Hansard Transcripts 1980-Jun-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a short point of privilege: I was obviously concerned this morning to read in the early edition of the toronto star the suggestion that the very successful dinner put on last evening by the st. Andrew-st. Patrick progressive conservative association was cast in that article as having raised money for “general funds for grossman’s expenses.” Would that were the case, but i must assure my colleagues in the legislature that the dinner was conducted pursuant to the election finances reform act and of course all funds were payable to and for the sole use of the st. Andrew-st. Patrick progressive conservative association.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

APPOINTMENT OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my personal pleasure with the federal government’s selection of a Lieutenant Governor for our province.

I have known John Black Aird for more than 20 years and, while we have differed on occasion in political terms, I have always admired him for his commitment and dedication to the public good. Mr. Aird’s interests, experience and knowledge are extremely varied and widespread, touching upon the social, economic and cultural aspects of this province, and I think will serve him well in the important duty of representing Her Majesty in Ontario.

There will be more fitting occasions for all of us to express our deep-felt respect, admiration and affection for the great lady whom Mr. Aird will succeed as Lieutenant Governor, but I believe I would be remiss in my duties if I did not allude to something that Mr. Aird has already mentioned himself -- the challenge of succeeding someone who has indeed captured the hearts and minds of people across this province because of her outstanding dedication, grace and commitment.

Throughout her tenure, the Honourable Pauline McGibbon has displayed a deep understanding of the importance of her role and a very warm and genuine affection for the Queen and other members of the royal family whom she has so ably represented.

Over the years, we in this province have been fortunate in the choice of Lieutenant Governors and I know Mr. Aird will be a worthy successor in this tradition. Mr. Aird’s service to this country has always been outstanding and I know he considers his new appointment to be another way to continue that spirit of loyalty and dedication.

As one who has always taken a deep and abiding interest in the polities and legal framework of this nation, he is, I know, especially pleased to serve in public life at this particular time as thoughtful Canadians everywhere commit themselves to the reframing of our constitution and the rededication of our love for this country and its future.

On behalf of the government of this province, I take this opportunity to extend very sincere congratulations to Mr. Aird on the announcement of his appointment, and my sincere best wishes as he prepares to begin his new role this coming fall.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the official opposition, we most certainly want to associate ourselves with the words of the Premier and the sentiments expressed by him. John Aird is a person who has served this country extremely well in a good many capacities, as the Premier has noted, and I know we in Ontario are very fortunate to have had a succession of dedicated, outstanding people to represent Her Majesty in this province.

I think the person who is at present Lieutenant Governor is an absolutely outstanding example, one which will be virtually impossible for anyone, even someone as talented as Mr. Aird, to exceed, although one hopes that with effort he will match it. Her contribution has been a singular one and she is held in high esteem by every Ontarian, particularly by those who have had occasion to see the tireless way in which she has handled the task assigned to her.

We are particularly happy, of course, that Mr. Aird is a person who has not only contributed greatly in many fields in Canada, in business, the military and others, but has also shown excellent political judgement. I am sure the Premier will agree. I may say that these of us on this side, particularly yours truly, look forward to the opportunity of advising him once he takes his new position.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, we in this party also welcome the announcement and welcome Mr. Aird to his new duties. As always loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, we will extend the co-operation that this party is noted for to the new Lieutenant Governor.

Frankly, I do not know Mr. Aird as well as do the two previous speakers. However, I am sure we will get to know Mr. Aird perhaps better than the two other parties in the future.

I would like to say a word on behalf of the New Democratic Party in honour of the person Mr. Aird will succeed. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone in this province or in this Legislature that the Honourable Pauline McGibbon has fulfilled the office with a dedication and distinction that few could have expected and few, even Mr. Aird, will exceed.

2:10 p.m.

SATELLITE EARTH STATIONS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Snow: Last week the chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced his intention to commence prosecutions, where evidence and circumstances warrant it, against unauthorized earth stations being used to receive television programs from United States satellites.

I need not point out to members of this House how serious such a move would be. As you in particular know, Mr. Speaker, many communities throughout the northern part of our province are today employing the latest in technology to reduce the isolation that has plagued them for years. Residents of these communities would not accept lightly any move to turn off these earth stations which are bringing in a wide range of television stations. The people of the north stated this clearly to the CRTC at a public hearing in Geraldton which you, Mr. Speaker, had the good fortune to attend.

I share the concern of our northern residents who are no less Canadian and no less law-abiding than the average Ontarian. Residents of the north have been forced to resort to nontraditional means in order to gain access to a range of television signals that my own constituents take for granted. The disparities in television service in Canada are great and technology exists today to redress this imbalance.

In March I submitted to a specially constituted CRTC committee, on which Ontario is represented, a proposal designed to alleviate the problems faced by northern Ontarians. This proposal, if accepted, would see a range of Canadian television stations distributed via satellite throughout the country. I am pleased with the support this proposal has received, including your own, Mr. Speaker. A decision is expected in mid-June and I am hopeful that a range of attractive Canadian television stations could be made available by the fall. I would be pleased if residents of northern Ontario would choose to watch Canadian television stations and I have every reason to expect they would choose to do so if Canadian stations were available.

My message today to the CRTC and the federal government is simple, and I would hope that all members of this House would join me in this expression of views. It is this: Hands off the earth stations in northern Ontario; concentrate on ensuring the availability of attractive Canadian signals and the problem will resolve itself. The people of the north have been waiting for television for a long time and some have taken action to get it. Don’t ask these people to give it up and to go back to waiting for policy makers, regulators and, I might say, politicians to solve this problem.

I respectfully urge the CRTC and the federal government to take these words to heart and not to interrupt the reception that northerners have been eagerly awaiting for so long.

THREE SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, in the last several weeks there has been a good deal of public discussion about the fate of Three Schools in Toronto. Unfortunately, much of this public discussion has been surrounded by confusion and misunderstanding.

As honourable members know, Three Schools has been providing alternative art education in Toronto for a generation. In recognition of this contribution, Ontario taxpayers from every part of the province have provided substantial financial support to this Toronto school through the provincial government.

In 1973-74, the government granted Three Schools $40,000 for operating purposes. In 1974-75, the government provided a core grant of $46,000. Above and beyond that, in that year it provided a special supplementary grant of $70,000 so that Three Schools could retire its debt. In each year since, the increase in the province’s core operating grant to Three Schools has never gone below nine per cent and, in fact, has averaged out at 17 per cent. In the school’s current fiscal year, which ends August 31, the core operating grant is $100,000. This means Three Schools is getting from the province 30 per cent of every dollar it spends.

That is a significant contribution, especially when it is compared to the 10.3 per cent that is granted to the Toronto School of Art, the 13.8 per cent granted to the Ottawa School of Art and the 15.9 per cent granted to Arts’ Sake Incorporated school. Besides these other alternative art schools, the taxpayer also supports full- and part-time art courses in universities, community colleges and programs sponsored by boards of education. No matter how you look at it, I would suggest the record demonstrates that the people of Ontario, through this government, have been extraordinarily sensitive to the needs and wishes of Three Schools.

As far as the coming year is concerned, I have indicated to Three Schools that the provincial core operating grant will be about $105,000. Three Schools has said publicly that this is simply not enough, that it needs $180,000 from the province, an increase of 80 per cent, or it will close down tomorrow. Given the evidence, I cannot in all good conscience raise the provincial core operating grant to Three Schools. Every arts organization in this province is facing a very tight financial situation. My ministry gets hundreds of compelling and legitimate requests for support every year. My task is to strike a reasonable and equitable balance among these requests. In the case of Three Schools, I believe the balance is eminently appropriate.

I would suggest Three Schools has two avenues beyond closing. It can tailor its program to fit its income, and it can try to raise more money in the nongovernment sector by soliciting gifts and raising fees. This year the funds it raised privately accounted for nine per cent of its budget. The Toronto School of Art raised 24.5 per cent of its budget privately and Arts’ Sake Inc. raised 32.7 per cent of its budget privately.

So there is clearly an active interest among private individuals and organizations in tangibly supporting alternative art education generally. In the case of Three Schools specifically, there is articulate evidence of broad public support. If it can somehow translate that sentiment into hard cash, it will go a long way to relieving the financial pressure it faces.

Three Schools clearly needs some time to mount its new fund-raising initiatives. To give it that time, and to avoid a precipitous closing of Three Schools tomorrow, I am prepared to discuss interim financing arrangements with it. These one-time-only arrangements would be designed to give Three Schools the time either to increase its revenues from other sources or, failing that, to adapt its programs accordingly.

The governments of Canada and Metropolitan Toronto could well have money for Three Schools. There is also striking potential in raising fees by an amount that would not place an onerous burden on students. An increase in fees of only 25 cents per student per week, for instance, would generate an extra $45,000 a year for Three Schools.

My objectives are clear. First, I must ensure we sustain the integrity of the arts support program that all the taxpayers of Ontario finance through their provincial government. Second, I want to do everything appropriate I can to ensure that Three Schools remains open. I have already advised Mr. Sim, the director of Three Schools, of my intentions to discuss interim financing with the school, and I look forward to meeting with its officials. I am confident that solutions to the Three Schools problems can be found.

WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I know you do not have a statement from me today, but there is something here I would like to read. It is not exactly a statement, so I hope this is the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: Just call it a statement.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, all of us on occasion have, in our good fortune to serve as members, the opportunity to meet fascinating people in that role. In this last week we have had an opportunity to meet with the founder of Men of Trees, a worldwide movement. Indeed, he presented a lecture here for us in the Queen’s Park complex. He is a gentleman of -- I think he would accept -- advanced years, but one of the most fascinating persons I have ever met.

Just five minutes ago, I had the great pleasure and privilege of joining with him and planting a tree outside your office, Mr. Speaker. When you return, you will be able to see that tree.

He truly is a magnificent person. When one considers the tremendous good that man has done and the great vigour with which he still leads his life, one cannot help but be impressed. Today I signed with him this declaration on World Environment Day. Interestingly enough, it is labelled “A Personal Declaration” and he was the first to sign it. May I read it to you?

2:20 p.m.

“Today, June 5, 1980, World Environment Day, I declare my recognition of the urgency of regaining a balance between humanity’s activities on earth and the delicate equilibrium of the natural ecosystem.”

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There are times when I think this House deserves no partisan politics. The honour of this man, of what this man has done around the world, can never he in doubt. May I continue, Mr. Speaker? The Leader of the Opposition just can’t ever be civil. It is really sad.

“The survival of humanity and the welfare of future generations depend on a healthy environment. As a citizen of the world, I pledge to take immediate action, individually and together with others, to improve my own awareness of the state of our environment and to contribute to the improvement of my individual and immediate environment.

“I will inspire other people through personal example to respect the animals, the plants, the trees, the wildlife, people of all backgrounds, and the energies controlling nature.

“As we gather here today, old and young, civil servants and members of the public, but forming a family, let us secure, at least, a bright future for our children as we have had so far.”

That is signed by Dr. Richard St. Barbe Baker, OBE, LDD, LLD, silviculturist, one of the world’s great environmentalists.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GRANT TO RACING CAR DRIVER

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism having to do with the grant made for Mr. Maurice Carter to have his Camaro in Le Mans.

The minister justifies this by saying, “It is the first Canadian-owned and Canadian-built car to be invited to Le Mans.”

I ask the minister how he can make that statement in view of the fact that another Canadian car had previously been invited to Le Mans and will be racing there this year under a Mr. Doug Rowe? No government funds are being used by that Canadian car; they got their own sponsors to pay for it.

Furthermore, Mr. Rowe’s entire team is Canadian, whereas Mr. Carter’s team has some Americans; and the engine designed in Concord, Ontario, to be used in Mr. Carter’s Camaro, which the minister feels is such a marvellous example, is the same engine, designed in the same place, which will be used in the Corvette, Canadian-designed and Canadian-built, to be used by the other team to which I am referring.

Finally this other team, without government funds, is planning to travel to Le Mans using Canadian airlines whereas Mr. Carter’s team has taken the ministry’s money and booked themselves on Air France.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I know the matter of Maurice Carter consumes a lot of the Leader of the Opposition’s time. I know it troubles him a great deal to see the people he beat have more success in their fields of endeavour than he is having in his.

However, may I make this point: This country badly needs some recognition internationally for the fine work its people do in the automotive sector. These engines, as the Leader o the Opposition has acknowledged himself, are not only being used by this car but are being used by racing cars throughout the world, including Americans who have bought some of the engines.

We have an opportunity now to see a car, built uniquely in Ontario, race under Canadian colours rather than seeing Americans come in and buy the car, as they were about to do, and race it under the Stars and Stripes of the United States.

In spite of the fact that he happens to rankle the Leader of the Opposition a great deal, Mr. Maurice Carter is driving a Canadian vehicle. He could have found that vehicle owned and driven by Americans, covered with the Stars and Stripes, and I, for one, am prepared to put $15,000 up to ensure not only that it runs under Canadian colours but also that is advertises Ontario, Canada.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps, I am as proud of Ontario, Canada, as the Americans are of their jurisdictions, and I am prepared to have $15,000 of the taxpayers money invested to boast about the great things that the Canadian automotive industry can do. It will do that. It will race at Le Mans. I suspect Mr. Maurice Carter may do better against the Le Mans drivers than he did against the Leader of the Opposition, but I am proud that our vehicle will be driven at Le Mans.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister explain how it is that he assured the people who questioned him on this matter that it was the first Canadian-owned and Canadian-built car to be invited to Le Mans when, in fact, it was not? Could the minister explain why the tickets, are on Air France instead of a Canadian-owned airline?

If the minister is so concerned about the matter of making sure that the Canadian ear is not under the Stars and Stripes, is lie not aware that this other ear -- which Mr. Carter most well know about, because it was in Wheelspin News of May 1 of this year -- is being sponsored by Canadians?

Mr. Roy: Didn’t the minister know that?

Mr. S. Smith: He reads it. The team comes from across Canada, with drivers from Ontario, Quebec and western Canada, and the car has a maple leaf on it two feet square. The main reason the car is going is there are Canadian backers who want to see a car like that from Canada, and who did not come to the government with their hands out, the way the minister’s friend did.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say that the other car was successful in getting enough private backing to make the trip. The fact is this particular vehicle did not have enough backing to make the trip.

The question the Leader of the Opposition must ask himself is whether he would be happier if the car were racing under American colours than under those of Ontario, Canada. That is the fact.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, when he gets his next issue of Wheelspin News, can cheek and see whether Americans were prepared to buy the vehicle.

While I am on my feet, I think I should address another part of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day on this subject, when he commented that it was hard to explain to the mentally retarded and the handicapped of this province how we could be spending $15,000 on this vehicle.

I say to him that some of the questions he raises today are legitimate questions. I feel we can defend them, but they are legitimate questions. The point I wish to make is that it is surely the height of political hypocrisy to put the disabled in a position of believing that this vehicle is running instead of giving the money to those people. It was one of the lowest levels I have seen here in a long time.

I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition saying to us: “Don’t spend $200,000 on opening a new Ministry of Industry and Tourism office in Hamilton. Spend that $200,000 instead on the crippled and disabled.”

Mr. S. Smith: We didn’t know the minister had opened it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member was invited, but he was home studying Wheelspin News that day.

A lot of the Leader of the Opposition’s constituents are using that office. However, whether or not he was invited, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to stand up today and say, “Close the Ministry of Industry and Tourism office in Hamilton and spend the $200,000 on the crippled and disabled.”

It was absolutely one of the lowest levels I have ever seen the Leader of the Opposition fall to, and that’s tough to do.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, as the other member of this not terribly exclusive club our friend Mr. Carter has run against unsuccessfully, I would like to ask the minister whether this is not yet one more case of Tory patronage that has come to political light. Does he not think it is about time that he, as a minister on behalf of the government, struck a blow against the patronage system by taking that $15,000 grant back and spending it on something socially useful, like settling that strike in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, the member is quite free to suggest that other expenditures out of that same division of the ministry, which include the office in Hamilton, for example, ought to be withdrawn.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sure, it’s different, isn’t it? Sure, it ought to be withdrawn in favour of something the member deems to be socially useful.

May I say to the honourable member that if he is able to drive at Daytona himself and do as well as Mr. Carter did -- perhaps win by more than the honourable member won his seat by last time -- and if he gets invited to Le Mans, then I pledge this afternoon that we will be willing to sponsor his vehicle at Le Mans next year. I bet he would take it too.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is looking for an area where he could cut costs and use the money for the disabled, maybe he could cut some of the costs of his own radio advertising and stop advertising himself, along with some other members of the Conservative Party, and use that money for the disabled.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would address a question to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). It is my understanding that Bill 5, the bill regarding the Toronto Island homes, is to he reintroduced and brought up for debate again. It is also my understanding, from a story in today’s Globe and Mail, that some eviction writs for some island residents are actually prepared and the eviction process is set to begin in less than a month. May I ask the Premier whether this means his government has failed to heed the advice given it by the local member representing the island residents? Does he intend to proceed if his bill is defeated, as it would appear from the will of this House as expressed by resolution and as expressed publicly by both the New Democratic Party and ourselves that the bill will be defeated? Is it his intention to go ahead with the dismantling of the island community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand from our House leader, who is also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that there was some discussion that this bill would be called -- and I am looking at the member from so many communities -- there was some thought of calling this bill next Monday evening but, because one or two of the participants may not be here, it may not be called on that specific occasion. Once again, my understanding, which I am sure is understood by the member’s House leader, is that the bill will be called.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary question, if I might ask the Premier --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just wondered if the member has had conversations with his House leader.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, he told me the bill was going to be called.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why ask the question then?

Mr. S. Smith: I said in view of the fact that the government was planning to call the bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. The Leader of the Opposition asked if we were going to call it.

Mr. S. Smith: No. I did not ask that. If the Premier checks Hansard, he will see that I did not. The question I asked was, since the government was intending to call the bill, according to what the House leader has told us, and since eviction notices have been prepared, does the Premier plan to go ahead since he must surely know that the bill, in the form in which it was presented to us in the past, is not going to be accepted. He must surely be aware that the local member, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) wants to see that community preserved.

Mr. Nixon: That is the hardball game.

Mr. S. Smith: What I have to ask the Premier is whether his pitching hardball in cabinet has been a total failure, whether he is going to simply depend upon that bill and, after that, when it fails, whether he is going to allow the people of the community there to be evicted and the community destroyed? I am asking him whether he has anything else to offer by way of continuing that island community, as this House requested him to do in a resolution some time ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one way of resolving the problem, of course, would be for the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his position, as he has done on so many other issues, and give some consideration to supporting the passage of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a supplementary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if I may. Given the fact that the minister had a clear understanding that the bill would not pass in the House and that he delayed its introduction to allow Metropolitan Toronto council to try to come to grips with this matter, has he been involved in the negotiations at the Metro council level and has he indicated whether he would be willing to participate financially to assist the transfer of the properties to the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, yes, I have indicated to the mayor of Toronto that we would not be interested -- and I emphasize “not” -- in participating financially. In other words, they suggested that Toronto buy Ward’s and Algonquin islands from Metro and that the cost be paid by the province. I indicated to the mayor that we would not pay the cost if Toronto were to buy those lands from Metro.

I indicated to the mayor that, if Metropolitan Toronto council voted to sell those lands to Toronto, I would make the necessary legislative arrangements, bring it before cabinet and our caucus, and, if it were approved, bring in a bill. But Metro council has to take action.

As my friend knows, Metropolitan Toronto council on one occasion already has turned down that particular request. Although another proposition is before them, I gather it is not very likely to be voted upon in the near future -- if I believe the stories I read in the newspaper and what I bear. I have not been talking directly with anyone about it.

I would point out to the members of this House that the bill before this House, Bill 5, is a very legitimate compromise to this whole situation. If the members of this House want to save the homes of those people now living on the islands and allow them to live there in perpetuity -- and I emphasize that “to live there in perpetuity” -- they can pass this bill. If they pass this bill, nobody will be evicted.

The honourable member is not willing to pass this bill. He would rather see the people on the island evicted. The honourable member should get down to business and show where he wants to stand.

Mr. S. Smith: Acknowledging it is the government’s undoubted right to present whatever bill it wishes to the House and to wait to see how that bill is treated, surely the government recognizes that this bill, which we understand and believe would provide for the slow death of that community, is unacceptable to the elected majority of this House. The elected majority has already stated it wants the island as part of the city of Toronto. By just sitting there and suggesting that somehow or other we are willing to let those people be evicted unless we accept this slow-death bill, the minister is using those people in a way that is most unfortunate and, I can assure him, is not going to work.

I am asking the minister whether he has another solution to maintain that island community. Why does he not accept the will of the House and leave those people in peace?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think this should be turned around: The Leader of the Opposition is using the people of Metropolitan Toronto in a most unfortunate manner.

The people of Metropolitan Toronto represented by their council, have said they want to have a park on the island. They have started to develop that park. Many people have left already, their homes having been demolished to make way for that park.

At this particular time there are people living on Wards and Algonquin islands who have said they want to remain on those islands. They want to remain there and to stay in their homes. We have looked for a way to provide for that. People living there now can stay in their homes. They are not going to be displaced in their lifetime. The honourable member is saying that is not enough.

I say to the honourable member, the people of Metropolitan Toronto ultimately want a park on that island. If he believes in what the elected people of Metro want, that is what they want, but they are willing to see the people who now live on the island stay there until they are ready to leave. That is a very proper compromise. If the Leader of the Opposition is not willing to accept that, then I say to him that if any evictions occur they are on his head, not ours.

2:40 p.m.

CABINET COMMITTEE ON RACE RELATIONS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. I am sure the Premier remembers the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) on November 22, 1979, in which a number of initiatives with regard to the relief in racial tensions were announced; it is now six months since that announcement. Could the Premier tell the House why the cabinet committee that was announced at that time, with a wide range in terms of reference, has met only one time in that six months and has been engaged, to our knowledge, only in an inaugural organizational meeting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the minister made several points in that statement. I do not recall them all in specific terms. I think it is fair to state that individual ministers not only have been making statements in relation to this issue but they have also been very actively involved in finding solutions. I myself have met with two or three groups in regard to this specific issue.

I have made it quite clear, as has the Minister of Labour, that amendments will be introduced to the Ontario Human Rights Code which are relevant to this concern. I can assure the honourable member that this has a very high priority, that individual ministries and all of us, as individuals, are working diligently to assist in the diminution of this particular situation.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Premier inform the House why this particular committee with its terms of reference, which include “generally to direct and co-ordinate the programs and policies of the government of Ontario on all matters involving race relations,” has met only once if the government is so concerned?

Second, can the Premier also tell us why the race relations division that was announced in that statement has not yet been set up?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to the second part of the question, it is in the process.

Regarding government activities, we do structure committees. In my view this committee will be helpful over a period of time but we do, as a cabinet, deal with these issues.

When a minister comes in with a proposal or a situation, one does not call a cabinet meeting to discuss it. I said to the honourable member that one aspect of this is part of the Ontario Human Rights Code. That is not a question just for a committee of cabinet; it is a question for the total cabinet to consider, which we have been in the process of doing.

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Labour about asbestos. Can the minister explain the connection between his statement in answer to a question from my colleague from York South (Mr. MacDonald), which indicated that the use of the optical microscope is the only practical method of checking the testing and the statement made this morning by the head of the occupational health and safety group of the Ontario Research Foundation, Dr. Fred Hopton, which says: “An awful lot of companies are using optical microscopes rather than electron microscopes to test samples and their results mean nothing”?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker. I am sure the member has made a personal, thorough, comparative study of the relative value of optical microscopes as opposed to electron microscopes, which would have led him to the inevitable conclusion that there are very few electron microscopes and that the time involved in using electron microscopy to do air samples is quite incredible and would be most difficult.

For the time being at least, this ministry and governments of most nations I know of have decided that optical microscopy is the only practical present way of dealing with problems of a great magnitude. We will continue to do that unless and until the time arises when electron microscopy is available to a greater degree than it is now.

As I told the member before, the occupational health and safety laboratory being established on Resources Road will have one electron microscope, but he knows and I know that would have very limited application in terms of any mass assessment of air.

Mr. Foulds: If the minister had been a member prior to 1975, he would know that I have undertaken a fairly thorough study of both kinds of microscope, because of the importance of the issue in my own riding.

But would the minister not agree that it is far more urgent to get additional electron microscopes and to do the testing? Even the source that he cited, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-Occupational Safety and Health Administration report, indicated that it was necessary to have supplement try examination by electron microscope: “However, the committee recognizes the lack of specificity in this method [the optical method] and recommends the use of supplementary methods such as electron microscopy.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would suggest to the member, perhaps that is why we are purchasing one for the new occupational health and safety laboratory.

POLICE SERVICES REPORT

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), I would like to address my question to the Premier.

On July 20, 1977, by order in council the Premier appointed Emil K. Pukacz, a respected, retired public servant, to look into policing and other services in Ontario. On October 28, 1978, Mr. Pukacz reported to this government. Since it is now a year and a half, can the Premier indicate to this House when that report will be presented officially to the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is an undertaking or otherwise to present officially a report to the House. I will certainly check into the status of that report for the honourable member and have word for him tomorrow morning at 10:05.

Mr. Eakins: Can the Premier indicate whether that report will be the basis for bringing in much-needed police reforms in Ontario, not only in the per capita cost of policing but also in the use of police in our court system, the transportation of prisoners, et cetera?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want the public to misunderstand. As I recall the report, it is directed more to the financial and administrative side. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of policing.

Mr. Nixon: Rural areas are paying too much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know. In the rural areas of -- what are the constituencies the member represents?

Mr. Nixon: The Premier should put his mind to it.

Mr. Eakins: The report did make recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have some idea of some of the recommendations. I just want it clearly understood that they relate basically to the utilization of personnel. They do not relate to the effectiveness of the law and order that is provided so well in so many parts of this province, both by the Ontario Provincial Police and the municipal forces, whom apparently the members over there do not intend to support.

SCHOOL BUSES

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that a tentative conclusion arising from the police investigation of a school bus accident in Ancaster last Saturday is that the force required to hold a loaded school bus on a hill when the motor has stalled is such that many drivers simply may not have the strength to do it?

Does the minister not agree that all school buses should have braking systems designed so that all drivers have the strength to hold the bus safely on a hill or to bring it safely to a halt, whether or not the motor is running?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the incident the honourable member refers to. I will look into the matter and get back to him.

Mr. Isaacs: While the minister is looking into it, perhaps he would investigate thoroughly the whole matter of the braking systems on school buses so that the public of this province can be satisfied that buses can be brought safely to a halt. Perhaps he would table the results of that investigation in the House.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will look into the matter. The actual standards for the construction of motor vehicles manufactured or sold in Canada come under the Canada Motor Vehicle Act. The standards for school buses are also under the federal act. If we feel there are any shortcomings in those, I will make our views known to the federal minister.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARINGS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Can the minister tell me why an appeal on a decision made by the Niagara Escarpment Commission must continue after the appellant has withdrawn his objection? Can he tell me why they would go through with an appeal when nobody is objecting and pay the cost of having a is hearing officer travel to Owen Sound and have the Niagara Escarpment Commission staff and the applicant attend, when no one is objecting?

Can this costly formality be stopped? It not only costs the government but also inconveniences every one involved. Worst of all, it holds up the applicant for a month or two longer. This seems to me to be something worse than red tape. I am wondering whether it is some new form of blue tape.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, once an appeal is lodged with the Niagara Escarpment Commission and it goes to the hearing officer, unless there is some legal indication that one has withdrawn his position, as have all others who might have entered an appeal at the same time, then it must continue.

If all appeals are withdrawn and there is a general common understanding, the appeal or the hearing can be discontinued on a report from the hearing officer to the minister. The file must be closed with some degree of certainty by the hearing officer, at least indicating this is the action that has taken place.

If the member wishes to give me the specific case, I will look at it and find out exactly why it proceeded down the road. It could very well be that the notification had gone out and others were not prepared to withdraw their position.

Mr. McKessock: I was told it was the minister’s decision to carry on this useless exercise and that the decision would be given me within two days of the hearing because the Niagara Escarpment Commission had approved the application and now there were no objectors, because he had withdrawn. In view of this and the fact that two weeks after the hearing we still have not heard from the hearing officer, will the minister have another look into this to save many dollars and allow the applicant to proceed with his house much more quickly?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think I have answered the first part of the question. But obviously if there has been a hearing and the hearing has proceeded, whether there have been people there to put their case forward or not, the minister is not in a position to start indicating what the decision will be until he has the report back from the hearing officer.

As soon as the report comes to my office, we will try to process it as quickly as possible. We have the understanding from the municipality what they would like, what the hearing officer has said, what the Niagara Escarpment Commission has said and, many times, what the local member has to say about is as well.

CONSOLIDATED COMPUTER INC.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Given the current reports of recurring financial difficulties at the firm of Consolidated Computer Inc., can the minister provide the Legislature with a report on the current status of the government’s 16 per cent equity holdings in the firm? In particular, can he provide us with an account of how that public interest is being exercised through the management of CCI so as to ensure maximum financial success, employment potential and technological capability in this important enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get that for the member at 10:06 tomorrow morning; if not, on Monday.

Ms. Gigantes: As he makes his attempt to round up information, will the minister also try to provide us with information to explain to this House what is implied by the Fijutsu connection in the ownership and control of Consolidated Computer Inc., and can he offer assurance that the Fijutsu interest is not one in which global product mandating by huge international corporations is working to the disadvantage of a company in which the public of Ontario and the public of Canada have a substantial equity interest and which currently employs 225 workers in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sure.

OTTAWA QUEENSWAY REPAIRS

Mr. Roy: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Is he aware of the absolute chaos that his repair crews are causing in the Ottawa area in repairing the Ottawa Queensway by blocking off ramps, closing down all but one lane and having traffic tie- ups that last three or four hours? Why is it, when his officials are involved in the repair of the only major east-west artery in the city of Ottawa, that they do not do this work on weekends or in the evenings? Why do they insist on doing it at peak traffic hours?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting to have a question like that from the honourable member, because I recall a year or so ago that same honourable member was standing with a report in his hand talking about the immediate need for certain repairs to the Ottawa Queensway. Unfortunately, we could not do that resurfacing during January, February and March and off-peak periods such as that.

It is also very interesting that the regional chairman of Ottawa-Carleton is always publicly and privately complaining that there is not enough highway work being done in the Ottawa-Carleton area and, when we do take action to do some work in the area, one of the honourable members representing that area is opposed to the work.

As I have had to explain in this House many times, there is a lot of that type of work we have to d in daylight hours. It is just impossible for it to be done in some other period of the week or the day and not have the job spread over the whole summer.

Mr. Roy: It is quite true that I told the minister last year that the Queensway was extremely dangerous when it was wet and to repair it like pronto. I did not tell him to do it during peak hours.

One of the excuses given by the minister’s officials is that repairing at night would contravene the anti-noise bylaw. Is the minister aware of a statement by the mayor of Ottawa that that’s a lot of bull; that it is not so?

One of the other excuses is that the ministry would have to pay shift differential. Is the minister aware that, by doing it at peaks hours, he is wasting energy? He has thousands o cars lined up. He is frustrating the populace of Ottawa and, if he keeps doing that, even the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) is going to have a hard time getting elected in that area.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I was not aware that the mayor of Ottawa said that was a lot of bull, but of course I do not know as much about bull as the honourable member who has just been speaking.

Again, I have to say I understand the frustrations of the travelling public when roadwork of any type has to be done which interferes with the traffic. Unfortunately, no one anywhere in the world, to my knowledge, has found a way of doing it without interrupting the traffic.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Could the minister tell me whether or not he supports the following statement made by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) in his speech to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce on May 13 in which he said, speaking about energy in Ontario, “But of all of the initiatives we can and must take in this province, I personally place the greatest emphasis on conservation”?

3 p.m.

Then, referring to a poll he had taken, he said: “It is also interesting to note that many -- in fact, about two thirds of those surveyed -- feel that industry and government are not doing their fair share to conserve energy. Whether that perception is correct or not does not change the way people think. So you and I are here today as representatives of business and government and have a significant leadership role to play, to show by example, if you will, what can and what is being done.”

Mr. Speaker: I believe the question has been asked.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is to do with a decision made yesterday in the standing committee on general government under the leadership of the minister’s parliamentary assistant. The minister in effect voted against a motion put forward by the city of Toronto council which would have required energy-use statements to be filed with the city by developers and would have been a major energy conservation promotion initiative.

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not sure what the question is, but if my friend is asking whether I agree with what the general government committee did, my answer to that would be yes. I agree with the majority decision of the members of the general government committee.

I agree with what my colleague the Minister of Energy said in his speech. Certainly, energy conservation is one of the great challenges facing government and industry today. But I do not think this motion is an answer to that problem.

I think one of the other great challenges to all of us here today is to undo a little bit of the red tape that we keep tying around everybody who wants to help move this economy ahead. All we do is impose more and more red tape. Certainly I have great confidence that those people in the development industry are probably ahead of government. They are building energy-conserving projects and do not have to be required by legislation to file plans before they get certain municipal approvals. I think that would he a step backwards.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It would seem to me that the minister has the same misunderstanding of the legislation as does his parliamentary assistant. Does that mean the minister will not support the Ministry of Energy, which had only one problem with that, and it was not to do with red tape; it was to do with the ministry’s enforcement ability? Does that mean he will not, with the Ministry of Energy, introduce enabling legislation to allow municipalities, such as the city of Toronto, to have that kind of promotional project in the works?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not have any legislation in mind to provide municipalities with that power.

NIAGARA REGION HEALTH UNIT STRIKE

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister is likely aware, the strike of Niagara Regional Health Unit employees -- 53 health inspectors, nursing assistants and clerical staff -- has been going on now for two weeks in the Niagara region. Could the minister report to the House what initiatives his ministry has taken to bring about a settlement in this strike? It is obviously going to affect the people of the Niagara region rather substantially. Could he tell us what new initiatives are planned by his ministry in the days ahead?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to take that as notice and report on what stage mediation is at.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister is looking into the aspect as it relates to the Ministry of Labour, would he also consult with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to determine whether or not the jobs that would normally be done by those employees on strike are being carried out adequately and that the health of the people of the Niagara region is not endangered?

FIRESTONE PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the closure of Firestone Canada Inc. in Whitby. In about six weeks there will be about 850 employees out of a job. Has the Ministry of Labour intervened in any way to see that they get a decent pension settlement such as fellow workers in the United States have received? Is the minister participating, either on behalf of those people who are members of the local of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America in that plant or even the salaried employees, both of which groups have similar problems in getting a decent pension settlement from Firestone and are anxious to know whether his ministry will intervene in any way?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have met with both representatives of the employees and of the employer to discuss the situation and have been assured that management was prepared to co-operate in whatever way seemed reasonable.

Just the other day I signed an authorization for our portion of a manpower adjustment committee. If the member is suggesting there are some other endeavours that might be considered, I would be glad to meet with the company again and have further discussions with it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak not about the manpower retraining program or job relocation, but specifically about those people who will be in an age bracket where it will be extremely difficult to place them and whose prime concern now is a decent pension. Will the minister intervene on behalf of those employees, both members of the local and those who are salaried employees, to see that those who need a decent pension get one, as their counterparts in the United States plants already have?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to meet with the company again to review the status in that area.

THREE SCHOOLS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Culture and Recreation: In view of what is found on page six of his statement today, and I quote, “ ... there is articulate evidence of broad public support for ... ” Three Schools, and in view of the fact that it is demonstrable that there is absolutely no public support for giving $15,000 to the friends of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), would the minister not reconsider now, rather than starving these people off as it is apparent he is going to do?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we will begin discussions with the director of Three Schools to work out a solution for it while it can find new sources of funding. That proposal meets with its consent. Three Schools sees it as a real solution. I don’t know whether or not I have to take any further specific steps at this time in terms of promising a certain amount of money. The next step is to work out an interim financial arrangement with Three Schools.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Why is the minister’s strategy always to bring these people to the brink, as he has done in this situation, and to play brinkmanship politics and put them on the line the way he has? Why isn’t the minister working ahead on some of these kinds of problems to prevent the kind of embarrassment and emotional turmoil he has put all these people through over the past couple of months?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t knew how many different ways, shapes and forms I can use to convince the member for London Centre that it is not our fault that this school is in this condition at this time. We are the government which has stood by its side while the member’s kissing brethren from Ottawa cut it off last year. They cut it off while our support went up 17 per cent every year. If the member wants to talk to anybody about giving the school more instant funds, let him go talk to Ottawa as a starter.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the management committee funded by the minister found Three Schools was underfunded by 50 per cent, would the minister consider a 50 per cent raise in its grant as interim financing for this year only until it can sort out a new financial arrangement?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared today, at this hour, to say how much we are going to help the school. It would be premature. I have said we will begin negotiations with it. I have also said we will do what needs to be done so Three Schools does not have to close its doors in any kind of precipitous way. That is all I am ready to say here today.

ABITIBI-PRICE STUDY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. I wonder whether the minister could indicate to this House what involvement, if any, his ministry has had with the study that is now being carried out by Robb Ogilvie Associates for Abitibi-Price Inc. in relation to White River and the attempts to stabilize the work force in that community to assure there will not be the continuation of the tremendous turnovers they have had at the mill operation and in the woods operation since they first went into production. If the minister has had any involvement, could he indicate what that has been?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I will check with my staff on our ministry’s involvement in that particular study.

Mr. Wildman: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? In doing that, I would hope the minister would also check with other ministries of his government to determine whether or not the provincial government is prepared to make a commitment that it will provide additional funding, as well as the municipality and the various people from the private sector, to try to provide the housing and amenities needed in that community to help stabilize the work force.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will look into those points also.

ALGONQUIN PARK MASTER PLAN REVIEW

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that we were promised some many months ago that the Ontario Provincial Parks Council review of the Algonquin Park master plan would be available not later than March 31, 1980, and that along with that the recommendations of the Ministry of Natural Resources would also be available, can the minister explain on June 5 what possible reason there is for the delay that has kept this very important material from the public domain? Can those of us who have a particular interest in that material expect it before the millennium?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, it was a very lengthy report and it took some time to give a response to it. I believe the report is at the printer at present and the millennium is approaching fast.

Mr. Conway: Can the minister then he more specific, because there are a lot of people across this province very interested to know when that material is going to come forward? Can lie indicate in a supplementary response to members of the House when he now expects that material to come forward and what precisely his intentions are going to be with respect to having public hearings and moving legislatively, if that is his intention, to incorporate any or all of the recommendations the government intends to put forward?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t recall any recommendations or suggestions that would require any legislative changes. I will try to find out for tomorrow morning when I can actually put it in the member’s hot little hands.

TRANSPORT OF PLUTONIUM

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Can the minister confirm that 30 pounds of French plutonium arrived by air at Mirabel airport on May 7, was transported with a Quebec Police Force helicopter escort across the river to Hawkesbury and sent by regular highway routes through Ontario municipalities to the facilities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that, but I will be glad to get information relative to that.

Ms. Gigantes: Does the Minister of Energy consider it satisfactory that that kind of shipment should be made in circumstances where local authorities knew neither of such a shipment nor how to cope with it in case there were an accident? Can he explain why such a shipment is being transported in Ontario and for what purposes?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can only add that I will include answers to all of those questions following my inquiry. If such is the case, I will be glad to provide the member with whatever information I can obtain on that subject.

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the vocational rehabilitation branch has advised applicants for funding for children with learning disabilities that they will not get answers to their applications until some time in July? These applications go back a couple of months.

Does the minister not appreciate that the schools to which the children may be going will be all filled up by then and that the schools from which the children are coming will be closed and records will not be available? Can the minister tell me why they would make them wait that long?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the specific time that might be required to review fully each application. I do know that it sometimes takes longer because of the amount of information that is required to be collected. Sometimes that does not accompany the initial application. Information is required from the school boards where the children are attending at present. Sometimes additional assessments are needed from a medical doctor or a psychologist. All this can take varying periods of time.

The one thing we do not have any control over is when the people make the initial application. If the people applied as recently as a month or two ago and the applications in question happen to be complex and require this additional information, there is not much I can do about it in terms of determining when people make the decision to apply.

Mr. Sweeney: The information that has been given to me is that the applications were made several months ago, and they were complete, but they were simply told they would have to wait for an answer. If the minister’s investigation bears that out, and that is what I am asking him to find out, is there any way these people could be given sufficient assistance to get into a school that otherwise might be closed to them?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will certainly check to see whether there is any cause for an inordinate delay. I will encourage the staff to speed up the process as much as possible. I thought the member had said earlier, though, that the applications had been made a couple of months ago, which is why I premised my remarks on the assumption that he had been correct.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that a number of applications of the kind referred to by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot were held up because of internal confusion within the ministry as a result of the Mekler decision which we have discussed on previous occasions? Can he assure us there is no backlog of decisions because of continuing confusion with respect to the implications of the Mekler decision?

Is the minister aware that his officials, as recently as last week, were still communicating to people using the language of the Mekler decision to deny applications for vocational rehabilitation assistance for children with learning disabilities? I would be pleased to go over a particular case with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure in what sense people might use the language of the Mekler decision. The Mekler decision does stand, but I have also clarified both in the House and, prior to that, with my staff, the policy of the ministry with respect to the Mekler decision. That was done very early as soon as we saw what was happening, as far as the board was concerned.

To make it clear with respect to the Mekler type of case, policy of the ministry is that we would interpret an educational goal as being a pre-vocational goal so that it would come under act. I would appreciate it if the member would give me the information he was referring to in the specific case. It may be that some of the field staff, for example, have not yet fully absorbed my policy interpretation, for some reason or other. I will try to hasten that process as well.

NORTH AMERICAN CAR SALES

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Following his meeting of about three weeks ago with a number of the mayors of auto manufacturing cities in Ontario, will the Premier and this government aid with the funding and staffing of the promotion of the very excellent Windsor-produced program. “Buy the cars your neighbours help to build,” so that it can be expanded to all of the major population centres in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we had a very excellent meeting with the mayors of those municipalities, including the mayor of the great city of Brampton, who was one of the participants. As I recall the discussions, we canvassed this idea and two or three others.

I informed the mayors then that we thought, in terms of the general direction they were going, it was a very significant campaign and was one, in a personal sense, we would have no limitation in supporting. We were not prepared to commit ourselves in terms of financing, say, of the Windsor centre, but perhaps the Ministry of Industry and Tourism could include some aspects of this in its own promotion campaigns.

I believe there has been some communication between the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the committee, the name of which I have forgotten. I have not had an updated report in the last couple of days from the mayors of those municipalities, but I will find out where the matter stands.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the Premier aware that the program in Windsor was run with moneys raised locally, and there is not the money available to run it much longer or to expand it to other cities? In the first months of that program there was a 25 per cent increase in sales of North American vehicles in the Windsor area. Does the Premier not agree that this is one of the best ways, by increasing sales of North American vehicles built here, of returning laid-off auto workers to full employment?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly think it is one of the ways. I made it quite clear that day that we were in support of this kind of approach. In fact -- and I am just going by memory again -- I believe I communicated with the governor of the state of Michigan. The mayor of Windsor and the other mayors asked me to get in touch with one or two other state governors, which I did, to explain the purpose of the campaign.

Whether they are going to assist in it, quite frankly I cannot tell the honourable member, but I will inquire. I have not heard about it for two or three days, but I will get as much up-to-date information as I can.

BRANTFORD DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Now that the private bill regarding the downtown development in the city of Brantford has been defeated, unfortunately, has the minister been in touch with any of the Brantford officials about, first, extending the deadline for the commitment he made to support the downtown revitalization, and, second, assisting the city in getting a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board without delay, so that in this way there is a possibility that the present development plan can go forward?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in touch with the Brantford officials. I have had a call from the development company which was assigned the responsibility for the downtown revitalization by the city of Brantford.

I think the member is aware of the fact that the termination date is August 31. I would imagine the city of Brantford is assessing the situation at this time, and I have no doubt the city will be in touch with us, first, to extend the deadline, and, second, to see if we will have a talk with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to see whether we can advance the application before the municipal board.

Mr. Nixon: Since the termination date depends on the minister’s policy in making the $6 million available -- or whatever the sum is; approximately $6 million -- could he not take the initiative and indicate to the city of Brantford that he is prepared to be flexible on that date, depending on when the municipal board hearing is held? Would he indicate, in response to the developer who has called him, that he is very anxious that this go ahead, even if it is delayed a few months because it is now necessary to go through the normal procedure?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That has already been communicated to the developer. Obviously, with an OMB hearing required as a result of the actions of individuals in that community, the time it takes to go to the municipal board has to be taken into account. It was not the minister’s intention or the ministry’s intention to terminate the agreement because of the need for on OMB hearing. The date will be extended in keeping with the time it takes to get an OMB hearing, an OMB decision and even an appeal against that derision.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Watson, on behalf of Mr. Cureatz, from the standing committee on general government, presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13, An Art to revive Can-Con Enterprises and Explorations Limited;

Bill Pr19, An Art respecting the City of Stratford;

Bill Pr29, An Art respecting the Town of Grimsby.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr14, An Art respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr27, An Art respecting the City of Hamilton.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Stratford.

Report adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Williams from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee’s first report.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the report that is being submitted today is the fifth in a series of reports that have been submitted by the regulations committee through 1978 and 1979 and the first part of this year.

The highlights of the report before us today are fourfold. First, the report highlights the number and type of regulations that have been brought forward to the Legislature over the past year. The report also indicates that the committee now is in a position of being current with its review of the regulations. Through the vetting of the regulations by counsel for the committee, Mr. Lachlan MacTavish, the regulations are current to the end of 1979.

It is also interesting to note that of the 301 regulations that were brought forward during the last quarter of 1979, the committee has seen fit to cite only eight of those regulations as being, in some way, irregular or deserving of comment by the committee. These are highlighted in chapter three of the report.

The committee has been addressing itself to other types of optional procedures that could be used in the regulatory process, one of which is the procedure known commonly as “notice and comment.” That is a procedure that provides for advance notice of proposed regulations followed by an opportunity for interested persons to make representations with regard to them. Later in the spring or summer the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy will be making its report and this committee will be considering the whole matter of notice and comment further in light of the recommendations in that report.

Finally, in keeping with that area of interest, the committee, as it points out in its concluding chapter, five, will be generally considering other ways and means of improving existing procedures to assist persons aggrieved by regulations already in place to air their grievances.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like again to thank Mr. MacTavish for his efforts in assisting the committee throughout our deliberations, as well as Mr. A. S. Forsyth, the clerk of the committee. With those few brief comments I table this report for the Legislature.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expense of the Ministry of Correctional Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Administrative services program, $6,556,800; institutional program, $115,899,000; community program, $23,507,000.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that following the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Health at the standing committee on social development, the remaining estimates referred to this committee be considered in the following order: Social Development policy, followed by Community and Social Services.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the hours allocated for the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be reduced by four hours.

Mr. M. Davidson moved first reading of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Cart Tracks. Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the regulation of go-kart tracks in Ontario. The bill requires every person who proposes to operate a go-kart track in Ontario to obtain a licence from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The bill provides regulation-making authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish safety standards relating to go-karts and the operation of go-kart tracks.

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 116, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 117, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the bills cover the following areas: a compulsory union checkoff; a first-contract settlement bill providing for the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have the authority to settle a first contract; quicker and easier certification procedures allowing an automatic certification after a 50 per cent plus one vote and a vote within seven days; an anti-strikebreaking bill which prohibits employers from using or hiring anyone to do the work of an employee who is on a legal strike. Successor rights: preserves the collective bargaining rights of employees in a business that is relocated.

Amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act repeal those sections of the act that exclude a wide variety of management rights from being the subject of collective bargaining.

Domestic servants: allows domestic servants to be covered under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Permits agricultural employees who work in an industry or factory setting to become members of a trade union.

Provides a mechanism for providing employment opportunities for disabled persons.

Establishes standards relating to the installation and operation of electronic surveillance equipment systems in places of employment.

Ensures that public servants shall be entitled to exercise all rights to engage in the democratic political processes.

Reduces the standard work week in Ontario from 48 hours to 40 and requires overtime rates for work done in excess of 40 hours.

Vacation standards: extends the existing employment standards provisions beyond the two weeks for 12 months of service to provide an adequate four- and five-week vacation after a period of time.

Termination notices: provides for increased time for notice provisions and layoffs.

Conditions of employment: prohibits employers from requiring employees engaged in the preparation or service of food or drink to perform their duties while nude or partially nude.

Extension of collective bargaining rights: allows employees to exercise managerial functions, to join or establish a union for collective bargaining purposes.

Amendments to the Employment Standards Act which ensure that the crown is bound by all sections of the act.

Certification hearings: clarifies status of employer at certification hearings so that the proceedings cannot be muddied.

Leave of absence: requires an employer to provide a leave of absence to any employee who has been elected to provincial or municipal office.

Protection of employees: protects the employment of an employee who attempts to enforce the provisions of any act, or who testifies or otherwise participates in a proceeding or hearing under any act or court of law.

Protection of term employees: extends the application of part XII of the Employment Standards Act to term employees who are laid off or terminated during or as the result of a strike or lockout.

Finally, repeals legislation which does not allow the inclusion of security guards in a collective bargaining unit.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 154 and 181 and the interim answers to questions 174 and 176 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 2550.)

3:40 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mr. Kennedy moved resolution 8:

That the government declare an annual Small Business Week in Ontario for the purpose of informing the public of the key role of small business in our economy as employer, producer, taxpayer; to promote better understanding of the dependencies between small business, big business, government and the public;

The week to supplement and support the present small business activities that are ongoing throughout the year and to include seminars, information sessions, meetings with government, bankers, business consultants, and to discuss other related matters that would assist both existing and potential small business in management, financing, production and marketing, as well as offering assistance towards increasing opportunities for small business;

That associated with this week there be developed a journal that would summarize all programs and assistance available to small business and be capable of easy updating;

That there be developed a universally recognized symbol that would aid in coordinating the roles of these participants and in disseminating information among them;

The government to launch the week through a forum sponsored in co-operation with big business, such as banks, industry and the news media, and also at this initial forum there be established a medium for the ongoing annual Small Business Weeks.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of private members’ bills and resolutions in support of small business is a fairly frequent event in this house. In fact, the appearance of such bills or resolutions occurs so regularly that they no longer arouse much controversy or even excite any special comment. Members might well ask why I am introducing yet another small business resolution.

Just because a number of members have tried to help small business in the past does not necessarily mean they have been uniformly successful, and just because members from both sides of the House have acknowledged the vital role it plays in our economy does not necessarily mean those members have actually done anything useful for the small business they set out to help.

In other words, despite the routine gush of sentiment from this House in favour of small business, I have difficulty naming specific, concrete examples of what the Legislature, as opposed to the government, has done for small business. Certainly small businesses still face all sorts of problems and handicaps that hinder their efficient and profitable operation, despite our best efforts.

With all due modesty, I think I can say this resolution is taking a different approach. I believe it helps solve a specific problem facing small business, the problem of information to, from and about small business. My resolution helps bridge this information gap without creating any new problems for the small businessman. Finally, I hope and trust that the many advantages I can see in this resolution will be seen by all members.

Traditionally, at this point in a speech on small business, one throws in a few statistics to demonstrate the importance of small business: the size and value of its contribution to the economy, its record on job creation and so on. We have all heard various statistics of this kind. It is probably even safe to say that we will hear more of them before this debate ends; so I will not trouble members with one more statistical exercise. Suffice to say that we are all aware of the vital position of small business.

Small business, taken in the aggregate, is in fact huge business. It adapts quickly to change in the business environment. It is flexible. It can solve all sorts of problems that larger enterprises, ossified by their own huge bureaucracies, cannot begin to deal with.

Perhaps the most important thing about small business is that it is ubiquitous. We find small businesses everywhere. They are not vertically integrated. They are not concentrated in a few metropolitan areas. They do not require, in most instances, huge amounts of capital. They do involve hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of people right across the province. They are the backbone of economic activity in our smaller towns and villages. They help reduce economic regional disparities by flourishing in all sorts of places where big business could not even hope to survive; and we are thankful for that.

What then are the major problems for our smaller concerns? The first thing on the mind of every businessman I know is the problem of finances, and small businesses are no exception to the rule. But right after finances, small business’s major problem is something that I referred to earlier as the information gap. I might also have labelled it “lack of knowledge.”

Small businesses face this information gap precisely because they are small. They often depend on one person or a handful of people for decision making. Obviously these few people cannot hope to be experts at everything, and yet all-round expertise is exactly what they must try to develop if the business is to prosper.

Lots of people are interested in going into business for themselves. Studies show they can generally be divided into two types. One consists of people who are sales-oriented, with little background in finance, accounting, law or administration. The other group of people is strong in some or most of these areas, but probably weak in selling. Weakness in any area could spell failure and often does.

Naturally, a small business cannot afford to hire experts in each of these fields the way a large corporation can. However, from the point of view of a small businessman, the information is out there somewhere. Other small businesses have overcome similar problems. Chambers of commerce have information; bankers can explain finance; marketing experts can add some creative thinking. There are many examples. In other words, the small businessman’s real problem is not that the information is not available, but that it is all over the place and relatively difficult to get at. Perhaps even more of a hindrance is that collecting and digesting such information can be very time-consuming.

Here we are coming to the point of the resolution. I hope my suggestion for an annual Small Business Week in Ontario is not taken as simply glorifying the ideals and strength of smaller enterprises. I see a very functional purpose for a Small Business Week. It is no coincidence that words like information, understanding, discussion, cooperation, forum and seminar recur over and over in the resolution, for ideas of information and understanding go right to the heart of the matter.

I foresee Small Business Week as a fabulous learning experience for small businessmen all across Ontario. It could be of tremendous value in helping them to bridge that information gap. They could learn about many skills and services which would help their companies prosper.

Small Business Week, too, would dovetail neatly with the excellent programs of our Ministry of Industry and Tourism that have been previously announced, such as the small business development policy for Ontario and others. However, even the ministry itself bumps into this information gap. In fact, Industry and Tourism made 13,000 calls and sponsored business seminars in many small towns last year, plus numerous one-on-one counselling sessions with Ontario enterprises.

Clearly an annual Small Business Week would be an excellent opportunity for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to get its point across to many small businessmen. Government would not be the only organization with a pitch to make during a Small Business Week. Any group or person with information to help small business or service to sell would literally jump at the chance of a guaranteed audience.

If any member has any doubts as to whether a Small Business Week would be filling a need, he only has to look at the phenomenal success of the small business exposition held at the Royal York last year. One commentator said: “Sponsored by the 65,000-member International Entrepreneurs’ Association, Expo is the largest small business show held in Toronto in more than a decade and it is the show’s first appearance in Canada. On display are new products, franchises, distributorships, dealerships and 160 startup manuals, in addition to the 75 hours of instruction and lectures from the experts.”

I do not see any reason why a Small Business Week would not stimulate such expositions or shows in town and cities right across Ontario. Why not?

Another important point about such a week is that it would help other groups to learn about small businesses. For example, bankers could look more favourably on smaller enterprises. Governments could discover what impact their policies were having on small business and how these could be improved. The public at large would have an opportunity to learn about small business and about the important contribution business has made in the quality of life in Ontario.

In my opinion, the great advantage offered by such a week is that the whole thing is voluntary. It will not require more form-filling or dealing with mind-numbing bureaucracy. The small businessman can participate or not as he sees fit. We can safely leave that decision to his own initiative and good sense. lf the Small Business Week is as useful to him as I think it is, then he will go. If not, he will not attend such functions and stay home.

3:50 p.m.

The voluntary approach is in contrast to that taken by my friend from Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins). I am pleased he is on the list to speak and I look forward to his comments. I know he can recall that small business bill he introduced two and a half or three years ago, because it was debated at this time.

In fact, I was surprised by the tenor of the bill put forward by the member. I know his heart was in the right place on this; he wanted to help small business, but this would have added a tremendous burden of government paperwork which already oppresses business. That is one of the complaints we continue to hear.

We were not particularly surprised to hear the NDP position advocating more and more government involvement. Free enterprise, for my friends across the way is about as dirty a word as profit.

In other words, the small business act that was proposed would have completely contradicted this government’s commitment to get off the backs of business. While it does not surprise me that New Democrats would support increased regulation of small business, I am rather surprised that the Liberals endorsed that specific bill.

It was a good thing that it died on the Order Paper, though, as I said, I understand and appreciate the intent and support, just in the principle.

There is a philosophical contrast between that bill and my resolution. It could not be greater. I want to believe, and I happen to believe, that small business wants less government, not more. The small business sector does not want a vast array of burdensome government programs so much as better information on what is already available.

My proposed annual Small Business Week fills a need felt by small businessmen all across Ontario. It will help them bridge the information gap so they can run their companies more efficiently and more profitably. It takes advantage of the small businessman’s initiative and drive but does not add to the unnecessarily great load of paperwork and regulation that small business must already grapple with.

I hope the members in this House will see fit to endorse and pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve three minutes.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, because of my interest in small business, to rise and speak on this resolution.

Initially I want to compliment the member for introducing this resolution in the House. I feel it is one that I can support. I think it is time we gave some annual profile to the small business community of this province and of this country, and this is one way of doing that.

However, I want to refer to some of the remarks of my honourable friend and point out that it was on October 20, 1977, that I introduced my private member’s bill into the Legislature, An Act respecting Small Business in Ontario. I want to say to the member that it was the first time in any jurisdiction in Canada, provincially or federally, that a small business act had been introduced into any legislature or parliament.

I also want to say to the member, when he stated it was a good job that it died on the Order Paper, it was supported in principle by all members of the Tory party except one. That is the purpose of a private member’s bill: to support it in principle, go to a committee and then iron out the difficulties.

Following the debate that day, I made some amendments which were sent to every member in this House. Following that, the late minister, who was the Minister of Industry and Tourism at that time, had a meeting in his office with all the representatives of the small business community across this province, and all generally agreed that it was a very good bill. Present at the meeting were representatives of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, the Retail Merchants Association of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as well as the minister’s staff.

I believe that was one of the positive steps towards dealing with private members’ resolutions that come before this House. If more ministers would do that, instead of burying them and not letting them live because someone in the opposition might get credit, we would have more progress in this House. I pay tribute to the approach that was taken. I felt a very positive effect from that meeting.

I feel it was a good bill and as a result, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism has moved to publish a pamphlet of whom to contact in Ontario if one wants to do business with the provincial government. It is a good pamphlet. It just came out in the last couple of weeks. I have sent many of them out to my constituents. I feel that has come about as a direct result of the private member’s bill.

I support the resolution; I think the best way to give profile and priority to small business in this province is for this government to have the will and the initiative to pass a small business act for this province, as have countries such as Germany, Japan and the United States.

One of the strengths of their economies has been the fact that they have seen fit to have very strong small business acts. Certainly the United States has a very strong small business act. I tell the honourable member, if he is wondering what is happening there, he should call the small business people in Washington and he will find they are most co-operative and most helpful.

I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the small businesses of this province and of this country, for the great potential of small business has been clearly demonstrated. Small business is flexible, is able to adapt quickly to changes in the market, and possesses great capacity for technological and other innovations.

However, small business has been neglected by government in this country. Its importance has been diminished by comparison with large corporations. For example, it is not heavily favoured for subcontracting, as in the case of Japan, Germany and the United States, where governments have fostered and supported the growth and development of small business.

While at present in Canada we have a very widespread small business sector, typical of any large country with a comparatively small population, it has not been able to date to develop even a small percentage of its full potential. I believe we must move as quickly as possible to give increased emphasis and impetus to the small business sector, because it is uniquely adapted to cope with the kinds of economic conditions that prevail. Our sagging economy needs assistance from every sector of the business community, and small business can make a considerable impact on our current, critical unemployment situation.

If we are to have any hope of reducing today’s tragically high unemployment and of strengthening our economy by meeting the challenges of today’s competitive market, we must drastically readjust our ideas and our priorities. Many of our current economic problems are caused by an inability to adjust to the new realities, by carrying over into the 1970s and 1980s the practices and ideas of the more prosperous and more buoyant 1960s. An even greater challenge faces us in the 1980s.

About three years ago, the European Economic Community released a study of small and medium-sized businesses which indicated that the small-firm sector could play an important role in the reduction of alienation and social tensions. The study maintained, “Since small and medium-sized undertakings are so important for job stability and the maintenance of industrial peace, all social legislation should be geared towards maintaining independent businesses.”

Small business contributes the young blood of new ideas and products to our economy. It plays a vital role in the process of innovation. In our memory, it is extraordinary how many new products and new processes were introduced by aggressive entrepreneurs or small business firms. Examples include automatic transmissions, the ballpoint pen, the catalytic cracking of petroleum, the helicopter, high-fidelity recording, frozen foods, wash-and-dry clothing -- the list is long and very impressive.

Obviously not all innovations of entrepreneurs succeed. Indeed many of them fail, as are bound to in such hazardous situations. But this brash willingness to risk failure is itself one of the major merits of our system of free enterprise.

4:00 p.m.

I want to close with a few remarks and say that if this province and this country are to survive and prosper, we desperately need to benefit from the talents and skills of all our young people. We cannot risk losing great numbers of Ontarians to other provinces and other countries because there are no career opportunities at home.

I believe an enriched apprenticeship program is one way of increasing our skilled labour force and preventing a brain and talent drain out of this province. Yet how many small businesses have gone to the trouble and expense of training many of our young people only to lose them shortly after? I do not profess to have the solution to this kind of dilemma, but I wonder if it is not time that we reviewed the benefits we are paying out today and dealt with that in cooperation with an apprenticeship program.

We also need to promote business-oriented programs in our schools to help develop broader understanding of the free enterprise system and how, in our business society, it is the means through which individuals find their livelihood, find their access to social status, to community and individual achievement and to satisfaction. We need practical business education programs to help build the gap between the world of work and the classroom, demonstrating the dynamics of the free enterprise system as it functions in the highly competitive world.

Finally, as legislators, we must accept the responsibility to ensure a business climate in which we can grow, develop and thrive, and in which small and large companies alike are allowed to develop, to function and to prosper and, above all, with as little government intervention as possible. That is our hope for the 1980s.

I support the honourable member’s resolution. I commend him for introducing it. I only hope that the government, in spite of any problem it might have with a small business act, would accept it, resolve it, change it, but let Ontario have its own small business act. Let Ontario lead Canada.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to take part in this debate regarding the resolution relating to small businesses.

It appears obvious to me there must be an election in the offing. The government has discovered the environment; it has discovered labour. The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) has discovered that there are problems in the health service. There seems to be some image-polishing going on, because small business is not exactly satisfied with what the Tory government has been doing for them in Ontario. So in typical Tory fashion they give us a resolution. They are all for small business, against sin and for motherhood. They should have thrown it all in. It is the usual window-dressing that goes on before an election to create the image that the Conservative Party cares about something. But it does not. I do not think small business is going to get sucked in by this kind of a resolution.

There is no question that the member did mention some of the problems that are faced by small business. The matter of obtaining money and credit is very important to small businesses. I agree with the member who raised that subject, but when one raises that same problem with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to see what the province can do to ensure that small business gets credit, or is in the position to borrow the money it needs to expand and grow, they do absolutely nothing. They say, “You can go to the bank.”

If one talks to most of the small businessmen in this country or in this province one will find not that they are fed up with our banks. There is nobody they hate more, or are more against, than the banks in this province or in this country. This is for the simple reason that they have difficulty in obtaining money from them and when they do get money from the banks they have to sign away their worldly possessions, their family and everybody else. The bank, before it lends money, is absolutely sure in almost 100 per cent of the cases it is going to get the money back no matter what happens to the small businessman.

What we have been suggesting the government should do is develop the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It should get the legislation through the federal House to give it the same powers that chartered banks have. Then it should make it a lending institution that will operate on the basis of the needs of the people and not the needs of the corporate sector, or the needs of just maximizing one’s profit. In a situation like that there would be competition in the money-lending sector and the businessman would have some alternative. This would apply particularly to the small businessman; not the large corporations. The large corporations have no problems; it is the small people. But at least the small businessman would have somewhere else to go than to that monopoly of banks that control the credit that is available to him.

I want to touch on some other points. Legislation should be introduced by this government to ensure that the small businessman would be able to buy goods at wholesale prices, the same prices that major corporations like Eaton’s or Simpson’s pay their suppliers. There should not be that kind of discrimination by the wholesalers against the small businessman. They sell goods at one price to a major retailer and at another price to a small businessman. He finds himself at a big disadvantage when eventually he sells his goods, because his markup is lower. He is certainly not going to make as much, and the others can sell at a lower price than he can.

Those are some of the things that can and should be done by legislation. We should consider seriously the possibility that the small businessman, particularly the retail merchant or the grocer, should be able to sell beer. Right now we have bowed to the wishes of the Carlings and the Labatts and the Molsons, and we permit major corporations to have the sole right to distribute beer in this province. In other provinces -- Quebec, for example -- the small merchants can do it. It provides some additional income for the merchants, and it provides some stability to their operations. That is an example of an area where they could go.

As another example, there should be some assurance to the small businessman when he is selling to a major corporation that he has at least the same right of access. What one finds in operation these days with major corporations is an old boys’ network hanging out there. They buy from each other and they buy from certain suppliers where they have some share or interest, or there is a cross-connection between the various boards of directors. Consequently, the small businessman or the independent man who wants to go in there to try to sell them supplies, goads or services, probably at lower rates than they buy within themselves, is shut out because of this old boys’ network.

There should be great concern on the part of this government to streamline the Ontario Municipal Board hearings operation. We had a good example here last Tuesday of how, despite the fact that there were two major corporations involved, because of the ponderous system in place right now, many small businesses in Brantford are going to suffer as a result of the actions of this particular government.

I would like some of the members who voted against that bill to visit Brantford, because the people there are ready to tar and feather them. We are not going to run them down the railways, but we will slide them down the Grand River, down to the mouth where they belong. That would have provided a lot of economic activity for small businesses in Brantford. The members here knocked it out and destroyed it.

The other thing I would like them to do is go and talk to some of the small businessmen and merchants in downtown Brantford, as I have, or to the people who have been working on this. They will tell the members that, no matter what route they take now, the merchants will be in a worse position next spring than they were two or three days ago. Some of the concerns the city has are the fact that they have to go this route and the fact that government refuses to bring in some type of legislation or to streamline the procedures so that small or large businesses can move or act or react when they want to expand or build. They do not want to have to go through a lengthy rigmarole without being sure exactly what the results would be. No business can operate under those circumstances.

4:10 p.m.

The other point is that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure we have a healthy economy in all aspects. I can assure the government -- and I am sure no one in the government party would argue with the point -- that when you have a healthy economy, large business thrives but small business thrives also. No matter what kind of gimmicks are used, window dressings and whatever else, if the economy is sick the first people to get it on the back of the neck are the small businessmen.

We do not see General Motors going under; nor do we see Ford going under. General Motors, as an example, had lived through depressions and everything else and has made a profit every year no matter what.

Mr. Kerrio: Chrysler is going under.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, Chrysler is not going under. But there are small businessmen who go under because the economy is sick.

This government is doing nothing in terms of trying to develop the economy, coming up with an industrial strategy, providing the kind of economic environment where business can thrive whether it is large or small. There was a paean here to free enterprise: The unseen hand of the market system is going to resolve this. What bloody nonsense!

There is not one healthy economy in the western world. If you look at western Europe, where governments are actively involved, you will find that where economies are healthy and governments believe there should be room for private enterprise, they also believe there should be room for government direction and involvement in the economy. When you compare the economies of those countries in terms of the inflation rate and the employment rate, with the so-called free economies of other western countries like Canada and the United States, you will find that the free enterprisers are the worst performers of anybody in the economic sense; but we still come out here and give this ode to a mythology.

I suggest it is about time the government grew up economically and saw what the real world is up to. Adam Smith has been dead for a few hundred years -- not exactly that long, but for a long time. The government should forget him and start looking at how other economies operate and why they are successful; it should start applying those kinds of rules and get involved to make sure the economy works.

The unseen hand of the marketplace has not worked. It is not going to work. If the government is going to depend on it, it is going to find it totally useless in terms of the effects it will have on society to ensure a good life for the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ruston): The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Makarchuk: I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that part of the problem is that the biggest enemy small business has is big business. The other two parties are tied to the large businesses. As long as they are tied to the large businesses, nothing of value is going to happen to small business.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to join in support of the resolution moved by my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). I am quite certain one of the many factors that caused him to bring this resolution to the House today is his direct exposure to the hundreds of working and dedicated small businessmen whom we share as constituents in the city of Mississauga.

For my part, before coming to public life I was very active in small business, having been involved in the founding of some three or four. As a person coming from that background, I have brought to public life some very strong convictions that, as speakers before me have said, the government must support small business today as perhaps never before.

I had hoped we could avoid any excessive cynicism in this debate, and to some extent we did. I compliment the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) for one or two or three things. First, I would thank him for his comments of today in support of my colleague’s resolution, but I also recall that a few weeks ago he and his colleague from Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) supported a resolution I proposed in this House that had to do with assisting small businessmen.

I believe the member for Mississauga South is very sincere in his desire to bring attention to the contribution made to our economy by small business, and that is what this resolution is all about. If a Small Business Week were to be declared in Ontario, I join with the member in believing that a long list of innovative initiatives could he introduced by government to assist small business. We are aware that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism has recently accomplished some new programs to assist small business. The member for Victoria-Haliburton shared with us one of them, which he feels was perhaps prompted, and no doubt was, by his introduction of it in the House some time ago. He is sharing it with his constituency.

There are others initiatives. We have some new financial assistance programs. One is the paying of 75 per cent of the cost, to a maximum of $7,500 for a firm, for financial assistance specifically to small business. We have another program, to assist in research, which will pay 90 per cent, as the brochure says, of “the tab at the lab.” These are programs that have been brought in by the minister of this government as a specific response and an assist to small business.

The government has also committed itself to a marketing government division in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, to help small business sell to government. Its purpose will be to help them identify specific marketing opportunities and to meet the purchasing requirements of provincial ministries and their agencies.

I mention these things because they are indicative of the value which this government has placed on the role of the small businessman. This resolution is a natural progression in the government’s record of concern. Quite clearly, the question of follow-up is essential, should the government choose to undertake this program. It is for this reason that I am particularly happy to see that the member has included in his resolution such suggestions as the one for a universally recognized symbol. I believe that would, in a very genuine way, aid in the success of such a week and in the dissemination of information as it would go forward in that week.

As a part of my work at the Ontario Youth Secretariat, last year we sponsored the first Ontario Career Week. It was a program that had considerable effectiveness in bringing professionals in the career guidance community together, drawing attention to the career resources that are available in the province. While that program was limited in scope, we are going to sponsor it again this year on a more expanded basis. Here we did use a logo, as the member suggests we do, and it was of considerable assistance as we brought forward, focused attention on, and disseminated some very helpful information.

One of the key factors in the success of such a week would be a logo, along with many of the other suggestions embodied in the resolution. It has been well thought out by the member.

As to the development of a journal that would summarize all the programs and the assistance available to small businesses in Ontario, I think all members here would find such a document very useful in dealing with our constituents, I would imagine that such a document would be just one part of several types of information already available. Some of the more recent ones, such as the recently published document on a small business development policy for Ontario, would complement that and give us that focus.

As we speak to the concerns of small businesses and particularly to a proposal such as this one, to assist them, it is important to be mindful that there are more than 240,000 small businesses in Ontario and that they comprise 97 per cent of all the business enterprises in this province. Cumulatively, they account for 23 per cent of the total sales and provide 40 per cent of the total employment, which was alluded to by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

The member also referred to the fact that they hold the greatest potential for the employment, not particularly of young people, but of people new to the labour force. The government has demonstrated that in programs that have particularly assisted small business, such as the Ontario Youth Employment Program, which we are about to see launched again this year. It involves some 40,000 young people working in the private sector, through government assistance of $1.25 an hour. It is a very real help to small business, as well as to the farming community and other parts of our business community.

4:20 p.m.

Coming back to the principle of this bill, I think the main thing is that such a week would highlight a great deal of the government assistance which my colleague mentioned at the outset. It would stress that it is available. All too often the small businessman is preoccupied with all the other complexities of doing business these days. This would let him know he could have the assistance and would focus attention on just which programs are there to assist him.

I was disappointed, to say the least, by the comments by the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk). He did not quite come back to the purpose that was intended by the mover of this resolution: to set aside a week. There are examples where this government has participated in and taken leadership in such observances. Next year we have the International Year of Disabled Persons coming up, so designated by the United Nations. We have had the Month of the Family. We had the International Year of the Child. We have set aside time to focus and bring people’s attention to a particular aspect of our society and give it the proper attention.

I did not like the cynicism; I did not like him trotting out again the bogyman that the old boys’ clubs control everything and that we want to set small business against big business. That is not so. Small businesses, as we all know, rely on one another to no small degree. So when a member tries to paint that big cloud that this government is a friend of big business, I have to say, with all due respect to the member, it is bunk and he knows that is so. That is not how it actually works.

He says that in the real world the banks are hated by the small businessmen. Banks are certainly not their favourite people -- I think we would all agree with that -- but they certainly are not calling, as he was suggesting, for greater involvement of government in their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The small businessman do s want to give rein to his entrepreneurial instincts. As the member for Victoria-Haliburton said, they are prepared to rise or fall on the fortunes of their endeavours. They do want assistance, but they are sure not looking for what was proposed here of the government; he described it as “actively involved” and went on to suggest more than active involvement. I do not think that is what the small business community is calling for. Certainly they have frustrations with the bank; that is part of being in business --

Mr. Haggerty: And government, too.

Mr. Jones: Indeed they do. I think it’s wrong to suggest that we should have more; we should be thinking in terms of less.

I thank the member for his resolution and urge all members of the House to support it.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Any resolution that helps small business certainly should be supported, even though it might be as the straw to the drowning man.

Many levels of government take great pride in the small business across the province and across the country, and they boast about how affluent they are and how many jobs they provide. Small business people are a very hardy breed and they will survive in spite of governments rather than with their co-operation.

I represent a small business -- one that has been 60 years in Ontario -- that my immigrant father started. I managed it for a while and my son is now managing. It is a little disappointing to stand here and debate such a resolution and hear the member for Mississauga South suggest that my colleague’s bill was not well-intentioned and meaningful. He said in every sense of the word that he would comply with other members who had input to the bill; he would change it in any way the members saw fit to help small business. He made that very plain. Even though the member is going to have the last word, that is the fact as it exists.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think if --

Mr. Kerrio: You have time to respond.

Mr. Kennedy: I just want to respond to that point. I did commend the member for bringing it forward and paid tribute to his sincerity. It was a well-intentioned bill.

Mr. Kerrio: The member is just like a hockey player who gives a person a little compliment and then cuts the legs out from under him.

In any event, what I am trying to say is that while we are talking about helping small business, that has not been the fact. I will bring some experience to the floor of this chamber when I relate problems that the member should be trying to resolve in keeping with a bill that is going to set aside time to talk about their problems. Small businesses are functioning in an unreal world out there. They have not come to government for help until governments like this government and the government of Canada decided to inject huge sums of money in areas where they should never have been injected. The fact of the matter is that if we had the kind of auto pact that should exist in this country, when we are entitled to 10 per cent of the jobs, and we would not have to beg for them and pay for them, in that way, small business would get the overflow which would keep them very healthy, being neighbours of large businesses. That’s not small business’s fault. That’s government’s fault.

Let me explain a couple of the things that are very tragic about small business. When we talk about taxing a small business person, business tax is based on a portion of real property tax. How can anybody in their right mind connect the two? If a business showed a $1-million profit, operating out of a tent, it would pay a business tax based on the value of the tent. If it happens to be a business which requires large amount of property, such as some construction companies, that property does not generate a five-cent piece for them. In fact, it is a detriment to their operation, as it is only used to repair their equipment and to store it. When their business tax is based on their real property, that does a grave disservice to someone who is struggling in business. If we were honest about it, we would base business tax on their profits and their ability to pay. That is not talked about very often on the floor of this Legislature.

Small business is of the few areas, as it relates to workmen’s compensation, where, without any kind of test, they make the business person pay for all the accidents. I certainly want to pay for anyone who has an accident, even if he breaks his leg on the way to work; I am not questioning that. But this government has never seen fit to augment the money that is paid by employers, particularly those in small business, to pay for those kind of accidents which are not the fault of the small employer. That doesn’t happen here.

We talk on the floor of this Legislature about raising the income to people who are hurt and on workmen’s compensation; I agree wholeheartedly with that. But let’s share the bill. Let’s take those that are not the fault of the small employer and put them where they belong: into the tax burden of the whole province, if they want to do it that way.

The other thing is that large businesses can pass all these costs through; small businesses cannot, and they suffer every turn of the wheel with things this government does.

The member talked about red tape. Certainly there is some red tape. Let me explain a small circumstance that happened very recently with the tax on diesel fuel. At one time in the construction business they were not obliged to pay diesel fuel tax for any equipment that operated off of the road; in other words, a bulldozer, a grader or any type of compressor. They were not obliged to pay the fuel tax on fuel that was used to help to building roads.

Some genius in that government over there decided that they might take that piece of equipment and build roads with it and maybe they should charge the tax on it. Every small contractor in the country whether he employed two people or 20 or 50 or 100, had to keep a log on every piece of equipment he owned and prove where it used the diesel fuel. If it happened to go on the road to plough snow, it was obliged to pay the tax; but if it ploughed snow within the limits of a plant, it did not have to pay tax. They could make application, after they could prove how much diesel fuel every machine they owned burned in a given day and how many hours. The member talks about red tape. He doesn’t know what red tape is all about until he has been there.

This is the government that is talking about doing things for small business. The small business people out there who are struggling to survive could tell them many things they could do before they set aside a week to get them to come up to another meeting, because they have been to hundreds of such meetings and the same kind of things go on.

4:30 p.m.

I borrowed money from the Federal Business Development Bank and paid one per cent over prime. When I wanted to pay off the loan, I had to pay a bonus. If that is any kind of help, I fail to see the reasoning. We paid a $5,000 bonus because we wanted to pay back the debt. Do you think those government people who designed that structure would have anticipated that it would be to the advantage of the people lending the money to encourage people to pay them back, and maybe pay them a bonus to pay it back sooner? No, that is not the way it works. They punish you for paying it back too soon.

Small business has a couple of big problems. One of them is government. The other one is big business because, as I said before, big business can pass through all of the costs and can negotiate with unions and pay better money. My friend opposite should try to function out there in competition with some large automobile plants when the government comes through on a huge project; that is meaningful and helpful to those people who belong to the unions.

But small business is always under the gun. It does not have the option of getting part-time payment by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as General Motors does. If there is anyone who needs help, witness somebody trying to break out early in the spring when you get rainy days, you are attempting to work and you have to send your work force home. That’s a time when the government should say it will pay for a person to be on the job for two or three days during inclement weather to keep people meaningfully employed instead of giving it to General Motors to augment its fund. There are many areas where we could keep people meaningfully employed if the government would pick up on unemployment on shorter terms to help keep those people going.

Everywhere we turn, small business is disadvantaged because it does not have the representation. Many small businessmen have their wives doing their books. My friend talks about putting together to share thoughts and being able to do something about it -- many of them do not have the time; they put in 70 or 80 hours a week. One hears talk about the posties working 37.5 hours now, but there are many small business people who work three times that every week they are in business.

It is about time that, if the government wanted to do something meaningful, it would look into small business problems in real depth and give help in a meaningful way to those people. It is not just money that is required; it is a real understanding of the problems of small business. I cannot believe that there are many people in government who truly understand many of the problems of small business, and I say that much of the regulations that are passed here reflect that very thing.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, my comments had just about expired too; so I will close by saying that I will support this resolution, because any help at all is gratefully appreciated by small business entrepreneurs.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the resolution, because in its intent and its content I think it is a laudable resolution.

All this talk about seminars, journals, symbols and forums may be useful in terms of informing the general public, but I think small business wants and expects a lot more than that. The most important thing small business needs is actual legislative action, whether it is at the federal or the provincial level.

I am a little disappointed in some of the things that the resolution does not talk about in terms of the needs of small business. I would have thought that the proposal would talk about the devastating impact of high interest rates on small business, despite the fact that the interest rates may have declined in the last month or two. I would think that one of the primary interests of small business is to have money available at rates that it can afford, not the excruciating rates that it has had to suffer for the past six months.

We know the tremendous damages that a tight-money policy can do to small business primarily.

I am surprised there is no talk in the resolution about the power of the multinationals, the monopolies and the cartels -- and sometimes the very negative effects that power can have on small business. For example, I think of vertical integration in the food industry and how that cuts the feet from under the small independent operator and he becomes totally dependent on these chains or these corporate monopolies where there is no competition. He has no say; he is totally at the mercy of a multinational or some sort of oligopoly.

I was also a little disappointed there is no mention in the resolution about the need far real and effective competition in our economy. I know the federal government has gone through three, four or five drafts of a competition bill which would ensure real competition in the marketplace. The obvious beneficiary of such legislation would be small business, especially here in Ontario, it being the largest source of small business in the country. I am surprised there is no mention of the need for that.

I am surprised there is no mention of the need for reform of the Bank Act. The small business sector is so heavily dependent on the banking industry for funding, yet we still have not been able to reform the federal Bank Act. Again, I would think the presence of greater competition in the banking and finance industry would benefit small business most of all in our economy.

I am also surprised there is no talk about the need for a strong, enforceable and meaningful Combines Investigation Act at the federal level. Once again, the abolition of the control over monopolies and cartels, price fixing, combines and so on would benefit small business most of all.

I am surprised there is no talk about the need for small business to get a greater share of allotment of funds from the banking industry in this country. We have never been able to take on the banks to ensure that small business could get adequate funding.

I would have thought there would be a need in the resolution for a mention of the value of procurement policies and the tremendous opportunity that would offer small business in terms of expansion and new sales.

I would have thought the resolution would mention the ongoing need at least to minimize, if not reduce, red tape in the whole operation of government. That side has been in power for 37 years. Obviously they cannot absolve themselves from blame for the bureaucracy and red tape they have created. All of us realize there is going to be a certain amount of red tape, a certain amount of bureaucracy, but I would have thought the resolution would have addressed itself to that need to reduce the amount of red tape as much as possible for small business -- or blue tape, as my colleague suggests.

In the retail sector, and I want to isolate that for a moment, I would like to suggest that we give greater attention to several areas.

First of all, for small independents, I would think some system of province-wide, uniform store hours would be extremely beneficial; it is something that is long overdue in this province. I know the government has backed off from it on several occasions. If we look at the development of retail commerce in this province, we see more and more chains, malls and corporate operations. These people can operate five or six days a week and for as long each day as they want in many municipalities and areas. I think the people who really suffer from the type of operation are small, independent, family-operated businesses. Quebec has been able to legislate uniform store closing hours and I think it is about time, in the name of small business, we took on same of these development corporations, malls, chains, et cetera, and helped small business.

Second, on the subject of retail grocers, I have introduced a bill on five separate occasions to allow the small, independent grocers to sell beer. Quebec did that about 20 or 25 years ago, I think, and it has had tremendous success in saving that sector of small business. Let’s face it, they are competing with the Loblaws, the Steinbergs, the Dominions, the A and Ps, the Provigos, et cetera -- the corporate behemoths of the food industry. Because of that one piece of legislation, thousands of independent businessmen in Quebec are still in business and are prospering; the government moved in and did something to help them.

In this province, we allow the brewers to maintain a total monopoly on the sale of this retail product. We tell small business, “Keep your hands off; you are not allowed to sell it.” We let the brewers do it through these legal monopolies called Brewers’ Retail outlets. I would think that public opinion is now strongly behind the idea of assisting small business to give it the opportunity to compete and sell beer in the corner grocery stores and to emulate the tremendous success story in Quebec.

4:40 p.m.

Third, I would like to express a concern about the growth of something in the retail sector. I accept its inevitability but I still have some concerns about it. That is the whole concept of franchise operations. I realize that, in our lifestyle and in the evolution of our society, franchise operations are here to stay. But I do have concerns about how it ultimately leads to greater dependence and greater corporate control in the retail sector. What bothers me even more is that more and more of that corporate control is American. It’s not Canadian, especially if we talk about fast foods, clothing and things of that sort. It means fewer and fewer small, independent businesses.

Sure, a businessman can get a franchise but we all know they hardly have any independence in terms of operating their business. They are dictated to by the head office. Their purchasing policies are dictated to them. Their advertising policies are dictated. What real freedom do people have who operate these franchises?

I wonder what it does to our society and our values in terms of our tastes and our mode of life. Do we always have to base our operations on south of the border? Do we always have to adopt their tastes end their mode of life? I see small business as a countervailing force to the tremendous power of franchise operations, especially among young people.

We on this side believe that small business has proven itself in terms of job creation in Ontario, especially when you compare its record with that of big business. It has proven itself as a source of research and development in this country. The most important thing of all is that it is indigenous; it is domestic, it is Canadian.

We need small business in Ontario. But what small business needs most of all is action from this Legislature and from the federal Parliament -- not merely resolutions or proclamations dedicated to them, although such resolutions may be laudable in themselves.

Mr. Kennedy: Is there just three minutes, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: A little more than three minutes.

Mr. Kennedy: Could my colleague take one minute? I would like about three minutes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel can have about one minute.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the resolution.

Having operated my own business for 25 years, having served as president of the chamber of commerce and the businessmen’s association, as well as a director of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, Ontario, I feel I have some background and experience in small business.

I would like to allude to the presentation of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), who mentioned store hours. If there is one thing that disrupts and destroys businessmen’s associations, it is to bring in store hours. They are extremely independent, and that is one of the benefits of being in business for yourself. You have the right to make your own decisions in many of these areas, and whenever you start legislating store hours you destroy the business association in a community.

As my time must be up now, I would like to commend the member for Mississauga South for introducing this resolution, and would urge all members to support it.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I will just take the time allotted. I would like to thank the members who participated in this debate. It was most interesting to tune in and listen to the comments. One thing those afternoons permit, to the few members who can get on, is the opportunity to say what they think. I think it is great.

The thing that worried us about the bill introduced by the member for Victoria-Haliburton was government getting into the filing cabinets of Ontario’s small business people. I do not think the bill as amended would fly. I believe there would need to be such a change in principle that the member should try again. I did appreciate very much his comments and his support of my resolution.

The member for Brantford bashed the banks around for a bit, and there are days when I could join him -- from the heart or the wallet -- I’m not sure which. There used to be a small businessman who got to be big. His name was Lord Thomson of Fleet. I recall hearing interviews with him in which be said he got his start through establishing credibility with the banks in northern Ontario. I think he was in the radio business, and he went up from there. He paid a great tribute to banks, and even more so than perhaps anybody in this House. That is worth noting.

The New Democratic Party gets the wind up about free enterprise. I remember the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), in the preamble to his bill, had something about free enterprise. It got the NDP members all excited. They wanted to have some mealy-mouthed statement like “the essence of Ontario’s socio-economic system is embodied in the principles of co-operation, diversity, decentralization” and so on.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Kennedy: Those honourable members who said business people would not attend such functions as would be provided by the resolution are doing a disservice to those small businessmen who belong to boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and so on. I am sure they would come. I am sure they would find it valuable.

I want to thank the members for their support of the resolution.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the previous debate makes it obvious that we need legislation to protect the independent businessman. You will recall the days, Mr. Speaker, when you were sent by your parents to the corner grocery store, probably on a Saturday, to buy the groceries for the following week. While the grocer was weighing the chicken, or filling a bag with sugar, you were no doubt passing the time of day with him and, maybe, even bargaining with him for lower prices -- a very personal service. It has probably occurred to you that those days are over, and the trend has been to a domination of the grocery business by a few large firms and highly impersonal service.

The large companies sell so large a share of the groceries that this in itself gives them a great deal of power over the manufacturers, producer-shippers and other suppliers. If you wonder why this is, Mr. Speaker, it is because the supplier who is refused shelf space by the giant is blocked out of a large part of the market. He is left with little alternative. This happens, and is one indication of the bargaining power of the large chains over its suppliers. In turn, it affects small retailers, for they deal with those same suppliers for the most part.

By putting pressure on the suppliers the chains, if they so desired, could put a lot of pressure on the independent retailers. In fact, this is precisely what the practice of discounting does. It is for this reason that the corner grocery store, carrying practically all the groceries one needed at the time, has virtually disappeared, and the market share of the chains has become very large and continues to grow.

According to the Canadian Grocer, a magazine put out by Maclean-Hunter, the major chains increased their market share in Canada from about 48 per cent in 1965 to about 60.4 per cent in 1979. During the some period, the share of the independents decreased from about 52 per cent to less than 40 per cent. Chains in Ontario had a relatively small share of the market at the beginning of our generation, but they now have increased their share to approximately 74 per cent. Correspondingly, the share of the independents, including that corner grocery store I have been talking about, has declined to around 26 per cent.

In Ontario, three large chains especially carry on an intense rivalry. Dominion Stores and the Loblaws group, including Zehr’s and Gordons, have close to half the grocery field to themselves. Steinberg controls more than nine per cent. When A and P is added, the top four firms sell more than 60 per cent of the market. It is well known in trade circles that if a supplier wants to sell in volume to Ontario he must sell to Loblaws and Dominion. Meanwhile, the share of independent grocers in Ontario continues to decline.

I want now to deal more specifically with the practice of discounting. Discounting and allowances give the chain a lower purchasing price than smaller retailers can get. These discounts and rebates have many names and forms. Some are just deductions marked on the invoice to the retailer. Others require a separate cheque from the supplier back to the retailer. Some are for promotion of the suppliers’ products, such as weekly newspaper or TV ads and price reductions by the retailers. Others are related to volume purchased by the chain from the supplier over the course of a year. Then there is the listing fee, an amount of money from the supplier to the retailer before the latter will stock a new product.

4:50 p.m.

Most of these practices have some possible justification in themselves. If a manufacturer wants to pay a chain to advertise for him, there is nothing wrong with that. If the supplier can sell whole truckloads and thus ship more cheaply to a large chain with its own warehouse, it is only fair to share those savings with that customer. The problems become serious only when some customers become much more powerful than others and begin receiving rebates just because they are large and the suppliers cannot afford to offend or refuse them.

The ability to secure large discounts and thus a lower cost of goods was one of the fundamental advantages of the chain stores. As the chains gained power in the 1920s in the United States, it became clear they were getting an unfair advantage in discounts. The United States passed the Robinson-Patman Act in 1936; so discounts and rebates are not allowed unless the supplier can prove that the discounts only pass on to customers his real cost saving from selling to them. As a result, despite continuing opposition to the law and some lack of will in enforcing it, the large discounts known in Canada are absent in the United States.

Australia passed a similar law in 1974, partly as a result of the Robinson-Patman Act. The largest chains in the United States are not able to dominate their market as four or five chains do in Canada.

A good example of how a volume rebate works is the case of milk. For illustration purposes, let us assume the list price for a three-pack of homogenized milk is $2. Large chains receive a rebate of about 30 per cent of list price. They pay about $1.40 for the three-pack. They mark it up to about $1.85 for resale; that is, clearing a 45-cent gross margin.

Supermarkets not affiliated with a large company or group will typically receive only a 15 to 20 per cent rebate, even though delivery to these stores would be similar to many of the chain outlets. Thus these independents would pay $1.60 to $1.70 for the three-pack. If they sell competitively at $1.85, their margin is only 15 to 25 cents, about half that of the chain.

The small corner or village store may well get no discount. They sell the three-pack at $2 or more for no markup at all, or a very small one. Customers may think that the small store is inefficient or the manager greedy, when it is just the bargaining power of the chain that has forced his price up.

This example could be repeated on many other products -- in fact, on most food products -- and, of course, it is not limited to food. Is it any wonder that the corner grocery store, to which I have been referring, has practically become a thing of the past?

It should be obvious how these discounting practices hurt the independent grocer. The chain stores force up the independent grocer’s price relative to their own. To compete, the independent must be more efficient than the chain; and, I might say, many of them are. In spite of those outstanding individuals, the law of averages would declare that the independents will be out of business in another generation or two.

The chains are moving into small cities and towns throughout Ontario. They can afford to establish in a plaza or mall, even though the surrounding area may not justify an additional grocery. They can spread the losses across their whole chain for a number of years. They would rather do this than let the rival chains have the location.

Many independents are closing due to this overwhelming competition. Independents, including IGA, find it almost impossible to secure locations in plazas.

Discounting practices affect suppliers in much the same manner as they affect the retailers. Discounts can be resisted by the large manufacturers better than by small or mid-sized manufacturers. Even the large manufacturers feel a lot of pressure from the chains. They feel they are forced to spend more advertising money with the chains than they would like to, and the advertising fees have risen a lot faster than the cost of ads with the media.

Think of the smaller manufacturer whose product is not known nationally and who can afford less advertising. He is much more subject to pressure by the chains. Typically, he has more difficulty in selling his name-brand products. The chains insist that a goodly portion of its product is labelled as a chain-brand product, including generics. Typically, too, his discount level will be higher. As he cannot raise his list price, he often finds himself squeezed with low margins.

A study by the federal Department of Agriculture in 1963 showed that the 16 to 17 tender fruit canners were losing money mainly because of the pressure from the large chains. Today, Ontario has one such canner. One can understand the effect this has on producers. As there is only one canning company, their production is pretty well limited to the fresh fruit market. The consumers are also affected, as they must rely on the import market for their canned fruit. Competition has practically been eliminated in this product, and we are at the mercy of the import market.

This question of unfair trade practice in the food industry is of real concern to food producers, independent manufacturers and suppliers and independent retailers, not to mention the concern the consumers will have if it is allowed to continue.

My colleagues and I actively pursued this matter in the Legislature when certain reports were kicked back and price allowances became public in the spring of 1978. Our concern then was to obtain a preliminary inquiry by a committee of the Legislature to ascertain if there existed a problem for public policy, which required the establishment of an independent public inquiry.

The first reaction we encountered was that the discounting practices which first came to light were unusual. The impression was created that there were rare deviations from usual practice. Then as more and more situations were discovered, it became apparent that a new response was necessary. Discounts, rebates, kickbacks and price allowances of all kinds were not only admitted to be common trading practices in the food industry, but they were also defended as a good thing in that they allegedly resulted in lower food prices to consumers in both the short and long terms.

Finally, when that defence failed to satisfy everyone, the answer was made that if a problem existed it was a problem for the federal government under its power to control unfair price discrimination as defined in the federal Competition Act. I have no doubt that we will hear the same views expressed here today. No doubt some members will also say that the pricing practices of the retailers and suppliers or economically good because they are passed on to consumers in the form of lower food prices, an argument which appears to rest on the contention that it must be so; after all, the supermarkets make only a cent or two on every dollar of sales.

I would suggest that we can view this argument with the greatest scepticism, and I hope that it was subjected to the most rigorous investigation by the judicial inquiry. It does not automatically follow that price reductions obtained by the supermarkets from suppliers are passed on to consumers as lower prices. It is entirely possible that some of them may simply increase the retailer’s profit while leaving the consumer price unchanged. It is entirely possible that some suppliers, either in anticipation or as a result of having to provide a discount to the supermarket buyers, mark up their list prices so as to get the discount and still retain enough profit to stay in business, with the result that consumers may be paying more rather than less.

Only by independent expert examination of the supermarket books would the judicial inquirer be able to ascertain the facts. The published consolidated financial statements tell us nothing. The accounting of these rebates, discounts and allowances are shrouded in mystery.

To take one example, all the big supermarkets publish weekly specials in the newspapers. Brand-name suppliers who participate in these advertisements not only give the price reduction advertised, but they also give the supermarket a price allowance, supposedly in consideration of the space occupied by the supplier’s product in the total advertisement. The revenue from the advertising allowances may far exceed the cost to the supermarkets of placing the ads in the newspapers.

How is this revenue accounted for? Where does it appear in the financial statement? It is essential to know the answers to such questions before one accepts the conventional wisdom that food prices to the consumer are as low as they can be.

I turn now to the longer-term economic effects of discounts and allowances. I believe that these purchase price policies by the supermarkets are driving smaller food retailers out of business and, unless checked, will inevitably leave the market dominated by a few very large firms. It has already happened in Alberta, as one chain, Safeway, dominates 65 per cent of the market in that province. It is already happening here, and it is a characteristic of monopolies that prices go up, not down.

The purchasing policies of the supermarkets are reducing not only the number of food retailers but also the number of food and food product suppliers. Vertical integration in the food industry is already well established. It will be intensified as more and more small suppliers find they cannot afford the escalating discounts and price allowances being demanded by the big retailers. More mergers, buy-outs and dropouts will take place until the concentration of economic power on the selling side matches that of the buying side.

More and more food processors and distributors will fall under the control, directly or indirectly, of the corporate retail chains. Some will say this is the inevitable nature of free enterprise and the results are bound to be beneficial in terms of industry efficiency and cheaper prices. My colleagues and I disagree.

Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario Liberal Party is sincerely devoted to free enterprise. We believe the essence of free enterprise is competition. We believe that the concentration of economic power in the hands of relatively few buyers and sellers is the antithesis of competition and the curse of free enterprise. Monopolies and oligopolies are not necessarily more efficient, and no cartel to my knowledge has ever adopted lower prices.

5 p.m.

It is established public policy in this country that competition is promoted and economic domination prevented by outlawing unfair trading practices, as those practices may be legislatively defined from time to time. Perhaps I should qualify that statement by saying that this has been the public policy pursued by governments which support the free enterprise system.

The main legislative vehicle for implementing this policy has been the Federal Combines Investigation Act, or the Competition Act, as many now prefer to call it. For some years now this legislation has been under review with the stated intention of correcting many of its perceived inadequacies. The federal government introduced certain amendments in that regard in 1977, but they were not enacted.

There are a number of inadequacies in the federal law as it now stands. I shall deal with only three major points which, in my opinion, justify the need for complementary provincial legislation, such as the bill we are considering at present.

The first difficulty is that the federal law is criminal law. Many of the practices and offences against competition and trade, which the legislation seeks to deter, are not criminal offences as most people today understand that term. A more flexible approach than that permitted by the criminal law is needed.

The second major difficulty with current federal law is that it contains no discernible concept of cost justification as a test for the legitimacy of discounts and allowances granted or requested, particularly in respect of advertising and sales promotion.

Without such a concept and test, I submit that the section of the federal act which outlaws promotional and advertising allowances to a purchaser, which are not offered on proportionate terms to competitors of the purchaser, is virtually unworkable. The Robinson-Patman Act in the United States corrected this deficiency years ago.

The third major difficulty -- in my opinion, the most serious one -- is that the federal law prohibits unfair trade practices by sellers. The entire act is designed to promote competition by preventing undue economic domination by the sellers of products. It is a moot point whether a buyer could be prosecuted, let alone convicted, under the federal act. Again, the US Robinson-Patman Act corrected this deficiency years ago.

I submit that this rather antiquated view of competition policy in Canada must be corrected. Many of the problems in promoting competition in today’s economy arise from the concentration of economic power in the hands of large buyers. Control of the marketing side of the trade by a few large buyers is as bad as control of the supply side by a few large sellers.

Yet our legislative regime has not caught up to this rather obvious truth.

No supermarket chain, to my knowledge, has testified that it is the victim of price discrimination by its suppliers. Rather, I believe the weight of evidence has been the other way, that these discounts, kickbacks and allowances are being aggressively sought by the big chains on the unspoken implication that the seller who does not provide them risks doing no business with that buyer.

I do not think it is too strong to say that they are being exacted from suppliers by the big chains. In this regard I draw particular attention to what appears to be a standard clause in the pricing arrangements which the chains negotiate within their suppliers wherein the supplier declares the deal he has just concluded, usually to the tailor-made specifications of the chain, is being offered to all competing buyers in the trade.

Thus does everyone keep clean of the letter, if not the spirit, of the Combines Investigation Act. I submit that provincial legislation is necessary.

Anticipating another view which will likely be expressed during the debate, I would like to say a word about the constitutionality and provincial initiatives in this matter. The bill I have introduced is an amendment to the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Act. The amendment accepts the definition of marketing and, with certain minor changes, the definition of farm product already contained in that act. The amendment would also accept without qualification the purpose and intent of that legislation.

The Farm Products Marketing Act was enacted under the umbrella of section 95 of the British North America Act, whereby the provincial and federal legislators have concurrent powers respecting agriculture and any provincial law is effective in the province provided it is not repugnant to any federal law. It is legislation which has been held to be constitutionally valid by the courts.

I should further state that we are not proposing some kind of legalistic end run around the federal government’s undoubted exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law, or the regulation of trade and commerce. We believe the problems for public policy can best be resolved by removing them from the context of the criminal law.

As for the regulation of trade and commerce, we are concerned only with trade and commerce within Ontario and more specifically with the contracts, written or verbal, between the suppliers and retailers of food in Ontario. It should be noted that Ontario already has extensive legislation dealing with buyer-seller contracts in the field of consumer and commercial relations. Nobody, to my knowledge, has changed this constitutional validity.

Finally, I am sure some members will say that my bill was premature in that the report of the judicial inquiry has not been released.

In response, I would like to say that many past investigations of the food industry have found serious problems and have recommended serious corrections. Most of these recommendations have not been implemented by the government. The list has become longer over the years as the issues have become more urgent.

Testimony which has been obtained by the royal commission is quite clear in a number of conclusions. These are: Discounts, rebates and allowances have increased sharply in the last decade, and some have testified they have doubled. The discounts are different among various companies and supermarket chains; some of the largest, wealthiest supply companies, such as the Campbell’s Soup and Procter and Gamble, offer relatively low discounts to the chains, while some of the small- scale companies offer relatively high discounts and depend almost exclusively on the supermarket chains to promote their products.

These discounts have tended to narrow consumer choices of products which, in turn, has led to greater economic concentration in the food industry. The size of discounts in the food industry relates to the competitive pressure and not merely to cost justification.

Last year, Dominion Stores Limited collected $60 million in supplier discounts and rebates, or about 4.3 per cent of sales. Loblaws Limited collected $45 million, or 5.3 per cent of sales. These figures were obtained only after cross-examination of the chain store executives, since they had originally created and left the impression with the royal commission that their discounts and rebates amounted to some two per cent of total sales for the year. There has been evidence that sliding-scale volume discount schedules discriminate against small overall purchases even where the same quantity is purchased.

The judicial inquiry has plenty of evidence on record to draw all of these conclusions. What is required now is government action. Simply put, we in the Ontario Liberal Party want to see more fair competition in the food marketplace to ensure maximum protection for Ontario consumers and producers. To achieve this, we believe that provincial legislation is necessary. There is a place for provincial jurisdiction in interprovincial trade just as there is need for strengthening the federal mandate in interprovincial trade.

I hope all members of this House will see fit to support my bill in the interests of the producers, independent manufacturers, distributors and retailers, and most certainly the consumers.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the substance of this bill has been under investigation by a royal commission for the last couple of years. The latest report we have is that this royal commission is going to be reporting in the midsummer of this year, I hope.

I think it is useful to recall for the House how that royal commission came into being and the kind of case that was presented to the government and ultimately forced the government to move in setting up that kind of investigation.

Members will recall that some two years or so ago the first revelation, made by Barbara Klich on Radio Noon, was with regard to discounts that were allegedly at a level of two, three, four or five cents. A storm broke and it built over a period of a few days, in the face of the then Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is with us this afternoon, contending that he was shocked and did not really believe that it existed, but if it did exist something should be done about it.

The net result was that we had a couple of weeks’ examination before the standing committee on resources development. After that two-week investigation, those of us who were on that committee were persuaded there was a prima facie case for the existence of discounts and the deleterious effect of discounts on a number of sectors of the economy, including the consumers, and that therefore there should be a full investigation.

The government was not particularly interested in a full investigation. Perhaps I should put that a bit more accurately; the then Minister of Agriculture and Food was not interested in it. Indeed, as late as August 1978, he was making statements to the effect that he did not think the matter needed to be inquired into, yet in the same statement he acknowledged that his cabinet colleagues were likely to overrule him and appoint such a royal commission, which happened a few days after that, in late August 1978.

That royal commission has meandered on. I do not know what the government has done by way of trying to get an answer from the royal commission. If you will not acknowledge the existence of a problem, it is rather difficult to come to grips with that problem. That was the difficulty with the then Minister of Agriculture and Food. He did not think there was a problem of any proportion; you always have discounts in the marketplace. Everybody is looking for discounts; they are part of the normal pattern of life, so to speak.

5:10

If one would not acknowledge that there was a problem, one could not solve it. The attitude of the then minister became the attitude of the royal commission. The counsel for the commission, in much of his inquiry -- which was pretty ineffectual -- and in his discussions particularly with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, was not persuaded that there was a problem. Even worse, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with Laventhol and Horwath, a research or consultant group, who also did not think there was a problem.

I do not know what we are going to get out of this royal commission. All I do know is that, owing to the ill health of the first commissioner who was appointed, another commissioner came in. The only possible salvation of that royal commission in terms of providing for us some meaningful guidance as to how we can come to grips with this problem will be if the royal commission recognizes that if he does not do more than his counsel was intent on doing, if he does not do more than was investigated by the consultants at the expenditure of hundreds of thousand of dollars, he is going to look rather foolish and the whole exercise will have been an expensive but rather futile exercise.

I repeat, we are going to get that report literally within a few weeks. At least the last time I inquired they were still saying the middle of the summer. When I first inquired at the beginning of this year and coupled my inquiry as to why, when the testimony was completed last fall, it took another six or eight months to complete the report, I got no satisfactory answer other than a rather jaundiced comment from the chief counsel of the commission.

However, we are going to get a report the middle of this year. I think it is a little -- let me put it bluntly -- ludicrous that we should move to pass a bill now when we are going to get a report that we hope will provide us with some sort of guidance. We should at least take a look at the product of this expenditure of public moneys before we jump into the picture, having delayed this long.

I am not certain we needed a royal commission to begin with. There are certain practices that have grown up in the retailing of food. I can think of green stamps, about which public protest grew to a point where the government intervened. Despite their great profession of free enterprise, they moved in and ruled that the green stamps were illegal. Why has it not happened in this jurisdiction? In other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, we know of the consequences of loss leaders where great retailing giants like the supermarkets will sell a product below cost in order to lure customers in, and sometimes they drive that loss back against the producer or the processor or the wholesaler. It is not an above-board and efficient way of doing business, other than in the dog-eat-dog competitive world of supermarket retailing. So, in areas like Quebec, they have a law against loss leaders, at least in reference to such basic staples as milk and bread and things of that nature. We could have moved, and there is clear jurisdiction, as I shall emphasize in a moment, within the province to have moved and done something about this. However, we did not move. We have spent I do not know how much money. I suspect it is well over $1 million or more in this royal commission.

We are going to get a report in mid-August. Therefore, my reaction to this bill is that I support it in principle. I supported it in principle before the royal commission was set up. I think we have to come to grips with discounts. We have to get rid of them in some fashion or another, and it is within provincial jurisdiction to come to grips with that problem.

I support the bill in principle with the rider that I think that the government -- it often does this anyway without our request -- in this instance might legitimately hold back further action on the bill until this fall. After all, we are within 10 days of moving towards the summer recess. By that time, we will have the report of the royal commission and can see whether its studies give us any further clarification of the problem or any further means by which we can come to grips with it.

Let me proceed to the substance of the issue in the brief time that is left. I do not know whether we are going to get that report by August. I am a little puzzled as to why the government has been sitting on the sidelines while virtually nothing has happened for the last six or eight months. I cannot conceive of what has gone on in the eight months since the testimony was finished before that royal commission. I suggest that, if we are going to do something about this, the government should be asking a few questions. I and a number of other people have done so publicly, but I do not know why the government is so lackadaisical in its whole approach to it.

However, let me come to the real point of the issue. There is no doubt in the world -- it became clear to the standing committee on resources developments when we looked at it and established the prima facie case -- that discounts are very injurious to a number of people. They are injurious to the consumers in that there is no guarantee that the saving the supermarket or the retailer may get is passed on to the consumers.

Furthermore, if a retailer, a wholesaler or a processor is forced to give a discount of 15, 20, 25 or 30 per cent, in the instance of milk, to a big supermarket, then the only way in which he is going to be able to survive economically is to raise his price to the other people to whom he is selling who do not demand discounts. That means other consumers are going to have to pay extra to compensate for the discounts given to the big supermarket. There is no guarantee, indeed there is no evidence, that supermarket saving they got through the discount is passed on to the consumer. So the consumer does not benefit and the producer does not benefit. In many instances we had coming before the standing committee, as well as before the royal commission, producers or processors who had to give discounts when they sold to the supermarkets. It cut their profits and their returns to the bare bone, perhaps even to a loss.

Perhaps most devastating of all, however, is a point that emerged when we were debating the earlier resolution this afternoon. We had testimony before the standing committee -- I think of one case from the Kitchener area -- to the effect that a small competitor had to pay to the wholesaler as much as the supermarket was selling at down on the corner. He had to compete with that because the supermarket was able to get such a range of discounts, including the discounts we have here.

In brief, discounts are obviously not an honourable way of doing business. They are a weapon by which the big become bigger. The supermarkets are destroying their competitors, and the consumers, the processors and the producers in many instances are suffering along the way. This is within provincial jurisdiction. The government can do something, either by amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Act or, if I may suggest, without wanting to pull the rug out from under this bill, under the Business Practices Act, to apply across the board, not just to farm products. I support the bill in principle. I suggest we should delay proceeding with it until we get the benefits of the royal commission.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points about this amendment that make it clear to me that the member who introduced the bill does not fully understand the purpose of the Farm Products Marketing Act.

I suppose the most blatant misunderstanding is the scope of the Farm Products Marketing Act as it now stands. This act, as the honourable members know, covers commodities that come under a marketing plan. That is why the act was set up: to regulate marketing plans for producers who wanted their particular commodity brought under a marketing plan.

The amendment before us would, in some way that is not clear to me, bring the full range of Ontario’s agricultural output under the umbrella of this act. For example, the amendment would give the Farm Products Marketing Board jurisdiction over beef, grain, corn and a large number of fresh vegetables, to name only a few.

This amendment proposes regulation of the food marketing procedure from one end to the other. Frankly, I am trying to figure out if the honourable member wants us to set up a couple of hundred marketing boards.

5:20 p.m.

Another issue that is not clearly understood by those who framed this bill is the division of responsibility between ministries. Trade regulation of the type envisioned here, if it were practical at all, which it is not, would fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In fact, some of the suggestions relating to the unfair farm product marketing practices are so broad that they are probably already offences under the Combines Investigation Act of Canada.

Finally, this bill has been brought forward at a most inopportune moment. As has been mentioned previously in the debate, there is a royal commission investigating the matter of discounts and allowances in the food industry. It would be unwise, indeed irresponsible, for us to adopt any permanent measures dealing with these issues before the royal commission reports on its findings and makes its recommendations.

I am not surprised at the opposition, because it is typical. First of all, they wanted a royal commission, in fact, they forced the government to put one in place at no small cost to the taxpayers of this province. Now the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) wants to put in some ill-conceived legislation before we get all the facts. That is a bit like buying some commercial fertilizer without a soil test or without knowing what crop you are growing. It is just a waste of money.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill 23 and, in spite of what the past speaker has said, I do so with a great deal of pride in the fact that I had a hand in suggesting some of the terms of the act and a small role to play in it.

I would like to review the historical background leading up to this act. For this, I would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to Mr. C. Frank Perkins, the author of Marketing Milestones in Ontario: 1933-1960. It was my pleasure to personally know and work with Mr. Perkins when he was an official of the Ontario Department of Agriculture, as it was known then. I want to quote from the opening paragraph:

“The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Act did not just happen. It resulted from a long period of agricultural unrest and marketing legislation in other jurisdictions which set the stage for its passing in 1937.”

Beginning in 1920, farm prices and incomes fell severely in a country heavily dependent on the export of farm products. The pooling programs which became popular in the 1920s as a result of the Sapiro farm marketing co-operatives were not successful. As a youth, I can recall hearing the farmers damning the pools, and that is the right word. Those who held out for a price usually ended up dumping or selling their products for an extremely low price. Those who sold did so for a price that was higher than its natural level because of the umbrella effect of the loyal pool members. It was a system that punished its friends and rewarded its enemies.

The great Depression hit in 1929, intensified until 1933 and did not end until the 1940s. During the 1920s, and especially from 1927 to 1929, Canada witnessed a burst of consolidation in the food industry. The royal commission on mass buying and price spreads in 1934 widely publicized certain aspects of large-scale buying which convinced farmers that the weight of the Depression was falling with undue severity on the prices of farm products.

The voluntary pool markets having failed, farmers turned to other methods. They were seeking higher prices, stable prices, and a better bargaining position for agriculture.

The governments of Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec led the way in 1932, and the government of Canada passed the Natural Products Marketing Act in 1934. Canada thereby joined 38 other countries that had similar acts.

The essential features of these acts were that where a majority -- usually two thirds -- voted to sell their products collectively, the minority could be compelled by law to conform. Time does not permit a detailed account of the stormy history that followed, except to say that the Dominion Natural Products Marketing Act was repealed by the House of Commons in the spring of 1937.

British Columbia passed a similar act in 1934, and the act was upheld in 1938 by the Privy Council. This important decision established the right of each province in Canada to provide for the effective regulation and control of marketing and transportation of natural products within the province. In 1937, the Ontario Legislature, under a Liberal government, passed the Ontario Farm Products Control Act. The Farm Products Marketing Act has been amended many times, the most recent being in 1978. Some 22 plans are in effect under the Farm Products Marketing Act, and approximately 40 products are covered by these plans. Of a total in 1979 of $3.95 billion in annual production and sales, $2.35 billion of produce is covered.

One might well ask the question, in view of the extensive marketing legislation we have in Ontario, why do we need any further amendments to the act? My answer is that we need them for two reasons. First, we need amendments to give some measure of protection to the growers who produce crops not under marketing plans which represent some $1.6 billion worth of produce. The ones that need the protection the most are primarily fresh fruit and vegetables not marketed under plans. They are estimated by the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Crowers’ Association to amount to $110 million in annual value, compared with $150 million of annual production in the marketing plans.

The second reason is to give more protection to those growers who are under the marketing plans. The facts are that a few marketing boards have in the past tended not to know what to do about questionable practices in the marketing of farm products. While one cannot condone such an action, one can understand the human reaction.

Discounts and rebates in Ontario have not been defined as illegal, although many fair traders regard them as unfair and even as unconscionable. They are illegal under the Combines Investigation Act. But intent to damage a competitor must be proved, and this is very difficult. They are recognized in other lines of commercial operations, and many products sold to and bought by farmers are sold for prices that recognize volume discounts. I am sure there are deals which give rebates at the end of the season. For instance, during the fertilizer season rebates would be given on a sliding scale where certain volumes are achieved.

Certain marketing boards find themselves on occasion in an uncomfortable position. On the one hand, they ask for, and often get, the support of buyers, more particularly retail chain buyers, to promote and feature their products. Sometimes Mother Nature produces a crop larger than normal. It requires a good deal of co-operation successfully to market the crop. Ontario chain stores have been helpful in many instances. Is it any wonder that the marketing boards on occasion choose to avoid a confrontation with the people on whom they depend for a successful marketing season?

In the United States it is interesting to note that a country that is recognized as having the most free enterprise traders in the world under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act does make it an offence for a buyer to act as both buyer and a broker. A buyer cannot say to a seller: “We are dealing directly. You are saving a three per cent brokerage fee. I want that fee.” The reason is that no in-home buyer, if he or she should decide to cut off the merchandizing of a particular product, can make a sale of the product to another buyer. For reasons of competitive jealousy and to avoid any hint of price fixing, chain store B would not buy from chain store A. In other words, the in-house buyers are not capable of performing a brokerage function. Ontario in-house buyers who claim they are only taking a brokerage fee, while not illegal in Ontario, are not performing a brokerage service.

5:30 p.m.

The name of the US act is also important. It is the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act. I would point out that food is very perishable. It applies especially to fresh fruit and vegetables, starting in the southern states and marching north as the season advances. The same happens from southern Ontario to northeastern Ontario.

Even the delay of a day or two with very perishable items will back up the marketing pipeline and destroy the price structure. The product must be moved at any price. This puts an enormous power in the buyers’ hands and an enticing temptation to abuse the power. The buyer can simply say, “The price of doing business with me is a certain discount off the normal invoice price.”

I do not wish to suggest that there are no pressures and temptations in other lines of business. Fertilizer and automobiles, while both seasonal, are not perishable. A seller can say no and new markets can be searched for and found and the product can be moved long distances. Perishable items cannot.

My colleague mentioned the Robinson-Patman Act. Buyers here often claim that discounts are for early payment. Most of the major chains pay within 10 days. This, I believe, follows from the US Perishable Agricultural Products Act, which lays out this rule. Also, Ontario food handlers are in most cases listed in the Red Book and the Blue Book. These are the produce industry equivalent of Dun and Bradstreet. The ratings are done by the industry members. If you want to get a four-X rating you pay in 10 days and you are a fair trader. These rating books say there is no such thing as slow but good pay. The only good pay is payment in 10 days. Of course, payment may be delayed by mutual consent, but a 10-day payment does not earn a discount.

I believe we need this bill to establish what is and what is not considered the rules of the game. I believe that many buyers who do not publicly support the bill do, in the inner recesses of their minds, support the principle. I believe they would like this questionable practice stopped so that all reputable factors would be playing by the same rules.

It is interesting to see that whenever the practice is brought to public scrutiny it seems to stop. But new buyers come into the market and, once the practice starts again, other buyers have little choice but to follow it.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. McGuigan: I am very close to the end; so I will close.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle of this bill. I must say in the beginning that I am a little disappointed that the first Tory speaker indicated he felt that bringing this type of legislation before the House was irresponsible -- I think that was the word he used -- and, in his words, typical of the opposition. His response to this kind of legislation is typical of the government.

This government, and the previous Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), for whom I had some respect in his ability to handle that ministry when he was the minister, did not believe that this was a problem, as my colleague from York South (Mr. MacDonald) indicated. He had to be pushed very hard even to go along with the special debate in the standing committee on resources development, and he had to be pushed even harder to establish a royal commission. When the commission was established, it appeared the whole approach at the beginning was to whitewash the whole problem. If they are going to take the same attitude with this bill, then it seems to me the government is just continuing in its whole wrongheaded attitude towards dealing with questionable practices in the food industry.

I do have some concerns in regard to the commission’s report and the timing. I do not agree with the Tory spokesman who said it was irresponsible to introduce this legislation. But I am a little worried that we might be passing a bill now prior to getting some recommendations from the commission which might be worthwhile. I sincerely hope there will be.

However, I do not agree that we must then forget about the problem, or we should just put aside this bill because we might get something from the commission. It seems to me that we could act on this bill and agree with the principle of action about discounting in the food industry. Then, over the summer or in the fall session, we could deal with whatever specific amendments or changes might be required to the bill as presented by the member for Huron-Middlesex. To reject the bill because of the timing is a bit of overkill. We can change the bill if it needs to he changed.

I would like to make some comment as to why I personally am in favour of the principle of this bill. I believe, as a number of speakers have said, that discount practices in the food industry hurt the interests of both the farmers and the consumers. As we all know, and as has been said in this House many times, agriculture is the basis of the largest industry in this country, the food industry. Yet the producers themselves represent a very small percentage of the total industry.

The 80 per cent of the industry which lies between the farm gates and the consumer has become, in the last few years, more and more concentrated in a very few corporate hands. This bill deals with one method of trying to deal with that kind of corporate concentration. It is only one method, but it is one that is clearly within the provincial jurisdiction and, as a result, is in the purview of this Legislature. The thousands of middlemen between the farm gate and the supermarket checkout counter have become more and more employees, or subsidiaries, of a very small number of huge conglomerates.

We just have to look at some of the main chains in the food retail industry. Dominion, which is the largest in Ontario, is part of the Argus corporate empire. Loblaws, which is second largest, is part of the Weston conglomerate. These two, as well as three other companies, control most of the food industry in this province. They are involved in all aspects right from the supermarket back to the farm gate. Along the line, each middleman takes his own profit. In fact, what is happening now is that each step that produces a profit just adds up, and that whole amount eventually ends up in a very few, very large corporate pockets.

The member for Huron-Middlesex said that perhaps some people would say that is just the logical outcome of free enterprise, that when we have more and more concentration we get these large conglomerates who control the whole industry. I agree with that. The member for Huron-Middlesex rejected that. He proposed it as a possibility, then rejected it. I do not see how he can reject it. The whole purpose of business, as I see it in the capitalist ethic, is to get bigger. Small businessmen want to be big businessmen. People who are making small profits want to make big profits. It is the whole purpose. One of the easiest and best ways of doing that is to eliminate competition. Free enterprise contains within itself its own contradiction. The whole purpose of free enterprise in the competitive system we have is to eliminate competition and make more profits. For that reason I support this legislation. Because even though the member for Huron-Middlesex says this will help to --

Mr. J. Reed: You guys would eliminate all competition.

Mr. Wildman: As long as competition takes place between groups so there is a benefit to the consumer, that is fine. But when competition is eliminated --

Mr. J. Reed: You will be the arbiter of it.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, exactly. That is the job of government: to be the arbiter. That is what government is all about. At least we do not try to have it both ways as the Liberals do. In a way I respect my colleague who spoke for the Tory side. At least he made it clear where he stood. He is in favour of corporate control of the industry. He said that and he does not want to do anything about it. However, the Liberal Party over here tries to have it both ways, as usual.

Mr. J. Reed: If you can manage it, it is pretty good.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. The only thing is, it must get awfully uncomfortable standing with one foot on either side of the fence. It is strange how you can walk straight afterwards.

5:40 p.m.

At any rate, I believe the discount practices that are dealt with in this bill hurt both the producers and the consumers at either end of the market chain. The small businessman cannot compete with the discount practices of the larger companies and, as a result, concentration is increased.

As some members have said, these practices are alleged to lower prices. In some isolated instances they may lower prices to the consumer, but in the long run when concentration develops and there is less competition those prices will rise and we will end up with a monopolistic or oligopolistic system where the prices continue to rise and there is no hope for the consumer.

I believe it is time for farmers and consumers both to band together to pressure this government and the government in Ottawa to combat the growing economic concentration in the food industry, which I believe is one of the key factors in higher consumer prices. For that reason, I support the principle of this bill and hope that it will be passed. I hope we can then act on it in the fall after we have the information that we receive from the commission.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in the debate this afternoon in the Legislature. While I am pinch-hitting for one of my rural colleagues who may be better versed on agricultural matters, I do not think it is totally inappropriate that I participate in the debate this afternoon as an urban member.

A great amount of the agricultural produce that winds up on the food tables of the more than two million people of Metropolitan Toronto comes from the mixed farming area northeast of Metropolitan Toronto in the Markham, Uxbridge and Newmarket area. It has some of the richest farm land that we have anywhere in Ontario. In that area there are not many farms one can drive by where there is not the name Reesor on the mailbox.

I am proud to say my middle name starts with an R and happens to be that same Reesor. I am a descendent of Christian Reesor, who came here with his family from Pennsylvania more than 175 years ago, in 1804, to set up farming in the Markham area. Since that time the Reesor clan has expanded considerably and, in fact, the majority of the farming is conducted by Christian Reesor’s descendants in the Markham area. I am proud to be associated with that name and be one of the family. So I feel I have some interest and concern in my kinfolk who farm the lands northeast of Metro and to see that they prosper as well as we do in the urban areas. For that reason I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate this afternoon.

The basic purpose of farm products marketing legislation, as we know, has been the regulation ‘of sales at the farm gate. Ontario has 23 marketing boards covering 43 commodities. I am told that in 1979 the boards collectively handled more than $1.5 billion worth of products. We know that the primary responsibility of the boards is to provide fair returns to farmers and to attain a stabilizing influence on commodity prices. I believe the only major commodity not regulated by a marketing board is the beef industry.

However, the amendment as proposed in Bill 23 would give the board jurisdiction over marketing activities not only at the farm gate but at the wholesale and retail levels as well. In addition, the proposed bill would extend jurisdiction to manufactured articles of food and drink -- in fact, anything that is made from Ontario products. That kind of marketing regulation not only does not belong in an act set up to regulate marketing boards, it does not belong in a free market society like that which we enjoy in this province.

As we know, the law of supply and demand forces prices up and down. As an example, at the present time there is an oversupply of pork; so prices have dropped in recent weeks. This will continue until the situation stabilizes. It would be inconceivable at this time of government restraint to impose a bureaucracy of the size needed to police such a system as proposed in Bill 22.

The government’s policy for some time has been to hold down the size of the civil service. We do not think there is any question that the taxpayers of this province agree with that policy. The Ministry of Commercial and Consumer Relations currently monitors food prices and marketing at all levels of the industry and between various stores and cities throughout the province.

One of the major problems for our Ontario farmers is that of import competition. Ontario can be as hard hit by United States and Mexican imports during our growing season as by the volume of these imports during the winter mouths. A prime example of this is the coming strawberry harvest and the stiff competition our berries face from the imported berries already in the stores throughout the province.

I believe this bill would add further complications, regulations and other hampering factors which would drive wholesalers and retailers to purchase their goods from outside the province. This would happen because the only goods that could be regulated under this proposed legislation would be Ontario goods. Provincial governments cannot regulate each other’s products. Who would buy Ontario goods if so much trouble were thrown in the way? No businessman in his right mind would buy in Ontario if he had to operate under this kind of legislation.

According to the Retail Council of Canada, the present rebate and allowance system encourages efficiency and benefits consumers. The system provides annual volume discounts to regular purchasers. Because of stiff competition among store operators, most stores are forced to pass along to the consumer any discount or allowance they receive from their food suppliers.

Mr. Speaker: Will honourable members keep their private conversations down? I want to listen to the member for Oriole.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad someone in the House appreciates the importance of this speech this afternoon.

As I was about to say, the limiting or banning of discounts to supermarkets would raise the price of food, according to the Retail Council of Canada.

A second reason for food suppliers to offer discounts is to encourage volume buying, to help pay for promotion of their products and to encourage supermarkets to pay promptly. This improves the cash flow to suppliers and saves suppliers the cost of short-term loans. Discounts also cover weekly advertising costs and product promotion specials which are often featured weekly in the retail stores.

Large retailers would probably manufacture or process many of the products on their shelves if they were cut off from the substantial volume discounts that they can now earn from their suppliers. Discount and allowance practices are by no means unique to food processing, manufacturing or distributing industries; they are commonplace in most forms of business activity. They even extend to farmers who receive discounts on the purchase of bulk quantities of agricultural supplies, and to the consumers, who can usually save money by buying products in large sizes.

5:50 p.m.

Besides, as other members have suggested, including the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the House should await the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario. Some people have suggested it was unwise to deal with this bill at this time. Most certainly it is premature.

For this reason alone, over and above the valid and cogent reasons I have given for taking issue with this particular piece of legislation, we should wait for the findings of the commission to determine whether this bill would be relevant and appropriate in the light of those recommendations.

On the basis of the reasons I have given this afternoon, along with those presented by my colleague from Elgin, I feel compelled to vote against the bill.

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kennedy has moved resolution 8.

Motion agreed to.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 23.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am just wondering at what point we started recording the names of people rising to block a bill. I was not aware that we had ever taken a record of the names of people rising to block a bill.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You should come here more often.

Mr. Wildman: We are sending your names to Conrad Black.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders, I would like to advise the members of the House of the order of business for the rest of this week and for next week.

Tonight we are going to consider legislation in the House: Bill 75, amendments to the Ottawa-Carleton Act; Bill 74, the Oxford Act; Bill 76, amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act; Bill 71, the Municipal Elections Act.

Tomorrow morning we will continue with the legislation that is not finished tonight. Then, if there is any time remaining after that, we can go on to budget debate.

On Monday, June 9, the House will consider legislation. Bill 60 will be considered for second reading and in committee of the whole, followed by Bill 5, an amendment to the Municipality of Toronto Act concerning Toronto Islands.

On Tuesday, June 10, the House will consider legislation, beginning with Bill 47, the bill of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) concerning review of police matters, followed by Bill 50, Bill 51, and Bill 48, all bills in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), followed by Bill 55, a bill of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck). In the evening we will also consider legislation: Bill 82, amendments to the Education Act concerning special education, followed by Bill 89, amendments to the Labour Relations Act, second reading and committee stage of Bill 89, and second reading only of Bill 82.

On Wednesday, June 11, the justice, resources development and general government committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, June 12, in the afternoon, there will be private members’ public business, ballot items 21 and 22. In the evening, we will continue consideration of Bill 89, amendments to the Labour Relations Act, followed by any legislation that was not finished on Tuesday night.

On Friday, June 13, the business has not been completely settled. It will either be, as indicated, the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor, cabinet office and Premier or unfinished legislation left over from Tuesday and Thursday.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.