Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL BUDGET

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this chamber is aware that on Tuesday night the Minister of Finance, Allan MacEachen, brought down his first federal budget in Ottawa. Today I would like to make some observations about that budget from the point of view of the Ontario government.

Let me say clearly that the federal budget is an inadequate approach to the resolution of Canada’s economic problems. While it does present a constructive approach to a national energy strategy, I am convinced that the budget contributes little to the development of national economic strengths. In fact, Mr. MacEachen has ignored his responsibility to provide economic leadership and direction for Canada, and has chosen instead to produce a budget that is oriented primarily to the development of an energy policy.

Further, and even more serious, the budget does not appear to address Canada’s economic needs from a national perspective, with the result that some of the structural problems that we face and that contribute to the current climate in the Ontario economy are not even addressed. I am deeply concerned that the net impact of the budget measures will only contribute to the current recessionary cycle in Ontario while not providing a clear set of economic priorities or initiatives that will contribute to future development.

Mr. John Crosbie’s December budget, referred to by Mr. MacEachen so many times, did address these questions and did cushion the impact of energy price increases on low-income groups least able to absorb the changes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notwithstanding the provocation, will all honourable members allow the Treasurer to continue?

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have waited a long time for this budget, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance tells us that the budget develops a strategy that is “in the best traditions of the Liberal Party.” There is no question in my mind that that is a true statement; the Liberal Party has never had a clear economic strategy and this budget does not give us one.

The present budget approach is to treat the problem of high and rising unemployment as a low priority. The Liberal Party, in its own words, has been “wrestling inflation to the ground” for 10 years now, and the deficit problems arise from its refusal to put its house in order. We are still paying for these failures and this budget only tells us we are going to pay more.

There are more uncertainties in this budget than there are answers; that is another Liberal tradition. Although Mr. MacEachen did not deindex personal income taxes, he implies that deindexation will be reassessed in the not too distant future. He implies that there will be significant cuts in federal-provincial transfer payments. He hints at changes in the capital gains tax. He suggests a reduction in tax expenditures.

Even specific budget measures cannot be adequately assessed. The Canadian ownership charge, which is a special levy on all gas and oil consumers to finance Canadian takeover of multinational oil companies, is not specified. We are given no details of the federal plan to promote industrial restructuring and manpower retraining, two areas that are especially critical to Ontario’s future economic strength.

So the overall impact of the budget is to produce more questions than it resolves, to increase the uncertainties that have hindered Canada’s and Ontario’s economic development in the past, and to make me seriously question the ability of the present Liberal government to provide the economic leadership that is essential to Canada’s future.

Let me focus for a moment on the significant structural problems that are inhibiting the development of our economic potential in relation to what the budget has proposed -- inflation, high interest rates, unemployment, industrial redevelopment and the growth duality of Canada’s economy.

Double-digit inflation is predicted to continue through 1981. Thereafter, the inflation rate is projected to decline somewhat but to continue through 1985 at relatively high levels. The impact of the budget is inflationary; there is no question about that. Increased prices do add about 0.4 per cent to the inflation index for every $1 increase in the per-barrel price.

While I concede the necessity of increasing domestic oil prices, those increases must be balanced by some offsetting programs to protect consumers from the inflationary impact that those increases generate. The Liberal budget contains no such offsets, no measures to assist the Canadian public to adjust to the inflationary effects of higher energy prices.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s “The federal budget.”

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is nice to know that the honourable members opposite are now separating themselves from the Liberals. It is now “the federal Liberals” again, isn’t it? It is longer “our friends in Ottawa.” All of a sudden the members opposite have found something they can use to separate themselves again from Ottawa, haven’t they? The federal Liberals’ friends, the Ontario Liberal Party, can listen now.

The high interest rate policy pursued by the Bank of Canada will continue to have the support of the federal government. That means that if interest rates rise in the United States, they will rise in Canada, and will continue to have a negative impact on consumer demand and investment decisions.

Mr. MacEachen has projected that the national unemployment rate will rise to a level in excess of 8.5 per cent next year and will remain close to eight per cent for five years. His response to that increase does not address how to reduce unemployment. What he will do instead is increase, by 33 per cent, the level of unemployment insurance premiums in a province that already has a surplus on that account. That is a direct tax on the people who can least afford to pay it, the average worker in the province, and it will cost the Ontario economy alone over $300 million next year. The budget measures enshrine higher rates of unemployment and increase the costs to the unemployed, while at the same time fuelling inflation.

2:10 p.m.

As a key element in the government’s so-called “economic strategy,” the budget provides for major new expenditures on economic development, industrial adjustment and manpower retraining -- laudable objectives every one and critical to Ontario’s economic future. But the funds allocated to meet these objectives are insignificant and are spread over a four-year period, distributed throughout Canada’s regions and within programs that have yet to be specified.

Again, we must wait for another six months before the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Herb Gray, will announce his industrial strategy initiatives. No expenditures are contemplated to assist the manufacturing sector in adjusting to higher energy prices. There is no reference to the auto sector, an industry significant to Canada and vital to Ontario.

Given the magnitude of revenue flows projected and the size of assistance going to western Canada, the funds allocated to economic development are puny. In four years, industrial restructuring and manpower programs receive the same amount as the western economic development fund has been given in the first year alone. In fact, if one excludes that western economic development fund from his development envelope, spending on economic development will increase by only 15 per cent next year and by less than the projected rate of inflation in the years following. That is an indication of the priority the Liberal government has given to economic development in Canada and it is clear proof of the fact that there is no federal economic strategy.

As a further development incentive, the budget enriches the investment tax credit for new capital investments made in specifically designated areas characterized by high unemployment and low income. The criteria of the new program, that only five per cent of the population will be affected and that major urban centres will not qualify, mean many Ontario communities that could benefit from such a program, such as Windsor, could be deliberately excluded. While the implications for Ontario of the lack of a clear economic strategy are disturbing, I am even more concerned by the increasing imbalances in regional economic performance that are being encouraged and supported by this budget.

We are rapidly developing two separate economies in Canada. We have an overheated economy in the resource-producing provinces with resultant relatively low unemployment rates, reduced levels of provincial taxation and high investment opportunities. At the same time, the manufacturing-based provinces and Atlantic Canada are faced with economic recession, increasing levels of unemployment and high government deficits. This economic dualism threatens the economic fabric of the nation and makes it extremely difficult to deal in any realistic manner with inflation and unemployment.

An effective federal budget would address this problem and attempt to balance national economic development with stimuli and incentives where they are most needed. How does Mr. MacEachen approach the problem? By making it worse than it is at present. Federal budgetary measures strengthen support to the already overheated sectors of Canada’s economy, while providing Band-Aids and peanuts to those sectors that are most in need of economic stimulus.

Four billion dollars will be pumped into the western economy through the western economic development fund. This is in addition to the $38 billion that will flow to the producing provinces as a result of the federal energy package over the next few years. Part of this western economic development fund will be used to modernize the western transportation system. I have no quarrel with that objective, but I cannot understand why the federal government would pursue modernization of the western transportation system and totally ignore pressing and similar needs in the rest of the country.

Modernization of the Windsor-Quebec transportation corridor has been discussed for many years. Canada’s urban centres desperately require assistance to develop transit systems, even more so now as commuters look for more energy-efficient ways to go to and from work. Why did the budget not address these concerns? Why has the national government not taken a national perspective in its assessment of the transportation problems that face all parts of the county?

While promising a $4 billion development package to western Canada, the budget proposes $350 million for industrial development and manpower training. In fact, the four-year national economic development program gets the same level of funding as the first year of that western development program. In subsequent years, the western program doubles and triples while economic development generally receives increasingly less attention.

The federal government also plans to consider initiatives relating to industrial diversification and to re-examine trade and industrial policies to serve western development better. Again, I commend those objectives but there should be also concerted efforts to address the same needs across the entire country. Has Mr. MacEachen written off those parts of Canada that need his assistance most? Admittedly, the energy package proposals extending the natural gas pipeline and supporting coal conversion, retrofitting and hydro developments will meet Atlantic Canada’s pressing problems with respect to electricity costs. That, however, is only one component of the economic difficulties facing that region.

Turning to central Canada, our economic recovery is left entirely dependent upon US economic fortunes rather than on the restructuring and the strengthening of the manufacturing sector. We are not even assured the spinoff benefits of western resource developments, as Mr. MacEachen suggests, because he is changing procurement policies that will restrict Ontario’s ability to compete effectively in western markets.

The outlined tax increases, the hike in Unemployment Insurance Commission premiums and the continuing higher inflation rates will squeeze consumers and hurt purchases of durable goods. In terms of real growth, central and eastern Canada can be expected to significantly underperform western Canada next year at least.

The budget’s outlook for 1981 is very pessimistic, forecasting a very sluggish recovery of one per cent real growth in 1981. This forecast does not even consider the implications of the Canadian ownership charge, which will further dampen consumer demand. He forecasts job creation at 85,000 for Canada as a whole, which means Ontario’s unemployment rate could rise.

In spite of these forecasts, the federal budget does not address the question of short-term economic stimulation to increase consumer demand, develop new job opportunities and carry us through the vulnerable period between now and mid-1981. There is room within the existing federal expenditure pattern to find funds for this purpose. Instead, we get increased employment taxes through the UIC premiums and no protection from budget-induced inflation.

Without question, the energy package is the major feature of Mr. MacEachen’s budget. I am not going to comment in any detail on the specifics of the energy proposals themselves, because they will be addressed by my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) in this chamber. I believe strongly that more of the nation’s petroleum industry should be Canadianized, but I make a very clear distinction between Canadianization and nationalization. Nationalization along the lines the budget has proposed will simply export Canadian dollars without adding one barrel of oil to our supplies. Taxing the Canadian people to buy the existing industry is really a misallocation of resources and a waste of time.

A key element of the Ontario position with respect to energy price increases is that they must be accompanied by a reinvestment strategy designed to support consumer adjustment, provide industrial restructuring incentives, promote conservation and substitution and increase domestic energy supplies. Ontario recognizes the inevitability of higher energy prices, but insists that the revenue produced from them serve national economic priorities.

In many respects, the new spending package falls short of meeting Ontario’s concerns. It does not provide support to the consumers to meet inflationary pressures. It does not provide adequate stimulus for the industrial restructuring that is essential, and it does not provide Ontario with offsets necessary to justify the heavy impact of the higher prices. Under the new regime, Ontario residents will pay an additional $2 billion next year and about $5 billion annually between 1983-84 in increased energy costs, and this does not include the yet-to-be-specified costs of the Canadian ownership charge.

2:20 p.m.

In return, Ontario will receive the uncertain benefits of the general economic strategy and a portion of the proposed $80 million annual increase in funds for industrial restructuring and manpower retraining. Of the $8.2 billion in new energy initiatives, Ontario may be able to participate directly in only about $1 billion. In effect, we are being asked to pay a high price for increasing security of supply without any certainty that, over the long term, a coherent and supportive economic development policy will result. The shorter-term implications are very clear, however, in terms of inflation, consumer demand and unemployment.

I am pleased to note that the federal government has accepted Ontario’s position with respect to a blended price structure for oil pricing and has moved to develop a revenue-sharing arrangement that provides increased funds for national priorities. I am also happy with the fact that the government has chosen not to increase direct personal and corporate income taxes and has held off, at least temporarily, on the question of deindexation. I would like to think that Mr. MacEachen listened closely to the Ontario views presented to him in September and the representations made to him by other members of my party.

The reduction of the federal deficit was one of my primary concerns when I met in Ottawa last month with other provincial finance ministers and Mr. MacEachen. In one sense, Mr. MacEachen has moved a lot closer to the development of a systematic program to bring the deficit under control, as I strongly advocated. However, I am not at all convinced that the “great restraint over expenditures,” in his own words, has been achieved.

The emphasis on expanding and redesigning manpower training programs is also very appropriate to Canada’s future economic development. Although I am concerned that no specifics have been announced and that financial support may not be adequate, I am looking forward to working with the federal government to develop necessary programs. A conference of ministers of finance and economic development has been promised for the near future. That is an appropriate forum in which details could be effectively pursued.

The continuation of the MURB incentives, the extension of oil export charges to international flights and the rollback of taxes on fortified wines are all appropriate measures that deserve Ontario’s support.

In summary, let me restate that although there are some positive aspects to this federal budget, it falls far short of addressing the significant economic concerns and providing the real leadership that is essential to Canada’s future prosperity. In fact, it is not a real economic policy statement at all. It does not curb inflationary pressures; it does not address the needs of the manufacturing sectors of the economy; it contains no measures to assist consumers or industry to adjust to changing energy price structures; it provides no support for alternative modes of transportation, and it does not address the critical area of policy development appropriate to Canada’s increasingly dualistic economy.

I have very serious doubts about a national government that has chosen to address critical economic questions from a regional rather than a national perspective, that pumps $4 billion into a western economic development fund while ignoring similar eastern problems and leaving the whole question of national economic development up in the air. I am further disturbed by the implications of Mr. MacEachen’s statement that he hopes to achieve significant expenditure reductions through the renegotiation of transfer payments in social program areas. Transferring expenditures to other levels of government is not -- the way to keep federal expenditures in line.

From the point of view of the Ontario government, this budget has posed the province with some significant problems. As a province, we cannot deal with the inflationary and structural problems that at present contribute to our economic situation. Only the federal government has sufficient levering powers and monetary policy controls to effect those kinds of changes.

The failure at the federal level to address manufacturing, industrial and general economic strategies requires that the Ontario government re-examine its own position and policies in these critical areas. The dampening effect of the federal budget on the present economic slowdown in Ontario is of pressing concern to me. We cannot afford a deepening of the recession cycle or an extension of it, nor can we afford to sit and wait patiently for the American economy to spark our own. Some short-term stimulation of consumer demand to support job creation may have to be considered.

It is my intention to address these concerns in more detail when I present supplementary actions in the Legislature two weeks from today on November 13, 1980, at 8 p.m.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONVENTION CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the rules provide for only 30 minutes of statements on Thursday. I have a statement that may take me more than five minutes. If the members opposite do not wish to listen to all of it, I will understand. One of the members opposite at least has read parts of it already. I will start. We have seven or eight minutes so I might get through it.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to table the Bassett report -- which I do not happen to have with me but I will get copies of it for the honourable members -- on a new convention centre for Metropolitan Toronto and to announce that my government gives general endorsation to its recommendations.

First, I would like to thank Mr. John Bassett, chairman of the committee, for undertaking this study and for the many hours of fine work put in by him and the other four members of the committee. As members know, John Arena, Johnny Lombardi, Arthur Ward and Michael Koerner served with Mr. Bassett.

Mr. Peterson: Where did they have their meetings, as a matter of interest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They had them in Brampton. That is where the convention centre is going to be. I announced that earlier.

Mr. Peterson: How many lunches did the Ontario taxpayers pay for?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to make this point because the member for London Centre is very concerned about lunches. He spends more time at lunch than any member opposite. This report cost the taxpayers of Ontario nary a penny. It was totally a volunteer activity.

The report recommends, and we agree, that the new Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre be developed by Canadian National adjacent to the CN Tower. The committee unanimously and unreservedly endorsed the CN proposal for four reasons:

First, and most important, perhaps, the CN proposal was the least costly of the proposals examined by the committee. The estimated cost is $64 million.

Second, under the CN proposal, and this was a very important part of the arrangement that was made, the builder will be responsible for any cost overruns over the stated amount. Therefore, the government of Ontario, the federal government and Metropolitan Toronto, which are sharing the construction costs, will pay only a firm and fixed amount.

Third, not only is CN’s submission the least costly, but it also provides for the largest convention facility -- 193,000 square feet in the main hail alone, capable of accommodating 11,000 people.

Fourth, the committee felt, and we agree, that the CN site is the best available to accommodate easy access by pedestrians as well as motor traffic, whether it be by urban transit or private vehicle.

I am also pleased that CN plans to build a 600-room hotel on the site -- CN’s first hotel in the Metro area -- and has plans to build a low-rise office tower as well as part of the facility.

I think it is fair to say that CN’s eagerness to undertake this project shows the confidence this major Canadian corporation has in the economic future of our province. I am also pleased that the site selected for the convention centre has been endorsed by the federal government, the government of Metropolitan Toronto and the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. I hope members will agree that a new convention centre on the CN site, along with the CN Tower and the new Massey Hall, will dramatically accelerate the redevelopment of this area of downtown Toronto.

As to the funding of the centre, the government of Metropolitan Toronto has already agreed to pay $13.5 million towards the cost of the new centre, and the federal government has agreed to contribute a further $19 million. With our $27 million commitment, $59.5 million of the $64 million has now been secured. With the Bassett report now in the hands of the federal and Metropolitan Toronto governments, we are hopeful they will join us in bridging the gap that remains.

As I am sure my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) will agree -- he sat at the press conference listening attentively to everything I said, applauding vigorously at the appropriate time, almost pretending he was a member of the government in the process -- I made it abundantly clear that the project would proceed with all haste.

Mr. O’Neil: We’ll be over there soon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Quinte, fantasy time has not yet arrived.

Interjections.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have news for the honourable members opposite. They are going to be over there for so long they will forget what it is like.

Interjections.

Mr. O’Neil: We will be way over there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the honourable member mean by “way over there”? He is pointing back home.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am one of those members who raised this concern last week. I want to stand in my place and tell you, sir, I am quite prepared to allow the Premier the time he asked for, realizing that on this day it tends to bite into the time for private members’ public business later in the afternoon. But I resent very deeply, sir, the abuse of the time that we are being subjected to at present as a result of the Premier’s performance.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member knows quite well the maximum time, without approval of the majority of the members of the House, will arrive in about two minutes and 30 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the member might speak to his own members. Why does he not have a word of prayer with them? He does not always have to look over here. He knows where the real problem lies.

The province is making a major contribution to this project. We are confident that in the long run the investment will justify the expenditure, both directly and indirectly, for Metro and the rest of the province.

First, the convention centre will create thousands of new jobs. In the two-year construction period, beginning next spring, approximately 1,000 new jobs will be created to build the new centre. After completion in 1983, the convention centre and CN hotel will require some 600 permanent new jobs.

As a spinoff for the hospitality industry, we estimate there will be a further 10,000 new jobs in Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding communities to handle the business generated by the centre. In addition, some 2,000 new jobs will be created in other parts of the province.

Second, the convention centre will create millions of dollars in additional revenues. Five years after the centre is completed and when it will be operating at full capacity, we estimate that it will annually attract some 700,000 visitors to the province who will spend a total of about $85 million. In addition, we estimate the centre will annually generate some $48 million in tax revenues, one third of which will go to the province.

The new Metropolitan Toronto convention centre is necessary to keep pace with the rapidly growing convention and tourist industry. As members know, tourism is Ontario’s number two industry and is continuing its healthy growth of the last few years. To maintain that growth, such a new convention centre is needed to attract visitors from around the world, to compete with similar centres in Canada and the United States and to ensure that Ontario continues to be the number one travel destination in this country.

We see the new convention centre as a people place, to use the words of the Bassett report, and not primarily as an exhibition showcase. Trade and other exhibitions will continue to be held at the Canadian National Exhibition and at the International Trade Centre. The new convention centre is to be managed by a provincial crown corporation with a board of directors. The chairman of the board, who agreed to accept this responsibility yesterday --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time allocated on this day has now been exceeded. Do we have the consent of the majority of the House to allow the Premier to complete his remarks?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The Premier can continue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity shown by the members opposite.

The new convention centre is to be managed by a provincial crown corporation. The chairman of the board, who accepted this responsibility yesterday, is to be Mr. Bassett, whose first duty will be to recommend the other board members as well as the president and the chief executive officer.

In the months ahead we look forward to the speedy creation of the new centre, another major investment in the future of this province.

MAILING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Roy: Does the Premier not find it disappointing that I get more applause than he does from his side?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with our mailing privileges as members, which I suggest, Mr. Speaker, are under your jurisdiction. I ask for your guidance and instruction on this matter.

It has come to our attention that there are what I consider to be mailings of Tory propaganda being circulated at public expense in the riding of Carleton. These are mailings emanating from the office of the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz).

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Culture?

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, how crude.

Mr. Roy: This mailing, which I consider to be four pages of pictures and Tory propaganda is now circulating in certain parts of the riding of Carleton. There is a by-election going on in that riding.

Attached to the mailing is some other information and I do not know what it is doing there. It is a Canada Trust circular talking about no-charge chequing accounts and mini-warehousing.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance. Is it not a breach of members’ privileges to have Tory propaganda going through a riding at public expense during a by-election? I have no evidence the member for Ottawa West is personally aware of this. In fact, I would suggest that probably his face --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What about political calls on government trunk lines?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I would reiterate to my colleague from Ottawa West that I have no evidence he is personally aware of this or is behind it.

Mr. Nixon: Or personally distributing it.

Mr. Roy: Yes. However, it may be the best thing for our candidate to have the minister’s face going around the riding during a by-election.

I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate and determine whether it is not a breach of our mailing privileges to have circulating, especially during a by-election, what turns out to be Tory propaganda at public expense.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege. The member opposite has indicated that is Tory propaganda. That is my constituency newsletter, which is not Tory propaganda.

Mr. Sargent: That’s even worse.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That is simply a newsletter. I would like to point out that on many occasions the federal post office in Ottawa -- the post office of the member’s party -- makes mistakes in sending these constituency newsletters all over. I have had some of the junk that was directed to his riding come to me by mistake. I have also had a lot of constituency newsletters from Ottawa Centre coming to my riding. With this federal post office one never knows, it is in such a state of disrepair.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I simply say a pox on both their houses; the Liberal post office delivers Tory propaganda. I want to say that the New Democrats are the only party with the real answer for Carleton.

Mr. Speaker: I will look into the point raised by the member for Ottawa East.

Oral questions: The member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith).

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The member for Ottawa East doesn’t pay enough attention even to write a newsletter; he doesn’t know what a riding newsletter is, he is so busy practising law.

Mr. S. Smith: There seems to be some continuing interest in the previous matter. I do not want to interfere.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer, if I might. I think we all understand the pressure the Treasurer has been under to try to put a little daylight between himself and his leader and the federal leader of my party; we can appreciate that. We are very pleased that his statement today was not nearly as hard on Mr. MacEachen as his previous statement was on poor old Mr. Crosbie; we appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the statements are passed. We are into the oral question period.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: That is very observant, Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. I will get to the question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Eventually, as usual.

Mr. S. Smith: Eventually, as usual.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition and all honourable members that question period started at 2:38 p.m. It is now 2:40 p.m. and we haven’t heard a question.

Mr. S. Smith: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. Would the Treasurer care to comment on what is, after all, the main provision of the federal budget, which is the very heavy taxation of the multinational oil companies? Would the Treasurer not agree that placing that kind of tax, taking a larger share of the oil prices for the federal government and leaving less for the multinational oil companies, and using that money for national energy purposes is very much in the interests of the people of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Liberal Party has endorsed this budget completely. That was the comment I got from the press.

An hon. member: Unequivocally.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Unequivocally a fine budget, one that was in the interests of Ontario. That is what I heard the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) say on television.

The truth is that that is just one of about six different taxes Mr. MacEachen put on. I commented to the Premier this morning in trying to look at this that it was as complex a budget as we have seen for some time. As the members saw in the Globe and Mail, Mr. Parizeau said it took a good computer most of yesterday to sort out what really happened. If Eisenhower had had MacEachen as an assistant in the last war, the Germans would not yet have discovered where we landed because he would have had so many smokescreens going and decoys set up in advance. It was just one of those cases where it wasn’t as bad as he made us think.

There is a whole series of taxes, some of which are not yet quantified. The Canadian ownership charge is quoted in the working papers in so many cents per gigajoule and so many cents per cubic metre. If anyone ever wants to put data into a form that is almost totally useless to the average person reading a budget, he should look at that stuff. That is only one of many taxes. It really isn’t a tax at all; it is a royalty taken right off the top. Very few of the traditional expenses are allowed for.

We don’t object to sharing in the profits of the corporations. Obviously, that was a legitimate way for government to profit, but then one adds all the others, including the price increase for home heating oil so nicely slipped in there, something the Conservatives did not do. The Liberals slipped in a 47 cents a gallon increase for home heating oil effective over the next three years.

Mr. S. Smith: Out of all that, I take it the answer was yes, that is a good move, to tax the multinational oil companies. By way of supplementary, I would ask him to comment on page 10 of this statement today where he says the transferring of expenditures to other levels of government is not the way to keep expenditures in line. Can we take it that is a recantation by the Treasurer of his policy, and that school boards can now expect that he will be going back to 60 per cent support of the levels of education, since 10 per cent of the cost of education has been transferred to other levels of government as a way of pretending to keep his own expenditures in line?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Assistance to home owners in the form of the provincial property tax credit is very important in taking into account our overall assistance for education. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) tells me it is currently running around 57 per cent. Actually, 51.9 per cent is our present share of the total budget, plus the transfers -- about $470 million in gross dollars on property tax in Ontario. The fact remains that is direct assistance to the people in most need because it is progressive in its form. I would have to say one of the interesting things is that the federal government created the programs for which it created the transfer payments and then pulled out the rug from underneath once they were established.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I fear that in talking about the complexity of the federal budget the Treasurer may try to convince us that in not understanding it he will do nothing in response. Would he assure the House that, when he brings down his minibudget on November 13, the government of Ontario will provide relief against the increases in energy prices for low-income families that the federal Liberal budget has failed to provide?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be looking at a number of measures. We did provide at least one paper for the federal government specifying what we thought was needed in this budget. We waited for the response. It was not there. Obviously we are considering a set of options and I will be doing so at full speed for the next few days getting ready for November 13, which the member must admit is a remarkably short time frame.

HOSPITAL INTERNS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), who was here a minute ago. Where has he disappeared to? He was here a moment ago. Is he still around? In the meantime, I will ask the Premier and assume that he is around, because he was just here a moment ago.

It would appear that in a few hours the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario will be launching a strike affecting the 23 teaching hospitals and there will be serious repercussions for a health care system that is already overworked in Ontario. Will the Premier not agree that the only sensible solution to this ongoing problem year after year, where person after person has examined the matter and reported on it, is to accept that interns and residents are partly students and partly service givers -- essential service givers at that -- and they should have the binding arbitration other people have recommended and they have been asking for?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Health was here and has gone to open the new $7.5-million expansion of the North York Branson Hospital, which is the third significant hospital opening that has taken place this week, including the Ottawa General Hospital on Monday or Tuesday, where we really missed the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). I saw all his friends there.

Mr. Roy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Why was I not invited? The Premier only invited his Tory friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Premier answer the question in the absence of the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to answer the question in the absence of the Minister of Health and the supplementary question from the member for Ottawa East. I did not send out the invitations, and it is the first time in my life I have seen him hesitant about going somewhere where he was not invited. That’s the truth.

Mr. Roy: If I had known about it, I would have been there. It’s not Tory money; it’s public money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am being very serious. The Minister of Colleges and Universities can bring us up to date on what is happening at this precise moment, if the Leader of the Opposition would not object to the redirection of the question to that minister.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier can redirect the question himself if he wishes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, honourable members should know that my colleague the Minister of Health convened a meeting which began at 8:30 yesterday morning, continued through most of the day yesterday and will be continuing again today. In attendance were the members of the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals and the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, members representing the hospitals in addition to OCATH and some representation from the clinical services area of the universities of Ontario. It is my understanding that meetings are being held this afternoon as well and that the discussions are ongoing.

Mr. S. Smith: If I may ask my first supplementary: Will the minister agree, although it is nice to know that meetings are ongoing, that this is a perennial problem that has been looked at by many fact-finders and students of the matter? The question always comes down to whether interns and residents are merely students, or are givers of service as well. It is always found that they are givers of service and essential service at that. Why does the minister not agree, therefore, that binding arbitration should be the method of determining the stipends for these interns in residence, thus avoiding strikes or talk of strikes when these people do not want to go on strike and do not want to leave their patients, and it is not in anyone’s interest that they be forced into strikes?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In the finite definition of the word “perennial,” this of course is not a perennial problem; it has not occurred with that frequency at all. There have been discussions in the past and there have always been solutions found in the past.

There is a question being raised on the basis of a report that was submitted this year, which I think is of great significance to all professional schools within Ontario, and it is a matter that is being examined in depth by specific groups within the Ontario Council of Health at this time. I am aware of the bias of the Leader of the Opposition, but it is my understanding that the groups attending the meeting are discussing this matter with open minds and with the intent to find a solution.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why it is that, when the teaching hospitals and the interns were able and prepared to come to an agreement, the government permitted the universities and the medical schools to inject themselves into a situation around a phoney issue about whether or not interns are students, and thereby not only prevent an agreement being reached but also provoke a strike which nobody in the province wants? Why did the government allow the universities to inject themselves into this dispute? Why does the government not get the universities out of the dispute so we can get a settlement and make sure the interns can stay on the job?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, last week, or earlier this week, I think I did clarify the fact that there had not been agreement reached, nor a memorandum of agreement reached, between the two groups.

There was a meeting of three individuals, one representing the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, one representing the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals, and the third being the new dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto, who had not even attended his first meeting of the Council of Faculties of Medicine. He wanted to become more fully informed, and after that meeting he did send a letter which he felt intimated or explained his understanding of the kinds of things that were discussed at that meeting.

We were informed clearly yesterday morning that the individual representing OCATH at that meeting received that letter and immediately notified the dean that that was not what had been discussed, that six of the items noted in that letter had not been discussed at all. It was later discovered that indeed the dean and the representative of PAIRO had drafted the letter, and there was a correction to that letter. That letter was never agreed to by the members of OCATH, and the member of OCATH who had been present had not been given the direction by that group to sign any agreement at that time.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer about his statement in response to the federal budget. Since the Treasurer’s statement indicates that the rate of unemployment in Ontario will rise to well above eight per cent of the work force next year -- that is, the number of unemployed will rise by some 50,000 over the current levels -- and since the federal budget has taken no concrete action to create jobs and rebuild the manufacturing economy in this province or across the country, can the Treasurer assure the House that his minibudget on November 13 will contain the substantial measures for job creation that were lacking in the federal budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think I should make the difference between the predictions Mr. MacEachen made and what we would hope would be the state in Ontario next year. Mr. MacEachen made those predictions in his budget. I think he has been a bit pessimistic, particularly in job creation in Canada, when he said 85,000 in all of Canada. We have had very close to that in Ontario so far this year; I think the last figure I saw was somewhere around 80,000, in what is considered to be one of the more recessionary years since the war. So I am not prepared to say he used figures that I believe are accurate. He simply painted a very dismal scene.

The fact remains that Ontario, particularly in the automobile sector, has been going through a very tough year. We felt, and still feel, that measures need to be taken to stimulate job creation between now and the time when we would predict that the economy would start to become more buoyant, and that is some time around June of next year. So I assure the member I am looking at ways and means to stimulate employment.

Mr. Cassidy: I am going to send to the Treasurer some figures we have assembled which totally contradict the propaganda put forward for political purposes by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) just a few days ago with relation to the compendium on his statement. Since the figures we have assembled show the government’s job creation policies have accounted for only 10,800 jobs in the first part of this year, compared with the more than 42,000 workers who have been permanently or indefinitely laid off from their jobs, will the Treasurer acknowledge that it was nothing but a piece of propaganda?

Can the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry and Tourism get their act together to ensure that we have in this province the kind of industrial strategy that will rebuild our manufacturing economy and create the jobs that 300,000 unemployed Ontarians and all the rest of us so desperately need?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member has chosen a set of figures to suit his purposes. The fact remains that on September 30, 1980, close to 80,000 more people were at work in Ontario than were at work a year before -- and those are not Ontario’s figures; they are Statistics Canada figures.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: There is some confusion with the leader of the third party but also between Mr. MacEachen and the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer kindly give this House the operative figures he is working on so we can all talk on common ground? What is unemployment going to be?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have just been handed them, to have it accurately. Ontario’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 6.7 per cent in September from seven per cent the month before. Employment increased by 42,000 to 4,101,000 last month, while the labour force increased by 33,000; as a result, the number of unemployed decreased by 9,000. Ontario’s actual unemployment rate in September was 5.9 per cent, down 0.5 percentage points from last month. Ontario’s actual employment in September stood 85,000 above its year-earlier level.

ARMSTRONG CORK CLOSURE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the layoffs that continue in this province, despite the claims of the Treasurer and of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

My question concerns Armstrong Cork Industries Limited in Lindsay which is closing on November 7 with the loss of 300 jobs. When the US parent of this company made a profit of $66 million last year and had a 27 per cent increase in its profits early in 1980, when the management admits the Lindsay plant has been making profits over the course of the past couple of years, will the Minister of Labour require the foreign parent of Armstrong Cork Industries Limited in Lindsay, before it closes the Ontario plant, to justify that shutdown and explain to the community and the workers involved why their jobs have to be ploughed under by this layoff?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the rhetoric, I am sure the member knows the carpet business in this province and in this country is in some difficulty. There are now a couple of carpet factories in the same position. As he knows, it is not a question of how things were in one year. It is a long-term picture of the viability of an industry in the province. I think it has to be said quite openly and honestly that the Minister of Industry and Tourism has worked with the company and continues to work with them to see whether there are some options for sale of the plant, for that portion of it or all of it that may be viable. What the prospects are, I am not certain because, as I say, it is an industry that has some problems.

No one is ever happy or has any pleasure in seeing an industry close, but to my knowledge the employees of that company and management have been able to work out fairly satisfactory arrangements about the closure.

3 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can get down to the case of one family and the effect of this layoff, is the minister aware of the impact of the Armstrong Cork Industries Limited layoff on the Coombs family? Caley Coombs, age 61, has had 24 years’ service at Armstrong Cork; Edith Coombs, his wife, 63 years old, has had 12 years at Armstrong Cork; two daughters, a son and a son-in-law also worked at Armstrong Cork. Between the six of them working at Armstrong Cork, they had 75 and a half years of service, and all of them have been put on the street through this shutdown.

Does the Minister of Labour not agree that corporations should not be free to decide arbitrarily on shutdowns that have such a devastating impact on families like the Coombs family without previously justifying that shutdown publicly before the people involved?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I indicated in very clear terms in a statement I made that this government has deep concerns about the plight of individuals and of communities regarding the shutting down of industries. We should not try to play games about who cares more. The difference for this side of the House is that one has to try to deal with problems responsibly, and yet recognize the problems of individuals like the ones the member has pointed to. I think we are doing that.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister tell us whether his investigator or co-ordinator, or whatever the name is for the new official who is supposed to look into these things, will be meeting with that company? Will he be empowered to examine the books of the company to find out whether this closure is truly justified by economic conditions or has been imposed as a result of the policy of the parent company?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just so there is no implication that the individual chosen, Mr. Robert Joyce, lacks the skill and the respect to do this job, let me clear that. Bob Joyce, the special adviser to me on plant closures --

Mr. S. Smith: Who said anything about Bob?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member called him a “this” or a “that” or a “who” or “they.” He is a very respected, able man, who is going to move into situations where there is a plant closure --

Mr. S. Smith: And he is nice to his family.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Do not give me that psychiatric jigjag stuff. I am not on the member’s couch; he is on my operating table. Does the member want to hear or does he want to psychiatrize some more? He should try listening. I know he is used to talking as a psychiatrist, but somewhere along the way he must have listened too, because he passed the exams -- I think. Did he not?

Mr. S. Smith: The only practice the member has had in surgery lately is lobotomizing his fellow cabinet members.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That is not true. We did some wonders for the member’s Parkinson’s disease with surgery too.

I do not think there is any doubt that Mr. Joyce, an experienced man, will be able to evaluate the rationale and the reasonableness of the need to close. I am not aware of any suggestion that we have a large number of employers in this province who are trying to deceive us -- nor indeed any. If the member has that information, he should tell me about it. But I have somebody now, a special adviser, who could give me that information.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier about the economic statement, which I have to assume he approves. There is a very strong message in here that the Premier disapproves of the disproportionate share of the new wealth generated at the federal level that will be going to the western provinces. That is implicit in what is written here.

Mr. Lougheed is going to make an important statement tonight, and we have read a considerable amount of speculation in the press about cutting off supply or unilaterally increasing the price. Has the Premier conveyed his own concerns about this budget? Knowing of his close friendship with the Premier of Alberta, I wonder if whether he has expressed his views to him either formally or informally about what that would do to the Ontario economy and about this federal budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for London Centre enthusiastically endorsed all aspects of the budget. This government, in a responsible way, recognizes the very significant shortcomings.

What was the member asking me? Whether I have communicated with the Premier of Alberta to find out what he is going to say on television tonight? The answer to that is no. I really do not know what he is going to say tonight. Is he asking whether we are concerned as to the priorities the government of Canada is establishing with respect to economic development? The answer to that, very simply, is yes.

There is no way we are being critical of the need or the desire to have economic development in the transportation sector in western Canada. I would think as the member for London Centre travels -- I know the only mode of transportation he uses is the roadbed from London to Toronto -- he would recognize that an investment in terms of facilities between Windsor and Quebec would also be highly desirable.

The Treasurer is simply saying that economic development or stimulus should not be confined to one area of this country. That is all he was saying in his statement, and I think it is very valid. No one is quarrelling with the need for or the desirability of economic growth in the west.

I have said to the Prime Minister on many issues that the question of equity is relevant and that there is no equity in terms of the economics of this province or other parts of Canada. That is what the Treasurer was saying and I would hope the member for London Centre, as he reassesses what the Treasurer said, would perhaps tend to agree. I know it is difficult, but he ought to think about it.

Mr. Peterson: Let me ask the Premier the other part of my question. In view of the serious implications of what the Alberta Legislature, through its Premier, may announce tonight and the potential implication of cutting down supplies to the extent of 50,000 barrels of oil a day, has the Premier had any communication about that with the Premier of Alberta? Is he prepared to communicate about that with the Premier of Alberta? Has he assessed the serious implications for this economy of that kind of action?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have been going by certain press reports. I have no idea what the Premier of Alberta intends to say this evening. I would say to the honourable member that it is not a question of what the Alberta Legislature will do, because quite obviously whatever the Premier of Alberta says this evening may be supported by his cabinet in caucus, but to my knowledge he has not discussed it with the Legislature of that province -- at least I am not aware of it.

Mr. Peterson: The caucus.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member said the Legislature, and I am trying to answer the question for him. I do not know of the Premier of Alberta having any endorsation to do anything from the Alberta Legislature; his caucus, perhaps.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Before the Premier recommends anything to his Treasurer, I wonder whether he will carefully assess the recommendations from the member for London Centre in view of the fact that his praise for the budget may be somewhat affected by the fact that he may be running in a federal by-election.

Further, since the Premier has expressed some real concern about regional development in this country, will he also not consider that this applies at the provincial level as well? Will he direct the Treasurer to ensure that we have an appropriate regional development strategy which encourages the growth of the mining machinery sector, for example, in northern Ontario?

Finally, will he direct the Treasurer to build in some protection for people in northern Ontario, who have to heat their homes in much colder weather, in view of the rather rapid increase in the cost of home heating fuel which we can expect in the next few years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure, when the Treasurer is assessing those options that are available to him, he will take into account a number of these suggestions. I point out to the honourable member that there are limitations on what any single province can do, and I hope the members opposite are realistic enough to understand that.

In terms of regional development, this has always been the policy of this government. We have done it with some measure of success. Some of us are going to open the new Ontario government building in Sudbury which is a commitment by this government to see that we have economic growth there. The members opposite will all be there sharing in the credit; they will be applauding in the front row when that building is opened next week.

HENRY KOWALSKI

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier explain how a young man named Henry Kowalski can be taken from his family here in Toronto, spend 12 years in three psychiatric institutions, receive drug treatment, behaviour modification treatment, electric shock treatment and, at the end of that 12-year period, wind up sleeping on a cement slab in a unit for the criminally insane at the Oak Ridge branch of Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Health is aware of this situation and is quite prepared to answer the honourable member, I think on Monday -- perhaps not tomorrow morning.

Mr. Breaugh: I am quite happy the Premier takes that attitude, except that is the exact same answer we got on Monday and Tuesday of this week to different questions. I understand the minister does not like the heat in this Legislature and he is taking advanced ribbon cutting --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Breaugh: Is the Premier content with the comments made in letters sent from the Attorney General’s office to this young man’s lawyers, that the medical staff of the hospital have not been required, either by legislation or standards established by any other body, to record in writing the basis for any decisions to issue a certificate of renewal?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to be as helpful as I can to the honourable member. I said I would raise this with the Minister of Health. I will also raise It with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), and one or both of them will have the answers to the questions he has raised. I anticipate it will be on Monday.

NORFOLK TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that the parents’ group and I met with the minister on Tuesday night and provided her with 2,550 letters from parents in Norfolk, and in view of the fact that 500 students came to Queen’s Park this morning and the presidents of the student councils, Steve Lowen of Valley Heights, Gary Bower of Waterford, Dianne Henson of Port Dover, Kevin Murray of Delhi and David Pond of Simcoe, expressed their concerns that they do not have a right to an education, will the minister agree to intervene immediately in the dispute between the Norfolk Board of Education and the secondary school teachers who have been on strike since October 2? This is the fifth week after 20 months without a contract. I might add that the students were an orderly group and I was proud of them this morning. They came down at their own expense, paying $2 apiece. They came at 11:30 and left at one o’clock.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am having a little difficulty with the mathematics -- from October 2 to October 30 is five weeks? -- but that is all right.

I was very pleased to have the opportunity, at the request of Mr. George Pond, to meet the concerned parents’ group, a meeting which the honourable member and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) attended on Tuesday afternoon. The parents’ group did supply me with names, and I asked for some additional information which was delivered to me today and which I think will be of some help in the situation.

I did have the opportunity today at noon to meet a representative group of the executive of student councils from the Norfolk district secondary schools and was most impressed with the degree of responsibility they have demonstrated in attempting to provide some information generally to the members of the public in that area and in trying to induce some pressure that would persuade the two parties in this bargaining situation to resume negotiations.

The honourable members of this House, at the instigation of the former Leader of the Opposition and with the encouragement of a number of members in all parties, went through the process of developing a bill that governs collective bargaining within the teacher-board situation. That piece of legislation has been in effect for five years. It is called Bill 100, as everyone knows, and it does impose real responsibilities on those two groups which demanded those responsibilities in terms of their continuing collective bargaining relationship.

There would be no problem anywhere in this province at any time in that situation if the parties to negotiation were to exercise full responsibility, the kind of responsibility they have requested again in their responses to the review of Bill 100 this year. The parties -- boards, school trustees and teachers’ federations -- specifically said again that they wished to continue with the kind of situation that prevails under Bill 100, because they feel it is most appropriate in the delivery of educational programs to children.

I am appalled when children are deprived of their educational program as a result of a lack of responsibility on both parts in any set of negotiations. I have to tell the honourable member that I am sure that is what is happening in Norfolk right now. I would like to demand, and have the members of this Legislature support my demand, that the parties to that set of negotiations resume negotiations today for the benefit of those children.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I want to say for clarification that this is the beginning of the fifth week today, and that is what I indicated to the minister.

My supplementary question is, will the minister have the board of education, the teachers and the Education Relations Commission appear at her office to bring them together in resolving the dispute?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The mediator, who is experienced in these circumstances, stands ready right now to meet and to bring both parties together to resume negotiations for a fruitful solution to this problem. I have asked that mediator to be ready. He is ready at this point. If my presence is necessary, I will be pleased to be there, but those parties must begin to assume their responsibilities. Otherwise, I think this House is going to have to seriously consider the future of that kind of negotiating process.

COMPANY QUESTIONNAIRE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The United Steelworkers of America have submitted to me a copy of a medical questionnaire, a copy of which I have supplied to the minister, which is used by Canadian Blower- Canada Pumps Limited in Kitchener. It is the most offensive document I have ever seen.

Does the minister believe that workers should have to indicate whether they consume alcoholic beverages and how much per day, whether they have been on compensation and for what type of injury, or whether they have been rejected from the armed forces, to qualify or be considered for employment by this particular company?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving me a copy of the form. I am surprised that he did not add some other outrageous questions on the application form.

I think medical information from employees falls into several categories. The first category, of which I do not happen to approve, is information which on the face of it has no purpose other than to decide whether to exclude a person from the opportunity to obtain employment. The second category is the type of medical information that is obtained to determine whether there is any reason why the future employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job, and other personal information about his health that might be relevant to the particular job; for example, it may be that someone who is allergic to down will be working in a down factory.

The third category is information relating to medical studies being carried out that are in the best interests of that individual or individuals in general in the work place.

I thoroughly approve of the latter two categories. The first category gives me a great deal of difficulty.

I want to assure the member that amendments I will be proposing to the Human Rights Code will restrict and, I hope, make the sort of questions in this form that trouble both the member and myself, and all of us, not possible.

Mr. Martel: I ask the minister, should women be subjected to the following type of offensive questions: “Do you have masses or cysts? Bleeding from nipples? Your menstrual history: The start of your menstruation; age, did you start at 10 or after 18? Are your sexual drives changed? What type of contraceptives do you use? Do you have pain on intercourse, or bleeding after intercourse?”

Surely this type of questionnaire cannot be tolerated in Ontario. It has nothing to do with employment. I think some sicko gets his jollies when he reads the responses. Will the minister make sure that women do not have to answer this type of questionnaire in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There are a variety of questions that go beyond the offensive ones the member has recited. I want to assure him that the amendments proposed will deal with that problem.

3:20 p.m.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I wonder whether the minister is in a position today to change some of the answers she gave to my leader on October 9 and some of the information she repeated on CBC on October 10?

Specifically, the minister indicated that the indicators used to compare provinces and their funding of education were derived from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and had nothing to do with the ministry, when in fact it was a combination of the ministry and the Council of Ontario Universities that made up those indicators.

Second, the minister indicated that, if we included student aid, then Ontario would be in a different position. I think the minister now knows student aid plays a very small part in the total financial package and is not one of the indicators; it is not even in the indicators.

Third, she challenged the 10th place for Ontario, and yet on August 25 the COU people met her and the Premier. Those figures were given to her, and they were not challenged at that time. Fourth, she indicated that she had no knowledge at all of the reserves of the various universities; and yet when we checked with the universities they said that information is included in their financial reports to the minister.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to rise today to clarify the tripartite relationship which had established the eight indicators for interprovincial comparison. It was the Council of Ontario Universities, the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the ministry which had worked together to develop the indicators and had worked with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada to utilize these across the country.

The response I gave in the House, unfortunately, was in response to an interjection that accused the ministry alone of being responsible for establishing the indicators. At that time, I should have included all three parties and noted that AUCC was a vehicle and an assistance. But the remainder of those answers are correct.

The figure provided to the meeting on August 25 was only one of the indicators used. The other seven indicators do provide for a modification of the position, in most instances, to somewhere between third and eighth in the list. If only one indicator is used, that is the position you get; if you use all of them -- as was agreed by OCUA, COU and the ministry -- then that position is modified.

I am aware that student assistance is not a matter of interprovincial comparison but, since the Ontario position is superior to that of any other in student assistance and since it plays an important part in the support of universities in provinces, particularly Ontario, if that is included then Ontario is third on the list -- and that is factual.

In addition, the financial statements provided by the universities to the Legislature do not ask the universities to spell out what their current holdings are in all areas of their reserves and assets. The statements do ask for the drawings that have been taken from those reserves, but the universities are not asked to spell out in detail the current market value of many of their real estate holdings.

There has been a great deal of discussion, at the present time and over the past several months -- not just in this jurisdiction but also in others -- about the adequacy of annual financial statements of universities to the various Legislatures or Parliaments to which they have to report. A good deal of discussion is going on between auditors, actuaries, universities and governments with the aim of trying to provide for a form that will be more informative. At present, even the most highly informed actuary would have grave difficulty in figuring out precisely what the reserves and assets of most of our institutions are; we are trying to correct that situation.

Mr. Sweeney: Will the minister comment on a response to my leader when she indicated, with respect to Ontario’s position in the indicators, “the change has not been very dramatic over the past five years; it has retained that place”? The facts are that, on the first indicator, Ontario has dropped from sixth to eighth to 10th this year. On the second indicator, Ontario has dropped from third to eighth.

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What figures is the member using?

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, when the minister responded previously, she indicated there had been no change in Ontario’s position in these indicators, and I am asking her to correct or clarify that. As a matter of fact, there are very significant changes which I am trying to draw to the minister’s attention.

Over the past five years, when the minister said there was no change, Ontario dropped from sixth to eighth to 10th in the first indicator, from third to eighth in the second indicator, from third to seventh in the third indicator, from third to fifth in the fourth indicator and from third to eighth in the fifth indicator. If that is not a dramatic change, I do not know what is.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member suggested I said there was no change. I did say that I felt there was no dramatic change. I still believe this is a matter of interpretation and opinion. He may not agree with me, but I do not agree with him.

Mr. Speaker: That clears it up.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL IN PENETANGUISHENE

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education: The president of the French-language action committee in Simcoe county has written to her recently expressing her concern and dismay that the promised French-language high school for Penetanguishene will not be built by January 1, 1981, because of the obstinate and obstructive attitude of the town council in rezoning. Can the minister tell the House what she intends to do to fulfil her promise that there will be a French-language high school in Penetanguishene by January 1981?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this week discussions went on and actions were being taken which I hope will resolve the difficulty at the local level which seems to be impeding progress in that important activity.

Mr. Samis: Since the francophone students are now housed in a condemned building in a village several miles outside of Penetanguishene, and since recruitment for grade eight students begins next week by the high school and few parents would want their children to spend a winter in a condemned building, will the minister personally intervene in this question to resolve the matter as she did last spring when things reached an impasse? Will the minister tell the House whether she is prepared to invoke section 32 of the Planning Act which was unanimously recommended to the minister on September 29 by the joint working committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure the adjectives used by the honourable member are appropriate. I shall check that. I am also aware the registration completion will be in effect by mid-December; so that is a matter of concern. As I said, there is much activity going on at the present time, and I believe a successful solution will be found.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: The Premier has received an honorary degree from the University of Ottawa -- honoris causa -- and just this week I understand the Premier was invited to the opening of the new Ottawa General Hospital, which is associated --

Mr. Speaker: Is this question of urgent public importance?

Mr. Roy: I feel very offended that you would think my questions are not of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t heard it yet.

Mr. Roy: It is coming. Now that the Premier has had all of this graciousness from the Ottawa area, the opening of a new hospital and this honorary degree, is he going to see that the university will receive sufficient funds to carry out what the rector of the university calls its bilingual vocation? Is the Premier now going to respond to his request?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must say how honoured I was to receive that degree, from the University of Ottawa. I will get a copy of the very kind things the rector of that great institution said about the Premier of this province. He went back to the history of bringing the University of Ottawa into Ontario’s provincial family and the great discussions that went on at that time. I am grateful for the very genuine appreciation expressed in the conferring of the degree a week ago Sunday. I am delighted the member for Ottawa East felt it necessary to bring it to the attention of the House. I thank him very much for doing so.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Roy: Will the Premier see to it that the university gets sufficient funds to carry that out, as the rector considers it to be, and is very proud of what they are, the only bilingual post-secondary institution in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I give a little challenge to the honourable member. I participated not too many weeks ago in an effort to assist that great university in the acquisition of capital funds. I took some time and spent some effort; I was delighted to do it. I would suggest to the member that I would be delighted to see just how much work he does in terms of the capital development of that university and how much he himself has contributed to that institution. How much has the member given as a graduate? How much is the member giving to the capital expansion fund?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member for Ottawa East has stated that the only bilingual post-secondary institution in this province is the University of Ottawa. That is incorrect. I believe the member should say that his statement was incorrect. Laurentian University and Glendon College at York University are bilingual institutions. There are also at least five community colleges with bilingual programs.

INDUSTRY SCREENING PROCESS

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of a new workmen’s compensation records survey being promoted in Ontario by Equifax Services Limited? The purpose of this survey is to help employers reduce their compensation costs by screening employees on the basis of previous injuries and WCB claims.

Is the minister also aware of the potential danger this service poses to the employment prospects of the 400,000 workers injured on the job each year in Ontario? What is he prepared to do to protect those who are injured or disabled from this kind of discrimination?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this relates somewhat to the question the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked. No, I am not aware of that particular company. I am not aware of the particular recommendations they make. If I could have the opportunity to review the exact information about the company, I would certainly be happy to comment upon it.

I think in a general way I have indicated my criticism of that kind of behaviour if it is being utilized to exclude people from employment rather than to evaluate whether they can perform the essential functions of the job.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Come on, now. I have already answered that; don’t pull that game on me.

Mr. Lupusella: I think it is a completely different matter from the one that was raised by my colleague. At any rate, I am going to send a copy of a recent mailing on this service to the Minister of Labour.

Will the minister include in his report back what measures he is prepared to take to protect injured workers from this despicable kind of discrimination, including the outlawing of such practices under the Employment Standards Act or the Human Rights Code? Will the minister assure the House that amendments to the Human Rights Code will protect those workers from discriminatory hiring practices on the basis of both past injury and present disablement?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I thank the member for the information. If he will read Hansard, I think he will see that I did answer his question when I spoke to the question of the member for Sudbury East.

LAND ASSEMBLY OF A. E. LEPAGE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: In view of the slippery testimony of John White given to the public accounts committee about the $60-million land acquisition program, that he singlehandedly engineered the deals in 20 secret meetings in his apartment with a Mr. George Cormack, a vice-president of A. E. LePage, giving him by a single handshake, about a $5-million commission for the total package, can I ask the Premier whether he knew about the modus operandi? That is a good term to cover it. I want to ask the Premier, if he knew what was going on, did he approve of this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious contradiction in the honourable member’s question. Here there were a series of secret meetings. If they were secret meetings, obviously I did not know about them.

Mr. S. Smith: He kept the secret from you too?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He asked me if I knew anything about secret meetings. How could I know anything about secret meetings?

Mr. Sargent: You should be ashamed to say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should be ashamed to say that if I didn’t know there was a secret meeting that was secret, how could I know there was a secret meeting?

Mr. Sargent: He said you did know.

As a supplementary, the auditor’s report says that a real estate company was retained by the then Treasurer of Ontario to acquire options to purchase land and so on, although the auditors were unable to locate a copy of any written agreement between the province and the real estate company.

I suggest to the Premier that he should ascertain in some way whether any money changed hands secretly and whether there were any payoffs, and he should guarantee to furnish to the public accounts committee the files of totally what went on in this $60-million acquisition, because he owes it to the people of Ontario to tell us the truth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am prepared to have a little fun with the honourable member. I did not know anything of any “secret” meetings. I do know what the Treasurer recommended to cabinet. I would say to the member, if he is making allegations that the former Treasurer of Ontario was, using your own words, taking money or making some sort of deal, then I think it is incumbent upon the member to produce that here in the House and not make that kind of allegation here. I really do.

You know, Eddie, I have got patience, and you can play games here, but you are not going to play games with the reputations of people who are not here to defend themselves. I mean it.

Mr. Sargent: You are the one who is playing games with $60 million. Why the hell can’t you tell us the truth? Give us the files, and we’ll find out who is telling the truth. It is too bad you are getting tired playing games. There’s $60 million on the line.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier be good enough to inform the House when he first became aware of the agreement that was referred to in the previous questions, and when he first became aware of the way the agreement was reached?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to find out for the honourable members any information I have about it. I think the former Treasurer was very frank with members of the committee and told them everything he knew about it. I do not know what further information they want, but I will see if I can get --

Mr. Sargent: Have you read the story?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes; certainly I read the story. If there is anything further I can get, I will be delighted to produce it. If members want to debate what the former Treasurer recommended, that’s fine. I do not quarrel with that, but I do quarrel with the member for Grey-Bruce saying by implication the former Treasurer of this province was dishonest; that is exactly what he was implying to the members of this House, and I resent it.

Mr. S. Smith: He said no such thing. On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Premier must --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Would you like to hear the point of privilege? All right. Then just listen to it for a minute. Just keep your mouth shut and listen to it.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier must be aware that the Ombudsman of Ontario has stated that he has some very serious reservations about a system in which meetings that took place in a hotel room, or whatever, arranged through one real estate agent a very large transaction of this kind in which land was then purchased without people knowing it was being purchased for the government. The Ombudsman has stated that he cannot make any further comments on the matter and that members of this House cannot make any further comments without questioning the Premier, because it was government policy to do it that way.

3:40 p.m.

Is the Premier stating that it was simply the former Treasurer’s policy, or is he saying it was government policy? That is really the question at stake here.

I did not hear the member for Grey-Bruce say the Treasurer was dishonest, and no one here suggested he was dishonest. Let the record be clear. No one here suggests the Treasurer was dishonest. Let us be clear about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He did.

Mr. S. Smith: I do not believe he did, and no one here does. In any event, the Ombudsman says we cannot deal with that matter because it was government policy, and yet the Premier said he did not know those meetings were going on. Did the Premier know the meetings were going on or did he not know they were going on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to further aggravate the situation. I do not often become upset. I am prepared to have a little give and take. I have tolerated some suggestions from the member for Grey-Bruce over a number of years. I do not often take exception, but I would say on this point of order that the Leader of the Opposition said the member for Grey-Bruce did not create the implication that the former Treasurer of this province or some others --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He used the word “payoff.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- payoff was the word used. If that is not an allegation of impropriety, I do not know what is. If the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario really wanted to discharge his responsibility, he would ask the member to apologize for that suggestion; he really should. Let us debate the issue of the land acquisition, but let us not impugn people’s integrity in the process. That is what he did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: The Premier had better find out from Mr. White what he told the committee.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just apologize.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is not the question period. Apologize or sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable minister please be quiet. Does the member have a point of privilege?

Mr. Sargent: I have a point of privilege. The Premier takes great concern about my wording of it. I say, were there any payoffs? Mr. White told the committee the Premier knew what was going on. I respect the Premier. It is very important for me to know if the Premier did know that Mr. White told the committee the Premier knew what was going on. It is important for the Premier to know that. But I do want to know, by the Premier furnishing the file in total openness, what the hell happened in these goings on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would like to bring this to a conclusion. I am quite prepared to tell the member what he has just asked me, if he will apologize, not just to the members of the House but also for what was an obvious implication with respect to the integrity of the former Treasurer of the province. If he will say he did not understand what he was saying, if he will say that he really did not mean to create that impression, I will accept that as an apology from the member. But I insist on that, because that was the obvious implication. If the member did not mean it, then he should say so. If he does that, I say to the member for Grey-Bruce I am quite prepared to give him any documentation I have, because I do not have any.

Mr. Roy: The auditor has.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not have a personal file on this particular transaction. I am quite prepared to assure the member that the former Treasurer was and is a man of total integrity. The member either accepts my word for that or he does not. I say, with respect, if he will just say he did not mean to say what he said, I know how he works and I will accept that.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Premier, I was not accusing, I was questioning, and I stand by what I said.

PETITION

PASS LAKE ROAD

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 1,200 people. It was circulated by the Pass Lake-Pearl Women’s Institute. I would like to read it into the record:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be instructed to improve and upgrade Secondary Highway 587 from Pass Lake Corner to Silver Islet. The present conditions are both hazardous and costly to vehicles. In particular, the corner at mileage 9.18 kilometres from Pass Lake Corner is of great concern. It has been the scene of many accidents and near-accidents, and we feel it is imperative that it be straightened as soon as possible. In general, the whole length of road should have a good-quality asphalt topping comparable to other roads in the area, and a centre dividing line should be applied throughout.”

I would like to pay tribute to the president of the Pass Lake-Pearl Women’s Institute, Mrs. Lesley Andersen, who circulated the petition.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cureatz from the standing general government committee presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie;

Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet concurrently with the House this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Snow, moved first reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 155, 170, 225, 237, 257, 267 to 268, 299, 335 to 339, 345 to 347, 350 and 357 on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL SUNDAY

Mr. Haggerty moved resolution 5:

That in the opinion of this House the government of Ontario should introduce legislation proclaiming the first Sunday in October, in each year, as Firefighters Memorial Sunday, in recognition of service to country and community, a special tribute to an extraordinary group of Ontarians, who have made a supreme sacrifice for the safety and wellbeing of their fellow Canadians and to provide the opportunity to inform Ontario citizens about their province’s most dangerous profession and create awareness of Fire Prevention Week.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the resolution may be considered a timely event in the Legislature. Almost a year has elapsed since one of Ontario’s major disasters occurred -- the Mississauga train derailment of November 10, 1979, in which our firefighters played a major role in ensuring no fatalities took place.

Fire Chief Bentley reported that his men fought a courageous battle for more than 250 hours to contain the fire which resulted in 6,300 hours of overtime for the fire department. These valiant men worked in a high-risk environment during that time, not knowing how the compressed or chlorine gases would react.

3:50 p.m.

Very little public acknowledgement or recognition is given to such dedicated service, either to the professional or volunteer firefighter, yet during a recent Gallup poll firemen were ranked highest in their job performance among the eight occupational groups rated. Nationally, 75 per cent of adult Canadians rated their performance as very high or high. To meet that job rating, there is a criterion that must be met to become a firefighter: He must be an individual who has concern for the health and safety of all citizens and is willing to risk his life in the line of duty.

Ontario provides excellent training facilities at the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst. Regional fire training schools are also conducted in several different locations in the province each year, using the firefighting apparatus and equipment of the office of the fire marshal. Students are invited from the fire departments in the county or district in which the school is held and receive 40 hours of instruction in which the course content is divided equally between the basic skills of firefighting and fire prevention through the in-service fire prevention inspections of all classes of property.

Firefighting problems in various types of buildings are outlined. Fire ground personnel hazards are described and methods of rescue and salvage are taught. Instructions are given in fire ground hydraulics, the use and care of breathing apparatus and practical operation of portable extinguishers. The role of the firefighters in fire prevention through a continuing program of inspection of properties for hazards is stressed in the second half of the school.

A variety of industrial, domestic and general fire hazards are explained, together with the danger of building materials under fire conditions. The common dangers of fire from misuse of electricity are outlined and the appropriate corrective measures are described. Crowd and panic control, means of egress and seating are discussed. Other subjects covered are public relations in the conduct of in-service fire prevention inspections and the writing of reports.

When a fire station responds to an alarm, the firefighter has no idea of the nature of the call, but you can be assured the working skill to control the fire is there, often at the risk of endangering himself or his fellow firefighter, because teamwork plays an important role in this area of work occupation.

The honourable members are well aware of the presence in every community of thousands of chemicals, many highly volatile and toxic in nature which could be fatal to anyone exposed to them for a few seconds.

Firefighters are trained in emergency first aid, and many of them now perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation. I am amazed at the degree of emergency treatment provided by the Toronto Fire Department. In many cases, they are at emergency scenes before the ambulance arrives.

They are also highly trained in rescue procedures. Many municipal fire departments have special hydraulic equipment to remove injured persons trapped in automobile accidents. Many fire departments have special rescue equipment to aid in the search for persons missing on lakes and rivers.

Not only do we have more than 7,500 full-time firefighters in Ontario, but we also pay tribute to the many volunteer firefighters who provide an essential community service in protecting civilians and property at a minimal cost to taxpayers. The service they provide requires skilled training, interruptions of leisure time -- they are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- and travel expenses. As far as I am aware, they obtain the glorious sum of a $300 tax exemption from the federal government yearly.

Many firefighters are dedicated volunteers in many areas: raising funds towards research on children’s diseases; sending children to summer camps -- projects too numerous to list here. In my area, firefighters spend many of their leisure hours practising. They have a superb marching unit which is a credit to the community wherever they perform.

Many fire departments share in memorial day services in communities. I have noted that some fire departments have a memorial day service in a church in their community, and often people will ask, “What are they doing marching down the street?” They are entering the church for a memorial day service for their fallen comrades.

In my efforts to obtain information relating to firefighters’ fatalities and injuries, I have encountered some difficulties. I contacted the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and the Office of the Fire Marshal, but the information is not available at this time. I was successful in obtaining the information from Mr. Jack Newman, executive vice-president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, relating to the Toronto Fire Department’s honour roll.

From 1970 to 1979 there have been five captains and five firefighters who have lost their lives in the line of duty. These figures do not include the many firefighters who have had to retire on early disability relating to occupational diseases.

Mr. Newman also provided information on firefighters’ statistics as reported to the International Association of Firefighters, including Canadian firefighters. The association’s 1977 annual death and injury survey showed that “a total of 163 professional firefighters lost their lives in on-the-job accidents or from occupational diseases. Seventy-nine professional firefighters died in the line of duty last year, which incidentally averaged out to 79 on-the-job deaths per 100,000 firefighters, constituting 11 per cent over 1976.”

With the increase, firefighters unfortunately remain far ahead of all other occupations in terms of death rate, again making firefighting the most hazardous occupation in North America. Firefighters forced to leave their departments or retire because of occupational diseases totalled 828 in 1977. Of this number, 513 had heart disease and 91 suffered lung damage.

The vast majority of reported injuries, 40,610, were sustained at the fire scene. The rest, 14,952, came while responding to or returning from alarms, during training, at the fire station, or from other work-related causes. A total of 496 firefighters suffered on-the-job injuries serious enough to force them to seek retirement.

Of those injuries, 32 per cent were sprains and strains, 15 per cent were cuts, 11 per cent involved inhalation of toxic gases, nine per cent were burns, two per cent were from heat exhaustion, two per cent were from broken bones and 26 per cent were attributed to other causes. There was a large increase in the injury ratio, from 44.2 per cent per 100 in 1976 to 55.6 per cent per 100 in 1977.

Mr. Newman was good enough to present to me the Toronto Fire Department honour roll. It is dedicated to the gallant company who lost their lives in the performance of their duty. From 1851 to 1979 there have been 111 firefighters who have lost their lives in fighting fires in Toronto alone. The dedication, presented by the Royal Insurance Company, was published in appreciation of the public service and sacrifice by these dedicated men of Local 113 to the citizens of Toronto.

Citation for bravery: The late Firefighter First Class Michael Charles Fikis of the Thunder Bay Fire Department has been named Canadian Firefighter of the Year and winner of the Fireman’s Fund Award for Outstanding Bravery, presented annually by the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company of Canada.

Firefighter Fikis’s brave action, which cost him his life and won him the award’, is described in a report from the Thunder Bay Fire Department:

“On March 5, 1979, there was a fire at the Great West Timber Company kiln. The alarm came in at 2:06 p.m. The owner of a chip storage bin had disobeyed orders from the firefighters to leave the bin. When he got into trouble and was overcome by fumes, Firefighter Fikis took off his face mask to share his oxygen in order to revive him. Firefighter Fikis called for help and a colleague, Firefighter Gorrie, dashed into the kiln, even though he had no airpack.

“As both firefighters worked to save the man, Firefighter Fikis collapsed, having been overcome by heavy smoke. He was rescued by other masked firefighters, oxygen was applied, he was taken to hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.”

The Ontario Medal for Firefighter Bravery was also awarded posthumously to Firefighter Fikis by the Honourable Pauline McGibbon. Firefighter Gorrie, who almost lost his life in the attempt to rescue his fallen partner, also received the award.

4 p.m.

During the presentation of the award, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, “The people of these communities, indeed the people of Ontario, owe a great deal of gratitude to these men and others like them, who consistently put their lives on the line for the protection of their fellow citizens.

“The men so honoured here today are not only the ones who have dared much for their fellow citizens. The rosters of the fire departments across the province are filled with similar valorous men. These firefighters, then, are the bravest of the brave, men who by attitude and example set the standard for all to follow.”

Ontario may forget these men and the courageous deeds they have done but, as long as there are men alive, they will not forget each other; they know what courage is. Firefighters are a very close-knit family. They understand each other and what each one goes through in the performance of his duties.

I have seen these courageous men full of remorse when they are unable to save someone. It is especially difficult when the death has been that of a child. The dilemma of never knowing what each fire will bring, the thought that maybe they will not be able to rescue the next person, is indeed a heavy load to bear.

Twelve days from now is Remembrance Day. Municipalities across Ontario and concerned citizens will gather around veterans’ memorial monuments to pay special tribute to Canada’s war veterans and those who have paid the supreme sacrifice so that we Canadians can remain and live in a free society, enjoying a higher standard of living than that of many other countries.

Back in the early 1940s there was a group of firefighters from the Port Colborne Fire Department. I believe about 20 members of the 25 members of that company volunteered to enter war service in Great Britain. There were a number of other men from other companies throughout Ontario and Canada, known as Canadian Firefighters’ Forces. They went over to serve in England. They accepted that challenge and were at the Battle of Britain. The firefighters did not have too much equipment, but their task was to put out all fires before they could be seen from the sky so that no more of Hitler’s aircraft could bomb London, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Brighton. They did a good job there.

They had some struggles over the years to be included in the Canadian Armed Forces, but fortunately the Canadian government saw it proper to include them as part of the Canadian Armed Forces. I bring this to the attention of the House to show the courageous deeds this group of special Ontario citizens do provide to the country and communities.

There is only a small gathering of citizens who attend Remembrance Day services now. You can always count upon the Royal Canadian Legion unit, as well as other veterans, to be there; but also you can always pick out a large number of men dressed in blue. This is a firefighters’ marching unit that will stand and parade that day in respect to the fallen heroes.

I have seen other courageous deeds of firemen. I think of the blizzard in 1977 that struck the Niagara South region. It tied up the community for four days; there was no communication with outside areas and there was a lack of food. The first line of defence in that emergency was the fire departments in those communities. They responded to their utmost and they did a great job in providing services and giving medical services to persons who required them during that blizzard. It was a tough blizzard because people could not move equipment for four days. But the firefighters, with their rescue expertise, were there as a group we could depend upon. Every community has a group of men who can be called upon to accept any challenge in any rescue or emergency.

I have great respect for the firefighters in Ontario. At one time I, my six brothers and my two brothers-in-law served in the volunteer fire department in the city of Port Colborne. It is good experience for any young person to get involved in a volunteer fire department. The education gained is fantastic.

I would like to see one day in October of each year set aside in memory of the firefighters of the province who lost their lives in the line of duty. It would cost the government nothing to set this one day aside in memory of our fallen firefighters. I hope the other members will concur in the resolution.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to join my other colleagues in supporting this resolution. I think it is a useful activity for the members of this House to express an opinion on something like this. As I heard the previous speaker say, this really is not going to cost people money. But that is not the purpose of the exercise. The purpose is to recognize in one other form what we already recognize in a number of ways. That is, there are firefighters providing service to a community in a way that differs a great deal from one community to the next, but the common element is that a firefighter’s service is always dangerous. There is no such thing as a safe fire. There is an element of danger and risk in that profession which ought to be recognized by the remainder of society.

I would be hard-pressed to come up with an argument against a resolution of this kind. It is simple recognition, but recognition of something that is incredibly important. We do not do enough of this in our society, in my opinion. There ought to be more occasions for people to do more than we now do for those who involve themselves in high-risk occupations in public service positions such as firefighters.

We have a variety of recognition factors, all the way from medals to our Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for police services involved, but a lot of these appear to be almost incoherent programs set up to recognize these things. In my view we ought to have this recognition, because I believe it is an important, sensible and rational thing to do. More than that, we ought to do so in a coherent pattern.

I have a number of constituents who are either firefighters themselves, or someone in their family is engaged in that high-risk occupation. They have pointed out to me a number of very sensible things that could be done for firefighters and their families but they have not happened, for whatever reason. In part it may be that a number of our communities are served by volunteer fire departments so that people who are normally engaged in other occupations for part of their time make themselves available in this high-risk occupation.

In the place where I was born there is still a volunteer fire department in operation. I believe they have one person on staff and the remainder are volunteers from the community. In the community adjacent to my Oshawa riding there is a firefighter organization that is almost exclusively voluntary in nature. It is quite unusual to see a community as urbanized as the town of Whitby still functioning in large measure with a volunteer fire department.

I am in favour of recognizing the valuable work these people do and the high risks they take to provide the public with service that is indeed necessary. This resolution does that but, if anything, I would like to extrapolate this motion into something else. There are several areas of concern that I want to get on the record this afternoon. I think it is important not only to support this resolution but also to bear in mind that there are other concerns which firefighters and their families face each day.

4:10 p.m.

A simple thing was brought to my attention last year. Firefighters in their own sets of negotiations were trying to do something in the form of their own recognition for people who used to be firefighters. They wanted to have them covered by the benefits that accrue to them under their own contract. Although this had been done in one or two municipalities, it was brought into question by the municipality of Oshawa as to whether the Municipal Act allowed the city, which wanted to do it, actually to proceed and bring these retired firefighters into coverage under the collective agreement for things like drug plans, dental plans, and whatever the range of benefits.

I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). He agreed that both parties in this instance -- in fact, everybody who was involved in it -- wanted to do it, but the law itself was not clear as to whether that could actually happen. He told me at that time that during this fall session, when they bring in one of the usual omnibus bills from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, they will see that firefighters can be covered under an existing contract even if they are retirees. That points out the same concern that I expressed earlier.

There seems to be a number of areas where, perhaps because of oversight or perhaps because people simply have not thought about these little details, firefighters in a high-risk occupation have not got all their needs met by a long shot. That is one other area where I think a resolution of this nature might serve the purpose, even if the resolution in its present form only serves to provide recognition of the firefighters and the work they do.

If we had a higher level of recognition for that, then we might be more willing to amend rather mundane pieces of Legislation to provide firefighters who are retired with the kinds of benefits that active firefighters now have. It is my hope that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will introduce that legislation this fall and that little fine point in the law will be altered so that we can serve again in another way to recognize the needs of firefighters even if they are retired.

There are a number of complicated pieces of legislation at work governing the life of a firefighter. Not very many of those pieces recognize the high risk, but many of them in kind of a backward way recognize the need. We are now in the process of trying to sort out the legislative tools to provide for decent recognition for firefighters.

I believe it is important that one day a year be set aside to recognize this but, more important for me anyway, we should not forget on the other 364 days that there are other needs. I believe that the declaration of an official day for firefighters is a worthwhile activity for this House to pursue and for people to carry on afterwards, but not if that is the end of it. In other words, I am one of those people who believe that it does not do people much good to have a lot of recognition in the form of a parade or a day named in their honour if for the other 364 days a year the society in which they live forgets about them.

I support the resolution that is before the House now, because I think it is a worthwhile endeavour. Recognition is always something that is worth while. I would be hard pressed to find a group that is more deserving of that recognition than firefighters. I want to ask that other members in the House take into consideration that there are other real needs of firefighters in particular that have to be met and, if this resolution carries, as I would anticipate it would this afternoon, that this one day which will be set up should not be the end of it. It should be a beginning of a society that recognizes and pays its dues to people who take the risks to see that the rest of us can live in relative safety.

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words this afternoon in support of this resolution by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). I have learned over the years that there are two sides to most of the issues we discuss in this Legislature and good arguments are usually made both pro and con. I trust we have the wisdom in a world that is neither black nor white to come out with the correct shade of grey. The resolution we are debating today, to establish a Firefighters Memorial Sunday, is by contrast a refreshing departure from this general rule. I, for one, can only think of good things to say about this resolution, and, therefore, I am only too pleased to support it.

Most of us do not have to face death or injury in our jobs. Very few of us have to show extreme courage and bravery every day. Yet, as we all know, valour in the face of peril is the daily reality for our firefighters. These men consistently put their lives on the line for the protection of their fellow citizens, and sometimes this hazardous but vital duty tragically claims the lives of firefighters. It goes without saying that since they gave their lives for all of us, the very least we can do for these men and their families is to honour their memories.

Take the example the member for Erie mentioned a while ago, the selfless heroism of Firefighter Michael Fikis of the Thunder Bay Fire Department at a fire in the chip silo in March 1979. Fireman Fikis entered the silo to search for its owner, Mr. Bendick, who had been overcome by fumes and smoke. He found Mr. Bendick and, in an attempt to retrieve him, gave him his own face mask, knowing full well how lethal the fumes were -- so lethal, in fact, that firefighter Fikis was himself overcome, dying shortly thereafter. In recognition of this courageous self-sacrifice, he was posthumously awarded the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery, which was presented to his family.

Equal heroism was shown by Firefighter Ron Gorrie at the same Thunder Bay silo fire last year. Firefighter Gorrie heard faint cries for help coming from within the silo. He went in to attempt a rescue without a face mask, because he feared he would be wasting precious seconds if he searched for one. In the chaotic gloom of that fatal silo, he managed to find Firefighter Fikis and Mr. Bendick, both unconscious. Firefighter Gorrie tried to revive both of them, but the fumes were just too thick and he was close to collapsing himself. Fortunately, he managed to reach a ladder and was pulled to safety by other firefighters. He was taken to hospital and treated for smoke inhalation. He fully recovered and received his Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

These two courageous firefighters were honoured by the province last year. Two others received medals from the Lieutenant Governor last Monday. But how can we show our respect and gratitude to all the other firefighters in Ontario? How, for example, can we give thanks to an entire fire department? I am thinking in this case of the tremendous skill and resourcefulness shown by the Mississauga Fire Department during the great train derailment and evacuation last November. The 24 cars that went off the track, exploded and burned contained deadly gases. In fact, it was leaking chlorine gas that caused the evacuation of nearly a quarter of a million residents. Yet, in the face of disaster and confusion, the Mississauga Fire Department never faltered. Despite the huge potential for disaster, the vast evacuation was executed without a single mishap.

What can we, as a community, do to show our appreciation of this gallantry and efficiency? I suggest this resolution fits the bill quite nicely. An annual Firefighters Memorial Sunday will help keep the memory of these brave men alive. In addition to paying tribute to the valour of our firefighters, the memorial Sunday would also serve to recognize their professionalism in more mundane but equally necessary tasks, such as training and fire prevention. While bravery will always be an essential credential in this high-risk occupation, today’s firefighter must also be a well trained technologist in his chosen field.

4:20 p.m.

We in Ontario are fortunate in being served by some of the best-trained fire departments in Canada. At least part of the credit for this must go to the Ontario Fire College, which is operated through the Office of the Fire Marshal. Established in 1958, the Ontario Fire College was the first residential fire college to be built in Canada. Today, it is considered to be one of the most advanced fire colleges on the continent. Most students come to the college from municipal fire departments in Ontario, but students also come from other provinces and from as far away as Ghana and Sweden. The college gives advanced training and experience in fighting fires, in fire prevention and fire department management. True-to-life situations are simulated and the most modem firefighting techniques demonstrated and practised.

The professionalism of our firefighters also shows in their approach to fire prevention as well. Firefighters believe that their work in this area is just as vital as the job of actually putting out fires. The good advice of firefighters is always available to anyone concerned about a potential fire hazard, and it goes without saying that this advice has prevented countless potential fires from actually occurring.

In this regard, I am pleased to note that this resolution discusses the need to create awareness of Fire Prevention Week. I would like to add at this point that, in my opinion, one of the most valuable contributions of firefighters from right across Ontario was their input into the new Ontario fire code. In the long run these suggestions will also save lives by minimizing fire hazards.

Other groups and institutions have gone out of their way to honour firefighters and, as a member representing an eastern Ontario riding, I am proud to say that at the urging of the Smiths Falls club, Civitan’s Canadian District East has agreed to recognize firefighters during International Firefighters’ Week. The Canadian contingent has persuaded Civitan International to unanimously agree to an annual Firefighters’ Week.

In my opinion, the resolution before us today gives all of us the opportunity as citizens of this great province to express the gratitude we all feel. I speak for the vast majority of Ontarians when I say I am proud of the Ontario fire service. I thank God that we in this province are blessed with firefighters second to none in courage and professionalism. They richly deserve all the honour they get.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is a rare privilege to hear the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) speak in the House. I made some fun of him at one time, and I would like to retract those remarks I made in my maiden speech and compliment him on his presentation.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged today to be able to take part in the discussion of ballot item 29, the resolution regarding the Firefighters Memorial Sunday as sponsored by my colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). This is not something that has just recently been thought about and commented on by my colleague. Since my election to the Legislature, I have known it is something about which the member has been very concerned, and be has brought it up on a number of occasions. I think the honourable members will know that this has appeared as a resolution on the Order Paper for a long time; so I am delighted that he has this opportunity to bring it forward for all members of the Legislature to be able to comment on it.

I think the people in our fire service belong to a profession that for too long has had too low a profile, and the work that our volunteer and full-time firemen do is not always completely understood by the public unless there is a serious fire and there is some reason for them to give consideration to this. There are a number of points that might be brought out today during this discussion.

My first involvement with the fire department in the town of Lindsay was when I served as the mayor of that community. I had the opportunity to watch the progress of this department and to know that it was considered to be one of the best fire departments in many respects throughout Ontario. We had many good comments from people from far afield.

Recently, I had the opportunity of presenting firemen’s plaques to some 35 firemen who have served in the volunteer and full-time field for more than 20 years throughout the counties of Victoria and Haliburton. In presenting these plaques, I was very interested to note a number of things about our fire service that are not always understood. I found in a number of the various volunteer departments that this is not something some of the people in the community do for a year or two and then decide they want to get out of.

The people who serve in the volunteer service are very faithful, and I was interested to notice in the Fenelon Falls volunteer department, when I presented plaques to six or seven of their members, every one of them had served for more than 30 years and one member had served for 40 years. I found this to be the case in almost all the departments. I think today there is a great spirit and, as my colleague has stated, the volunteer firemen are a very close-knit family.

In visiting the various departments, I was also impressed by the fact that many of our young people are now joining as volunteer firemen and are going to serve just as faithfully in the years ahead. It is very important that the young people become involved in this fire service.

Something unique happened to me in the municipality of Dysart in Haliburton. I was impressed to find that the volunteer firemen meet there every Monday evening and once a month they have a social. The spirit there was something I have to comment on, because they give so much time from their schedule and away from their families to update their experience and to be able to serve their communities.

I also want to bring to the attention of the members something that I think is worthy of note. It happened at the Dorset fire department in the northern part of Haliburton county. I am delighted the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) is in the House, because he knows the Dorset area very well.

Anyone who is familiar with that area knows that the main street of this community is the dividing line between Muskoka and the county of Haliburton. In the town of Dorset they have an excellent volunteer fire department and, when two counties are separated by a main street, the fire service has to go on and boundaries cannot interfere.

The firemen of Dorset decided they needed a new firehall; so they proceeded to look into a feasibility study on how much it was going to cost. They came up with a figure of $21,000. To get it moving, the municipality of Lake of Bays in Muskoka gave $7,000, the township of Sherborne, McClintock and Livingstone in Haliburton also gave $7,000, and there remained $7,000 that was needed to complete the firehall.

4:30 p.m.

I want to point out the firemen themselves got together and by various means raised the $7,000 to put up this building. They did not go out and hire a contractor but contracted it themselves. Today we see a very appropriate building for the firemen in Haliburton. They took the trees off the lot and had them dressed. The lumber is now being used inside the firehall.

I point this out because in many communities today they would say: “You put up the building and we will do the job. We will serve.” But not the firemen in the municipality of Dorset. They themselves provided the labour and put up one third of the money. This is a great saving to our taxpayers and is something that should be pointed out.

Our firemen do deserve this special debate that has taken place here today. I hope all members will support this resolution. They have a very dangerous job, as my colleague has pointed out. I want to comment again on the dangers of this job. I was reading the 1978 annual death and injury survey which was published in the November 1979 issue of International Firefighters which reports 67.4 deaths per 100,000 employees affiliated with the International Association of Firefighters. It states that things are getting better, since the average for the decade was almost 16 points higher at 83 deaths per 100,000. The same survey reports that every firefighter faces a 42.5 per cent likelihood of injury at least once during the year.

I feel it is appropriate that we should debate this resolution, and I ask all members to join in supporting it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, it is not always and perhaps not often that I find myself in complete agreement with the member for Erie, but I want to say that on this resolution I do. He is right when he says firefighting is the most dangerous occupation in our society. He endeavoured to get some figures, and so did I. I perhaps was successful in one area in which he was not. In Ontario in the last three years there have been 18 firefighters who have lost their lives fighting fires. Those are only the paid firefighters; we do not have any record of the volunteers who may have lost their lives.

Certainly, the loss of life is serious and the hazard of the occupation is internationally recognized. The loss of life in firefighting is even greater, which would surprise many people, than in the police force, which is considered a very hazardous occupation. It is becoming more dangerous for a variety of reasons. The member for Erie mentioned new chemicals and that sort of thing, the numbers of new high-rises and the type of construction.

I am somewhat conscious of the contribution that firefighters make to communities and to society generally as a person who was in municipal life for 21 years. I think I am right in saying that all those who have spoken on this so far are people who have been involved in municipal life and therefore recognize the contribution. For that matter, most of the people who have been in the House have been people who have been in municipal life.

In Thorold, in the years I was on the council or head of the municipality we had four volunteer fire companies. Now that I represent Welland as well as Thorold in this Legislature, there are a total of eight volunteer fire companies in the area I represent. I think it is probably true to say that in that constituency we have the best fire protection and firefighting coverage, or as good as any place in the province, partly because of the strategic location of the firehalls, partly because of the training, partly because of the leaders and partly because of the numbers.

In Thorold, in the four companies we have eight paid firefighters and 129 volunteers. They are headed by Chief Don Henderson and Deputy Chief Larry Jane. They have district chiefs at each of the four companies. There is David Hale, who is the district chief in number one; Dick Burke in number two; Bert Bradnam in number three and Pete Bronn in number four.

In Welland, there are 52 full-time firefighters and 123 volunteers. They are headed up by Chief Roland Bouchard and Deputy Chief Michael Blazetich. They do not have district chiefs there. Those who have the responsibilities of volunteer fire companies are called captains: Bob Beres in number one; John Kuruziak in number two; Dick Fox in number three and Jim Coulis in number four.

I want to confirm the quality of the firefighting and of those leaders. I have been closely associated with them and I am an honorary member of two of the volunteer companies. The quality there is high, but the quality of fire protection is generally high throughout the province.

I never cease to be amazed by so many people in ordinary life, who have no background in firefighting at all, but who become expert in fighting fires and giving protection. That is true whether they are paid firemen or volunteers. I know, in my area, even the volunteers frequently take their holidays to attend fire school. They make that kind of sacrifice to become more knowledgeable about the occupation they have chosen even if only on a voluntary basis.

But the motivation to raise their service to a high level is, most of all, the protection of their homes, their neighbours’ homes and their families. It causes them to get up at any time of the night; to leave their places of business if they operate a small business, as many of them do; to destroy their best clothes; and sometimes to risk their lives. I say their service is an application of the principle of brotherhood which is not exceeded by many other sectors of our community.

We have 16,606 volunteers in this province, I am told, and that is just about double the number of paid firefighters. They are providing that service without any remuneration whatsoever.

As previously mentioned, in addition to their firefighting and fire protection efforts, they have raised fire prevention tremendously. They have brought enough pressure to bear to get municipalities to get good firefighting equipment. They have brought about inspection in municipalities to locate fire hazards and see they are removed. They have brought about new legislation. Fire detectors now have to be installed in new homes, largely because of the action of the firefighters and their recognition of the danger without them, which they brought to the attention of the government. They have raised the consciousness of the public generally by a variety of means, including open houses. Throughout the whole province, it is a very commendable record.

The concern about fire protection and the resultant formation of fire companies has been a level that has frequently formed new communities and new community organizations. I understand something like 80 per cent of the isolated communities assistance fund, which is set up by this government, has gone to fire companies, showing they are the main organizations in those isolated communities, most of these being in the north.

There is no legislation -- and I did not know this until today -- requiring fire companies in any place in this province or requiring fire protection in any municipality, but it is still the top municipal and area service. In almost all areas -- not all -- they have developed, without compulsion, a reciprocity so they go to the aid of one another.

4:40 p.m.

They are the dominant organization in many communities, and almost all their service far exceeds just firefighting and fire protection. Some of those services have been mentioned. They have become -- and rightly so -- the emergency measures organization in most of the municipalities and communities throughout this province. They assist in floods, winds, tornadoes and blizzards. Even individuals who have heart attacks call the fire Company first, or at least right after the doctor.

But it goes further than just these emergency matters. They are a general community service organization. They have raised great amounts of money for muscular dystrophy. For instance, in Welland they raised something like $25,000 in three years for muscular dystrophy; that is a service above and beyond the call of duty. They are involved in minor sports. In St. Catharines, a fire company repairs toys and distributes them at Christmas time.

Tomorrow night, I will be attending a Halloween party, which is sponsored by the Thorold South Fire Company for the children and has the result of lessening the damage that the children sometimes do on Halloween.

So today I commend all the firefighters for their services to the community but, most of all, for their fire services for which they take risks and in which there is a high loss of life. I am going to support this motion which we have before us, and I commend the member for Erie for submitting it to this House.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, might I say how pleased I am to participate, although very briefly, in this debate this afternoon. I think the resolution, as proposed by the member for Erie, is very worthwhile and complimentary, not only in regard to this proposition but also in terms of the recognition the resolution gives.

The member for Fort Erie and I have had the opportunity of sitting together on the select committee on Hydro affairs for the last year and a half to two years and, although we disagreed from time to time, I have always enjoyed his comments. So it gives me pleasure to respond to his resolution.

It is my belief that the firefighters of Ontario deserve greater recognition for the important role they play in our communities. I think the Firefighters Memorial Sunday will go a long way towards increasing the public awareness of the valuable and heroic work of our province’s firefighters.

When the first settlers moved into our wonderful province they quickly organized services that these new communities would need to survive. Community leaders ensured that their neighbourhood could be served by the blacksmith, teacher, ministers and doctors and, yes, lawyers. As well, the first major co-operative community organization formed in our pioneer communities was the volunteer firefighting team. In some cases, even before a police force was established, firefighters were organized to protect the new settlements. Our ancestors knew that uncontrolled fire was one of the most devastating enemies to human activity. Without fire precaution, fire can strike anywhere, reducing the results of years of effort to ashes within a matter of seconds.

Like the pioneer firefighters of Ontario today, firefighters are just as active in protecting the wealth and effort of individuals and communities from destruction by fire. In addition to this great responsibility, firefighters also provide a general rescue service, which in some communities includes paramedics.

Firefighters, like pioneers, explorers, the builders, engineers and the businessmen have helped build up this province by protecting our cities, homes, libraries and industries from destruction. In my own community, the village of Newcastle, the first person who comes to mind in the volunteer fire department is Frank Hoar and the long-term dedication that other residents have had in Newcastle.

I think of the volunteer fire department in the village of Orono, and Herb and Jerry Duval and their associates from Orono Electric and the kind of long-term dedication, free volunteer help and time they have given to the promotion of this very worthwhile activity.

I can also think of the new Courtice area volunteer fire department and some of the wonderful people I met there through Mayor Garnett Rickard, Councillor Ann Cowman and Councillor Jasper Holiday. It goes without saying that we cannot ignore the Bowmanville Fire Department and the firemen in the city of Oshawa.

Over the past 10 years, awards have been created to honour the firefighters of our province. In 1971, a long-service medal was created. This award was granted to Ontarians who had served as firefighters for 20 years, including those who participated1 in firefighter services in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Five years later, an advisory council was established to award the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery. The purpose of this medal is to recognize the heroism of individual firefighters, as well as to emphasize and encourage the virtue of bravery among fire departments. This award is open to both volunteer and professional firefighters. It was created by an order in council of the Ontario cabinet as a tribute to the firefighters of the province. The goal of the award is to bring public attention to the often hazardous nature of firefighting and to gain further public support for the firefighters serving in their neighbourhoods.

This year the Ontario medal for firefighter bravery was awarded to Ottawa firefighter David Joyce and Chief Harry Yost for the Milverton-Mornington-Ellice fire area. Both men executed acts of bravery while pursuing the normal course of duty. Obviously both men deserved the recognition awarded them by presentation of the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery.

However, I believe the province can do more. I believe we should not only recognize individual acts of heroism but also show public appreciation for the work of volunteer firefighters, and this resolution proposing a Firefighters Memorial Sunday will help us meet that goal.

I conclude by saying it is my hope the House will give full, unanimous support for this resolution.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to take too much time, but I want to thank all members for their interest and support for the resolution I put forward today. I concur with their views and expressions.

The next question is, what day will it be proclaimed? I will leave that with the government, but I do appreciate the opportunity to introduce the resolution this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): That completes the debate on ballot item 29.

JOB SECURITY ACT

Mr. M. Davidson moved second reading of Bill 156, An Act respecting the Security of Employment in Ontario.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the second of three acts which my party is putting forward to establish the economic rights of the people of Ontario. Last week the government voted against full employment by blocking another bill submitted by one of my colleagues and showed it would do nothing further to provide jobs for every person able and willing to work.

In two weeks time we will be challenging the government and the Liberal Party to vote with us for the most comprehensive women’s package ever presented in this Legislature, but today we are talking about job protection and job security for the working people in Ontario.

We welcome the announcement from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) that the government will be taking some action in terms of protecting workers affected by plant closures and layoffs. However, I have to say this action came too late, it was too limited and it was a response to the pressure of the New Democratic Party, rather than a recognition on the part of the government of the drastic need to protect the working people of the province.

We welcome the support of the Liberal Party for the measures which my leader outlined during September and which its leader then parroted in his autumn program during his press conference on the eve of the return of the Legislature in October.

If the House adopts this bill today and sends it to committee, we have a good chance of having comprehensive worker protection legislation within the province before Christmas. That would be the greatest achievement of this Legislature in the last five years.

Ontario has become great because of the efforts of the men and women who work in the plants, factories, offices, mines and other productive facilities in the province. It is their efforts that have given us opportunities to be a great society. However, the economic rights of working people are much less recognized than the economic rights of investors and owners.

Last week the Conservatives were opposed to a bill that said every person has a right to a job. Today the New Democratic Party is saying when one has a job he has the right to have that job protected. Workers have a right to have their jobs protected and workers should know that their livelihood will not be taken away because of a decision made in someone’s boardroom.

4:50 p.m.

This government tolerates corporate behaviour which allows workers to be shoved around like pawns. Plants can be closed down for any reason. There is no adequate way for workers to be compensated for the loss of their jobs.

The Conservatives have no effective procedures to investigate ways to keep plants open and operating in Ontario. For example, the operators of the Armstrong Cork carpet plant in Lindsay, which we heard about today, simply announce they think they can make a greater profit elsewhere. As a result, approximately 300 people are being legally laid off. Armstrong took care of the workers by providing severance pay and other forms of protection, more so than it was required to by law. What Armstrong did not do was to protect the jobs of the workers. What the government did not do was to force Armstrong to justify its corporate decision in terms of the impact on the workers and the community where the plant was located.

This problem exists not just in towns like Lindsay, or in my own riding of Cambridge, but it is found throughout the province. Forty-nine per cent of the 296,000 unemployed people of Ontario are unemployed because they have lost their jobs. Most lost their jobs as a result of layoffs, plant closures and relocations. Five years ago only 38 per cent of the unemployed in the province were unemployed because they had lost jobs.

Surely the Minister of Labour has seen this problem coming and surely it is time for an answer. I am tired of this government saying if we do anything to protect workers we will lose jobs because no one will invest in Ontario any more. Government ministers never seem to tire of repeating that line in this House and across this province. That line they use is simply not true.

The government itself does not believe its own line. We have seen the glossy brochures like The Profit Centre. We have seen the $30 modular promotion kit seeking more foreign investments for Ontario. When they are sent out, the points are made very clear: Ontario has a secure supply of energy; Ontario has a highly trained work force; Ontario has much lower taxes than all of our American competitors, such as New York, Texas, Michigan and Illinois. All of this is contained in the kit that is sent out. In the minds of this government, all of these natural advantages are not enough to induce investment in this province.

On top of that, the Conservatives want to advertise that Ontario has a work force that is ready for exploitation. We have a province where too few of our workers are unionized. We have a province where we have the second lowest minimum wage in Canada. Moreover, we have a province where people can come and invest and the moment they want to take their money and run they can. This province has no protection for the jobs of the workers. There are lots of controls on labour, but there are virtually no controls on capital investments.

We are proposing as one of the proponents of this bill, a job protection board. When employers are giving layoff notices to their workers, they will also find it necessary to notify the board. If the board believes the layoff is of major significance, an investigation will be undertaken. The investigation will take place in the community or communities where layoffs are going to occur. In this way the board can receive input from the affected workers, the owners, the union and the management.

The job of the board will be to determine whether the layoff or plant closing is justifiable on economic grounds. The board will make a report 90 days before the layoff is about to occur. If the layoff is justifiable and unavoidable, then the board will recommend what action can be taken to protect the jobs of the workers. It may well be that we will have to establish committees to provide for the workers over that transition period.

Look at the problems that face the workers of Windsor right now. This government has failed to provide temporary assistance while the automobile industry is restructuring. Other things can be done, perhaps worker retraining or perhaps an effort to find an alternative use for the plant to produce another product that can use the skills of the workers and the resources of the community. If, on the other hand, the layoff cannot be justified on economic grounds, the board will make recommendations as to how that plant can and will be kept open.

Many layoffs in Ontario cannot be justified on economic grounds. The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto found that it was not the plant’s lack of profitability that caused many layoffs; it was simply bad management. Management created conditions that threatened the profitability of an enterprise unless certain steps were taken to reduce costs. From the employer’s point of view. according to the social planning council, labour is a cost reduction that can be cut back much like any other cost. There are a few constraints upon a management group wanting to cut back its costs by laying off workers.

To give one example this Legislature is perfectly familiar with, we can look at the Firestone plant in Whitby. The Firestone plant was modernized within the last five years. It was producing efficiently and the company was selling its tires to the Canadian market. The parent American company decided it wanted to cut costs and decided to do so by closing its Canadian plant. At the same time, Firestone kept open older and less efficient plants in the United States. Canadians continue to import many more tires than they produce, nevertheless. The workers at the Whitby plant are still without jobs. The government of Ontario has done nothing to protect the workers in the tire industry.

The point of the Firestone example is that, even when this Legislature found out about the heartless actions of the Firestone company, it had no power to change the situation. Workers can be thrown out of work in Ontario and the government will stand idly by -- in the case of Firestone, with the strong support of the Liberal Party.

Our bill suggests some specific remedies to protect jobs, but it is not limited to them. The government could force the owner to make his plant available for sale. This would allow the workers to buy the plant with aid from the government. It would allow another investor to buy the plant to keep it operating, and it might even allow the government to invest in a profitable plant and create new job opportunities in Ontario through public investment, something this government fails to consider.

The bill would also prevent owners from taking their machinery and equipment and exporting it out of the country or selling it to their competitors and thereby foreclosing on all hopes of re-establishing the industry in Canada. If we cannot keep the operation going without the involvement of the owner of the plant, we could at least make it more difficult for owners to withdraw their money and leave it to the workers and the government to bear all of the costs.

The job protection board could recommend such things as forcing the employer to continue to pay salaries of the employees through extended periods of time. Surely, if a plant closure is not justified, the employer should be compelled to lessen the impact on his work force. The workers are the people who make the plant’s profits possible, and it is our view they must also get their share.

Another important feature of this bill is the establishment of the community adjustment fund. There are about 14 single-industry towns in Ontario. There are other towns where only two or three employers provide the major share of employment. The communities simply cannot face the shock of layoff and closure without some form of assistance.

Our bill calls for a community adjustment fund to be financed primarily by the employers. This fund will be used, when necessary, to create new opportunities, and sometimes major new investment will be necessary to offset the impact of a layoff. It is only fair that the people who have come and used the workers and the resources of the community should be asked to pay their fair share towards the rebuilding of the community’s economic life.

To give one example, there are many mining communities in the north. In these communities, workers spend their whole lives working for one employer. They suffer the ups and downs of the industry. They have long layoffs and eventually for various reasons -- not always because the ore has run out -- the owners close the mines. People who have mined all of their lives have great difficulty finding new employment. People who have lived all their lives in one community and have invested their life savings in that community have great difficulty relocating. It is time through the actions of this government we had a fund making new opportunities available to the communities and the people within those communities.

5 p.m.

Today in Tory Ontario it is fine to come and use the work force, exploit the natural resources and then move elsewhere, leaving behind worn-out workers. These workers usually have no choice but to apply for public assistance. This has got to stop. We must have a means Of providing new opportunities and new jobs for these people. This can best be done through a community adjustment fund so that costs of such readjustment are where they belong.

The bill establishes these new innovations of the job protection board and the community adjustment fund and moves forward to other things to strengthen the rights of workers. This is particularly important to workers who are affected by short-term layoffs of a repetitive nature.

The bill provides for better notice provisions. This allows people to make plans for their futures and to take other opportunities when available. We also provide legislated severance pay. The Minister of Labour says the government does not object to legislated severance pay. I hope today that government spokesmen will say they are in favour of legislated severance pay. I doubt it, but I would like to hear them say that.

The bill also provides for protection to workers when their company decides to move to another town in Ontario. If this becomes necessary, the workers who lose their jobs in one part of Ontario will have the first opportunity at the new jobs in the other part of Ontario.

Again, we believe our bill provides the minimum that can be done immediately on pensions. It allows for pension portability and establishes a five-year vesting period. Throughout the province, workers with long years of service are still in risk of losing their pensions as a result of layoffs. By accepting our bill, we would be protecting these workers. Much more needs to be done about pensions. We have waited so long for the royal commission to report that it is probably worth waiting a little bit longer. Nevertheless, we can take the initial steps and start the mechanism in motion for providing the type of pension protection the workers of Ontario need.

It is obvious that in today’s society the kinds of protections offered through Bill 156, as put forward by the Ontario New Democratic Party, are essential to maintain the rights of workers within the province. I sincerely hope that those who will be following me will support this bill and that we can go ahead and give working people in this province the kind of protections they not only need today but also should have had in this province for quite some time.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has four minutes remaining. Does he wish to reserve the time?

Mr. M. Davidson: Yes.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity this afternoon to speak on a subject that has been given and will continue to be given much attention by the members of this House.

I would like to say at this point, after listening to the member, that in my opinion the NDP does not have a monopoly on working for the rights of the labouring force in this province. Other parties in this House -- and I am speaking for my own party -- certainly consider this challenge seriously and do everything they can to be of assistance.

The issues raised in this bill are of great concern to all members. With the time allotted to me today, I hope to address many of them and point out how, in my mind, this bill does not resolve the problems as they exist today.

One can speak confidently in 1980 of the strong position that Ontario holds in the current business environment. Ontario, a province rich in natural and human resources, now enjoys an excellent competitive advantage in the international market The government of Ontario has to a large measure a responsibility to the citizens of this province to maintain this competitive stance. Ontario must now, as always, compete with our neighbouring jurisdictions in both Canada and the United States for business investments. Business investment in this province means jobs for its citizens. Therefore, encouraging investment in Ontario by maintaining an attractive business environment and economic climate is a high priority with this government. Indeed, it is one that affects the day-to-day living and the quality of life of the people of this province.

Coupled with this formidable responsibility is the task of providing proper and effective protection for employees in Ontario’s economy of the 1980s. Policy development by this government must take into account these two interrelated objectives. It must establish workable proposals which may be applied to the particular economic context and the traditions of the province. The government approach in this area must be a balanced one, one that links Ontario business and commercial objectives with responsible measures affecting employment standards and labour concerns in this province. A balanced and responsible approach relevant to the North American experience is vital in these areas.

I find it unfortunate that much of what is contained in the bill before us today undermines Ontario’s competitive position. The necessary balance of which I spoke is not to be found in the provisions of Bill 156. Moreover, although the proposals raise questions and issues of great significance, some of the outlined solutions fail to address certain important details and possible consequences of legislation of this kind. I find it difficult to ignore the inherent problems of the proposals before us today and I would like to comment on them.

The measures regarding public justification of layoffs and plant closures would place this province at a severe competitive disadvantage since no comparable jurisdiction has enacted any legislation of this kind. This is not the first time the third party has put forth proposals which have no parallel in North American experience. However, what I do find surprising is that in some respects these measures are even far more sweeping than those found in the European jurisdictions, examples on which the third party so often wants to base, however inappropriately, its response to Ontario’s labour issues. Although it may be an interesting exercise for the members of this House to examine European approaches to European problems, I am convinced that policy development by this government can only be linked to the specific economic and social traditions of North America.

The need for a program that effectively evaluates the impact of plant closures is one that this government has recognized and acted upon. The plans outlined by the Minister of Labour to this House on October 14 represent the government’s co-ordinated response to this need. The assessment process set in motion by the interministerial field task teams and the activities of the manpower adjustment committees are indicative of the responsible and balanced approach kept in mind in the development of this program.

Mr. Cassidy: We have a real speech machine here.

Mr. G. E. Smith: The only speech machine we have is what we write ourselves; so I take full responsibility for my comments.

With respect to advance notice periods, once again I must state that the proposals in Bill 156 would reduce Ontario’s cost competitiveness and considerably discourage investment in the province. Notice periods serve a specific purpose by providing an opportunity for employees to look for other work and make the necessary adjustments in their personal lives. The length of the notice period is therefore determined on the basis of what would prove useful to those facing termination of employment. At the same time, the period must be reasonable from the point of view of the employer who may have genuine problems in forecasting the future courses of business, production and his manpower needs.

5:10 p.m.

In the past, these considerations have been the rationale behind advance notice periods. The proposed length of notice in Bill 156 would be of little benefit to employees on indefinite layoff who retain recall rights and are prepared to wait for eventual recall. It would only present additional forecasting problems to employers.

This burden may ultimately be aggravated by heavy pay-in-lieu-of-notice costs which would result from an employer’s inability to predict that far ahead, adding to the cost burden of doing business in Ontario. It would present considerable obstacles to investors and ultimately could only discourage investment in this province.

Looking at the provisions for job transfer and relocation rights, a number of matters remain unclear. Is it the intention of the bill that, in addition to the right to move with the job, employees carry their seniority with them upon relocation? If that is the case, I suggest there would be some real and practical difficulties with relocation to plants with an existing collective agreement, with its own seniority agreements and arrangements. If the employee does not have the protection of seniority at the new plant, there may be little incentive to relocate. In fact, relocation may be risky.

Intricate questions such as these arise in considering transfer of bargaining rights as well as job relocation rights. The bill before us today does not respond to these complexities, nor does the third party acknowledge that the impact of these rights may prevent the recruitment of local labour in the area in which the employer relocates.

It has been stated already in this House by the Minister of Labour, and referred to by the member, that severance pay is an issue this government is not opposed to in principle. It can be thoroughly discussed at the level of the committee established in the House last Tuesday. I am certain everyone in this House is aware that any severance pay program must be carefully worked out since complications can easily arise when implementing a pay plan. Knowing the importance of detail in this issue, I am surprised the severance pay scheme suggested in Bill 156 ignores many important factors. The proposed scheme establishes no maximum pay level, no minimum eligibility requirement and does not explain how severance pay would apply to those employees on indefinite layoff waiting to be recalled.

The ambiguity and open-mindedness of this scheme really does concern me. Once again, the third party has presented a statutory scheme that is not comparable to any provisions in any competing jurisdiction. Indeed, its provisions are more generous than many of the severance pay arrangements to be found now in collective agreements.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has now expired.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, implementation of these provisions in Bill 156, in my mind, would cause some real and serious problems. I regret I do not have time to finish some of my other observations, but in view of what I have said I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in support of Bill 156, An Act respecting the Security of Employment in Ontario. I would add that all of us here in this chamber should support any attempt to make the party in power, the government, aware of the severity of the problem.

We get pretty blasé at times when we look at newspapers without even considering some of the details in them. Daily we are bombarded with articles such as this, which I picked up from my own community in London, Ontario, just yesterday, headlined “Million Jobless; 10 Per Cent Inflation Predicted.” One little snippet out of this rather large article points out that the jobless rate in Canada is expected to average 8.1 per cent over the period of 1980 to 1985 and will not drop below eight percent until 1984.

Comments such as that, I would point out to the members, appear daily. I am afraid many of us do not give them the time and consideration they need, because they do reflect the very disastrous state of our employment, the disastrous state of the economy and the disastrous state of our entire country. I do not think we should for a moment delude ourselves into believing that this private member’s bill is going to pass today. Unfortunately, it will not, given that the previous speaker is reflecting the desire of the government to block even a vote on this bill. But I do feel we have to take every opportunity we have as legislators to underline the seriousness of the problem and, we hope, to bring it more forcefully to public attention.

As indicated by the member for Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson), who introduced this piece of legislation, although it is a private member’s bill, it is the policy of the New Democratic Party in Ontario. If I could take leave to follow that theme, even though this is a private member’s bill, I would point out that we Liberals have devoted considerable time, particularly in this past term that I have been the labour critic, to the needs of labour and management. I think we have proved that through our labour task force, consisting of three of my colleagues here in the Ontario Liberal Party and myself. Over this past year we have met with representations from labour, from management and from the private sector and we will continue to meet with them. We hope we will have ongoing grass-roots input in helping us formulate policies to meet the problems of the day.

I submit that if the government is going to sit back, as indicated by the member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith), who I assume reflected the government’s attitude, and say that we as a government are balancing Ontario’s competitive advantage, on one hand, and encouraging the investment that Ontario has as a high priority, on the other hand, then we are really operating back in the 1940s and 1950s and we are not operating in the arena of the 1980s.

I say that simply because present times dictate that we look at the situation that exists with us right now. Let us not talk about Ontario’s advantage competitively in the investment world or in the manufacturing world. To say that and admit at the same time we have extremely high unemployment and inflation beyond all other provinces would be to offer an argument that is self-defeating.

I point out to the government that we must attack the problems that face us right now. If the government is going to say on balance it has to give greater consideration to companies coming into Ontario at the expense of workers who are going without, or who will shortly be going without, then I would say its focus is all wrong.

It is pretty obvious to me that existing legislation and regulations do not meet the needs of labour or management in the 1980s. One has only to look at the minister’s statement of October 14, in which he rather reluctantly and vaguely went on at length about some of the problems here in Ontario without naming names and without designing or elaborating on programs. Then one looks three days later to October 17, at which time he announced the appointment of Mr. Joyce as a special adviser on employment adjustment problems. I hardly call that planning ahead. One would have thought when we came back for this fall session on October 6 that these things would have been in line and that they would have been ready to roll. In fact, that was not the case. The minister and the ministry had to be prodded.

5:20 p.m.

I would like to devote a few moments to the bill itself and point out areas where I see some slight need for improvement or change in the event that one-in-a-thousand chance might take place this afternoon and this might get put to committee. If this were put to committee, albeit that is not too likely, I would point out that part I, section 4, uses the following language: “The objectives of the job protection board are to inquire into the causes of intended layoffs and plant closings.”

I question the wording there. I wonder if, in the few moments left to the introducer of the bill, the member for Cambridge, he could elaborate on “intended” and what he intended by using that particular word.

Part I, section 8, which has many subsections to it and which seems to tie in in theme or principle to part II, the community adjustment fund, has need for some legalistic examination, because there are many demands in section 8(1), particularly with its nine clauses, (a) to (i), that may require, in my view, considerable examination.

Parts III and IV of the bill are very similar to what was offered by the Liberal Party in the press conference prior to the opening of the Legislature this month and are similar to a private member’s bill that was introduced on the first day of the sitting, October 6, with respect particularly to the Pensions Benefit Act amendments and to the Employment Standards Act amendments.

As I indicated in the beginning, we feel there is a great need for the Legislature to address itself to those themes right now. Even though this may not pass today, it is my hope that the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment, which had its first organizational meeting this morning, will take today’s Hansard and use that as one of its cornerstones for the beginning of its deliberations over this next little while, because I perceive the arguments made by the member for Cambridge and the arguments made by the government to be worthy of considerable close examination.

It is our feeling as a party that the items we have suggested with regard to amending the Employment Standards Act with respect to changing the termination notice and the severance pay, along with the concerns we have expressed over the need for changes in the portability of pensions -- proposals which are not unlike the ones made by the member for Cambridge -- would make it much easier for those workers facing layoffs to face that terrible crisis in their life.

In conclusion, let me submit that this whole theme, if it does not get passed today and go on to committee, should be redirected to the select committee’s endeavours over the next few weeks.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this bill is put forward with full support of the New Democratic Party and of our caucus because the philosophy that underlies the Job Security Act is that working people have an investment in their jobs -- an investment that must be recognized here in the Legislature through legislation.

Over the years we have had governments in Ontario that have erected considerable protections for people who invest in companies in the province, which is a responsible thing to do. All the New Democrats demand is that workers in a factory or a store or a mine who invest their lives in a job have their investment protected too.

The Job Security Act will provide that protection for Ontario workers. It will assure men and women who have put 30 or 40 years of their lives into a company that every reasonable step will be taken to maintain their jobs and that their claims will be recognized if a company has no choice but to close. Likewise, the bill guarantees communities that an unjustified corporate decision to shut down will not throw the whole community into an instant recession. It says the provincial government, which has the power and the jurisdiction, will take every reasonable step to ensure that a community’s investment in a plant threatened with shutdown will be protected.

My colleague the member for Cambridge has outlined the basic provisions of the bill. It provides for a job protection board. It provides a requirement that companies justify their decisions to shut down. It gives the government powers to act to alleviate or prevent that shutdown and to protect the jobs. It protects the workers with severance pay, better advance notice and pension protection.

I regret that the member of the Conservative Party who spoke and the government seem to take the same view. They seem to be saying the New Democratic Party’s job protection proposals would be outrageous interference in the rights of corporations operating in the province. “Never explain; never apologize,” is the motto of Ontario’s Tories and their corporate friends. The government keeps arguing it will scare new investment away, without looking at the old investment that is leaving this province without a by-your-leave and with no recognition of its obligations to the workers and communities of Ontario.

Our proposals are hardly radical. They only provide Ontario workers with the same protection workers throughout Europe have had for years. The European Economic Community -- not just single countries there -- require all member countries to make corporations that decide to lay off large numbers of workers or shut down their plants justify their actions both to the workers and to governments. It makes them prove their case by opening their books.

In Ontario those decisions are regarded as none of the workers’ business, even though we know managements go through those internal exercises of justification before they make the decision that affects so many workers’ lives. This kind of attitude breeds injustice to the people who produce the wealth of the province.

In the House today I gave an example and got no adequate response from the Minister of Labour. Armstrong Cork in Lindsay has received orders from its head office in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to shut down the plant. The newspaper headline reads, “300 Jobs Rolled Up Despite Profits.”

Armstrong’s carpet plant has turned a profit for the last two years. The parent company, which owns 55 manufacturing plants in six countries, had a profit of $21.5 million in the first few months of this year, up from a little less than $17 million for the first quarter of 1979, when the total profit was $66 million.

The Canadian president of the company explained the shutdown this way, “Although we were in the black, you would be a lot better off in Canada Savings Bonds.” Who would be better off in Canada Savings Bonds? The 300 people who were out on the street, most of whom, two months after the shutdown was announced, have yet to find jobs? The community of 15,000 with no alternative employer? The province, which loses an industry with 300 jobs and will now find itself importing the product, the carpet, we used to make here in Ontario. They would not be better off; only the company would.

We say the government of Ontario should be aware of the plight of the workers of Lindsay who were affected. We should get more than the milk of human kindness and little flasks of concern from the Minister of Labour when we hear the story of a family like the Coombs family which I cited today, where six workers, aged between 25 and 63, are thrown on the street as a result of the Armstrong Cork shutdown -- six workers who have invested 75 years of their working lives in that one corporation and now find themselves without another job to go to.

5:30 p.m.

The government should say to Armstrong Cork: “You owe these people and you owe Lindsay. You must make every reasonable effort to keep that plant open. If you need help, we will discuss it, but you owe it to your workers to explain to them why you are doing what you are doing and it had better be good.” The Job Security Act says that to every corporation in Ontario. It tells those corporations they must behave responsibly and it gives the government the power to make those corporations act responsibly.

If Leslie Frost were still the Premier, he would not tolerate a company acting like Armstrong if the jobs of his constituents down in Lindsay were threatened. But his kind of ad hoc intervention would not work today. Workers everywhere in Ontario should be protected. When closures anywhere in Ontario cannot be justified, they must not be allowed. We know now that shutdowns and layoffs have cost more than 46,000 working people their jobs so far this year in Ontario. The Minister of Labour’s response has been to deny that figure, which was produced by his own department.

The Minister of Labour has hired a former businessman to be a layoff co-ordinator. He will be available on a part-time basis to help to disperse laid-off workers but not to protect their jobs. The Minister of Labour has declared he is not against severance pay in principle, but he is not prepared to guarantee it for Ontario workers.

The government has agreed to establish a select committee on layoffs, but it is obviously not anxious to take any specific action. It says it wants to protect laid-off workers, but the response shows that its heart just is not in it.

Last week the Conservatives got up in the debate on the New Democratic Party’s Full Employment Act to say they were committed to full employment and have been for the 37 years they have formed Ontario’s government. Then, despite the fact that some 300,000 people are unemployed in this province, they voted to block the bill that would make that commitment a legislative goal in Ontario.

Today it is quite clear that the government intends to tell us it is committed to protecting Ontario’s working people, but it is not prepared to support the Job Security Act and send it to committee. We think this bill should go to the committee so that workers in this province can have the same sort of protection the Conservatives give to corporate investors.

If the Conservatives block this bill, then they are saying to this Legislature and to the people of Ontario that they do not care about working people. New Democrats believe that if we are going to turn Ontario’s economy around it is going to have to be done by workers and industry working together in partnership as equals. We cannot have workers and industry working together as equals if working people have no rights. That is why we are looking for legislation to protect workers in their jobs, and we believe legislation is as important to our economic growth as legislation to protect investors.

I am tired of attacks on working people by members of this government who are not prepared to treat those working people as equals in every respect of our economic life in Ontario. New Democrats are committed to winning justice for Ontario’s working people and we intend to use this bill and the layoffs committee. We intend to get economic justice and to get that protection for Ontario’s workers, and we intend to get that protection now.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to remind the members that the government has already proposed reasonable, workable and affordable measures that should help to alleviate the individual and community dislocation referred to in the bill we are now asked to consider.

The government has long accepted the principle that employers bear some responsibility beyond the provision of jobs and fair wages to the communities in which they locate. Our proposals recognize, in addition, the importance of maintaining an economic climate that is competitive in the North American context. They are consistent with our long-standing commitment to the expansion of employment opportunities in Ontario.

I might point out that the individual worker will inevitably benefit from the balanced approach. We will address immediate social and financial problems that arise from plant shutdowns without discouraging the new investment that will lead to job creation, such as that which has resulted in an increase in employment of 118,000 over the past two years.

Several years ago the government identified the need for a general review of all pension legislation in Ontario. We expect the exhaustive report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario within the next few months. However it has recently become obvious that the combination of worldwide recession and substantial dislocations within North American markets has resulted in particular employment problems for older residents of a number of Ontario communities. As the question of early pension entitlement has become especially timely and relevant, the government announced its intention to take prompt action on this and some related issues.

The members are aware that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) will shortly be introducing amendments to the Pension Benefits Act. They will address the question of the choices open to employees upon termination of a pension plan, including their right to early retirement and the establishment of a centrally administered fund to guarantee pension rights in those instances where terminating plans are not fully funded.

All of these will help protect the future financial security of employees who have contributed over the years to a pension plan that is no longer available to them. We will await the report of the royal commission on pensions to see what further measures it might recommend. However, it is important to note that of all the problems initiated by unexpected plant closures those related to pensions have the potential for causing the greatest trauma among long-service employees.

We must recognize that the expectations and the assumptions of these people may have included a future lifestyle financed by clearly defined pension benefits. If, owing to the misfortunes of an employer, the employees are deprived of their expected level of benefits in a pension arrangement, the implications for personal retirement planning can be acute. The government finds this kind of financial dislocation unacceptable.

When we are discussing the options available to Ontario with respect to the current concerns, I believe it is important to bear in mind that our present termination provisions are comparable to or more beneficial for employees than those of most other jurisdictions in North America and Europe. As a matter of fact, only two states, Maine and Michigan, have any effective legislation at all that relates to plant closing or relocation.

We note as well Ontario’s arrangements take into account the acknowledged difficulty of forecasting rapidly changing markets and production costs. In this province, as in all other provinces, we have accepted the view that severance pay is an area appropriate for collective bargaining between employer and employees. Indeed, 28 per cent of the major collective agreements in Ontario -- that is, those involving 200 or more employees -- contain some form of severance pay or layoff benefits other than supplementary unemployment benefits. These plans affect more than 50 per cent of all employees covered by major collective agreements.

However, the government is not opposed to the principle of severance pay and is open to an examination of the implications of statutory provision for severance pay. I believe we are in agreement that this, along with other matters related to the appropriate length of notice requirements and possibly other aspects of plant closure proceedings, should be referred for discussion to the new select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment.

Recent events have shown that the provision of the Employment Standards Act which ensures that employees receive pay in lieu of notice may at the same time lead to loss of fringe benefits and to seniority related to pensionabiity. There have been several instances of employees losing pension benefits and medical coverage to which they have been entitled had they worked through the period of notice. I am therefore pleased that the government will be moving to amend the Employment Standards Act to require the continuation of entitlement to pensions and other benefits for the equivalent of the notice period.

Many members will agree, I am sure, that the joint manpower adjustment committees have frequently played an important role in relocating employees affected by plant closures. In 1979-80, 58 committees were established; 66 per cent of the employees involved obtained alternative employment as a direct result of committee activity and another 10 to 15 per cent found employment on their own. The participation of the federal government in the committees is significant. It confirms my view that the different levels of government must continue to assume, along with management, responsibility for the future of terminated employees. While most employers are pleased to share in this responsibility with the Ontario Ministry of Labour, the Canada Department of Employment and Immigration and employee representatives, some have refused. We therefore proposed a further amendment to the Employment Standards Act which will require employers to participate in and contribute to the funding of these committees.

5:40 p.m.

I, along with all government members, am particularly proud of the innovative and comprehensive response represented by the establishment of an interministerial co-ordinating mechanism. This will enable the several distinct concerns which may arise when a plant closure is announced to be addressed.

We were particularly gratified when the Minister of Labour was able to announce the appointment of a distinguished labour relations practitioner, Robert D. Joyce, to co-ordinate the activities of regional interministerial teams, each of which may include representatives from the ministries of Labour, Industry and Tourism, Colleges and Universities, Community and Social Services and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Through the offices of Mr. Joyce and the various ministry experts, the government will be able to collect the relevant information shortly to identify any possibilities for maintaining the operations. Where the closing proceeds, its potential impact on employees and their community can be determined and the appropriate support measures for both can be mustered.

I have no hesitation in commending the government’s proposals to the members. I am convinced that they will prove effective and that they represent the best possible approach from the point of view of individual employees and the economy as a whole.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principles enunciated in Bill 156 and to ally myself with the spirit embodied in the bill.

I have heard members of the government and some of the business associations throughout this province say on a number of occasions that Ontario cannot afford legislation like this because we will frighten away potential investors and those industrialists who might want to locate here in Ontario. May I say, as one member of my party, that if there are investors and industrialists who want to locate in Ontario and who have such low esteem for the people who are going to work for them, and if they have no intention whatsoever of highly valuing the people who are going to work for them, then perhaps it is just as well that such industry does not locate in Ontario.

One of the things we need to say and to say very clearly is that we want industrial stability and industrial growth in this province as the industrial heartland of this country of ours, Canada, but we also want the kind of industry that is going to recognize the important contribution made by those who work with it and for it.

We also want to say as loudly and as clearly as we can to those industries that are currently located in this province, and to those who might anticipate locating in this province, that they should recognize the obligations they have to their workers and that these obligations supersede the obligations to their investors, their plant and their organizational plans. When we come to a situation where it is inevitable that layoffs and closures might take place, their obligation is to their workers.

I want to say as an aside that I am very pleased with the number of suggestions and recommendations in this legislation which would offset that situation on many occasions, but when we come to that situation I want the industrial people of this province to know their workers have to come first.

I am speaking not only on behalf of myself -- and I have tried to indicate bow strongly I personally feel about this issue -- but I believe I am also speaking on behalf of my community. On September 15, 1980, the council of the city of Kitchener passed this resolution:

“That the resolution of the city of Oshawa, requesting the provincial government to amend appropriate legislation to require companies to give six months’ notice of impending plant closures and to enable workers to transfer their pension rights when they change jobs and requesting the federal government to implement a temporary assistance benefits program for unemployed workers, be endorsed.” The community I represent heartily endorses the principle and the spirit of this resolution.

The references to justifiable and honest severance pay, to transfer and retraining rights and to portable pension benefits are all ones that I and my party strongly support. They are a clear indication to the working people of this province that they do have rights which must be protected. I am also attracted to the reference in this bill to the community adjustment fund, because it clearly says that when an industry locates in any community of this province it has responsibilities to that community.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleagues in the House who spoke to this bill, particularly those from the Liberal Party who spoke in support. I am disappointed, but not overly surprised, at the comments made by the speakers from the government benches. We have become used to that kind of rhetoric, as I mentioned during the course of my speech, not only in this House but also across the province. If we move to protect workers in this province, somehow or other that is going to bring doom and gloom to the industrial sector.

During the course of his remarks, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) asked me the intent of the word “intended” in section 4 of the bill. I point out to him that when there is going to be a layoff of any magnitude the company must notify the workers. We are just suggesting that at the same time they are notifying the employee they notify the job protection board. That is what is meant by an intended layoff.

I find it surprising that in the most highly industrialized province in Canada we are reluctant to take leadership. Both of the members on the government benches suggested that nowhere on the North American continent did legislation such as this exist or had been implemented. But, as a government, it does not hurt on occasion to provide the kind of leadership that is evident in this bill.

The working people in this province deserve and need the kind of protection that is offered. I am sure workers in other provinces deserve and need the same kind of protection. But as long as no one has it, then Conservative and Liberal governments across this country can stand up and say: “No one else has got it? Why should we have it?”

I suggest it is time this government took the initiative, provided some leadership in this country and implemented this bill. They could pass this bill today, let it go to committee and, if they do not like it they can amend it. But if they vote against it, we know exactly what it is they are voting against, namely better protection for the working people of this province.

5:50 p.m.

FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL SUNDAY

Resolution concurred in.

JOB SECURITY ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Mr. M. Davidson’s motion for second reading of Bill 156:

Auld, Baetz, Birch, Brunelle, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Gregory, Hennessy, Hodgson, Kennedy, Leluk, McCaffrey, McNeil, Newman, W., Norton, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Smith, G. E., Villeneuve, Walker, Wells, Williams, Wiseman -- 25.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the business of the House for the remainder of this week and for next week.

Tonight we will debate the report of the select committee on constitutional reform. I would like to get the agreement of the House that we will spilt the time by allocating 50 minutes for each of the three parties in the House.

Tomorrow we will debate the interim supply motion on the Order Paper, followed by estimates concurrence of the following: Office of the Assembly, Office of the Provincial Auditor, and the Ministry of Correctional Services. If time permits, we will go into budget debate.

On Monday, November 3, we will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Tuesday, November 4, in the afternoon, we will have second and third readings of private bills standing on the Order Paper; second reading and committee of the whole House on Bills 168 and 169; and second reading and committee of the whole House on Bill 175. In the evening, we will resume second reading debate on Bill 118 and, if time permits, continue budget debate.

On Wednesday, November 5, the three standing committees may meet in the morning: general government, resources development and administration of justice. On Thursday, November 6, in the afternoon, we will consider private members’ ballot items 31 and 32 standing in the names of Mr. Leluk and Mrs. Campbell. In the evening, we will continue the debate on the report of the select committee on constitutional reform.

On Friday, November 7, the House will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

The House recessed at 5:54 p.m.