to re-evaluate the basis on which we provide pensions. In regard to this -- and I think those members who take the time to read it will find it interesting -- there are some communities that are basing their pensions on what is called an earnings-related scheme. It avoids many of the problems that have been raised here today. There is an escalation of the ceiling which is automatic; there is an escalation of pensions which is automatic; all of this has a greater sense of equity and provides what I think is a more just and equitable concept with regard to the injuries workmen may receive.

That isn’t to say the suggestions in the paper are the only ones. As I indicated in my opening statement, this committee which we will set up will be prepared to receive other options or suggestions for change. I look forward to seeing those, and I look forward to hearing from members with regard to them.

The member for Dovercourt asked about timing. It is my intention to announce the establishment of the makeup of this committee early in the new year, and I would ask it to report by the summer. It would be my intention, so long as the complexities of the matter don’t interfere, to have legislation ready for the fall. Should that not be possible for some reason, then I would intend to bring in legislation similar to this, comparable to what we have seen today, again as an interim measure, with the long-range view that I have of legislation, which is to make corrections with regard to the inequities we have all been aware of.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 209, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. M. Davidson moved that subsection 1 of section 41a of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “may” in the fourth line and substituting in lieu thereof the word “shall.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 209, as amended, reported.

[2:45]

On motion by Hon. Mr. Elgie, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with an amendment.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 209, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) has been able to come into the House to handle this concurrence. I understand he was ill this morning, and I certainly wish him a speedy recovery. I know he has had a bout with some ill health that has kept him out of the House. I would say he has a tough portfolio. There is probably a lot more heat in the kitchen than he ever expected when he accepted that position. Before it ruins his health, I hope he will take a walk to the Premier’s office and say: “We’ve had two previous ministers who have undergone bad health because of the responsibilities that have been placed upon us in this ministry. I really think it is a young man’s game.” I hope he does that before something happens, such as happened to the two former ministers.

Bill Stewart stayed on a year longer than he wanted to and, as a result, suffered a heart attack, and his successor, the member for Durham-York (Mr. W. Newman) underwent some bad health which was probably due to the onerous task that was placed upon him in the ministry. Now this minister has been ill, and we certainly don’t want to see anything happen to him. If he finds his responsibilities are greater than he would like to see and it is going to lead to bad health, my suggestion is to get the heck out.

There are a number of activities and inactivities on the part of the minister and his ministry that I want to comment on this afternoon. Back at the time of the last election, there was a great announcement made by the government that it was going to start a greenhouse project up at Douglas Point to make use of the waste nuclear heat. Maybe there was considerable merit in that kind of project, but I think the government could well have informed us about a project that was undertaken in the Sudbury area. I’m sorry the members from Sudbury aren’t here to confirm whether such a project indeed did get started. This project apparently was called Sudbury 2001. The NDP, being the eternal pessimists that they are, always painting doom and gloom, feel that by the year 2001 nickel apparently is going to run out; in other words, there won’t be a nickel industry in Sudbury.

My understanding is that a number of reeves, the warden of the area and the three NDP members got together, along with the president of the university, and took a look at what kind of industry might be developed in the area to replace the nickel industry. They started this project, Sudbury 2001, and what the project consisted of was getting a German involved in going down to Texas and buying something like 300 goats, bringing the goats back and selling the goats to a number of farmers in the area to get a mohair business started.

This German chap they involved apparently started selling shares in a mohair co-operative. It is my understanding the government rendered some financial assistance to that project; I don’t know how much. My understanding is the government, to save embarrassment, didn’t want to reveal this particular project. The NDP certainly has been very quiet about it because I think they are a little embarrassed. Part of the embarrassment is based on the fact that when they studied the project they based their conclusions on the production of wool from sheep. We all know there is all the difference in the world between the amount of wool a sheep will produce compared to the amount of hair a goat will produce.

It is my understanding the project fell through when some of the shareholders in the co-op approached the German about a written agreement, and after the German had sold $1 million or so worth of shares in the mohair co-op he told them to get lost. So I assume there was one person who reaped the profit.

What I want to know is, who in the world ever supported that kind of project? I guess the NDP members from Sudbury thought their country was similar to Angola and they would be able to raise goats and start a mohair industry to replace the nickel industry, and this government got taken in by rendering some financial assistance. What I want to know is, how much financial assistance was actually rendered by this government to this project in which the NDP members were very much involved but didn’t want to say too much about?

The second matter I wish to bring up is the rather serious state of the chicken industry in Ontario at present.

Mr. Foulds: And there is the leading chicken.

Mr. Nixon: That’s the turkey over there gobbling.

Mr. Wildman: Be careful, the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) doesn’t like that.

Mr. Gaunt: I’m very sensitive about those turkey remarks.

Mr. Riddell: You will notice the NDP all carry turkeys under their arms. They use them for spare parts, I understand.

Mr. Wildman: You have two turkeys which fly lopsided; they have two right wings over here.

Mr. Riddell: I am wondering what kind of involvement the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) has at present in courses of action that the chicken producers of Ontario can take now that his appeal has been lost. We know that the national agency increased this year’s quota by 25 million pounds over last year’s. Quebec was to get -- I find this unbelievable -- 18 million pounds of that 25 million pounds, Ontario was to get four million pounds and Saskatchewan was to get 3.8 million pounds; yet by far the greatest consumption of chicken takes place in Ontario.

When that allocation was made, it is my understanding the chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Board, who was a signatory to the agreement, reported to the minister. I will commend the minister; he did take action, he said he would appeal it. The minister, through his ministry, appealed it; and the chicken producers appealed it. I understand the hearing was held a week ago today and the appeal was denied.

It reminds me of the Premier going down and fighting for Ontario, for more reasonable rates of increase in oil, and of course he lost. Obviously, the Minister of Agriculture and Food lost the appeal. It is very hard to understand the reason, unless of course there was a bit of politics involved in this. No one can understand the reason that the agency would give 18 million of the 25 million pounds to Quebec, whereas we have the production and the consumption in Ontario.

It is my understanding the minister has suggested we are going to have to take other courses of action. What I would like to know is, what are those other courses of action? My understanding is that the national agency simply told the Ontario chicken producers that if they didn’t like it to pull out of the agency. What kind of attitude is that on a part of a national thicken agency, to tell them the only alternative they have is to pull out of a national supply management system? Maybe the minister could comment.

I was a little disappointed that the minister didn’t take more action, along with the federal minister, to try to get more reasonable imports of chicken coming into this country from the United States. The federal minister, John Wise, did not personally go to Washington to negotiate; he sent one of his bureaucrats. The minister here did not go down, or send any of his staff down with the civil servant from the federal ministry, even though he knew full well that Ontario stood to lose because we happen to be the largest importer of chicken in Canada. The minister should have said to John Wise: “Look, both of us should be going to Washington. We should drive a hard bargain, because if we don’t we are going to lose the chicken industry here in Ontario.” If that had been done, we might have got somewhere. As it was we are seeing a substantial amount of chicken being allowed to come into Ontario this year, and an increase next year and the year after. I hate to think what that is going to do to the chicken industry.

Another thing the minister should look into in connection with the importation of chicken is the fact that import permits are allotted to holders of record. In other words, Maple Lodge Farms has priority in receiving import permits. When Maple Lodge Farms applies to the marketing board for more birds, the producers won’t release them to Maple Lodge, because they know that the processors who normally take their birds will not have the opportunity to replace those chickens through an import permit. If these import permits were freed up, available to anyone, the producers could supply the chicken.

Also, as long as Maple Lodge Farms know they are the importers of record, because they are by far the largest importer of chicken into this province, they are not going to contract for Ontario birds; at least not when United States chickens are expected to be lower in price, which is most of the time owing to the lower production costs in the United States -- they have lower labour costs; they don’t have the overhead costs because of the warmer climate; and they don’t have to provide the energy to heat the houses that these chickens are raised in. The minister should comment on these import permits allotted to holders of record.

[3:00]

Another thing I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- and I think it has to be an embarrassment to him and his ministry -- is that the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) continually pleaded with the minister to work with the greenhouse growers in southern Ontario and render some assistance to them to try to find alternative sources of energy. They asked for some financial assistance to do some research, because there’s no question that the cost of heating those greenhouses is by far their greatest cost, and the Minister of Agriculture and Food turned them down.

This didn’t stop the member for Essex South. He approached the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). Through the good graces of Duncan Allan, a man over there for whom I have a great deal of respect, the minister has seen fit to give financial assistance so research can be done whereby they can find a cheaper source of energy.

Why in the world, since greenhouse production is an agricultural matter, would the Minister of Agriculture and Food turn thumbs down and leave it to the Minister of Industry and Tourism to render assistance to the greenhouse producers in southern Ontario? That is his responsibility, and he should be embarrassed for turning them down and letting one of the senior staff members of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism say, “By all means, we feel something should be done, and we’re going to do something.”

It’s my understanding that this didn’t make the minister’s people very happy, and I’m not too sure they haven’t tried to scuttle the whole project. But they’re not going to do that, because Duncan Allan feels there is a lot of merit in trying to assist the greenhouse growers with their product down there; believe me, he will see it’s done.

If I were to offer the minister any advice, I would urge him to say, “I’ll be pleased to co-operate in any way that I can,” rather than trying to stop a project that is certainly worthy of some government assistance.

Yesterday, I introduced a bill to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act. It stemmed from the inquiry which we asked for last year and which the former Minister of Agriculture and Food wasn’t too anxious to have; that may be one of the reasons why that minister is not sitting in the seat of the Minister of Agriculture and Food today.

I know the former minister has had some ill health too, but I believe he was on the wrong side of this food inquiry thing. He couldn’t change because of the assenting vote he made back in 1973 on a committee. He was on the wrong side of that issue; he was also on the wrong side of the foreign-ownership issue. As a result, and because of his ill health, we no longer find he’s the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I’m a little disappointed by that, because I will say one thing about the former minister and his predecessor: they sat in the House. Very seldom did you see them outside this House. If there were questions to be asked, we had an opportunity to ask them questions. That hasn’t been the case with this minister. If that has been because of ill health, then I express my apologies for raising the matter; but I’m not too sure it has been ill health that has kept the minister out of the House.

As I have indicated to the Premier on occasion, if this is some kind of a ploy to keep the minister out of the House because we ask some questions that may be an embarrassment to the government at times, maybe it’s best not to have such questions answered; I don’t know. But I believe it’s the minister’s prerogative to be in the House to field the questions that are asked by the members -- and believe me, there are a lot of tough issues in the agricultural communities today, and we want to be able to ask questions and get answers.

We try putting the questions to the Premier, knowing full well we’re not going to get the answers. We try putting the questions to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, only to have him tell us it doesn’t come under his jurisdiction; it comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. So we’re at a loss to know where to go for the answers to our questions when the minister fails to come into the House time after time after time.

There is a lot of concern, not only in the rural areas but also in the urban areas, about the foreign ownership of land. This minister, I will agree, is endeavouring to do something about it, although I am not too sure he’s going through the proper sources. The last announcement he made was that he was going to have future foreign investments approved by cabinet. That was one of his alternatives, I believe. Well, that’s just politics.

Why doesn’t the minister take a look at the bills that have been introduced -- the bill that I introduced, followed by the bill introduced by the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) -- simply asking for the disclosure of all lands that have been purchased with foreign capital. Let’s get a handle on the matter. If we find it is going on to a greater extent than the minister thinks it is, and I am convinced it is going on to a far greater extent than might meet the naked eye, then we can always legislate to restrict the amount of land that falls into the hands of foreign investors.

Surely we are not going to sell out our primary resource, which is good agricultural land. We have sold everything else out, including our industry -- the members over there have a branch-plant philosophy -- and I certainly don’t want to see the same thing happen to our good agricultural land. I don’t know why the minister simply can’t introduce, at the next session, a bill similar to the bills that have been introduced by myself and by the member for Middlesex. All we are asking is that we get a handle on how much of this land is falling into the hands of foreign investors.

We also should be doing something to help farmers who are losing livestock because of predators. Here again, I introduced what I thought was a good bill, which would help the farmers to control the predators, but no action has been taken by this government. The bill was written up in Farm and Country magazine, and Ontario Federation of Agriculture fully supported that bill -- the federation being the spokesman for the farmers -- and yet for some reason the former Minister of Agriculture and Food and this Minister of Agriculture and Food have ignored the fact that we do have problems with predators and that they can be resolved by introducing legislation similar to that which I introduced as a private member’s bill.

All I ask is that the minister do some homework over the Christmas recess. Let him take a look at some of these bills -- at the foreign ownership private members’ bills and at the predator control bills -- and then bring in his own bills in March, and I am sure they will get speedy passage through this House so as to keep agricultural land in Canada in Canadian hands and so we will be able to assist the farmers in protecting their livestock against predators.

I also wonder what kind of assistance the Minister of Agriculture and Food is going to give to our young farmers today in view of the high capitalization they are facing, in view of the high interest rates they are having to pay and in view of the high energy costs they are going to be faced with, which reflects on the prices they are going to have to pay for fertilizers such as nitrogen fertilizers, which are derived from oil.

Perhaps the minister can comment on what assistance he is going to render to try to keep our farmers in business. Would he consider reinstating the junior farmer loan in view of the fact that the Farm Credit Corporation seems to have been limited in the amount of money it can give out to farmers, and farmers can’t get the money; if they do, they are paying now an interest rate of 12 per cent on that money and, with this land costing $2,000 to $3,000 an acre because they have to compete against foreign investors, there is just no light at the end of the tunnel unless we are prepared to assist those farmers in some way. I would like to hear what the minister has in mind for these farmers, not only those trying to get into the business, but those who are in the business but will be facing bankruptcy. As the Ontario Federation of Agriculture says, within the next two or three years we are going to see more bankruptcies in the agricultural community than we have ever seen before. I don’t think we want to see that happen, and I want to know what kind of assistance we are going to render.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) and I met a delegation of farmers from that part of the country. They don’t feel this government is doing one darned thing for them up there. One of the things they mentioned is the subsidy paid on western grain. I would like to know why there is a differential in the amount of subsidy paid. In Timiskaming they get $13.50 a ton; in Nipissing, $3.50 a ton; and in Sudbury, $6.50 a ton. What could possibly be the reason for there being that much differential in the subsidy they receive on their grain?

Another thing they are asking is that grants be made available for more storage facilities in northern Ontario. The co-ops could handle far more of the grain that is grown there. Also, they would like to get into the bulk fertilizer business. They would like to see grants made available by this government so they could expand their storage facilities not only for the product that is grown but for the fertilizers they have to use. In southern Ontario most farmers have gone to bulk fertilizers; in northern Ontario they still have to use bags. If this government would make some kind of assistance available for more storage facilities so they could store the fertilizers in bulk, then the farmers could use them in bulk, which would be far less costly than the present system used in northern Ontario.

Maybe we should be rendering some assistance in transportation. They tell me it costs $22 a ton to transport grain and other products from Guelph to a place like North Bay; so we can understand the problems they are having in northern Ontario. There is a great potential for more agricultural production there if this government will assist the farmers with storage facilities and transportation. I want to ask the minister what programs are available and what programs he is planning to assist the agricultural industry in northern Ontario.

I know others want to speak; so I will conclude by saying Ontario’s new Minister of Agriculture and Food seems to be having some trouble adjusting to his high-profile, powerful position. I was astounded to learn that when the minister was sitting with the dignitaries at this year’s Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, he sent a note down to the judge who was culling the 4-H calves, advising him not to send any of the Lambton county 4-H members’ calves out of the ring. I could not believe that. As minister, he is representing 4-H club members right across Ontario; not just Lambton county 4-H club members. Before he became minister, I could understand giving crisp $50 bills to the senior citizens back at the time senior citizens were given a bonus. It might have been good politics to have been able to take those bills and deliver them personally to the senior citizens. But now that he is minister, he must not discriminate against any of the farmers or 4-H members in Ontario. He represents them all. I think it’s a terrible piece of business to send a note to the judge saying he isn’t to send any Lambton county 4-H calves out of the ring. The minister is far from just another Lambton county fan and he should take care to recognize that fact.

[3:15]

Furthermore, it is my understanding that he threw a reception at the taxpayers’ expense and invited only 4-H members from Lambton county.

Mr. Eaton: That’s not right.

Mr. Riddell: If that’s not right, then the minister had better be suing a reporter, one of the best agricultural reporters I know of. He had better sue him, because it’s right here in black and white.

Apparently this party got out of hand and about 200 people showed up at the public trough, according to the information I have here. Certainly many other worthy 4-H club members from other counties and regions of Ontario have good reason to be jealous.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has a double problem in that he is in a portfolio once held by Bill Stewart, who had a reputation for being quite a gentleman. I’m not suggesting this minister is not a gentleman. I treat him as a friend, but I do think he has to change his ways as a minister. He can’t be doing favours for those people in the riding he represents, because once again he represents all of Ontario.

I should hasten to add that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is probably doing his best.

Mr. Lawlor: But he’s learned some strange ways.

Mr. Riddell: He’s probably just being himself. But if the minister’s performance falls short of the mark it’s more of a reflection, as far as I’m concerned, on the Premier and his opinions of farmers and agriculture than it is a condemnation of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Members can read into that what they like, but I put a lot of the blame on the Premier because he doesn’t give a damn about agriculture in Ontario.

I was going to say the Premier perhaps had some talent to put into that particular portfolio, but I’m not too sure. That caucus over there is so lacking in people with any kind of agricultural experience and knowledge that he must be hard-pressed to know who to put into that position.

When it came to choosing a minister, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture called me. They had four names selected, and they asked me to give my opinion on those four names; which I did, quite willingly. When it came to commenting on the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- he wasn’t in the portfolio at that time -- I will admit that I indicated he was a good guy; he held a lot of respect in his riding, he was able to go around and call practically everybody by name and he would be a hard man to defeat in that riding. I gave him a lot of credit. But I also said he was the old pork-barrel type of politician.

Believe me, when I see this business of sending notes down to judges, telling them they’re not to send any Lambton county calves out of the ring, and when I see parties being thrown at taxpayers’ expense for the 4-H members of Lambton county, I have to believe that what I said was pretty accurate. I simply say the minister has to change his ways. He’s representing Ontario and not just Lambton county; so let’s hear what he’s prepared to do for --

Hon. Mr. Davis: As long as they’re not members like you.

Mr. Riddell: Oh boy, I finally brought the Premier in.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did you have a pleasant lunch?

Mr. Riddell: Yes, I did; I had a very good lunch.

With those few comments, I’ll let the other members speak, but I would like some answers to the questions I have raised as to what the minister is going to do for the agricultural industry in Ontario, what he is going to do for the farmers who are encountering problems at the present time and what he is going to do for northern Ontario. Give us some answers and maybe we will be able to assist and co-operate in every way we can when we come back in the new session.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Algoma, I would like to recognize and pay tribute to a group of people around here who I would characterize as the unsung heroes, the people behind the scenes and under the gallery who perform yeoman service, not only for their ministers but for literally all of us in the House. They have attempted to make my job a little bit easier. They are the IBEABCHHDM and PCRs around here; they are the international brotherhood of executive assistants, bag carriers, hand holders, drink mixers and phone call returners; they have helped make my job a little bit easier around here. They dared me to wear this on this dais, this T-shirt which says, “Get to the point.” I want to say to them, on your behalf, thank you very much for what you do for all of us around here; and thank you for the T-shirt.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker. I don’t know exactly what the point of that T-shirt is, since you chose to get up and show it before I spoke.

I want to make some comments on concurrence in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. The main point in dealing with these estimates is the very small percentage of the total provincial budget allocated to agriculture in this province. I think all members on this side of the House will agree that 1.5 per cent of the total provincial budget allocated to agriculture and food is a demonstration of the lack of priority that is provided by this government for the agricultural industry, which is certainly one of the most important industries we have in this province. Unless we make a great commitment to it, we face serious problems for the future.

I would like to know how the minister can justify this very small percentage of the total provincial budget that is allocated to agriculture. Is it an example of the fact that he and his predecessor were particularly ineffective in persuading the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) that they needed to have additional funds to encourage the agricultural sector in this province? I would hope the minister will be able to respond adequately and give us some kind of assurance that in the next fiscal year we are going to have a greater commitment made to the agricultural industry in this province.

I want to make a couple of comments in regard to the statements made by the Liberal critic with regard to the NDP members from Sudbury. First, the very fact we are talking about something like the goat industry in Sudbury is an example of the fact that this government, over 36 years, has been a complete failure in terms of an industrial strategy for northern Ontario in general and for the Sudbury basin in particular.

The fact that the Sudbury 2001 committee had a choice between something like growing worms or mushrooms in the mine shafts or going to the goat industry is an example of the kinds of choices we have in northern Ontario under the Conservative government when it comes to choosing between primary resource extraction and any other type of economic development for our area. We are so dependent on mining and lumbering in our area of the province that when those industries slow down, or when the companies that exploit those resources slow down in production, there are just no other options. We’re left to such hokey suggestions as producing worms or mushrooms in mine shafts as saviours for the economy of our areas.

It is somewhat ironic that the Liberal member would make comments with regard to the goat co-op in the Sudbury basin in the terms he did and talk about the NDP members. I wonder whether he has checked out his comments with the regional chairman of the Sudbury basin, who may be a federal Liberal candidate and who was very much a sponsor of the 2001 committee as well as a member of the board of directors, as I understand it, and a real booster of this whole program. It is interesting that the Liberal member would make those kinds of comments. I wonder if Mr. Frith has had any opportunity to make any kind of input on his comments. I suspect that the Liberal member was just trying to get our goat. At any rate, that is a little bit outside the purview of these estimates and the concurrence debate, but obviously if we are not going to have any kind of industrial development, we do have to scrape around for all kinds of hokey little suggestions to provide jobs in our area.

I want to comment on a couple of other things. First, I would like to make some comments with regard to the inquiry into the food industry, which was pushed for by both opposition parties with regard to the suggestion of kickbacks and so on made by the retail segment in the agricultural industry.

I’m very concerned, as are the other members of our caucus, that this inquiry may never come to anything; that the inquiry has not and isn’t in the future, and the ministry itself isn’t, going to deal with the main problem, which is vertical integration in the food industry. The fact is that the same investors, the same companies, own the whole industry, right from the production end all the way through to the retail end, involving the processing, packaging, marketing, transportation, and even the equipment production field, in the agricultural industry.

I know that with the ideology of this government it is not going to take any action in that area at all. It is not interested in dealing with those problems, and as a result the inquiry may become a little bit of a façade and we won’t really get anything out of it. I’m quite concerned about that.

As the previous speaker indicated, the former Minister of Agriculture and Food initially wasn’t interested in the inquiry. He said it wasn’t necessary; he didn’t believe that we should hold it. When he was forced to move on that, the personnel chosen for the inquiry were such that it wasn’t going to be an exhaustive investigative study but rather one which dealt with the most obvious problems and didn’t go into the basis of those problems and deal with the real difficulties we face with the oligopolistic approaches of the large investors in the food industry.

I want to comment on a couple of other things. First, there is the whole question of foreign ownership. I know this has become a major concern in the rural areas, the matter of foreign investors purchasing rural lands. Even in my area, in southern Algoma, we’ve had the problem for some time of American investors coming in and purchasing good farm land and in many cases letting it go to waste.

We now face a situation in which the German investors are interested in our area and in purchasing land, mainly for speculation in recreational land purposes. In other words, they are buying up land and letting it sit, sometimes renting it to other farmers, in the hope that in the future they will be able to sell land for recreational purposes at a great profit. This has a tendency to drive up the cost of land so much that the farmers in the area, the neighbours of an individual who is going to sell out, are just out of it in terms of being able to purchase the property and the land often goes out of production. I think this is a serious problem.

[3:30]

Again it is somewhat ironic the Liberal members are raising such a fuss about foreign ownership of land, when you compare that with the performance of their federal colleagues in Ottawa who have sold out this whole country. The fact is, their federal colleagues set up something called FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, to deal with foreign ownership in the manufacturing industry, and industry in general in Canada, but we all know that 95 per cent of the applications for foreign takeovers are approved by the federal government, by their federal colleagues in the past. As a matter of fact, they were agreed to by this government as well, because the Ministry of Industry and Tourism is involved in discussions with FIRA and making recommendations to FIRA; they acquiesce to almost all the decisions of that agency.

So here we have a situation where the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in this country are willing to make a big fuss about foreign ownership of land but to do absolutely nothing about the foreign ownership of our resources and of the industry in this country. It is a situation in which the federal colleagues of the official opposition here had to be pushed to set up anything at all that might interfere with the so-called free enterprise system like Petrocan and now are trying to claim credit for it. As far as I am concerned the two of them are one and the same; they are both involved with foreign ownership when they are in power, and when they are out of power they are opposed to it.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s the line of your federal leader; you can’t run the federal election campaign here.

Mr. Wildman: That is exactly right; and he is right on. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, a plague on both their houses. The two of them are like, if I might paraphrase a comment made by the federal Minister of Finance in talking about these two parties in Ontario, it is not tweedledee and tweedledum, it is tweedledum and tweedledumber.

If we are going to be serious about dealing with foreign ownership, it must be dealt with as an integrated policy. We shouldn’t talk about foreign ownership of land in a vacuum; we shouldn’t talk about foreign ownership in industry or in resources in a vacuum. If we are concerned about foreign ownership, the question is the nationality of the investment that is taking place in this province and in this country. We should deal with it as an overall problem. I am concerned about foreign ownership of land, but I am also concerned about the foreign control of our resources. They have to be dealt with together.

I would hope this minister would do some thing about foreign ownership of land, more than simply calling up clerks and finding out what is happening, but I hope he would do it in concert with a program of the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) to deal with foreign ownership in general.

I would also like to comment in this concurrence debate on the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food with regard to his equipment policy and what appears to be his complete acquiescence to the farm machinery manufacturers in their proposal for a voluntary code. We need a system where farmers, in the season, whether it be planting or harvesting, when they are using their equipment and they face an equipment breakdown, can get the parts they need so they don’t have a long holdup. The minister has acknowledged that, but he has gone along with a voluntary program, even though the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has indicated it doesn’t think a voluntary program will work, it is not acceptable and that we need a system such as they have in the western provinces; a system which I used in preparing my private member’s bill. I wonder why the minister hasn’t accepted that program. He talked very tough when he was first appointed, but he seems to have completely backed off and acquiesced to the farm machinery industry.

I know the minister has said if the voluntary code does not work he might be willing to consider legislation, as proposed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

I would like to know from the minister, what is the time frame he is talking about? How long will be the trial period before he is able to determine whether it has worked? If it has worked, fine, But if it doesn’t -- and I don’t know what in the industry in the past has given him the faith he seems to have in the industry -- how long is he going to wait to determine whether he should go ahead with legislation?

I would also be interested in finding out how he is going to enforce the voluntary code, because the farm equipment board, which is supposed to be responsible for administering this program, has absolutely no legislative power. All the board can do is talk to the various parties concerned -- the farmer, the vendor or the machinery manufacturer -- and try to work out some kind of an agreement. If that doesn’t work, there is nothing in law that is going to require a machinery manufacturer or vendor to live by the code.

I can’t understand, when the federation has made its position clear, why the minister isn’t moving ahead with legislative power. This is a particular problem for farmers in northern Ontario, as I know it’s a problem all across the province, but in the north it’s even harder to get the parts one needs when they are needed, because there aren’t very many dealerships in the north and if a farmer is in the middle of harvest he is in real trouble.

In terms of the problems of northerners, the previous speaker talked about the problems we have with transportation and the need for some kind of assistance in terms of transportation. I would be interested in the comments of the minister. I would also like to know what the minister has to say about the proposal of his colleague from Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who is now a cabinet minister, who introduced a proposal for a food terminal in Timmins. I would like to know what the minister is going to do about that. Or has he got the problem of some kind of a disagreement between the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) and the member from Timmins as to where a food terminal, if it’s going to be established, should be located in northern Ontario?

Many farmers in southern Ontario don’t realize the clay belt in that area is probably one of the richest in terms of fertile land in Ontario. It has a tremendous potential for farming. It’s true we don’t have the same heat units they have in southern Ontario, but there is a potential there and it’s one that should be tapped.

I know the former minister talked a lot about the future of agriculture in northern Ontario and, because the government was unwilling to do anything about the gobbling up of good producing land in southern Ontario, he was willing to move to encourage the agricultural industry in northern Ontario. His colleague who now is one of his cabinet colleagues proposed something he thought would encourage agriculture in the north, and I wonder what the minister’s position is on that.

I would conclude by saying that the overall policy of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with regard to the funding of agricultural programs in this province is quite dismal. We have 1.5 per cent of the total budget allocated to agriculture. I think that is a crying shame when we hear all the comments from people on that side of the House about their commitment to agriculture. It’s about time we ended all the talk and they put their money where their mouth is and came across with some programs to deal with the problems facing agriculture in this province so we don’t face a situation in the year 2000 where we are going to be importing most of our food in this province instead of producing the food we need.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments with respect to the rutabaga producers’ marketing board. I understand it is a very new board; it just got going in August of this year. We have talked about chickens, turkeys and goats, and I think it would be appropriate to throw turnips into the mix as well.

The marketing board -- and again I underline that they are just getting started; I guess they have all the growing pains that any marketing board would have under the circumstances, but I noticed this particular fall that the price levels for rutabaga started out at between $1.75 and $2 per 50 pounds. That was on November 5 when the marketing board thought that there might be a shortage, because 40 per cent of the crop was still in the fields and the snow was coming. It didn’t look good that the farmers were going to get that crop off, particularly in Huron county, which is the main producing county in terms of rutabagas, as the minister knows. Later on the weather picked up, and we got a little warmth. The snow left and the farmers were able to get off their crop, I think almost 100 per cent, so there was a much bigger crop than the board anticipated. As a consequence, the price dropped back to $1.50 as of December 6.

My concern is with the export market. I think there are some problems in the day-to-day operation of the board, but I am prepared to overlook those and chalk them up to lack of experience, growing pains and all the rest of it. What does concern me, with the operation of the board, is the loss of export markets.

I know the marketing board requested that it get more power, particularly powers to control the price outside of Ontario; it was seeking an extension of those powers from the federal government. I understand that has been put in abeyance and that they are not going to get that power. I think even the board itself has backed off. I notice that the largest wholesaler in Ontario, Stovel-Siemon Limited of Mitchell, which is in the riding of a prominent member of this House, our Deputy Speaker, indicated that as far as they were concerned they didn’t want the power extended because they feared the board would use it to set minimum prices at destination markets in the United States.

I said my main concern was the export market. I want to indicate to the minister and the House some figures which rather startled me. First of all, let’s take Prince Edward Island. These are figures ending November 30, 1979; they don’t go beyond that. In 1978, Prince Edward Island exported only 14,660 bushels. This year, so far, they have exported 33,540 bushels. New Brunswick in 1978 exported 1,700 bushels; this year, 15,960 bushels. Quebec didn’t export any in 1978; this year they have exported 1,000 bushels.

In Ontario, in 1978, we exported, for the August-November period, 750,323 bushels; this year for the same period we have exported 633,506 bushels, for a difference of 116,817 bushels. We have dropped by 116,817 bushels in the export market. That’s being picked up by the other provinces, as I have indicated. It is also being picked up by Wisconsin. Wisconsin is going into the rutabaga business in a big way and is certainly in a better position to put rutabagas into New York, Texas and Boston at a cheaper price than we can. We simply can’t compete at the price levels that are being asked, or have been asked up until this particular point in time.

I draw this to the attention of the minister, and I raise these red flags, warning flags or whatever you like, because I think what is happening is that in many cases the price into the export market is being quoted, but it isn’t the true price. I just have to take a look at the price for December 5 into Boston. Our quoted price, delivered to the jobbers in Boston, was $4.40 a bushel, and they were reselling the very same rutabaga for $4.25 to $4.50.

It’s pretty obvious to me that the $4.40 quoted price was not the real price. There’s a quoted price and then there’s a real price. Obviously, those jobbers in Boston are not going to take a loss on those rutabagas. When they’re selling them at $4.25 and paying $4.40, there’s not much money in that; so I don’t think one has to be any great genius to figure out what’s going on there. They have a quoted price and then there’s the real price in the marketplace.

I think that the minister and ministry officials should be concerned about that and about the figures I’ve just cited as to what’s happening in the export market with respect to rutabagas. It has been a good export commodity for us and I would hate to see us lose it. According to the figures which I have just put on the record, it appears that something fairly dramatic is happening with respect to the export trade. I don’t like it and I don’t think the minister should be too happy about it either. I think our farmers in this province can compete on any basis with Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec and even Wisconsin. Despite the fact they do have certain advantages, I think we should be able to compete.

I raise those points with the minister and I hope he will respond and, even more important, take a look at what’s happening with respect to the operation of the marketing board and do something about it. He should certainly raise the issue with the board officials and see if those things cannot be corrected in the bud before those problems mushroom and become even bigger than they are now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Kent-Elgin.

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I’m sorry I missed the member for Carleton-Grenville.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to congratulate the minister on the successful negotiations that have taken place among the federal Minister of Agriculture, the provincial Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Treasurer of the province and the honourable minister for DREE, Elmer MacKay.

This morning I was in my riding in Kemptville, where I saw the signing of the eastern Ontario development agreement. This agreement has been in negotiation for over one year. Prior to the May 22 election our government tried to negotiate with the former federal government to have this agreement signed.

Eastern Ontario drainage is extremely important. It’s important because, unfortunately, eastern Ontario has not been in the drainage business as long as some of the other parts of the province. When the Agricultural Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Act program was unilaterally cut off on December 5, 1978, by the federal government this was to the extreme detriment of agriculture in eastern Ontario.

Originally, we had hoped to sign this agreement on April 1 of last year. However, negotiations dragged and dragged. Our government was willing to sign the agreement on April 1 of last year, which could have alleviated a lot of problems that existed in some municipalities over the past year. Little has been done in drainage in eastern Ontario in the last year. The provincial government continued to pledge its one third towards municipal drains, but the one third from the federal government was not there.

However, on May 22 of this year eastern Ontario representatives of rural areas were elated that there was a new government and hoped there would be a new attitude towards negotiations on this very important agreement. That culminated this morning in the signing of the agreement. It was a $50-million agreement, of which $23 million was directed towards agriculture.

An important part of that agreement was the undertaking of extensive work in the South Nation watershed conservation area. This accounts for $9 million of the agreement. That watershed has been having considerable problems because of its nature. While waiting for negotiations to be completed, our province has continued to pledge funds towards dredging and studies to determine the reservoir capacity of various areas of the watershed.

In the signing of this agreement this morning, it would seem by the coordinated efforts of the federal and provincial governments we will finally be able to bring this work on much faster than we could have if the province had to fund all of it. It was with extreme pleasure that I sat down with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Honourable John Wise, the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and signed this agreement.

I want to impress on the Minister of Agriculture and Food that he gives his continued support to drainage in eastern Ontario, not only in the form of drainage ditches but also in the form of tile drainage debentures, and that when he is making his allocations for those programs he remembers we are still in a stage of infancy in some of these programs. It is not sufficient to allocate to some of the townships in eastern Ontario a percentage increase in tile drainage debentures because in many cases there was not in the past an outlet for that kind of activity. As we get into new drainage ditches and new municipal drains in eastern Ontario, the outlet will be there and there will be more demand for tile drainage loans to finance these undertakings.

I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his part in this matter.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food concurrences to remind the minister that I asked him last week about a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the inspection of apples by the Canada Department of Agriculture. As he will remember, the court ruled this was not a federal matter but a provincial matter.

Since the country-of-origin markings on retail packages are controlled by the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, the act which the court at least in part struck down, the question in my mind, and I think in the minds of a great many producers in Ontario, is whether or not some emergency legislation should be passed before the end of this session so that between now and the reconvening of the federal Parliament products are not marketed in Canada with the designation “Product of Canada,” when they are imported products. The minister has not given us an answer as yet on this question.

I would like to point out that this is also of great interest to chicken producers and a matter of grave concern in the province over the last few months. I would point out to him that under the Canadian Agricultural Products Standards Act all of the chicken that is sold at retail is marked “Product of Canada.” In the case of birds that are on ice or, in other words, not protected by a plastic covering, there is a metal tag on the breast of each bird saying “Product of Canada.” In the case of products wrapped in polyethylene or some type of film, it’s printed on the film. Of course, the annoying thing to producers is that US birds imported into Canada and killed here also go out and are sold in the stores marked with the designation “Product of Canada”

In spite of the joking reference the minister has made as to whether or not chickens can be marked -- and I think his reference was always to live birds -- we would point out, as my friend here says, it’s a bit hard to eat a live bird. I guess the feathers get in your way.

I would also point out to the minister that the federal legislation, the 1975 labelling act, the act that covers French and English markings and metric markings on retail packaging, also says products sold at retail should show the country of origin. I will admit in one clause of that act it does say that exceptions may be made, but I can’t think of any reason why one would want to except US chickens or any other products that are clearly US products and which are not really processed in Canada. The argument is made that if a product is brought in and is canned, cooked or mixed in a prepared stew or is a prepared meat, that it has been manufactured in Canada and, therefore, is a product of Canada. I find that a rather thin argument to use with birds that are brought in, the feathers taken off, eviscerated and then sold in that form.

I see by this note, Mr. Speaker, that my time has expired. I would hope the minister would answer some of these questions.

Mr. Martel: As an old farmer from way back I would have to comment on these estimates. Having the great knowledge of farming that I have, I feel I have to contribute. I want to set the record straight.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What is it you grow?

Mr. Martel: I grow goats.

My friend, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), who is loose with the lip and spoke about the embarrassment to my colleagues and me with respect to what transpired in Sudbury recently, constantly shoots from the lip without any facts, as he did with the situation in Centralia with respect to the UAW. He did it then and on this latest situation I must say he hasn’t got a clue as to what he is talking about. But that is not unusual.

Let me get the record straight.

Mr. Kerrio: How much stock did you buy in the goat farm?

Mr. Martel: I think I have a share in half a goat.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Which end?

Mr. Martel: The back end, it doesn’t eat. It won’t cost me anything.

[4:00]

I want to tell you what happened, Mr. Speaker. As you know, when they started closing down mines and had massive layoffs, the government of Ontario gave seed money to the tune of about $600,000 to an organization called Sudbury 2001. It was a group of people who volunteered their services in an effort to try to bring to Sudbury and district some diversification. Out of it came one Mr. Shaffernicht. He made a proposal to 2001.

I should tell my friends right now that those members of the Legislature and those members from the federal House who allowed their names to be on the board of directors did not attend a meeting. They are held on Monday nights and if you check my record the only Monday night I missed was when I took a fishing trip. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) was there. That was the only Monday I missed all spring.

That agreement with Mr. Shaffernicht was reached in those two or three months and no politicians, either provincial or federal, attended any of the meetings. So when my friend talks of embarrassment he knows not of what he speaks.

In late August, my colleagues, the members for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), for Nickel Belt federally, were approached and were told, “You know, the agreement went through but this bird Shaffernicht, who has got charge of the goats, has run amok.” We couldn’t control him. No one could control him. He would sign legal documents and the next thing you knew Shaffernicht was off doing his own thing anyway.

When we realized Shaffernicht was doing this, a meeting was held in late August to try and bring this bird under control. At that point my colleagues and I met, we insisted that legal counsel be there and we insisted that this bird be brought under control. I must tell you at that time his goats were stuck on an island, Mackinac Island, I believe. He couldn’t get them into Canada because they had -- what is it? -- blue tongue fungus. He couldn’t get them into Canada because of the possibility of them having blue tongue fungus.

Mr. Riddell: Must have been NDP goats.

Mr. Martel: I am going to come to what they were. I am going to tell the member what they were in a few moments.

It is interesting that when we met, all of the businessmen wanted to take an equity in this co-op. My colleagues and I, who are known for wanting an equity, refused to have an equity in the co-op. Can you imagine it, Mr. Speaker? The socialist horde did not want an equity, for a change, because we have seen enough equities in places like Minaki Lodge and we weren’t prepared to go that route. But I want to tell you the people who wanted the equity were not socialists, they were the usual type of free enterpriser who will bail any bankrupt company out. We weren’t prepared to do it.

Nonetheless, as a result of that initial meeting in late August and a couple in September and October, we eventually reached the point that so many things had been committed that we had to approach the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in an effort to try and prevent Shaffernicht from selling goats. Every time he had a shortfall on his credit he would go out and sell another 10, 15 or 200 goats, another share in the co-op, and he would then pay off his own loan.

He was a good businessman. I am not sure whether he was a Liberal or a Tory. He was a businessman, the type I am acquainted with. That is why I find them so offensive at times. But he would sell another flock of goats and fire them off somewhere and those of us who were concerned indicated this couldn’t go on. We went to the minister and said, “Look, you have got to send investigators in.” The reason we did it is that we don’t want to see 2001 go down the drain and silly comments like those made by the member for Huron-Middlesex do not enhance the possibility of 2001 being credible. There was no reason for us to be embarrassed, but there was an effort to ensure that 2001’s credibility didn’t go down the drain and it become incapable.

Mr. Kerrio: Is it still active, Elie?

Mr. Mattel: No. We got a court injunction about a week ago and the crown now is in charge of the goats, so that our friend Shaffernicht can’t move in and sell any more. I thought my friend from Middlesex would want to know who was on the committee before I --

Mr. Eaton: Middlesex-Huron, don’t mix us up.

Mr. Martel: Pardon me, Huron-Middlesex.

The regional chairman, who will be a federal Liberal candidate, was on that committee. The Liberal I defeated last time was on that committee and I might say the politicians didn’t attend any of the meetings. I thought the member might want to know that. Just for once he might want to get his facts straight.

The reason we attempted to protect it was so that 2001 didn’t lose its credibility, which might have seen some diversification in the Sudbury area. But as for embarrassment, heaven forbid, I didn’t vote; I wasn’t there. And if I were going to embarrass anyone, I could have had fun kicking the hell out of the Tories and the Liberals who wanted to take equity and we did not.

I just thought I would put that on the record.

The final point. I hear my friend from Huron-Middlesex talk about land. I want to tell him he should check with his colleague from Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) about the sale of land to Americans. He might listen to some of his comments up north and on the CBC, when he opposes the socialists wanting to see land only sold to landed immigrants or to Canadian citizens or, better still, that we retain the policy of leasing land which was so successful.

The member for Huron-Middlesex had better talk to his friend. Wherever they are in the province, the Liberals like to speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. They sit back trying to suck and blow at the same time, because depending on where they are, that’s what they say.

If it’s safe down here to say, “We want to protect land,” fine. If they’re up north and they want sales of land, they say, “Sell the land.” What the hell do they want?

Mr. Riddell: I’m not Pat Reid.

Mr. Martel: That’s fine. Is there any consistency? Yes, there is. The only consistency over there is the Liberal inconsistency. As I said many times, they’re like Xaviera Hollander. They’ve got more positions than she ever dreamt of.

Mr. Kerrio: I’m consistent. I vote against you all the time.

Mr. Martel: I’m glad to hear that. If the member for Niagara Falls voted with me, I would figure I was wrong and I would change my vote.

I don’t want to take any more time of the House, but I wanted to put those two things on the record, to show their consistency.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, on this concurrence of supply for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I would like to say I am not happy with what is happening in agriculture in Canada and in Ontario particularly. There are a few points that bother me. One is the age of the farmers. Another is the disappearance of farm land. The third is how Ontario is dropping in its percentage of the share of Canadian production. The fourth point is the amount of the Ontario budget that is spent on agriculture.

Although we do hear the minister saying from time to time there are more young farmers going into agriculture, the census still shows that the majority of farmers are in the age bracket of 45 to 54. This bothers me a bit because that’s the age bracket I’m in and I think more of getting out of it than getting into it at that age.

Concerning the disappearance of farm land, we see this happening around us all the time. Some will argue that we don’t need it, we’re well fed. This is true for today, but I feel we should put a stop to the extravagant use of farm land. Toronto uses more prime farm land than any city in Canada. I think this is very disturbing. If we don’t need it for the production of food right now, we should be using it for producing energy crops -- something we are short of at this time.

On the other concern I mentioned, about Ontario dropping in its percentage share of Canadian production, Quebec is moving ahead of us in several areas there. We used to be the top producers in pork production and now Quebec has moved ahead of us.

I think we can maybe learn a few things from things that have happened in other provinces -- why they have come out in front of us and why we are dropping behind in our percentage share of production. I think it is that they have put a greater importance on agriculture than we have here in Ontario. When you look at 1.5 per cent of the Ontario budget being spent on agriculture, I don’t think you can say that is giving it very much support. This is why I have introduced a resolution into the House, that will be debated when the House resumes in the spring, which deals with this subject. It states that the government should take immediate steps to see that Ontario farmers are competitive with other farmers in other provinces in Canada and in other countries in the world.

In this regard I would ask the minister what steps he has taken at this time to see that rural hydro rates could be lower, the interest rates to farmers could be lowered; these are some things on which Quebec farmers have an advantage over us. Further, how much and when are we going to get all the money we need for tile drainage; when are we going to get an increased incentive program? The eastern provinces have had such a program for several years; their program stands at $20,000, whereas ours has stood at $3,000 for the last 12 years and is continuing at that rate.

If the minister would take a long look at these things and if he can put them in place before we come back for the next session, if these things can be corrected I will gladly withdraw my resolution. As it stands now, if steps haven’t been taken I will gladly reintroduce my resolution again at the next sitting of parliament and will look forward to debating it, I believe the third or fourth Thursday after we return.

I say these few words, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to see that Ontario agriculture receives the attention it deserves.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the minister a question. Many of us are concerned about the lack of a thriving sheep farming industry in Ontario. We would like to know what you are going to do to improve it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is a pleasure to rise today to respond to the honourable members in concurrence of the vote for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

In responding to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) first on his references to Sudbury 2001, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has given a very good explanation of it. I might say I did know a little bit about that operation as the Minister of Government Services. The member for Sudbury East did take me to the site and I had an opportunity to view the farm where they are going to pasture these goats. Beyond that, any grants are through the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

I believe the member for Sudbury East suggested that grant was some $600,000. My only disappointment was I really felt the member for Sudbury East was going to be around to make the mohair and help in the shearing. I suspect he will be up there.

Mr. Riddell: Was $600,000 expended on that project alone?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the agreement that I signed was with the region of Sudbury for the particular property. As I understand it, the Minister of Northern Affairs also had an agreement with that group through the region of Sudbury. Whether it was $600,000, it didn’t come under my jurisdiction.

Members of my staff met yesterday with the greenhouse operators. In 1980 and 1981 we are putting forward Wintario funds for research, as I announced last week. The one problem we worry about is that there might be duplications through different ministries, so members of my staff met with the greenhouse operators yesterday to try and see that there is no duplication of these services. We will be putting forward money in 1980 and 1981 for research.

[4:15]

There are many other items on which I would like to respond. On foreign ownership, I have a pretty good survey from the municipal clerks. We estimate there are about 16 million acres of agricultural land in Ontario. We have response back now from over 80 per cent of the rural municipal clerks covering over 14 million acres of land, and less than three quarters of one per cent is owned by people residing outside of Canada; two thirds of that involves people in the USA, one third, people in central Europe.

There are areas in Ontario where this is a real concern, a real worry; but I suggest that these are not necessarily the people who are responsible for driving the prices of farm land up. We do have farm land that has drastically increased in price, but there is no indication of any foreign ownership involvement, it is the farmer living next door who wants to enlarge his operation.

Respecting the young farmers and the help we have been to them, there are many areas where our government has helped not only the young farmers but the farmers of all ages. I need not refer members to the Tile Drainage Act where we have loaned out over $100 million and at the moment we are loaning out $20 million annually. I made a statement last week respecting our proposals re tile loan money.

Mr. McKessock: Some farmers can’t get it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I would suggest if the municipal councils use the guideline I proposed last Thursday, it would be more helpful, more farmers would be able to share that tile loan allocation.

There is the matter of the rebate on the taxes, and drainage subsidy. We also have the guaranteed loan for the young farmer, one per cent above the prime interest rate.

The honourable member inquired if I had looked at legislation on foreign ownership. I have legislation here from central USA and from the provinces on each side of us. Yes, I am studying legislation on foreign ownership.

Respecting the chickens, and I feel very strongly about the chickens, I would have to inform the member for Huron-Middlesex that he was wrong. I did go to Ottawa with the chicken producers. I presented Ontario’s case to the government in Ottawa before the original decision was handed down. I think I made that clear in this House.

Again last Thursday I made very strong statements about the appeal and about the usage that we as an Ontario delegation received from that tribunal. We had the decision handed down against us on Tuesday of this week. It showed that committee -- really, I would like to quote a few things if I may.

“1. Chicken agency followed proper procedure in making the quota order,” that is the first thing they said.

“2. The criteria spelled out in plan and agreement for allocation of quota need only be taken into account. There is no requirement on the agency to carry out all of the five criteria so long as they are considered.

“3. Allocation of quota is essential in negotiation situations, presumably council feels that in the course of such a negotiation the agency may depart from adherence to the five specific criteria.

“4. Council has no authority to judge whether the actions of the agency are illegal or not.

“5. Council’s authority is confined to studying minor issues. Major issues must be resolved by the signators.

“6. Council is prepared to move up the regulatory signators meeting to an earlier date if requested.”

Now I say to you, Mr. Speaker, what is open to us in Ontario? We are not happy with the situation. The figures that the member for Huron-Middlesex quoted are correct. We feel very strongly.

First, we could demand a meeting of the signators. Second, we could apply the reports for an injunction against agencies to prevent the allocation of the quotas. Third, we could withdraw from the national plan.

Mr. Speaker, this occurred Tuesday of this week. I was not feeling as good as I might yesterday or this morning, as the honourable member knows, I have not had an opportunity to get together with my staff. I have asked my staff to meet with the chicken producers to see what they would suggest we should do, So I will leave the chickens at that and I’ll go on to try to answer the member for Algoma.

The member is quite aware of some of the responses I got from his particular area. He wants to know about the machinery code of practice. I could tell the honourable member that I am speaking from personal actions on the part of the local machine agents. Maybe I’m a little more fortunate, but the machine agents in the area I come from give exceptionally good service to the farmers in my area. So I’m not in a position where I want to put a higher cost against every farmer if it can be avoided.

The member for Huron-Middlesex referred to the rutabaga --

Mr. Gaunt: Huron-Bruce.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Huron-Bruce, there is a difference.

The member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) also referred to the DREE agreement this morning. I could go into quite a bit of detail on it, but I just thank our federal colleagues that we’re able to get that tied down.

Respecting the member for Kent-El gin (Mr. McGuigan) in the court action of last week, again I don’t have the summary on the court action, but I have instructed my staff to look into the whole situation with respect to the marking of the product. We might not go as far as the member would like, but we are looking at it.

I could go to some length, but in view of the lateness of the day I have made notes of everything that has been said by all of those who have taken part, and I would inst like to take this opportunity to wish them all seasons greetings.

Resolution concurred in.

[Later (4:25):]

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, before the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) goes out, I have one more item to which I would like to respond. It’s personal, but --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Too late.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: A point of privilege then, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I’ll listen to a point of privilege if it’s very short.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member referred to an item that appeared in the paper respecting the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair and the direction from the Minister of Agriculture and Food to the judge in the ring. I have inquired of the people who were at the ringside, the only people in contact with the judge, to see if anyone had passed a note to the judge and no note was passed to the judge. I’ve read the item to which he is referring in the paper.

In addition to that, the luncheon I had for the people of Lambton was paid for by me. I can show the cancelled cheque if the honourable member wishes. I will continue doing it any time I wish.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on speaking to the point of privilege, I am pleased that the minister cleared up that point. As I say I happened to read the article written by Jim Roman, and he spelled out very clearly in the article that a note was sent to the judge by the minister. He also pointed out that a party was thrown at taxpayers’ expense and only the 4-H members from Lambton county were invited. I am pleased to hear that wasn’t the case, because as I say the Minister of Agriculture and Food is representing all of Ontario, not just Lambton county.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The point of privilege has been presented and answered. We will return to the member for Huron-Bruce.

[Reverting (4:23):]

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Gaunt: This is going to be very fast. My House leader is kicking me in the shins here, I’ll just be two or three moments.

There’s concern about the York-Durham sewer system. I think people are wanting to know whether the water quality of the rivers and streams north and east of Metro, as well as Lake Simcoe, will improve. Will it cut the phosphorus content, the phosphorus loading, and to what extent?

There are other questions about taking growth away from Metro, and encouraging automobile traffic and urban sprawl and all that stuff, but that doesn’t really concern the environment. What I’m concerned with is just what I’ve asked in terms of phosphorus loadings and what it will do to the water quality.

The second matter I wanted to touch on was the Ajax industrial waste treatment facility, the conversion of existing waste water treatment plant to an industrial waste treatment facility to handle 8.8 million gallons of industrial waste per year.

I think that proposal does have some flaws in it. I know the ministry is supporting it. I was surprised to learn that the Simcoe proposal spent about 75 per cent of its time trying to justify and to convince people of the need for a treatment plant of this kind. Well nobody needs to be convinced, everybody recognizes that we need one, so I think that was perhaps misdirected in terms of their approach to the problem. I think only about 20 pages of the report detail the engineering aspects of it and there are perhaps some questions with respect to the engineering and the proposal.

I think the whole thesis of the presentation is a textbook operation rather than taking the practical aspects of it. I think many of these processes have been tried in industry, but when you try and transpose those to converted water treatment plants I think that’s quite a different matter and there could be some real operational problems in that plant. I just want to alert the minister to that. I think ministry officials should take a look at that aspect of it before he goes whole hog in support of it. We all recognize the need for it. I hope it works, but I think the minister needs to be careful as to how he approaches that particular problem.

The last matter I want to touch on is the matter of liquid industrial waste; a very important problem and I know the ministry is giving a lot of consideration to this matter. I was very startled to see in the Toronto Sun this morning that only two healthy babies resulted from the 12 known pregnancies among the women living near the Love Canal chemical dump since October of 1978.

What we are dealing with here are very toxic, very harmful and very dangerous chemicals. Over the past two decades, the diversity of industrial chemicals has increased from 500 different types in 1958 to 1.4 mllion in 1979. Legislation, directly and indirectly affecting chemical control in Canada, is divided between federal and provincial jurisdictions, with over 220 laws and 400 sets of regulations administered by 90 different ministry departments and government agencies.

I think the ministry should require, in the next year or so the pre-testing of all substances, as recommended by the committee -- the minister undoubtedly remembers that particular recommendation -- the pre-testing of all substances before they are introduced into the work place and into the environment. I think we could prevent a lot of the danger that results from the use, the transportation and the disposal of these particular commodities.

Mr. Kerrio: I can’t let this time pass to try to impress the minister again as to the very serious consequences that will eventually transpire if the ministry itself and the federal government do not make personal representation to the state of New York where they are now giving some consideration to an application from a chemical company that has a tremendously bad record over the past as it relates to spilling and dumping toxics into the Niagara River. The minister should avail himself of time that’s left to make representation to this hearing committee, which is going to reconvene at the end of January, and make known the position of the province of Ontario, that we will not accept pipe being put into the river to be used to dump up to an additional two million gallons of supposedly- treated effluent into that river. The company is asking for permission to monitor this effluent itself. The pipeline would be buried in the bed of the river where no one can see what is happening. We are going to trust a company that in the past has had fines up to $15,000 for mishandling of PCBs.

[4:30]

When the government of New York state advertised in newspapers that they would hear from interested parties who had some knowledge of the chemicals being dumped, that their testimony would have some influence on whether the permit was granted or not, I think it was incumbent on this ministry and on the government, not only to participate in the sense of simply monitoring the hearings but to make their presence known and to tell those people hearing the case for SCA Chemicals that we should not in future allow the dumping of any kind of wastes into that environment without proper monitoring by an independent party.

That hearing is still going on. I have written to the Honourable Flora MacDonald, the Minister for External Affairs, as I have told you, I have written to the Honourable John Fraser, the federal Minister of the Environment; and I am very sorry to say that no one is making official representation to the hearings in the state of New York to try to put a stop to the granting of such a permit, that will have dire consequences and add to the pollution of the Niagara River.

Incidentally, the minister must be aware of the fact that the turning point in the system is the Niagara Frontier, where there are some 200 known toxic waste dumps on the New York side. My colleague has mentioned one, the Love Canal. Love Canal and Bloody Run are names that are going down in history as an indictment of those people who were supposed to protect our environment and who have failed miserably.

There is still time. I ask the minister again to participate in those hearings, to suggest there should be a new, joint commitment by Ontario and by the federal government, if we can get them to move as well, to urge that such toxic elements no longer be introduced into that great waterway, that great heritage we all enjoy.

Mr. McGuigan: I would like to begin by thanking the Minister of the Environment for having come to Blenheim on December 5 to address the council and the people of Harwich regarding the proposed plant to handle liquid industrial wastes and put them into a solid form.

I think the minister will agree that the people, who have very grave fears on the subject and who suffer from the legacy from the past to which the member for Niagara Falls just referred, which conjures up horrible spectres of disease, birth defects and so on in people’s minds, have legitimate concerns about more and more of these wastes being brought into the township of Harwich. This township is already doing a great deal as regards its social responsibility in handling wastes and allowing a landfill site and lagoons to be used for waste disposal.

In speaking to the minister prior to the meeting in the presence of the reeve, Mr. M. Van Gassen, the reeve brought up the subject of the apparent unfairness of the fact that the minister is providing up to $100,000 to Browning-Ferris Industries in the event their proposal to the Environmental Assessment Board is not positively received.

The minister made a point that the Environment Assessment Board is an impartial board. I won’t question that they’re impartial.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Shame, shame; that’s terrible.

Mr. McGuigan: I say I don’t question they’re impartial.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I apologize; I thought you said you did.

Mr. McGuigan: I say I don’t question their impartiality. However, in our system of courts and going before judges we don’t question the impartiality of the judge either, but I would submit to the minister that if he or I, or any one in this chamber or any citizen, were before a criminal court and we were charged by the crown attorney, it would probably be in our best interests to hire a very good lawyer who is well versed in the skills of the court and could ask the proper questions and so on, to defend us; or if it was a case of a civil action and we were being attacked in any way by a fellow citizen, it would also be a wise move to have the best possible attorney or advocate that one could have on their behalf.

I would appeal to the minister again to think a little bit more in terms of the people of Harwich township and how they see this as a matter of being pitted against a multi-million dollar company, backed up by funds from the government and with the residents being in the position of having to present their own case with only their own funds.

I know the minister has a problem, and we sympathize with his problem of dealing with these wastes. I’m not taking a position of saying that it absolutely shall not come in; but I think we must put forth every effort, and put pressure on government and the people who produce these materials, to see that every safeguard is taken and is granted to protect the people in the event such a plant eventually does come to our township. God knows I hope it doesn’t, but if it does I believe it incumbent upon me and upon the people there to put up the best defence they possibly can.

To give the minister an example, I would refer him to the very valuable insecticide DDT which was eliminated from the market. It was one of the best insecticides ever, because of the fact it was so persistent. When you sprayed it on a crop it stayed there and protected that crop over a period of time. But of course that also had the disadvantage that it didn’t break down and eventually found its way into the food chain. So we eliminated DDT from our arsenal of pesticides and we moved to other products.

I would suggest to you, sir, that perhaps a question to be answered is whether or not some of the industrial products we’re making today should be made if they’re going to be so dangerous and pose such a problem for the rest of society.

We’re all anxious to leave so I won’t carry on any further, but I certainly appeal to the minister to look again at the fairness of the proposal to finance the company, and look at it a little bit from the standpoint of the good people of Harwich township, who after all received him very well and I’m sure he has good feelings towards them.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member for Huron-Bruce was rather brief. I will reply to his comments in detail and will send every member of the Legislature a copy of that reply.

The other two members spoke on items I had previously dealt with, and as my Christmas present to you, sir, and through you to the members of the House, a merry Christmas. I will note their comments. Thank you.

Resolution concurred in.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the whip of our party has whipped everybody into line, kicked their shins and we will have no further speakers on the other concurrences. In return I am speaking for about 10 minutes on this one, so I beg the indulgence of the House. That means in the new session I don’t get to speak for the first month.

I want to bring to the minister’s attention an issue that has been brought to his attention before, that from what I have found out since we debated the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources I think it absolutely imperative that the Ontario government now set up an entirely and totally independent task force to inquire into the iron-ore industry.

Due to the incompetence or deliberate neglect by the Ontario Conservative government, the iron-ore industry in Ontario is in serious trouble. In the past two years, almost 1,500 iron-ore miners in Ontario have lost their jobs. Four mines out of the nine that we had in the province have closed.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You know what Mel Bartley said about your comment.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, and he was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You’re wrong.

Mr. Foulds: No, no. He’s wrong, Leo.

Marmoraton Mining Company in Marmora dosed March 31, 1978, laying off 282 workers. National Steel at Moose Mountain, near Capreol, closed June 1, 1979, laying off 226 workers. Steep Rock, near Atikokan, closed January 1979, affecting 600 workers. The latest closing was of Caland Mines, November 21, 1979, with its pelletizing operations to close in April 1980, affecting a total of 480 workers altogether. Over 1,050 have lost or will lose their jobs in Atikokan because this government, and especially the Ministry of Natural Resources, has done nothing, even though they knew the corporate decisions taken by CP Investments, which now controls Steep Rock, and Inland Steel, which controls Caland, would seriously threaten the existence of a one-industry town, Atikokan.

Firstly, such a task force needs to examine the controlling interest that CP Investments now has assumed in mining properties at Steep Rock, Bending Lake and Lake St. Joseph and CP’s controlling interest in one of Ontario’s major steel producers, Algoma Steel of Sault Ste. Marie. What is interesting is that ever since CP took control of Steep Rock in 1976 and took major interests in Bending Lake and Lake St. Joseph, there has been, I believe, a deliberate slowdown in Ontario of iron-ore mining development, and an especially severe slowdown in the development of the mining industry in northwestern Ontario.

Secondly, the task force I suggest needs to examine the deliberate corporate decisions taken by the steel producers of Ontario; those steel producers are Algoma, Dofasco and Stelco. They have taken deliberate decisions to invest in captive mines in the US, at Eveleth, Hibbing and Tilden, rather than bringing into production iron ore at Lake St. Joseph and Bending Lake in order to create jobs here in Ontario.

Third, a careful and honest evaluation of the amount of ore that the companies are walking away from in the abandoned mines at Moose Mountain, Marmora, Caland and Steep Rock needs to be done.

Fourth, the task force should be charged with the responsibility of developing an orderly plan so that instead of importing 58 per cent of our ore from outside Ontario, we in Ontario begin to develop our own rich deposits at Bending Lake and Lake St. Joseph and to reactivate, where possible, the mines Moose Mountain, Caland and Steep Rock.

[4:45]

This task force needs to be totally independent of the mineral resources group of the Ministry of Natural Resources. That branch of the ministry, and indeed the minister himself, have been pussycats in this whole affair of iron-ore mine closings. In fact, both during the estimates and during the meeting I attended about 10 days ago, when the United Steelworkers made a presentation to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Natural Resources, it became clear that the executive co-ordinator of the mines group of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the minister himself are merely corporate apologists who are all too willing to accept tamely, at face value, the information the companies have given them. That includes the clipping of the newspaper story the Minister of Northern Affairs has referred to.

There is no desire by that branch to have independent assessments done in a reasonably thorough, geological fashion. Naturally, the figures given to the ministry by the corporations put the decisions of corporate profits ahead of decisions favouring the well-being of people in communities such as Atikokan.

It is very strange that when you go through -- and I won’t read them all into the record -- the US Securities Exchange Commission’s reports for Steep Rock Iron Mines, which give us information in far more detail than anything we have available here in Canada, time and time again until 1976 Caland very clearly states in its report to the securities commission -- and Caland leases its pit from Steep Rock -- there will be at least 16.3 million tons of iron ore in the assured and reasonably assured category available. I think that is serious evidence that should not be disregarded, just because one of the geologists who’s been on staff and has been giving those figures to the company changes his mind in the last year.

I also quote briefly from the 1975 annual report of Steep Rock Iron Mines. “If Caland Ore Company terminates mining operations in the C ore zone in 1979 as planned, it is calculated that 16.3 million tons of ore economically extractable by open-pit mining will remain, all in the reasonably assured category.

“If Caland’s announced plan is implemented, Steep Rock will have access to the C ore zone in late 1979. However, one to two years will be required to do the advance stripping necessary to prepare for providing plant feed on a continuous basis. If means can be found to provide continuity of ore supply through 1979 and 1980, it is probable that Steep Rock can continue mining on an economic basis until C ore zone reserves are fully recovered.”

I submit that Steep Rock was saying that back in 1975 and 1976 because they had reason to believe it. An excessive amount of ore has not been extracted since then and they said it in their annual report in order to keep their stocks up and in order to keep confidence going in the company and things have not changed today.

What really shocked me at the meeting I had with the minister and in the estimates is that the director of the minerals group was far too willing to apologize for the corporate decision taken and not to do an independent study. He was far too willing to say the company tells them there are only 5,000 to 10,000 tons left. That is not the way for a government to protect the interests of its citizens.

I understand the necessity for a corporation to have a profit, and I understand the necessity for profit in our type of economy. But the people of Ontario have invested in communities like Atikokan millions of dollars in schools and hospitals and road facilities and so on, and we deserve protection for our investment too. It may mean that people do matter more than profits and that companies should take somewhat smaller profits and yet still make a profit in order to maintain a community like Atikokan.

Next, this task force must obtain and must make public the major study of the future of the iron-ore deposits in northwestern Ontario that has already been done. This study was recently completed by the three integrated steel producers, Algoma, Stelco and Dofasco. To this date this government has not either tried to get access to the study, or if they have, they have not admitted they have it and will not make it public.

I would suggest the task force I recommend contain representations from the Ministry of Natural Resources as well as from the mining industry. There should be representation from the trade union movement and the most probable and most likely representation could come from the United Steelworkers of America, which has, after all, organized most of the mining industry in Ontario. It also should have on it an independent representative geologist from the academic community who has not been previously hired or employed by the mining companies involved. If I may say so, that is where Dr. Bartley’s credentials are in question, because he has been on retainer as a consultant for both Steep Rock and Caland.

The task force is necessary because of the miserable failure of the Conservative cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities to do anything constructive about one-industry towns. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, during the crisis in Sudbury and the Inco layoff, on November 3, 1977, the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced the formation of this cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities. He stated, and I quote: “The scope and attention of the cabinet committee will go beyond the current difficulties of the Sudbury area. It will be consulting with mining companies, union, municipal leaders and other interested groups in order to develop government policies which will assist all of us in dealing with the problems and opportunities common to communities which are affected by international mining markets.”

Two years have now passed since the committee was formed, yet the same problems continue to haunt these resource-based communities. Atikokan is simply the most poignant and latest example of this. I must say, when I, today received the written reply to the question I put on the Order Paper, frankly I was astounded. The Premier’s announcement about that cabinet committee was a sham. In my view the answers given today proves conclusively that the cabinet committee never met.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh yes, it did sit.

Mr. Foulds: It did? How many times? Why is the government then afraid to tell us how many times? I want to read into the record the answer that was given.

I asked: would the ministry table the dates, times and topics discussed at meetings of the cabinet committee on the future of one-industry towns since the Premier announced its creation in 1977?

Answer: “The cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities was established by the Premier on November 3, 1977. The committee worked intensively during 1977 and 1978. As with all meetings of cabinet and its committees, the agenda of this committee are confidential.”

I didn’t ask for the agenda, Mr. Speaker. They didn’t even tell me the dates or the times. They haven’t the guts to, because the committee has never met. I challenge any spokesman for the government to file with this Legislature proof that that committee has met and if it worked intensively in 1977 and 1978 as is claimed here. What the hell has the government got to show for it? Not a thing.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, use proper language for goodness’ sake.

Mr. Foulds: What the devil, is that better, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “hell.” I substitute one of its inhabitants, “devil.”

What the devil has the government to show for it? It has not done a single thing to overcome the policy difficulties that face one-industry towns in northern Ontario.

The answer goes on: “The government’s further initiative for northern communities have been the chief responsibility of the Minister of Northern Affairs in conjunction with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.”

Now they have a bakery up there and one or two other minor things, 11 jobs including the industrial commissioner’s, but what else have they done? And not just Atikokan. It is important that a policy be developed so those one-industry towns are no longer as vulnerable as they have been over the last 40 years of Conservative government.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Forty years?

Mr. Foulds: Thirty-seven, 38. It seems like 64.

“Because the Ministry of Northern Affairs, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development” -- I am quoting again -- “and the board of the Employment Development Fund are currently the best vehicles for dealing with the problems of resource-based communities, the cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities has been sunsetted” as a number of people want me to do with this speech. I just have a few more remarks that I need to make.

Of all the committees, of all agencies that should not be sunsetted it’s that cabinet committee, if you were serious on the future of one-industry towns.

Mr. Martel: You guys are phony, you did nothing; what else is new.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Co to Atikokan and see if we haven’t done anything there.

Mr. Martel: I was there.

Mr. Foulds: I’ve been in Atikokan. I am going again in January. I say to the Minister of Northern Affairs that the people of Atikokan are marvellous people who are fighting back with optimism and strength but with very little help from this government. I want to say --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On a point of privilege. I am not going to sit here, Mr. Speaker, and take the comments of the member for Port Arthur.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: He can’t speak he is not in his place. You are out of order, as usual.

Mr. Foulds: Before that, I wanted to say, if there has been -- actually, I wanted to pay that particular minister a little bit of a compliment; if anybody has at least tried to do something it has been the Minister of Northern Affairs. The problem is the Ministry of Northern Affairs has had to do jobs on an ad hoc basis. I have talked to some of the staff and they are working very hard but they don’t have the framework of an overall government policy which will remedy the structural difficulties of one-industry towns.

Because of the obvious failure of the cabinet committee to come up with solutions to the problems of resource-based communities, it is important that the task force I am suggesting get to work immediately.

Finally -- two more paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, just two more -- this task force is necessary so that we in Ontario can control our own destiny in the iron ore and steel industries. The interests of the people of Ontario must come ahead of the corporate interests of Inland Steel, CP Investments or National Steel.

There is no way that we in this province should be importing 58 per cent of our iron ore when we have rich deposits lying idle in northwestern Ontario and when the provincial government, according to the Washington Securities Commission, has already made commitments to the companies to develop townsites at Lake St. Joseph.

We must protect, develop and diversify one-industry towns such as Atikokan. We must create jobs, not lose them, in the mining industries. We must supply our steel industry with ore from our mining industry in Ontario.

I hope that the task force, such as the one I am suggesting, will be a modest first step in this direction. I would also hope that the task force could report to the Legislature within a three-month period. Wouldn’t that be a nice part of a throne speech in March?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me when I listen to my colleague the member for Port Arthur. I don’t think he really does himself a service when he carries on in some of the ways he does.

It is interesting, and I would point out to him and my friend from Sudbury as well, that the question of the cabinet committee on one-industry towns was raised by myself almost --

Mr. Foulds: It was raised by the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Long before you even got around to it, sonny, long before.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Sometimes I am not sure whether those people operate on stupidity or ignorance.

If they would just keep both feet out of their mouths, I would tell them that in November, 1978 I put a question on the Order Paper that was almost word for word the same as the one the member for Port Arthur has just raised, the answer to which I have here. On December 13, 1978, the answer to my question, practically the same question as his, word for word, was tabled in this Legislature. In May 1979 the member for Sudbury East woke up and asked a similar question. A full year later the member for Port Arthur awakes and asks the same question.

[5:00]

The problem with that particular person is that in this particular case he has a point. As stupid as most of his remarks were, he really has a point.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely that is not necessary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You’re not going to prove it by standing up.

Late though he is, he has a point. I have raised this in the Ministry of Natural Resources estimates and the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle). There really is a concern about what is going to happen in the iron ore business in northwestern Ontario and in the steel business.

I would agree with my colleague from Port Arthur that some kind of study or task force along the lines that he recommends should be undertaken by the government. I would hope that the government and the minister would seriously consider this matter and perhaps have some kind of preliminary report available to the members when we return in February or March.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. I will refer to some of the matters raised by the member for Port Arthur, but I would remind him that this ministry produced a review of the metal mining industry of Ontario in 1977, which clearly anticipated the situation which now exists. The actual prospects for Steep Rock were indicated. My honourable friend, the Minister of Northern Affairs, was at the opening of the Steep Rock operation some 30 years ago when they indicated at that time they anticipated that the reserves would last for about 30 years.

When Caland leased the ore bodies in 1974, they said they would complete their operations in 1979. I think it is pretty clear from the studies that were made originally and from the design of the pit outlines of the operations, that the ore bodies that were established at that time are the ore bodies which were mined and which are now depleted.

I should point out too that as far as the government is concerned it has been working with the industry with respect to Lake St. Joe and Bending Lake. In 1974 the studies on Bending Lake showed it to be uneconomical at that time, even with the offers of support which the government had proposed in connection with roads, a slurry pipeline and a number of other alternatives. As a matter of fact, to indicate the province’s faith in that deposit in the future -- and we believe it will be economical in the not-too-distant future -- we are at present, through the Ministry of Northern Affairs, building a road from Atikokan via Bending Lake to Ignace, which will make that deposit readily available when the time comes when it can be economically developed.

It appears now that there is a significant decline in the North American steel industry. That is something which was not predictable four or five, or even a couple of years ago in many respects. I think it’s important too to remind the honourable member that Canada presently exports some 25 million tons of iron ore or pellets to the United States, and another 20 million tons to other countries.

In Ontario, we import between five million and six million tons of ore in pellets from the United States. Tariffs, of course, are a federal matter. There are no tariffs by Canada on US ore or by the United States on Canadian ore. It doesn’t take a small computer to figure out who would be the loser if we got into a tariff battle with the US.

One of the other rather interesting and significant figures shown by the studies that have been made by our ministry and the industry, indicates that even at the present time it is not economic. The ore that is mined in Labrador and Quebec cannot be laid down in Hamilton or in Sault Ste. Marie competitively with the ore which they are now importing from the US, from Minnesota I guess and Michigan particularly. Looking at the high quality pellets which are produced in Labrador and Quebec, those pellets laid down in Thunder Bay today would be at a lesser cost than the ore pellets which have been produced by the Caland Ore Company, or could be produced at Caland.

As a matter of fact, we are updating the major study on the iron ore industry which the ministry did in 1975. I hope we will have the results of that in the not too distant future, and certainly they will be available to this House. As I had indicated in the meeting which took place a couple of weeks ago, between myself and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) on the one hand and the group from Atikokan and the United Steelworkers, including Mr. Cook of the union, we are actively reviewing the situation of Caland again and we will be doing that on the scene in the not-too-distant future, and I will of course have a report about that later on.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out in connection with this government’s concern about one-industry towns, the lead ministry concept, which was developed and which is used for many other problems now, was originally developed to deal with this specific problem and the Ministry of Northern Affairs has assumed that role. I won’t repeat the many remarks and speeches that my colleague on my right has given in the past, but I think it’s pretty clearly established, in northern Ontario particularly, the interest and effect that has been generated by that ministry. Before sitting down, I simply remind the honourable members that one of the reasons, a major reason, that the Ontario Hydro thermal generating plant is in the construction process at Atikokan, is a result of the kind of planning and the kind of incentive which the Ministry of Northern Affairs has given and will continue to give.

Resolution concurred in.

MINISTRY OF ENERGY

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion for concurrence of supply for the Ministry of Energy carry?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am not Familiar with the procedure of the House on the last day. The Minister of Energy was going to make a statement, as I understood it during this matter. He didn’t rise in his place. I don’t know whether we are supposed to be puppets on strings over here or what.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak once, we are in the House. We are now in concurrence, the motion is for concurrence. The usual practice is for all members to make their statements and the minister to sum up. I am quite prepared to sum up.

Mr. Speaker: The matter before the House is concurrence in the estimates of the Ministry of Energy. Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Renwick: No.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. I thought it had passed.

I suppose I have got to go through the formality of asking the minister if he will now make the statement that he or the Premier (Mr. Davis) were going to make, I thought before the orders of the day in response to a question which I put to the Premier last Friday. That has not been done. There is now a two page statement. The minister says that he wants to sum up. If he sums up, there is no opportunity to talk to him about his statement. I don’t know why we game-play in the last dying hours of this session.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On a point of order: The honourable member has already read my statement; I sent it to him. He can comment on it now, I would think.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned because of the dissolution of the Parliament of Canada and the impending election, to find out what the contingency plans of the government of Ontario are, either alone or in conjunction with the federal government, with respect to any likely anticipated, unlikely, or any other form of possible shortage of petroleum products in Ontario, particularly of fuel oil.

As my question clearly indicated, I am quite aware that Bill C-42, having been drafted by all of the justice experts dealing with constitutional matters, dealt with the situation whether Parliament was in session or was not in session. When they were dealing with it when it was not in session, they also dealt with it on the basis of the dissolution of a parliament.

For those members who don’t understand it, the national emergency must be declared by order in council of the government of Canada. It was anticipated in ordinary times that the matter would immediately come before the House of Commons for debate, and if the House of Commons was not in session it would be immediately recalled. Any lawyer must obviously fill in the gap when there is no House of Commons in existence.

They did that. They said it would be called after the new Parliament was elected. That’s obvious, any lawyer can do that. That doesn’t talk to the reality. The reality is that the members of the government of Canada are engaged in a general election campaign across the country. There is a certain degree of vacuum. I know nature abhors it, but there is some vacuum in Ottawa, there is some vacuum with respect to that problem. It is not going to be of very much use to have the Parliament of Canada, some time in March if the present government is re-elected, call a session of Parliament if in the meantime a national emergency has been declared because of a shortage of fuel oil.

My question does not deal with legalities; my question deals specifically and clearly with the reality. Is the minister prepared to tell this House what the contingency plans of his government are, either alone or in conjunction with the government at Ottawa -- and in the language of the day, the mechanisms established under Bill C-42 -- so that we in this assembly will know what the plans the government has in mind will be should an emergency be declared in this period between now and some time in March?

I would like to know, for example, does the government intend, if there is a national emergency, to recall this assembly? If they are not going to recall this assembly, would the government agree, out of courtesy, to keep our colleagues in the Liberal Party who are the critics for the Ministry of Energy, my colleague the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) who is the critic of this party for the Ministry of Energy, fully informed on a weekly basis about the figures involved and the question of whether or not there are occurrences, either abroad or within Ontario, which might well trigger the declaration of a national emergency.

[5:15]

We here do not have to think that we need to sit blindfolded from now until that national emergency is declared. There must be something in the interval, by way of contingency arrangements, that the minister should have an obligation to disclose to us in the assembly before this session is prorogued and the next session takes place, which may well be some time in March, as is likely the date of the reconvening or of the first session of the next Parliament of Canada.

We are asking for information. We’re not asking for legalisms; we’re not asking for that. We’ve got our own lawyers here. We have the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor). The minister has the battery of the government members. The member for Lakeshore knows the law, we don’t need to be told that. All we want is some basic, fundamental information about the contingency plans of the government so we can understand what the government’s preparations are.

We recognize the qualifications that the minister always put on whether there may or may not be a crisis in Canada which will affect the province of Ontario. We understand those qualifications, but we want to know what the plans are when we leave this assembly so we don’t go out blindfolded to the public.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Last Friday, December 14, the member for Riverdale raised the questions, with which he has familiarized the House once again, with respect to the federal Energy Supplies Emergency Act and the implications which the dissolution of the Parliament of Canada may have on the administration of the powers under that act, should a petroleum products supply shortage occur before the next federal election. In the circumstances, I think the questions are quite timely.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a moment to outline to honourable members the powers which the federal Parliament has already put in place.

The federal act was assented to on March 26, 1979, and early this month the Energy Supplies Allocation Board was appointed. The federal legislation is quite clear as to the powers and the responsibilities of the governor in council and the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, both when Parliament is sitting and when it’s not. In this regard, I would refer members to parts I and II of the act, sections 11 through 20 inclusive.

In effect, and I think it’s important that we understand this, the dissolution of Parliament makes no difference to the ability of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to administer the powers and responsibilities given to it under the legislation.

The member, when he asked the question, acknowledged that the federal act makes no provision for the administration of the legislation whether or not Parliament is dissolved. I should advise the House that once the Energy Supplies Emergency Act was passed by Parliament, the provincial Ministry of Energy began working closely with the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and has provided personnel and expert advice to assist the federal authorities prepare detailed contingency plans.

May I also take this opportunity, as we move quickly for concurrence, to reply to a question asked by the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) on December 6 relating to the amount of the advance payments Ontario Hydro has made to date under its uranium purchase agreement with Denison Mines Limited. I’m advised by Ontario Hydro that to date it has advanced $25.4 million to Preston and $118.3 million to Denison.

As well, during the energy debate on December 6 I advised the honourable members that there was to be a meeting of federal and provincial officials with members of the National Energy Board on Wednesday, December 12. I further indicated that I would report on that meeting. I am very pleased to advise that at the federal-provincial meeting with the National Energy Board on December 12 the board agreed to publicly release its operational data on a regional basis covering the five major areas: the Atlantic provinces, Quebec including the Ottawa Valley, Ontario excluding the Ottawa Valley, prairie provinces and British Columbia. A publication of this data should provide the foundation for better public awareness of the facts.

My understanding is that the data will be made available every month or so, and the first such publication will be around mid-January 1980 covering the period January to November 1979.

I might point out at this juncture that while the initiative for the release of such information came from Ontario, I believe it’s only fair to observe that the interest and the involvement of the member for Carleton East was extremely helpful.

I’m also led to believe that the National Energy Board is endeavouring to present the data in a more easy to understand format.

The January to October 1979 data, which was released to the public on December 7, contains a breakdown of information for two regions, east and west of the Manitoba-Ontario border. The breakdown is more meaningful than the total Canadian data previously published.

It is encouraging to note that for Ontario and eastern Canada the refinery output of main products, that is motor gasoline, middle distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel and heavy fuel oil, is up by six per cent over the corresponding period in 1978. I am also encouraged by the decrease in demand for middle distillates of 2.1 per cent, and the fact that inventories over the month of October have increased by one million cubic metres or 220 million gallons. However, I must again stress there is still no room for complacency as inventories were six per cent below that of last year on October 31.

Some honourable members had earlier questioned the quantity of exports of middle distillates, and as can be seen from the January to October data middle distillate exports increased from 0.9 to 1.7 million cubic metres in 1979 as against 1978. Our review of the facts on a regional basis confirms that virtually all of the export activity is in the Atlantic provinces and that it involves the sale of heating oil and diesel fuel by a single refiner to foreign markets. It is important to note that this company has a foreign crude oil process agreement and the exports are subject to National Energy Board approval. It is also worth noting that some of the products originally destined for foreign markets have recently been sold by this company to other petroleum marketers for use in eastern Canada.

Finally, the Premier did give an undertaking to the member for Carleton East that there would be some explanation with respect to the substance of her question as to why the government was allowing Ontario Hydro to conduct an unscientific time-of-use experiment prior to the release of the ECAPS report. I must point out that it is not a question of the government allowing Hydro to conduct an experiment which may have an eventual effect on rates, but rather a case of Hydro taking the initiative on such an experiment, as it is Hydro which has the retail rate approving authority in the province.

I am advised by Ontario Hydro that the experiment is anything but unscientific. The very best and latest techniques are being used to conduct the experiment on 1,000 households, which is considered to be relevant to the population as a whole.

Incidentally, the measurement of electrical use by the 1,000 customers will not physically start until late 1980 or early 1981, depending on the delivery of appropriate metering equipment.

To answer the question of why initial planning is being undertaken prior to the release of the ECAPS report, I would point out the facts as follows: To do a proper cost-benefit analysis of time-of-use rates prior knowledge of customer response is necessary, and in the electrical industry there is a general scarcity of this type of information. The information available at this time is considered to be non-transferable and not necessarily relevant to other areas in Canada or North America. Such factors as weather, economics, mix of appliances and the types of fuels being used preclude the results of an experiment in one area being applicable to another.

It is my understanding that the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the group which raised this question earlier in the week, is in favour of time-of-use pricing. However, Ontario Hydro advises me that for the reasons outlined earlier, it would wish to conduct experiments on time-of-use pricing before considering their widespread implementation at the retail level.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What is the rule under which the minister closes the debate on motions for concurrence?

Mr. Speaker: It is a standing rule here that at times when debate is provided on concurrence, any member can speak on any item contained in the allocation of funds for a specific ministry. It has been a standing order ever since I have been around here that any member can speak and then the minister winds up the debate.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on my point of order, would you give me the number of the standing order which permits the minister to close the debate on motions for concurrence?

Mr. Speaker: Speakers since time immemorial have held that that is the proper procedure when a motion of this kind is before the House. The honourable member knows that many of the rules by which we are governed around here are set by precedent and practice as well as by the written word.

Are you going to challenge it?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question. I now want to speak to my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I’ve already said that is the format we have used ever since I’ve been around here and that’s the format we’re using tonight. If you want to challenge that, you can go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t wish to challenge the Speaker’s ruling at all, if it is a ruling. I asked a question and I got the answer that there is no standing order of this assembly which allows the minister to close the debate on motion for concurrence in his supply estimates.

My point of order is that there has been a significant and substantial misdirection by the government of its obligation to this assembly by using this concurrence motion to avoid any questions by giving replies to questions during this motion which should have been given during question period in the House today.

I want to say very clearly to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is I hope the last of a series of incidents which lead me to believe that the government has decided to stop the co-operative operation of this House. I want to say to you that if that is their intention, they will not have the co-operation of this side of the House.

I took the question over to the government House leader yesterday; he photostated it and gave a copy of it to the Premier. The Premier sent me a note to say that the minister would reply to my question in the House today and when I asked the question today he said the minister would give his reply during concurrence. He doesn’t have the courtesy to us to stand in his place and give us the answers. He then --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: -- permits any questions which pertain to those matters.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: I object, Mr. Speaker, to that taking place and I hope the Speaker will take it under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: If the honourable member will read standing order 49(a), I think he will find there is nothing unusual in the procedure we’re following for these concurrence motions.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Provincial Secretary for Social Development;

Provincial Secretary for Resources Development;

Ministry of Industry and Tourism;

Ministry of Labour.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a chance to resume some of the themes we’ve been putting forward during the course of this session.

When the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) first talked about this budget, back in March or April, he called it a budget of lost opportunities. I want to say to the Speaker, this has been a government of lost opportunities not just this year, in 1979, but over the close of the 1970s. We are moving into the 1980s with a government that doesn’t know where it is in, doesn’t know where we are and doesn’t know where we should be going in the province. It is not providing the leadership we need in Ontario in meeting the challenge of the 1980s.

[5:30]

If I look at this past year with regret for what we have failed to do, at the total absence of any legislative initiative coming from this government over the course of the past year, if it is true, as I have heard, that the reason they are not legislating now is that Hugh Segal has been taking unto himself those few slim strands of legislative initiative that are still left over there in order to put them into the throne speech in 1980 in March of this coming year, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I look with foreboding at what the Conservatives intend to do to Ontario in 1980 and beyond.

We had the question from Quebec today. We have had a year of constitutional crisis in our country as the Parti Quebecois prepared for the referendum this year and yet we are suffering in Ontario from a government which for eight years has failed completely to understand what has been happening in Quebec. Not since John Robarts has there been any sympathy or understanding by this government for what is happening in Quebec and that is one of the reasons we are having problems in the country right now

Not only that, we have a government which has adopted a policy of confrontation, as was demonstrated by the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in recent weeks, and a government which has adopted a policy of confrontation, not just to Quebec, but also to franco-Ontarians, as is demonstrated in the deplorable history of the school at Penetanguishene.

Mr. Speaker, this is the government which chose 1979, the Year of the Child, to provoke a confrontation with the children of Ontario and that will be remembered by us all with bitterness. The Year of the Child was the year when the government decided to close down full-day kindergartens in the separate schools of the province. It was the year when it became evident that a whole generation of young people emerging from school were emerging from school to perhaps a decade of unemployment or limited employment because of this government.

Nineteen hundred and seventy-nine was the year the government, because of budgetary cutbacks, got itself in a situation where 28 of the province’s 50 children’s aid societies are now in a process of appeal in order to try and get a decent amount of funding to carry out their responsibility to the kids in the Year of the Child. Nineteen hundred and seventy-nine was the year of a total freeze in terms of capital allocations for the creation of new daycare centres. That is what they think of the Year of the Child.

Mr. Speaker, 1979 was also the year which was marked by the tragic death here in Toronto of Albert Johnson, a death which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of this government in dealing with racial tensions and dealing with human rights. The impact of that death was enough to persuade the government to bring --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Such utter nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: What do you mean, nonsense? It’s true. If you understood, if the government --

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: The government ignored the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: Exactly, they let it fester. When the cardinal came up with his report, they failed to understand the report. If they had understood the report, they would not have had that ineffective piece of legislation with relation to civilian complaints against the police.

Mr. Martel: Their answer was to take the sound track out of the House.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. Thank the comments of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) Mr. Speaker.

It is a government which doesn’t understand to this day that there are many citizens in our province who are perfectly law abiding who fear to take their complaints about police action to the police. That is particularly true among people in the visible minority communities. The government doesn’t understand that, as is clearly demonstrated by the legislation introduced in the Legislature just the other day.

When you couple that, Mr. Speaker, with the fact --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: After two and a half years of study the government had failed to consult adequately with people who were handicapped in Ontario and then it brought forward legislation which was so offensive to people who are disabled in this province that it finally had to be withdrawn. I say shame on the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) and shame on the government for failing to have a commitment to human rights in Ontario.

These issues speak to the failures of this government, to the fact that they are a tired bunch over there. There isn’t any new blood coming up in the back benches. There isn’t any fresh initiative coming up through the ranks. Ontario can no longer afford to be run by a caretaker administration that wants to simply cling to power, that just wants to hang on to power without using that power to build new opportunities for the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of the issues which have been important over the course of the last few months.

Mr. Eaton: Hear what the unions think of the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: They like me. They don’t like the Tories, the member will see that in the federal election.

Maybe my friend from Middlesex doesn’t recall, but on November 20 I presented a petition, along with my colleagues here, signed by 275,000 citizens of Ontario which said, “We protest the government’s restraint program for health care.” Which said, “The quality of health care in Ontario is now threatened by deterioration of services in hospitals and lack of access to doctors billing at OHIP rates.” It said, “We are -- ”

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if we did that petition again today we would get half a million signatures across Ontario.

I see the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is here. One of the things that people said when they signed was, “We are opposed to any form of extra billing by doctors, to extra fees being charged to chronic and other patients and to the unfair OHIP premiums.” Where is the action by the Minister of Health on that? The Minister of Health is a signatory to an agreement with the doctors which is going to give $140 million to the doctors of the province next year, which will give them an increase averaging about $6,000 per doctor. In other words, an increase which is equal to the amount that a worker in Ontario earns at the minimum wage for an entire year.

But did the government ask the doctors to stop opting out? Did the government ask the doctors to stop extra billing? Did the government ask the doctors to provide services at the OHIP rates when they are working in hospitals? There was no action like that at all.

We have had a pile of malarkey from the Minister of Health about numbers and so on --

Mr. Eaton: Malarkey? That is you all the way.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, malarkey -- designed to obscure the fact that in major centres of this province, in major specialties of medicine across this province, again and again and again, more than half of the doctors in those specialties are opted out and we have a return to charity medicine in Ontario because of the Minister of Health and because of this government. People are being forced to beg for service at the OHIP rate, rather than getting service on a universally accessible basis.

Not only that, but today in the Globe and Mail the minister reveals that he knew that very high proportions of specialists in many specialties in many communities were opted out.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You knew that seven years ago.

Mr. Cassidy: Of course, but the government has the facts, we have the facts as well but the facts have been confirmed today. The minister has known all along. Not only does he do nothing, but he has totally failed even to ask his senior officials to give him the information, let alone act on that information when its been available. He sat by and condoned the use of collection agencies by doctors to collect extra billing from patients across the province. He has condoned a situation where people have become afraid to go to the doctor for fear of the extra billing. He has condoned the situation --

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Cassidy: Listen to the yapping over there, Mr. Speaker.

He has condoned a situation where there are general practitioners who will not send their patients to the appropriate specialists because they know the specialist has opted out and the patient can’t afford to pay the extra bill, therefore they send their patient to get second class care from somebody they know is not the best doctor for that particular job.

Not only that, but last January the Minister of Health, who is accustomed to changing his position regularly, announced he was going to cut the amount of hospital beds in this province by 5,000 or 6,000 over the course of the next two and a half or three years. Today he says; “and I’m going to convert them to chronic-care beds.” He didn’t say that on January 19, Mr. Speaker; that wasn’t his tune then. He has had to change his tune because of pressure from the communities, the hospitals themselves and from the New Democratic Party.

Oh he has $65 million that he didn’t have before but that was available in January. He has an appeal process that wasn’t available before and yet --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh yes it was.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it wasn’t. Only for medical errors and nothing else. It’s in the documents that were sent to the hospitals. The minister has been giving answer after answer after answer, and each one changes because he plays games with the truth in his efforts to cut back health-care expenses in the province of Ontario.

The problems persist in our hospitals. At the Queensway Hospital here in Metropolitan Toronto as many as eight or nine patients are backed up in the emergency ward every night because no beds are available. Across this province nurses and other health care workers continue to be laid off or continue to face increasing pressure because of the cutbacks.

The American consultant Naus-Newlyn comes along and produces a system where nurses aren’t told until five o’clock in the morning whether or not they’re going to be called in to work on that particular day. That’s the kind of inhuman treatment being meted out to health-care workers. Inevitably, that’s translated into a loss of tender loving care and the loss of quality health care in the hospitals of the province.

Mr. Speaker, not only that but the minister has gotten up again and again and said: “We want to innovate. We want to change things in the health-care system.” I think the minister should tell the public why there has been not one new chronic home-care program established and put into operation since the beginning of the year.

I think the minister should explain, if he’s so committed to community health, why no new health-service organizations have been created in the province of Ontario this year despite the compelling evidence from places like Sault Ste. Marie that community-based health care can cut hospital days by 40 per cent and thereby save millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars for the health-care consumers of the province of Ontario.

There are a lot of people in this province who are saying they would like to have community-based health care. If this government had a sense of dealership and initiative, 10 years after the introduction of medicare into Ontario we would have the community-based programs that should have been created by now; we would have the commitment to preventive health care which we should have had by now; we would have eliminated the health premiums that existed prior to 1969; we would have extended health care to include the cost of drugs; we would have extended health care to include dental care, especially for kids. Those would have been done, Mr. Speaker, instead of which we have had a government that’s been systematically cutting back in its commitment to health care, particularly in the time that the Minister of Health has occupied his present office. If the Minister of Health is prepared to resign we are prepared to accept his resignation. He’s lost our confidence as Minister of Health in the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then he must be doing something right.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of Industry and Tourism is off again, Mr. Speaker. It’s significant that the Minister of Health says there is no problem, and yet the federal Conservatives have said yes there is a problem with medicare. They have appointed Justice Emmett Hall to look into the problems of medicare. They have accepted there may be a need for the federal government to exert pressure on governments like this which are abandoning the principles of universal medicare that our party has fought for from the beginning of our party.

The split personality of that party doesn’t just extend to the questions of medicare. I wish the Minister of Energy would get his stories straight with his federal counterpart. He has been telling us all fall that the situation was tight but manageable. When Joe Clark said there would be serious shortages, or that we face that risk, what did the Minister of Energy say? He said: “I have been talking to the multinationals. I trust the multinationals more than I trust Joe Clark.” I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we don’t trust Joe Clark and we don’t trust the multinationals either.

This winter, Mr. Speaker, we are poised on a knife edge. We don’t know whether we are going to be able to get through. We won’t have the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board to protect this province. We have Tories at the provincial level and at the federal level who have abandoned their responsibility to ensure we do not freeze in the dark in this province over the course of the winter of 1979 to 1980. We have a federal government which has brought in a budget which over the next four years is going to exact $15.7 billion in additional amounts from Ontario consumers in order to fatten the ayatollahs of Alberta and in order to sweeten the coffers of the multinational oil companies. We have a federal Conservative government which is going to give, if they are allowed to and I hope they aren’t, $33 billion to the multinational oil companies free and clear over the next four years. It’s an abdication of an oil policy.

We have a federal Tory government which changes its position on Petro-Canada almost every week. We have a provincial Tory government that suddenly sides with Ed Broadbent and says keep Petro-Canada. They say keep Petro-Canada only months after Ontario has sold its shares in Syncrude. How consistent is that, Mr. Speaker? All of this is done with no guarantee that any of the billions upon billions of dollars being drained from Ontario in federal energy expenditures will be reinvested in new energy supply or will be actually used to protect the consumer in the province of Ontario.

All of this is done with no expanded federal commitment to an energy policy, and all of this is done with no major initiatives coming from this government to make energy conservation attractive in the province of Ontario.

There are no insulation loans. Where’s their program? There is no expansion of subsidies to public transit. Where’s their program? There are no new building codes. Where’s their program? We announced ours three years ago. There is not even legislation for solar energy rights, for sun rights. Where’s their program? It hasn’t come down yet, Mr. Speaker.

We have a government which continues to press on with spending on electric power generation at the rate of $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year, at the same time they spend all of $15 million or $16 million a year and no more in the areas of energy conservation and alternate sources of energy. We have a government which 18 months ago sold this province’s birthright in uranium to Rio Algoma and to Denison Mines despite the warning of this party.

In Saskatchewan, the people have a 51 per cent interest in the uranium industry in that province. In Saskatchewan, they are moving towards a 51 per cent interest in the potash industry. That is going to secure that province’s industrial and economic future for 2,000 years. In Saskatchewan, they have taken their major resource, which is oil, and through Saskoil, the government of Saskatchewan has a major share of that. In this province, we have abandoned our birthright in nickel; we have abandoned our birthright in iron ore; we are abandoning our birthright in base metals and we have abandoned our birthright in uranium. I say that is not good enough for the people of Ontario.

Nor has the government moved to develop the kinds of industries we are going to need if we want to develop energy in the province during the 1980s. Where is the government’s program to develop methanol from wood waste? Where is its program to develop new kinds of insulating materials? Where is its program to develop the electronic control systems that will allow us to use our energy sources more efficiently? Where is its program for co-generation? It isn’t there yet because the government won’t plan ahead for the 1980s.

A major part of the industrial strategy for Ontario could have been the development of industry based on the energy needs of Ontario, but we haven’t had that either from this government. They have run out of ideas for the 1980s. If this government was so opposed to the federal Tory sale of the equivalent of 643 million barrels of oil in natural gas to the United States this government would have gone before the National Energy Board and showed that the formula the NEB was using to justify that sale was in error and that we needed that natural gas in Canada. They said they were opposed to the sale, but when the chips were down they wouldn’t prove it before the NEB. They let that natural gas slip through their fingers and away from the homes of the people of Ontario.

Then they turn around and prove that all those election debts back on May 22 were worthless currency. The Premier says the increase in the federal excise tax will not promote conservation and will cause serious financial hardships among the disadvantaged. Then he turns around and plans to campaign for Joe Clark so we can get back the excise tax the Premier says would be so damaging to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: What a flip-flop!

Mr. Cassidy: It is a flip-flop.

I want to tell you as well about jobs, Mr. Speaker, because this government doesn’t care about jobs. This government has done nothing concrete in the past year to create the jobs the people of Ontario are going to be needing over the course of the next decade.

Mr. Rotenberg: Nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Wilson Heights should listen for a while.

Mr. Rotenberg: I will be glad to listen if you will tell us something interesting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rotenberg: How many jobs did we create? Tell us how many jobs we created,

Mr. Cassidy: My goodness, he really is yappy today. When the budget was delivered, 285,000 people were unemployed in Ontario according to the seasonally adjusted statistics of Statistics Canada. We warned this government at that time that Ontario had to take the lead in job creation, both in the short term and to confront the major structural problems of our industry.

The government hasn’t done anything about structural problems like foreign ownership. It hasn’t on import penetration. Nothing has been done about the depletion of our resources, the failure of research and development in this province, the failure of skills training in the province and the weaknesses of major industries like the machinery industry and the automobile industry.

Did the unemployment rate go down in November because of this government? Has the number of unemployed gone down because of this government? In March, there were 285,000 unemployed. In November, the seasonally adjusted figure showed there were 288,000 people unemployed in Ontario. We’ve spent seven months absolutely standing still in terms of combating our serious unemployment problem in Ontario. We can’t afford that lost time; we can’t afford those lost opportunities in this province. We’ve got to move forward. We can’t stand still.

Mr. Rotenberg: And how many are working? How many were working seven months ago? Give us that statistic.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the member for Wilson Heights control himself?

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen them quite so excited? Have you ever seen them foam at the mouth that way?

Let me tell them about the centrepiece of the budget. I see the Treasurer is here right now.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was here all afternoon.

Mr. Cassidy: You may remember the way he told us that the Employment Development Fund was going to rescue the economy of Ontario. I remember that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There’s a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Noticing the mood of the House and the enjoyment they are having in the honourable member’s remarks, I wonder if we might have unanimous consent to continue on after six o’clock.

Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m in the hands of my colleagues. I’ve never been so entertained by them for a long time.

Let me put one or two facts on the record which may shake their confidence in the provincial Treasurer and may suggest to them that maybe he should go back to cutting down pine trees in Muskoka. The Treasurer in his off moments runs a small enterprise called Santa’s Village in the town of Bracebridge. I’ve been there. But he is no Santa Claus when it comes down to creating jobs in Ontario.

In seven months, the Employment Development Fund has managed to be given to companies which have promised that in the next five years they will create 2,721 jobs. I exempt the automobile industry. What’s interesting is that from January to June of this year the Ministry of Labour counted 6,079 workers in Ontario who were laid off because of shutdowns in the province.

If I can just give a few specifics, between the budget and today, we’ve had Westinghouse announce 700 jobs lost in Hamilton; 135 jobs lost at the beef terminal; 1,200 jobs lost because of the shutdown of Carrier Shoe; 300 jobs lost in Port Hope because of the shutdown of Winchester -- the rifle factory; 250 jobs lost because of the shutdown of National Steel in Capreol; 600 jobs lost in Steep Rock and Atikokan; 450 jobs affected because of the shutdown of Caland Mine, half now and the rest in May of next year; 435 jobs lost because of the shutdown at Agnew Lake Mines; 120 jobs lost because of the shutdown of Anvil Limited; 93 jobs lost at Simpsons; 50 jobs lost at Frontenac Tile and 50 jobs lost at Hawker-Siddeley. Those are just the big ones.

Exempting the auto industry, the Treasurer as Santa Claus creates the possibility of 2,700 jobs over the next five years at the same time that major manufacturers are shutting down to the tune of 4,493 jobs across the province just in the past seven months.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How about the auto industry?

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, let’s talk about the auto industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m talking about the initiatives of this government, and the initiatives of this government are not creating an effective number of jobs. We have 288,000 people unemployed right now.

If one adds in the Ford plant, which came before the Employment Development Fund, there is a potential for 2,600 jobs there.

But how do those 2,600 jobs go around when currently 13,000 workers across Ontario are on indefinite layoff in the automobile industry because of the slump? This government hasn’t even come to grips with that problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: We lose five jobs under the Tories for every job they hope to create over the course of the next five years.

I want to remind the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry and Tourism as well, since he seems to be rather worked up about it --

An hon. member: He feels guilty.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to remind this House of the principles, outlined by my colleague, our Treasury critic, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), of what we think should be included if there is to be any kind of an incentive program in Ontario. I am quoting my colleague because he said it so well that I couldn’t say it better myself.

“An economic plan must be in place to indicate where we want to be in the next 10 to 20 years. Specific sectors of the economy must be selected and a major commitment made to ensure their growth and success. Repatriation of the economy must be a major part of our economic plan in the province of Ontario.

“A central consideration must be the replacement of imports. We have a manufacturing trade deficit of $12 billion in this country, and the major reason is the weakness of the manufacturing industries in Ontario. Major commitments should be made to specific sectors at any given time so that the incentive program is not dispensed in shotgun-like fashion over a number of sectors with no real impact on any of them.

“The incentives provided to the private sector should have built into them an individually tailored planning agreement” -- we have seen none of those -- “based on a combination of equity participation” -- the people of the province must share -- “of job guarantees for Canadians, environmental protection, research and development, guarantees of commitments to buy Canadian and” -- this is important -- “there must be a guarantee that profits made in this province are reinvested in Canada or reinvested in Ontario.”

The following point is important to my colleague from Nickel Belt, as it is important to myself as a member from eastern Ontario: “Regional development must be a major consideration, whenever practical. We must bring an end to a government which has concentrated all its resources on the development of industry around Metropolitan Toronto and left the rest of the province to want.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What about Westinghouse in Renfrew?

Mr. Cassidy: “Finally, there must be a comprehensive employment impact study.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you resent Westinghouse in Renfrew?

Ms. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: If we had the jobs back in Hamilton, I would accept it, but it is no good terminating 700 jobs and putting 500 up in Renfrew. That’s not good enough. You keep the jobs in Hamilton and you create the jobs in Renfrew.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We put 120 jobs back in Hamilton. Is the member against jobs in Renfrew?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would like to tell the Minister of Industry and Tourism it is not question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: The final principle was that there must be a comprehensive employment impact study to be carried out before any applications are approved. Frankly, I am fed up with seeing public taxpayers’ money go into private companies and then finding that the skilled manpower needed for the jobs that are created is being brought into this province from abroad because of the failure of the manpower training program of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Those are some good principles. I want to say that last spring we had grave reservations about the capacity of this government to build up our economy for the 1980s. We have had real problems that are coming home to roost right now. The centre of gravity of our economy is moving westward in Canada. Ontario now finds it is no longer guaranteed the rapid growth we had during the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. What we have is a government that knew how to govern in good times, which is easy, but can’t cope when it comes to bad times.

Our lack of confidence in the government is reflected in a motion we will be voting on later today, which deplores the failure of the government to recognize the seriousness of the unemployment situation in Ontario and to take effective action to cure it. If the situation looked bad in April, our confidence in Conservatives was further shaken by the performance of the Joe Clark government after it was elected on May 22. Seldom has a government so fresh in office broken so many promises as soon as the Joe Clark government has, since it was elected seven months ago.

They promised to lower interest rates, but raised them to levels which are a record in this country. They promised to stimulate a deficit; then they decided to cut the deficit at the expense of ordinary Canadians. They promised a $2-billion tax cut, instead of which they raised taxes by $3.5 billion, and we in Ontario will be the ones who are paying. I can’t see how the Treasurer is going to go out on the hustings to defend that government. How is he going to defend the federal Tories after the speech he delivered in the Legislature last Thursday, the day the federal government came down?

We had the curious spectacle of Ontario Conservatives deciding to consistently disagree with their federal counterparts for an electoral advantage in Ontario. It went to the point that the Premier of this province held an unprecedented press conference on the night of the federal budget to take issue with John Crosbie and Joe Clark, while the Treasurer delivered a statement on the budget last Thursday which was so detailed, so explicit, so adamantly opposed to the federal budget that I want Frank Miller to know that his speech --

Mr. Speaker: The provincial Treasurer, that is.

Mr. Cassidy: -- is now a part of our speakers’ notes for every New Democratic candidate in the federal election.

It’s a very inconsistent bunch we have to deal with. They denounced the sale of Petro-Canada just after they sold their own shares in Syncrude. This is a government that attacks the sale of natural gas, but fails to criticize the formula under which the sale of that natural gas to the United States was being justified.

The government and the Treasurer here denounce the federal government, the federal Tories, for a budget that will increase inflation and take away 20,000 jobs from the province of Ontario. Where is the prices review board in this province? Why hasn’t the government come to the defence of the consumers of the province? Why don’t we have a prices review board in Ontario?

If this government is going to denounce the federal government for making 20,000 Ontario workers lose their jobs, then, I ask this government, where are the policies to create 20,000 jobs in their place, or to create 288,000 jobs and wipe out unemployment in this province? That’s a goal for the 1980s that all of us should be able to subscribe to.

This is a government that attacks the oil and gas price increases at the federal level, but has failed to give this province an energy strategy that will enable us to use energy efficiently in the province of Ontario. We have the spectacle of our Premier showing all the affection to Joe Clark that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) shows toward Pierre Trudeau.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: You liked that? As we go into the Christmas season, the betting is not on whether the Tories, the Liberals or the New Democrats will form the government on February 18, it’s whether the Premier’s stay in Florida in January will exceed in days the number of miles the Leader of the Opposition travels outside of Hamilton West to campaign for the federal Liberals.

They can’t have it both ways. We need a government in this province that will look after the interests of the people of Ontario. We can’t have a government that condemns the federal Tories one day and then the next day says, "Well, my heart is with the Tories,” which is what the Premier told us, and goes out and tells the people of the province to vote for the dismantlement of Petro-Canada after condemning it, to vote for the 18-cent increase in the excise tax on gasoline after condemning it, to vote for those enormous increases in oil and gas prices after condemning them and to vote for a federal budget which the Premier knows and we know would be a disaster for the people of Ontario.

When the Premier goes on the hustings, I hope every time he appears with Joe Clark he reads this sentence from the Treasurer’s statement to the Legislature last Thursday: “In the view of this government, there must be massive reinvestment of the enormous energy revenues to ensure that the economy of the country does not receive a mortal wound in the next year.”

The Treasurer says the federal budget, which he now supports, will deal a mortal wound in the next year, particularly to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: He is right, and he should stay home during this federal campaign. I address this not just to the government because we know it won’t listen, the Minister of Health won’t listen, and none of them will listen, but I say to the people of this province very seriously that there are serious problems to contend with in Ontario. Some time in the next year or maybe 18 months, we are going to be going to the electorate. We are prepared to go when we are required to. We are going to go to the people of this province. We are going to say we want to defend health care for every resident of Ontario. We are going to say we want to get back to one-price medicare with no excess billing in the province.

We are going to say to the people we cannot tolerate an energy policy which takes billions of dollars from Ontario consumers to put them in the coffers of multinational oil companies and of the heritage fund of Alberta. We are going to say we want an energy policy in this province that ensures we can use energy efficiently. We are going to say this province needs, demands and ought to have a government which in the 1980s can bring forth the industrial strategies that will enable us to cope, that will ensure we have the jobs that we need and that will deal equitably with every person in the province.

We want equity in the 1980s. We want security in the 1980s. Our workers want to know their sons and daughters will have jobs in the 1980s. We want decent pensions in the 1980s. We want decent labour laws in the 1980s and, God knows, we don’t want this government in the 1980s. That is why we moved that motion.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I listened with great interest to the leader of the NDP talk about the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party and the relationships between them and their federal brethren. He made certain remarks about sometimes there being disagreement.

I would say that party is probably the only one where the federal leader doesn’t want to be associated at all with the provincial leader of the party.

It was interesting that the NDP leader should talk about unemployment. It occurs to me that one of his members was willing to face unemployment rather than to fit in the ranks of the --

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is your point of privilege?

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to say I am going to be on the hustings for Ed Broadbent an awful lot more than the member for Rainy River. We are going to take his riding this time as well.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I must say with all honesty that there might be an outside possibility, because there always is in politics, that a riding might change. But if the provincial leader of the NDP goes up there to support his party’s candidate, I can assure him there will be no change at all in that particular riding.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Bellwoods.

PEACE BRIDGE ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. McClellan: I would rather do it now than later in the member’s speech. I have been waiting for the return of the Minister of Community and Social Services to raise a point of privilege in order to correct the record arising from his ministerial statement this afternoon. I will try to be brief but it is important.

The minister said, “I must regretfully inform members of the decision taken by the Peace Bridge Association for the Mentally Retarded in Fort Erie to cease operations on December 31.” My office has been in contact with the executive director, Mr. Ron Goodridge and with the president, Mrs. Bev Rogozinski, of the Peace Bridge Association for the Mentally Retarded. They have denied the substance entirely of the minister’s statement and have released a communique which reads as follows:

“The executive director and the president have denied any knowledge of a decision supposedly taken by their association to cease operations as of December 31. The closing has never seriously been contemplated by the board of directors or the membership. The association has been experiencing financial difficulty as a result of an historical inadequate pattern of funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.”

I want to ask, by way of privilege, if the minister would take the opportunity to inform the House why we were given this information and why the ministry has concocted what appears to be a total fabrication.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to have an opportunity to respond to that point of personal privilege. I acknowledge to the honourable members that since I made my statement in the House today that has been the response of the society. The information upon which my statement was based came from a committee of several persons, three of whom are members of my ministry staff, who have been working with that association since that settlement back in October to try to find solutions. My statement at the time I made it was, and to the best of my knowledge still is, factually correct.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have asked senior staff of my ministry to embark immediately upon a further investigation. If the member notes what the association is now saying, as I understand it, it is suggesting that it might continue with a scaled-down operation. I would also point out we have to check just exactly what they mean by that. If that means low levels of service and dumping all of the money into 53 per cent increases in the salaries of some of their employees, that may not be possible under our funding formula.

Mr. Warner: You are backtracking. Turn in your resignation.

Mr. Foulds: When you make a ministerial statement, you should be sure of your facts.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not backtracking at all. I can say to the honourable member that was the best information available to me at that time. I can assure him I do not make that kind of statement in this House lightly. I assure the member that information at the time I made that statement was accurate to the best of my knowledge and the knowledge of the staff of my ministry who have been working with that society. To the best of my knowledge, the response that has since emanated from the association is a new response.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On most occasions, there’s an appropriate time to rise on a point of privilege. If it’s a point of order dealing with something that’s current, I think one should rise immediately but, given the nature of the point of privilege, it may have been more courteous had you waited until the member for Rainy River completed his speech. The member for Rainy River may continue.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

Mr. T. P. Reid: Where was I before I was so rudely interrupted? The Leader of the NDP was speaking earlier about unemployment in the province of Ontario and, of course, he has some personal experience with that. One of his staff members was willing to quit and face unemployment, rather than stay and serve under that particular leader.

He has an even more personal experience than that in the case of one Mr. Graham Murray, who used to work in the leader’s office and who, I understand, got rather short shrift and found himself one day without the key to the executive NDP washroom. I can say that in at least one instance the NDP leader knows whereof he speaks.

We are leaving the 1970s and entering the 1980s, after 10 years of the Davis government in the province of Ontario. I could spend literally hours on a litany of what has happened to the province under the Premier, but we’ve been over most of those things. Suffice it to say there will probably be about three major reasons for the Premier to be remembered in the history books, and I think not fondly.

The first is what the Premier has done, almost singly, to the education system in the province. The Premier and his predecessors used to skate away from all responsibility in other areas by saying: “We will get rid of that minister or I’ll fire that minister,” or whatever, but in terms of education in the province of Ontario there is only one person responsible and that is the Premier.

I’m not going to go over the fantastic increases in the levels of expenditure for which the Premier is responsible in this burgeoning bureaucracy at Queen’s Park, at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and in the regional administration. There’s something wrong when these superintendents are making more money than the Premier. Perhaps he thought he was going to retire prematurely and become one. The point of all of this is that despite all of the money that has been spent, people, whether they be individuals, parents or employers, are obviously dissatisfied with the quality of education in the province of Ontario. The member for York Mills shakes her head. Why do the universities have to give people tests to see if they have some basic literacy skills after all the system her government has put in place at enormous cost to the taxpayer? It has let the standards of education go. People who are coming out of the other end are not prepared to deal with life as it is in Ontario or will be in the 1980s because of the system the government has erected.

The next thing is the complete absence of any kind of industrial strategy for the province of Ontario.

It was obvious that it was easy to govern in the early 1970s when the Premier took over the reins of government because we had, until 1973 at least, a growing and a burgeoning economy. The government’s answer to every problem was to throw money at it in the hope the problem would go away or people would be bought off. It didn’t really deal with the nuts and bolts of what’s going on and what’s going to happen in the 1980s.

When I think there are 75,000 civil servants backing those people up over there, the mind boggles at the incompetence and the lack of planning they have done. One of the best speeches I’ve heard in 12 years in this Legislature was that given by my leader on industrial strategy for the province. I don’t see one from across the road. I don’t see one from the government’s federal friend, Mr. Clark, who ran on a policy of having an industrial strategy and in seven months said not one word about it. There is no planning going on in Ontario. There’s no planning for the 1980s. We’re entering a new decade with some serious problems and nothing is coming out of the people opposite to say how they are going to deal with those kinds of problems.

Obviously -- and I feel this very personally -- there has been no planning in northern Ontario to expand the industrial structure of that part of the province.

The Treasurer’s predecessor made a great statement that still echoes in northern Ontario about the fact that there will never be anything in northern Ontario except resource industries. I understand that my friend, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, has made similar statements in North Bay, because at this Tory meeting there happened to be somebody who became a Liberal after he listened to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. My leader has recounted the net migration from the province and the fact that the value added in the province in percentage terms has decreased and is the lowest increase in Canada. We know we have structural problems in the economy.

When I think about the net migration out of Ontario of about 5,000 people, it occurs to me that very shortly there’ll probably be 5,058 people as all the Tories leave to get away from Joe Clark and head south.

An hon. member: Are you going south?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Unfortunately, I’m going to Kenora-Rainy River. It has been suggested to me that by the time the Premier comes back, he’ll probably be speaking in a very heavy southern accent because he will have been down there for so long.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I expect to see your leader there.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are they going to play tennis together?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’ll see Smith for Pierre in Sarasota, Florida.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And Davis against Clark in Miami Beach.

It’s interesting that as we wind up, I’ve just been handed a copy of something I have been trying to get for years. It’s called Public Attitudes Towards Education in Ontario. It’s a public opinion poll commissioned by one of the agencies of the government. It makes fascinating reading because it indicates, obviously, the Conservative Party has been using these polls to direct public policy in Ontario. If we refer to this, we can look and see that what few initiatives there have been have been based on the public opinion polls the Premier and the government refuse to release, but for which the taxpayers have paid.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How about those myths in the Ministry of the Environment you won’t tell us about? You’re an honest man.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What is he talking about? As usual, I don’t know what the Premier is talking about.

I was going to quote chapter and verse on all the things the Premier said about his federal leader. I was going to repeat chapter and verse from the Treasurer’s statement, which I am sure he wouldn’t have given on Thursday afternoon had he known what was going to happen Thursday evening. But the Treasurer has always been noted for his bad timing. There is no point in going over all that.

Mr. Nixon: That shows great respect for the Treasurer.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I don’t want to get too personal. I don’t want to repeat all of that, except to say to the Premier wholeheartedly that I hope he will review his decision to support Joe Clark in the next election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you reviewing your decision to support your brother?

Mr. T., P. Reid: No. He is my brother, but he is also a member of the Liberal-Labour Party, and we can’t afford to lose any of those.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Blood is stronger than public interest.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I know the Premier has heard this before and I am sure he will hear it again. On page 23 of his statement to the last first ministers’ conference the Premier said:

“Each of us in representing our own province will have different interests and, consequently, will see our country a little differently as well. But, in the final analysis, the government of Canada accounts directly to all the people of Canada. There is a view being advanced that Canada is a community of communities or a nation of provinces and that our country is made stronger, not by building the whole but by strengthening the separate parts.

“In some measure, Prime Minister, that may be true, so long as province-building does not replace nation-building as the most ambitious goal of Canadians. Thus the government of Canada must stand, not merely as an arbitrator of community differences but the guardian of the nation as a whole.”

Those are sentiments I agree with entirely. They are sentiments I hope the Premier will recall when he goes out on the hustings and finally decides he should protect not only the people of Ontario, but the people of Canada from Joe Clark.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it’s nice to welcome the new leader of the Liberal Party here this evening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Liberal-Labour Party.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Liberal-Labour Party.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Liberal-Labour Party. Has that got something to do with my Premier’s comments about your contribution to the youth of this province -- the labour part of it, I mean?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s a labour of love.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Keep it clean.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, most of my aggravation will be vented at the leader of the NDP because he did say a few things I found a bit interesting today. He talked about this having been the decade of lost opportunity, the decade of all the troubles. For members opposite, it certainly was a decade of lost opportunity. The member for Ottawa Centre was elected to the leadership of the NDP, while the other fellows opposite have a man who isn’t even here this evening.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The leader of the NDP talked a great deal about a number of his pet topics. He talked about health care and decried the condition of health care in this province. He wanted to make it sound as though there wasn’t a soul in this province who dared to go to see a doctor for fear of being shifted off to some unscrupulous whatever-he-may-be person, willing to take his money but give nothing in return. He is a bogeyman. He deals in fear and fantasy. He doesn’t deal with the reality.

The member said our Minister of Health hasn’t got our confidence or his confidence. I will tell him that he has ours.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He has the confidence of a great many people in this province.

It is interesting to see what happens when the great country to the south of us, the United States of America, decides it will emulate a program. Where does it turn? It turns to Ontario to find what it considers to be the finest health care system, not just in North America, but in the world.

The member started talking a lot about oil and energy and the problems of oil and energy. I think he talked about blue-eyed Arabs. If we extend that, we will say all we want is a fair shake.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At the prices I pay for writers, what else do you expect?

I got an interesting piece off the wire a few minutes ago. The member was ranting and raving about the losses of this government in energy. This afternoon the Prime Minister of Canada says that Petrocan will remain in the public domain. He is going to give out shares to Canadians, and it will remain.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s something we said in our papers. We have been heard and we have won.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The leader of the Liberals just quoted a few minutes ago something about the Premier’s comments on building a strong Canada. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he has been convinced that a strong Canada is the most important thing and that he is going to work towards that direction. We have been heard and will continue to be heard.

He talked about revenue distribution. I talked about it in my paper last week. The Prime Minister of Canada has said that one of the first things he will do when he wins the next election is to have a serious review and study of the revenue distribution of oil revenues in this country and that it will be done in Canada’s interests.

He has already said the price of oil will not exceed 85 per cent of US pricing, another factor we kept on saying.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would say Ontario’s paper on energy clearly and honestly stated the issues publicly, even though it was against the people we basically support, and it has been heard. We stood up for the consumers of this province loudly, strongly and firmly, and we have been heard.

Mr. Breaugh: Why didn’t they hear you last week? I don’t understand.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Where does the real irresponsibility lie? This country deserved a government in power, a government given a chance to run. Which party moved the motion that put them out in the street? The member’s party did. He would support hypocritically any stand of his cohorts in Ottawa.

We are not afraid to stand up for the interests of the people we represent, all the while recognizing that at least we had a government there that understood it inherited 16 years of totally irresponsible financial management in this country and was able to put it back on a course.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can understand why the member probably never saved any money or even made any progress in business. He only counts one way. He deducts. He has never learned to add.

He stood up and read into the record all the jobs lost. I just happen to have the figures here. All the jobs lost add up to 167,000 more people at work in Ontario today than a year ago. In addition, two negatives don’t make a positive. I used to teach mathematics. I don’t know where the member learned his.

He talked about import penetration and import replacement. He talked about regional development. Today I had the honour of being in eastern Ontario for the signing of the eastern Ontario DREE agreement with the federal government. That is an agreement we negotiated with the federal Liberals for four years. In six months we got the Conservatives to sign.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does it cover Conway’s riding?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It covers Conway’s riding, but it won’t be his riding for long.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ll gladly give him a franchise in Pembroke. He does say “Ho, Ho, Ho” very nicely, say it again. Can he grow a heard yet?

Regional development is something this province has stressed. There will be a northern agreement with DREE very shortly, I’m quite sure, and it will be signed before this coming election.

In Cornwall today, we were pleased to note grants to one company exporting $10 million worth of equipment per year to the States in heavy truck bodies because of an Employment Development Fund grant. I was glad to give another grant to another company, establishing in Canada for the first time, in Cornwall, manufacturing facilities to make carpets in Canada that have been previously imported.

Those are the kinds of things we’ve done constructively, piece by piece, throughout this year with the budget, as we said we would in April, when I stood up.

Some members said we were going to have to go to the electorate sometime soon. Yes, that’s true. I’m afraid, unlike them, we’re not going to go by the electorate. We’ll still be here when the election is over. Where do they want to be? They want to be here in the 1980s and they’re not going to be. We are going to be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Back at Carleton or in some academic environment.

Hon. F. S. Miller: When I turn to the Liberal comments, and I’ve used up my 10 minutes, I find their spokesman has gone. I was going to say nice things. I had prepared a whole lot of things, hoping there would be something to respond to, but he is the best boxer I have run into. There were a whole bunch of feints and a whole series of shifts, but nothing left to attack.

We set out with our budget this year to achieve a number of objectives: to maintain a high quality of public service in Ontario, and we did; to help create more jobs, and we did; and to provide incentives for economic growth and small business development, and we did. The Small Business Development Corporation legislation, which was pooh-poohed by a lot of people, now has 21 corporations incorporated and over a hundred lined up to be approved. These are average Ontario citizens investing in their province in the form of equity, something we determined we would do at the start of the year.

We said we would continue our sound management of provincial spending, and we have. This year our incomes have exceeded our expectations in Ontario very nicely because of the spirit of confidence in this province that investors and management have. We’ve had the best year ever for investment in capital works in this province, I’m very delighted to say.

I could go on for a long time. I could recite a lot more things. Is there any place you would rather be? I don’t think so. Ontario is the best.

Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, April 10, Hon. F. S. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

On April 19, Mr. Laughren moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, an amendment as follows:

That all the words after “that” be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:

“This House deplores the government’s failure to recognize the seriousness of the unemployment problem in Ontario by providing any full-time jobs; rejects the increase in OHIP premiums and other regressive taxes, while doing nothing to protect consumers against rising prices; condemns the lack of commitment to rebuilding any specific industry within our manufacturing sector and the failure to attach any performance and employment guarantees to its Employment Development Fund; opposes the continued giveaways of our mineral resources; and, finally, condemns the shift of the cost of education and social services to municipalities. For these reasons, the government no longer enjoys the confidence of this House.”

The first question to be decided is the amendment by Mr. Laughren.

All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Call in the members.

The House divided on the amendment by Mr. Laughren, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bounsall, Breaugh, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Di Santo, Dukszta, Foulds, Germa, Grande, Isaacs, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lawlor, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Swart, Warner, Wildman, Young and Ziemba.

Nays

Ashe, Auld, Baetz, Belanger, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Breithaupt, Brunelle, Campbell, Conway, Cunningham, Cureatz, Davis, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Gaunt, Gregory, Grossman, Hall, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson.

Johnson, J., Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Lane, Maeck, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Miller, F. S., Newman, B., Newman, W., Nixon, Norton, O’Neil, Parrott, Pope.

Ramsay, Reed, J., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Rotenberg, Rowe, Ruston, Smith, G. E., Stephenson, Sterling, Stong, Sweeney, Taylor, G., Timbrell, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton and Yakabuski.

Ayes 27; nays 70.

The House divided on the original motion by Hon. F. S. Miller, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried. It is resolved that this House approves in general the budgetary policies of this government.

SUPPLY ACT

The following bill was given first, second and third readings on motion by Hon. F. S. Miller:

Bill 212, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Mr. Speaker: Before I leave the chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members for their co-operation during this session, and the staff of the assembly for their continued service to the members and to wish you a safe trip home, a merry Christmas and a happy 1980.

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

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sitting thereof, passed several bills to which in the name and On behalf of the said Legislative Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent

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

Bill 24, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971;

Bill 77, An Act to amend the Crown Timber Act;

Bill 149, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act;

Bill 150, An Act to amend the Registry Act;

Bill 154, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973;

Bill 159, An Act to amend the Family Law Reform Act, 1978;

Bill 161, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act;

Bill 162, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act, 1978;

Bill 170, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974;

Bill 171, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act;

Bill 173, An Act to amend the Municipal Act;

Bill 174, An Act respecting the Composition of the Council of the Town of Midland;

Bill 175, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 176, An Act to amend the Architects Act;

Bill 177, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971;

Bill 178, An Act to provide for the Enforcement of Interprovincial Subpoenas;

Bill 179, The Powers of Attorney Act, 1979;

Bill 180, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, 1976;

Bill 181, An Act to provide for the Consolidation and Revision of the Statutes;

Bill 182, An Act to provide for the Consolidation and Revision of the Regulations;

Bill 194, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975;

Bill 195, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 1973;

Bill 204, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act;

Bill 209, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act;

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of London

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of North Bay

Bill Pr30, An Act to revive South Russell Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr31, An Act to revive Sarnia Portable Equipment Rentals Limited;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

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

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, we, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and faithful subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty’s person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour’s acceptance, a bill entitled An Act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Clerk of the House: The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty’s name.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to deliver the following gracious speech:

PROROGATION SPEECH

Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly: The close of this third session of the 31st Parliament of Ontario also marks the end of a decade. As a province, Ontario has made great strides throughout the 1970s, despite certain economic difficulties which few countries have escaped in recent years. As a nation, the 1970s have brought us to the edge of one of the most critical moments in our history, as Quebec determines its future within Canada,

Today, as at the start of the decade, Ontario continues its unflagging efforts to promote the cause of “Canada first,” in policies which the government feels are important to the nation as a whole. Significantly, the government can cite from the early 1970s the positive actions which stemmed from the work of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, appointed by this Legislature. Again, in Ontario’s stand on energy pricing, consistently held since the mid-decade, the interests of the nation have remained paramount. But among the most vigorous manifestations of this approach is the recent rejection of the sovereignty-association proposal of the government of Quebec.

In looking ahead to the 1980s, my government reaffirms its belief in the ultimate wisdom of its philosophy, which takes as given that the future will be better if shared by all Canadians working in harmony, one with another. At the same time, looking back on this session, the record shows a substantial number of achievements which reflect a deep sense of duty and commitment to the interests of the people of Ontario on the part of all members of this House.

Unfortunately, in 1979, nature was not always kind to certain areas of Ontario. In the first part of the year, ice storms and flooding made emergency assistance and special funding arrangements necessary in 10 areas of the province. Similar assistance was also provided as a result of the severe tornado damage in Oxford and Brant counties in August. Last month, what could have become an overwhelming disaster in the city of Mississauga was averted by the dedicated service of the men and women who work in our fire, police, hospital and related services, and by the highly laudable sense of order exhibited by the quarter of a million citizens directly affected.

The plight of the boat people and of refugees in southeast Asia has been of enormous concern to the government and people of Ontario who have assisted both in relocation and settlement of several thousand individuals and families in the province, as well as in providing emergency relief through the Canadian Red Cross for thousands more in refugee camps in the Far East.

The observance of 1979 as the International Year of the Child was marked in numerous ways throughout the province. Within the government, the children’s services legislation package, which received royal assent last year, was proclaimed in June. The legislation covers amendments to almost all areas of social service to children and includes provisions governing child abuse, adoption procedures and day-care services -- all of which have the singular aim of serving the best interests of children.

Special attention has been paid to the health of young children through a highly successful immunization program against communicable diseases. Of equal, if not greater, significance is the fact that by expanding the provincial screening program for newborns to include detection of hypothyroidism, about 30 babies who would almost certainly have been mentally retarded now have a good chance for healthy, normal lives.

Already preparations are under way to observe 1981 as the International year of the Handicapped, with governments and organizations developing initiatives that respond to the needs and desires of handicapped citizens. One recent major initiative of this government was the creation of a province-wide program of subsidies to municipalities to provide transportation facilities for the physically handicapped. The program, which began on July 1, follows on experimental services run in five cities over the previous two to three years. The pilot projects themselves are now permanent program’s.

The new Residential Tenancies Act has been proclaimed, with the exception of certain sections which are the basis of a constitutional reference to the Court of Appeal. Under the act, the residential premises rent review program is continued throughout the province in a form that will simplify and improve the process for landlords and tenants.

Major legal reforms have been the hallmark of the Ontario justice system over the past several years, and 1979 has been no exception. A new Provincial Offences Act sets out a code of procedures for the prosecution of provincial offences as distinct from offences under the Criminal Code of Canada where past rigidities may often have appeared to be less than just. The built-in flexibility of this new legislation is likely to attract greater respect from the public at large by relating penalties for minor offences more closely to the nature of the offence.

At the same time, greater responsibility is being asked of Ontario drivers who are now obliged by law to carry a minimum of $100,000 in third-party liability insurance on all motor vehicles. This is the main purpose of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act which took effect December 1, and which also provides for the formation of an insurance industry pool to ensure that high risk drivers have access to coverage.

The Evidence Act has been amended to permit the use of the official translation of statutes in French-language court proceedings. This measure falls on the government’s undertaking to prepare official translations of 150 select statutes over the next four years, for which task a special legal translation unit has been set up in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Ontario’s economy has, by any reasonable standard, fared well in the 1970s. Ontarians have been spared the undue hardship that might have occurred without the timely adoption of a program of restraint in government spending that began in the middle of the decade. Nevertheless, it is the government’s continuing endeavour to temper the obvious limitations required by fiscal restraint with an ever-present awareness of the needs of our citizens and of the community as a whole.

Municipal governments can look forward in 1980 to an average increase in provincial grants of over 10 per cent. In addition, unorganized communities may now make use of a special mechanism to facilitate the provision of such basic services as fire protection, water supply and street lighting. Through the Local Services Board Act, residents and property owners in these communities may create corporate boards with powers to revise these services. This legislation will be particularly useful in communities in northern Ontario.

Ontario’s budgetary policies paid high dividends last year in terms of the creation of over 130,000 jobs in the province, all of them in the private sector. Projections run to about 140,000 new jobs for the current year. Efforts to create jobs for young people also produced better results this year, with the Ontario youth employment program providing over 40,000 jobs in the private sector over a six-month period. Government wage subsidy costs for this program will run to about $26 million. A seven-member advisory council on equal employment opportunities for women was formed in March. The Ministry of Labour is relying on the joint co-operation of high-level labour management representation on this body to provide invaluable assistance in securing better prospects for women in the work place.

More than 20 Small Business Development Corporations have been registered since the announcement of this new incentive program in the Ontario budget last April. The program is helping to stimulate private sector investment where it is most needed, in manufacturing and processing, tourism, and mineral exploration, by encouraging equity investments in Ontario-based small businesses. In other budget measures aimed at stimulating investment, succession duties and gift taxes have been abolished in Ontario.

The government has taken up the challenge to ensure that the opportunities facing our manufacturing sector and the accompanying demand for skilled labour are met. The province has promoted the formation of community industrial training committees under the employer-sponsored training program.

The Employment Development Fund, established in the spring, is securing the development and expansion of manufacturing enterprises that will create long-term employment. The fund is also being used as the source of needed incentives to the pulp and paper industry whose modernization it is widely agreed, is imperative both in productive and environmental terms.

At the same time, Ontario must capitalize on the tariff advantages gained at the Tokyo round of GATT negotiations, which were concluded this summer, and make necessary adjustments where the rules are less in favour. In its consultations with Ottawa, the province has persistently underlined the key role required of the federal government in this area, if markets are to be maintained and enhanced both at home and abroad.

In the constant, watchful concern of government and the public about the quality of our environment, the problem of acid rain has become a major area of focus. Intensified research programs are being carried out involving the monitoring and analysis of effects on fish and other aquatic life. Some of this research funding is being made available from proceeds of the provincial lottery.

The studies also underline the basic goals and objectives for water quality and management in Ontario, which were published earlier in the year. The government’s policies, as set out in this document, have been updated according to newest scientific development and criteria established in the international Great Lakes water quality agreement.

The negative effects of increasing energy costs on the economy and the question of security of supplies are a source of concern to the government. While Ontario has had a good record in energy management and conservation over the past several years, there must be a resolve by our institutions, industries and by individual citizens to do much more. This resolve is our strongest weapon against any possibility of inconvenience or hardship.

Honourable members, the scope of these issues and your efforts in addressing them speak well of the loyalty you bear to this province and to the wider interests of our nation. Ontarians can look back on the 1970s with a feeling that our people have made much progress. But, more important, we look to the new decade with optimism because we know we have the required abilities, resources and resilience to serve our highest aspirations.

On behalf of the people of Ontario, I thank you especially for your endeavours and accomplishments during this session. May I wish you the joys of the season and a safe and happy holiday among your families and friends.

I now declare the session prorogued.

In our Sovereign’s name, I thank you.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker and honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, it is the will and pleasure of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued and this Legislative Assembly is accordingly prorogued.

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

The House prorogued at 7:30 p.m.