Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock the hon. member for Oshawa had the floor. He may continue.

Mr. Breaugh: We were dealing at the adjournment with problems that people are having with condominiums. I want to run through some others. Registration in my area is probably the most difficult problem to face and causes the most hardships. That is a bit unique to the region of Durham because of some disputes that have arisen between developers and the municipality.

The second area I want to cover is the problem of managing condominiums. This is a rather new field and we are suffering considerable growing pains in that area. There are a number of people who have bought into condominium corporations that are having great difficulty with management contracts and in particular, are having great difficulty with management contracts that are run by the initial developer.

Even a number of people in the development field themselves who are still building condominiums are coming around to the point of view that there is such a great conflict of interest involved in that, that people who build condominium projects should not enter into management contracts for the duration or for the first five years, which would be a normal thing.

There is the problem in condominiums of taxation, of their being assessed too high and of the steps that the government has taken to redress that not being fair. There is the problem of municipal services that are not provided, and yet in a number of cases people are still paying full tax rates for them, although there are across Ontario a number of municipalities who have addressed themselves to that problem and have come up with some answers.

Perhaps one of the most common problems we run across with condominiums is very simply that the standards for the construction of them are really not sufficient for the needs of the people who buy in there. They buy the thing thinking that they are buying a home. They are not prepared nor do they accept the same kind of problems they might have run up against in an apartment. These essentially are small convenience items of noise, where one puts the garbage, how many entrances there are and how far it is to and from the parking lot. Construction standards in condominiums are virtually non-existent. It’s my view that they ought to be considerably tougher than they now are. I want to point out to those condominium corporations who assume a project which is perhaps not quite up to snuff: after it is registered all of those problems, which may have been the problem of poor construction, belong to the people who purchased into that particular thing.

Perhaps one of the reasons why we’re having such difficulty with construction standards in condominium projects is that for many developers what they can sell -- simply because that’s all that people can afford -- are condominiums; they cut a lot of corners. In luxury condominium projects -- where construction is done to a higher standard -- there does not seem to be that problem. But in the ordinary ones that you see advertised in the weekend papers, there seem to be a raft of difficulties coming out of those.

I think it would be highly advantageous if we moved to a standard sales agreement that explains to people, very clearly, what they are buying when they buy a condominium. There are more and more people in condominium projects -- and it is a distressing fact -- who were not aware that they were buying anything other than a home when they bought the thing. They were surprised afterwards to learn that they not only bought a housing unit, but they bought into a condominium project, that they are part of a condominium corporation, that there are rules and regulations which they must abide by, that there are restrictions on what they can and can’t do with their own personal property. That, I think, should be spelled out very clearly in the sales agreement.

Along that line, another major problem is the matter of legal advice. I’m finding very few lawyers who understand what a condominium is. In most instances they are processing those sales agreements as they would the purchase of any other housing unit; and, of course, that’s not the case. People run into difficulty and they go back to the lawyer. The lawyer, frankly, does not know -- and, in most cases -- is unwilling to say very much about it. In many cases I think it’s no secret that a good many lawyers greet clients at the door and say, “How are you? We’re glad you could afford to buy a house. Come back and see me in three days.” And that is the last that the lawyer himself actually does on that sales agreement. The work is very often done by a legal secretary and not by the lawyer himself. The fee is charged, I think, rather ill-advisedly, for legal advice that’s non-existent.

If the government doesn’t want to legislate change in respect to the form of legal advice a lawyer must give to a client when he buys a condominium, it should at least chat with the Law Society and inform them of the problems that are ensuing from people who use a lawyer in buying a condominium, but who do not understand what they are buying or what they are getting into. It strikes me that is the very least that could be done.

Another major area is that there are, of course, many people practising law who went through law schools at a time when there was no such animal as a condominium; they haven’t done any updating of themselves since, and aren’t in a position to provide legal advice, even if they wanted to.

Another major concern is the area of consumer protection -- no question about it. When you buy a condominium in Ontario it is “buyer beware.” That’s a principle which is long standing in this society, and it really needs to be changed. There are those who say that there are consumer protection laws in the province of Ontario. But no one who has ever had to attempt to use those laws really believes that there is effective consumer protection in the province of Ontario.

There is a growing group of people who have taken their condominium association or corporation and formed it into some form of a regional association. This way the condominium groups -- the corporations themselves -- can discuss the kind of ongoing problems they’re having with people who belong to a condominium down the street or across the road or in the same city or region.

Of course, when you stop to think about it, how sensible is it to expect a group of people who may never have seen one another before in their lives, to go together as part of a condominium corporation, expecting to function, and function well, from day one? It’s not really a very realistic approach to it all.

The condominium associations that are forming in various regions across the province of Ontario offer some hope on two major grounds. One is -- just people helping other people, learning from other people’s errors and learning from their experience and expertise. The second thing, I would hope, would be that some form of provincial association for condominium owners would emerge and be used by the government to monitor the situation almost daily.

This government has taken the attitude that we’ve had a Condominium Act for some time. It revised it in the early 1970s. It hasn’t really substantially responded to the needs that are changing, that are different, and that are emerging on a much larger scale than they ever have before in the province of Ontario. It hasn’t really responded to those needs since that time -- and there is a need to. There is a need to move quickly into certain specific areas, some of which I have outlined. There is also a need to monitor that process on an ongoing basis.

In summary, I want to say -- and I don’t think it’s unfair -- that the Tory approach to housing is very much like the alcoholic who is taking the pledge for the 15th time. You know good intentions are there; you know the right idea has been expressed; you just don’t have a great deal of faith that it will ever be carried out.

The record is one of mismanagement and abdication; the record is one of ignoring major problems until a great public foofaraw emerges and then trying to cool the fires. That is a problem for a government that is faced with a mismanagement problem, that can’t seem to get its act together, that can’t seem to decide what it is and where it’s going and how it is going to deal with the problems. It avoids, in large measure, any significant measures that would solve the people’s problems. It is on the verge, right now, of influencing the housing market in the province of Ontario: it has the land, it even has expressed policies and some programmes that might address themselves to those needs. And while it is on the very verge, it abandons it all. It just kind of jumps ship. That’s a tragedy, because things could be done.

It’s a tragedy that we spend so much government money researching this issue and then discard the results. We all get those documents from the Ministry of Housing floating across our desk. We know they’ve done the projections. We know they’ve done the research. We know they’ve done the planning studies. We see all of that stuff crossing our desk. We also know that this government is not prepared to act on it. That is a tragedy. It is one thing not to know and to act out of ignorance. It’s quite another thing to know what you should do and then just refuse to do it; that’s precisely what has happened here.

Not the least of the problems facing people who are living in houses in Ontario today is this division of responsibility. If you lived in a house, you would think that your wiring would be the responsibility of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes); but it’s not. If you were a tenant, renting accommodation, you would think that the Minister of Housing would be responsible for your problems; he’s not. You would think that the Minister of Housing would have some say having to do with mortgages affecting the price of the house and the amount you pay each month; he doesn’t.

This division of responsibility is a very clever ruse which really means you’re not just a home buyer; you are a consumer, a renter, a tenant or a number of other things. The Minister of Housing remains silent on these critical problems of the day and is left rather free to float around in proposed new programmes which will not work. They won’t work essentially because nothing else they’ve done has worked and because there is the problem of mismanagement, of ignoring what has to be done.

In fact, the crucial distinction to be made is that this government is really devoted to a hard-line philosophy; and that’s strange. It’s not that it won’t intervene in the market, because it does that all over the place; rather, it hard-lines it right at that point where the consumer, the person who buys a house or lives in a house in the province of Ontario, has a need. Where he needs the government to respond, at that point it jumps ship. At that point it can’t make that decision. At that point it decides, “We’d better get out of this,” because it might actually change things; it might actually influence that.

I recognize I am putting forward an opinion that is perhaps one-sided in the sense that it looks at it from a consumer’s point of view and hasn’t emphasized the point of view of those people who develop and build houses. The interjection of the province of Ontario into the housing field has been minimal and is getting less. They have moved in there, not in a positive way to provide leadership but in an obstructionist way, to provide a reaction to a very growing problem. The end result has been insignificant. It really is mismanagement. It is mismanagement to the point where it is legitimate to ask in this House, do we have a Minister of Housing? We don’t.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a particular thank-you to all those brave souls who came out here at this particular hour of the evening when, in fact, they probably knew I was speaking at this time. It’s an exercise in hardiness, and I am very glad they’re here, so I’ll do my best to keep my remarks as brief as possible.

I realize I may be ruled out of order on this, but it’s a pleasure as a Queen’s Scout to acknowledge the cubs and scouts who are in the gallery tonight.

Mr. Speaker: You are right; you are out of order.

[8:15]

Mr. Reed: I’ve been ruled out of order. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I’m particularly sorry that the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) is not here tonight. She was in my riding a couple of weeks ago, and in a speech out there she informed the partisan crowd that my best performance in the House to this date has been as Santa Claus at Christmas time. I wanted to inform the Minister of Labour that if she would take the trouble to appear in the House more often she might hear some of my albeit lesser but more frequent performances.

Mr. B. Newman: Constructive ones.

Mr. Reed: I'm also sorry that Premier what’s his name isn’t here tonight either.

Mr. Shore: He is with your leader.

Mr. Reed: I expected he would come out tonight. The last time he was in my riding at the gold-plated dinner, where they were desperately trying to raise money to unseat me in the next election --

Mr. B. Newman: No way.

Mr. Reed: -- he had somehow forgotten my name during the course of his speech. Last weekend at the opening of the new Sheridan campus out in Brampton he did remember my name because I was standing up along the wall and about three or four times during his speech he made reference to me over there. At one point near the end of his speech, he said, “The one thing I’ve always wondered, Julian, is why you in, I suppose, the more colourful words of Charlie Farquharson didn’t defecate to the Tories.”

He knows, and most of the people in this House know, that I am an avowed free enterpriser.

Mr. Angus: Shame.

Mr. Hodgson: Come on over.

Mr. Reed: The point I would like to make is that the government of this province should not assume that it has some divine prior ordainment on the free enterprise system. When one looks at how the government handles free enterprise, one realizes they do have a handle on certain things. They have a handle on the bigger is better philosophy. They have a handle on the large corporate entity. They have a handle on something, where the NDP have difficulty separating from them too, that is, the business of centralization.

Mr. Shore: Where is your handle?

Mr. Reed: Don’t say too much. The place where they miss tugs at the very roots of the economic foundation of this province, that is, the free enterprise system as it has been expressed through the small businessman, the entrepreneur --

Mr. Hodgson: You are talking like a Conservative.

Mr. Reed: -- the real free enterpriser in the province of Ontario.

Mr Wiseman: Come on over.

Mr. Reed: I really wouldn’t have said anything about the free enterprise system tonight if I hadn’t been goaded into it by the Premier (Mr. Davis). Then later I received this letter from a constituent. I have to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this letter and the accompanying brief were actually sent from a constituent of mine to the leader of the New Democratic Party. But he hasn’t seen fit to deal with it, so I’m going to have to deal with it tonight. I just wanted to cite an example of how this government treats the small businessman.

We have a businessman here who has applied to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. I’m glad the minister is here at the present time because he’s had a runaround from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism for the last few months. Here is a man who wants to expand his business; he wants to represent the epitome of free enterprise. Yet the ministry states through one of its officials that the Ontario government is primarily interested in tourism and that’s why he advised the man to go to the federal people. He even offered to help him make the application to the federal government for money but hasn’t followed through. It’s just one of the sad examples of --

Mr. Haggerty: There’s a job for the member for London North.

Mr. Worton: Here is his chance.

Mr. Reed: -- how we treat true free enterprise in the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I think we have all agreed that, with certain reservations and limitations, minority government isn’t working too badly. I liken it to a big freight train that is very slowly starting to move and where the Liberal Party is putting down the rails ahead of the engine.

Mr. Moffatt: There is a wreck about to happen.

Mr. Hodgson: Your problem is you haven’t got an engineer.

Interjections.

Mr. Reed: I really don’t want to be provocative and steal the Premier’s thunder tonight, but I just have to point out to this House that most of the major moves and the major progress that have been made by this minority government have been made by the pressures put on by the party that has held the balance of power and that is the Liberal Party. But, Mr. Speaker, we still have a long way to go.

Interjections.

Mr. Reed: My, what a distance we have to go.

Mr. Angus: You better believe it.

Mr. Shore: You finally found your place.

Mr. Reed: The leader of the official opposition mentioned to this government in his speech yesterday the opportunities that are available to the government, opportunities to forge ahead now into new areas, areas that are necessary for the future economic base of Ontario. I just want to make mention of one of those opportunities.

I just happen to have in my riding the distinction of having one of the larger choices of garbage sites -- they call it sanitary landfill -- near the town of Milton. Sanitary landfill and the old town dump philosophy were with us at the turn of the century and all we have done is we have centralized the town dump and we have made it a little bigger. Of course, the pollution gets a little more concentrated when we make the dump bigger and we pack the garbage in tighter and we make more garbage as the years go on. There is a solution to all this, and the solution was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) yesterday and I give him due credit for that. What he was doing was restating what I had said to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Taylor) in London the week before.

Mr. Martel: I bet you he borrowed from your speech.

Mr. Shore: You congratulated him there.

Mr. Reed: I had pointed out that there was an opportunity here for the first time, and the first time to do it economically, to get on with the technology of the development of solid waste recovery, and in a new area -- not from the point of view of compacting and separating and shredding and re-inventing the wheel the way the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) is doing up in Downsview at the present time, but getting on with turning garbage into a useable resource and one that can be economically viable and one that can prove cost recovery. One of the ways of doing that is through the processes that produce fuel. In the case of the Leader of the Opposition he mentioned the process of making methalon. There are all kinds of technologies available around North America and so on, but it is unfortunate that Ontario is really the last to get out of the town dump mentality.

Mr. Hodgson: They are further ahead than any other place in North America.

Mr. Reed: No, they are not further ahead than any other place in North America. I will take the member personally, if he will put up the money --

Mr. Hodgson: Yes they are.

Mr. Reed: -- and we will go out to the city of Seattle and we will see what they are doing with the production of ammonia using garbage in the city of Seattle. We are the last people to make these moves. So I suggested to the Minister of Energy --

Mr. Moffatt: Can a Crown corporation do it then?

Mr. Reed: -- understanding the constraints that are on capital spending, and I approve of constraints in this era of repeated deficit budgeting, I pointed out to him the opportunity for the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of the Environment to join hands and to pool their resources and use the garbage to get into a new energy source for the province of Ontario. It remains to be seen whether that is going to happen, but we can no longer go on putting garbage into holes in the ground in this province. We have to stop it and we have to stop it right now.

Mr. Hodgson: Put it up in the sky there.

Mr. Reed: We have the opportunity --

Mr. Moffatt: We have got garbage but free enterprisers don’t want it.

Mr. Reed: We have the opportunity to produce saleable products, and let me tell the member something --

Interjection.

Mr. Reed: -- that very soon the free enterprises will be competing for the garbage of the province of Ontario. So we’ve got that problem.

Interjection.

Mr. Reed: I have another particular problem in my riding, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to allude to. It was a problem that my Conservative opposition at the time decided was the reason for my election. It was the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The Niagara Escarpment Commission runs diagonally through the riding of Halton-Burlington. It cuts it right in two, and it creates an awful lot of trouble for an awful lot of people. Do the members know that on the Niagara Escarpment you really can’t put a fence post in, you can’t build a garage, you’ve got to have the colour of your house approved and the colour of your roof and the rest of it? If you want to --

Interjection.

Mr. Reed: -- yes, want to give in. Of course, we can take the gravel and so on out of the Escarpment and we can deface it, but people are subjected to a bureaucracy that they have never been subjected to before in their lives.

We’ve been told by the NEC that as soon as the master draft plan is completed everything will be well. We’ll all know exactly where we stand and so on. This draft plan was supposed to have been completed a year ago, and we still haven’t got it. And that’s the second of these major problems that are in this riding. I wonder; the way bureaucracies work under this administration, if we will ever get it.

Mr. Nixon: Going to have to change the government.

Mr. Reed: We get put off month to month to month, and now they even get annoyed when I phone up and ask, “Where is it?”

Mr. McEwen: You will have to lay the tracks for that one.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, my riding has not escaped the tragedy of unemployment. We’ve had one coating mill closed permanently in the town of Georgetown. We have another coating mill that is closing 50 per cent of its operation down and I fear for the balance.

Unemployment is a result of a combination of factors. But not the last of these are the illusions that are created by government in the minds of people concerning jobs and concerning incomes. And one of the chief illusory inputs into this tragedy is the deficit budget. My former leader campaigned on that issue during the last election. Members know what he said -- remember the slogan? -- “We can no longer afford a Davis government.” That’s come true. Because we’ve had deficit upon deficit now for -- we are up to over $2 million a day just to cover the interest. And that’s a bubble that is going to burst, because now we are in an economic situation where we should have enough reserves so that we can go into deficit if we need to to stimulate the economy, and we are in real trouble. So this is another of the areas that we have to tackle in all earnestness through this session --

Mr. Haggerty: Marvin should be right at home with those comments.

Mr. Reed: -- and the session to follow.

Mr. Good: Read him your speech of last year.

Mr. Shore: Good stuff.

Mr. Reed: Without taking too much time of the House, sir, I have --

Mr. Hodgson: Lots of time.

Mr. Reed: -- one more item that I would like to deal with for a few minutes. And it is the subject which is rapidly becoming the most important single economic input into the economy of North America. It’s the subject of energy.

Energy is something, Mr. Speaker, we took for granted for many years with the discovery of coal and the discovery of petroleum later on, and that great flow of abundance that came to us at such low, low prices. Even today, when we flip the switch when we go home we still expect that the lights are going to come on. We expect that when we pull up to the gasoline pumps we are going to get gasoline in our cars. And we gripe a little when the price goes up but we still expect it is going to be there.

But everybody knows the situation in this country, and we know that the discoveries of new petroleum sources of the lower cost variety have not come as expected to Canada. Even the so-called Delta reserves have only proven to be about 10 per cent as reliable as expected in the first place in terms of petroleum. We found a quantity of natural gas there, fortunately, but we’re not getting the petroleum.

[8:30]

So we’re going to be turning within a five-year period to the tar sands and to OPEC oil. Maybe we’ll get a little life extension if we find a few more potfuls of liquid gold in the low-cost areas, but we’re not going to find many more. This brings on not only an initial problem but it brings a great challenge to the province of Ontario, for you know that in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, we are energy intensive because we are the industrial heartland of this country and hope to remain so. We are also energy deficient and at the present time are importing over our borders 80 per cent of the energy we use. That’s old news, I realize, and I may be talking to some of the converted here anyway.

But the point is that it’s something we cannot ignore and it’s a fact of life that’s going to become more and more prominent as the years go on. I might say that I am disappointed and shocked at the absolute absence of an energy policy by this government. They don’t know where they’re going. I expected good things from the new Minister of Energy, as a matter of fact, but he stood up in the House last week and launched a political diatribe, and that’s the best way you can describe it. There is no policy there.

We know that when we get tar-sands oil coming in here at a cost per barrel of crude of between $17 and $20, or if we have to buy OPEC oil at $15 or $16 or $17 a barrel, we’re going to have gasoline at $1.30 a gallon. That gives us some cause for concern, I hope. But it also gives us a challenge and it’s a challenge that can be met in the province of Ontario.

I want to reassure everybody that I’m optimistic about the energy future of Ontario, if only the government will come to grips with the reality. In Ontario, what we have to do is prepare ourselves for the advent of a new energy age -- renewable resources. It’s the renewables that are going to make the difference and are going to sustain the economy of this province.

I don’t say that in the light of the NDP’s position. I’ve debated this with some of their people who feel that it’s going to require some dramatic change in lifestyle and we’re all going to have to live in the dark. I don’t believe that for one minute. I believe that dollar economics will determine the change to renewable resources, but the government of Ontario has a responsibility to bring those technologies on stream and to help them come on stream.

Of course, one of the things that I’m particularly pleased with in the Throne Speech is the first statement in the history of this House that renewable resources had to be developed in the province of Ontario. I can tell the House that I will support every move the government can make to make that development a reality. We're probably already a decade behind, but if we don’t begin now, and we don’t put all our efforts towards that end, we’re going to be in deep trouble within five years.

Yes, we have a long way to go and I want to say that I am privileged to be here during this time to do my small part to serve that progress. The government and my party can be sure that I will support every effort to see that these problems are overcome and this province is once again on a sound economic foundation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oriole.

Some hon. members: Resign.

Mr. Cassidy: Dispense.

Mr. Germa: Dispense.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Throne Speech this evening, particularly on the occasion of this being the silver jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen, for which due recognition was paid in this House at the opening of the session.

Mr. Speaker, if I might for a moment, before launching into the subject matter of the Throne Speech itself, I would like to draw attention to the Queen’s silver jubilee booklet that was made available to all members of the House. From reading same, it cannot help but impress one with the endurance, the commitment, the dedication of this person to the well-being of the Commonwealth as we have known it in the past and as it exists today. I guess there is no one individual who has contributed more to the unity of the nations within the free world than has the monarchal system and in particular, the present monarch. And so that I add to, not only my collective congratulations that were expressed in the House several days ago, but again I feel compelled to extend my own personal congratulations to Her Royal Majesty, the Queen.

It’s interesting, Mr. Speaker, that comment has been made by both opposition parties on the length of the Throne Speech that was presented. At the same time they have mustered enough courage, if you will, to virtually compliment the government on the programme that has been outlined in the Throne Speech, thereby recognizing that not only has the speech been one of length, but one of substance, containing many programmes that obviously the members of the opposition recognize as being legitimate programmes that this government is prepared to bring forward to better serve the citizens of this province.

One of the major features in the Throne Speech and one which the opposition parties have been monitoring for some period of time is the government’s intentions with regard to the continuing protection to people in this province who are finding themselves living, through choice or necessity, in rental accommodation. Some concerns have been expressed as to whether the rent review programme as it has presently been placed in the law books would be continued by this government or terminated, as was provided for in that self-same statute.

This government, Mr. Speaker, is fully aware of the success of this programme and how it has, in fact, in many respects relieved the people living in rental accommodation of the anxieties with which they’re confronted associated with the uncertainties of increasing costs and the affordability of the living accommodation wherein they find themselves. As a member of an urban riding within the Metropolitan Toronto area, having perhaps one of the largest components of rental accommodation of any of the ridings within our fair province, I am perhaps more fully aware than many of the great importance of this government continuing to recognize the need of and support for people living in rental accommodation, whether it be in high-rise apartments or town houses or whatever type of setting. So that certainly I hasten to support the programme that we’re bringing forward in the form of an extension of the existing programme -- one that has not only proven successful, but that will continue, I’m sure, to meet the needs of a large portion of our population living within the urban communities.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech, I think, honestly and candidly points out the difficulties that do revolve around the rent review programme; because paradoxically, while it has met the needs of tenants in this province, at the same time it has had a negative effect. The negative aspect of the programme, as stated in the Throne Speech of course, relates to the lack of new rental housing accommodation that has come forward since implementation of the programme; and it is this paradox to which this government is going to address itself during the current session and endeavour to bring forward programmes that will offset this aspect of the programme that leaves us, at this point of time, with the programme winding down -- if it had been terminated in July of this year -- leaving us at a point where there would be less new rental accommodation on the market than there was when the legislation was first enacted.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that one of the inhibiting factors to the private sector in being encouraged to build new housing has been the restrictions, as they have seen them built into the legislation, as they affect their ability to operate freely in the marketplace and to realize a reasonable return on their risk venture capital. The fact of the matter is that many of the investors in commercial real estate, in residential income real property, have found it more suitable to in fact invest those moneys in securities, long-term notes and bank deposits, which yield nine, 9.5 and 10 per cent, rather than to risk their capital in programmes that have controls imposed upon them whereby they’re not assured of obtaining a reasonable return on their undertaking.

Mr. Makarchuk: Think of the write-offs.

Mr. Williams: Then it seems, Mr. Speaker, that to encourage the building industry to get back into this market some flexibility may have to be considered in the area of the rental rates that may be charged and that will be acceptable to this government, and in particular to tenants, while giving the building industry some greater degree of flexibility than presently exists. This is certainly a problem that the government has to grapple with and to provide solutions for.

But, Mr. Speaker, it’s not only the rent review legislation that has tended to inhibit somewhat the activity in the private building sector. There are other factors, which taken together have in fact created situations whereby many of the major builders and developers are now actively pursuing their business activities in other jurisdictions. Companies that traditionally have had the bulk of their construction activity within the province of Ontario are now operating more actively in other provinces, and a number of the major building companies are establishing themselves in the United States land development market.

[8:45]

The construction companies that have moved to the United States in rather significant numbers in the past year or two state their reasons for doing so as perhaps fourfold. One, of course, has been their concern about the somewhat restricting rent control legislation. Secondly, of course, they have pointed to the high cost of financing their projects; this is readily identifiable and easily understood when we see the prime rate for mortgage loans in this country running in the 11 to 12 per cent area as contrasted to eight to nine per cent mortgage loans for the same type of undertakings south of the border.

Another factor that I think has continued to discourage people from obtaining equity in real estate by buying their own home is the continuing refusal of the federal government to consider implementing the same tax relief that again is provided in the United States, where tax exemptions are granted to home owners on the interest charges payable under their mortgage loans on their property.

Mr. Haggerty: What’s the matter with your government doing it?

Mr. Williams: This has to be one of the most encouraging aspects of home ownership as far as attracting people to that area is concerned. Certainly this type of tax exemption would be a very substantial form of relief to a home owner, and it is one that the federal government has continued to --

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will you keep your private conversations down? I would like to hear the member for Oriole.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are the only one in the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: It appears that the federal government is insistent on maintaining this posture, which is unfortunate because it indeed has contributed to inhibiting people from leaving rental accommodation and endeavouring to put equity into real estate in the form of purchasing their own home.

Mr. Germa: How about the first-time home buyers?

Mr. Williams: Another area that has concerned the development industry is the bureaucracy and red tape that confront the industry.

Mr. Samis: You sound like the member for HUDAC.

Mr. Makarchuk: Eddie Goodman can straighten that out.

Mr. Williams: The people in the public sector. the elected people at the municipal and provincial levels, and indeed at the federal level, all seem to have contributed to building up a bureaucracy that, in fact, has proved to be counterproductive in terms of assisting the citizens of this province to buy affordable housing on a fairly expeditious basis.

When I first entered into political life as an elected municipal representative in one of the outlying boroughs of Metropolitan Toronto, I recall that in those days if an application for the development of land by way of a rezoning application took more than six months to process from the time of presentation to the council to the time of approval, it was considered to be an undue length of time that could not be justified and, in creating the delays, actually contributed to the increased cost of the housing that ultimately came on the market after approvals were ultimately given and the homes built. There is no question that time is money, and so long as municipalities and governments impose controls and procedures that unnecessarily create these delays, then the person who will bear the financial brunt of those delays will not be the home builder or the developer; it will, in fact, be the consumer. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the builder has to pass along his costs if he is to continue to stay in business and realize a reasonable return on his investment.

There is most certainly a need and a responsibility on government to impose appropriate controls on land use development, whether it be under The Planning Act, whether it be at the municipal level by way of zoning bylaws or official plans. These are appropriate and responsible measures of government to ensure high standards of development that provide some degree of uniformity, that provide basic and essential services to people who are buying their homes, whether for the first time or as repeat buyers; but in so doing and acting upon this responsibility, I think governments at all levels have to recognize that even these controls and delays can be carried to excess.

This is an area that the building industry has pointed its finger at for some period of time, pointing out that now it can take anywhere from two to three years from the time a housing project is proposed to the time of construction being commenced.

We all know, with the state of the economy such as it has been over the past two or three years, that each year lost in such an undertaking increases the cost of the end product by anywhere from one to two times. Again, it is the consumer who pays the cost.

Another area of concern, of course, has been the general public attitude to growth and development, where both extremes have been brought to bear -- those who propose a no-growth posture, to those who suggest there should be no controls and we should go gung ho to ensure that more housing comes on the market much faster than has been occurring heretofore.

I think perhaps of the two extremes the one that has dominated the local scene has been the no-growth attitude -- the suggestion that new development and growth is not in the best public interest, that it contributes to environmental pollution. Certainly in this context sometimes the two are equated one with the other; although, I suggest, inappropriately.

I can think of the many instances in Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Toronto in particular, where there has been a very negative attitude displayed by the local government to any further growth or development within the city to the point where, in fact, even if that position was relinquished or modified to any significant extent today, there would appear to be no takers in the building industry who would want to come back into Toronto to start building.

Turning to those who oppose further growth or development to try to meet the housing needs of our community -- or the commercial, industrial needs -- by negative opposition and by unnecessary delays being brought about by continual objections, the public sometimes has perceived these reformers, as they are sometimes called, as doing the community a service. Yet, on the other hand, when you come to the end result and the housing isn’t there, and the cost of rental accommodation increases because of lack of new facilities, then I think one has to really assess whether the opponents to any growth and development have worked in the best interests of the community at large.

There is, I suggest, a heavy responsibility on all of us at the provincial and at the municipal level to rethink our attitudes in this regard. I think it is imperative that a new air of confidence and co-operation has to be developed between the private and public sectors, to encourage the private sector to become more active in the marketplace, notwithstanding some of the other difficulties -- such as the basic economic times that we are confronted with -- notwithstanding that situation to encourage the private sector to get back into the marketplace, to come back to Ontario and to participate as fully as it has done in the past. Certainly it is the intention of this government to offer every encouragement in this regard. Most certainly we will continue to provide responsible controls, but we must find ways and means of finding more expeditious means of seeing that these controls bring forward balanced housing into the marketplace.

I’d like to refer to that part of the Throne Speech which encourages more government activity in the area of small businesses. I have been most impressed with the manner in which the Ministry of Industry and Tourism has assisted industries in this province, both large and small, in their development, their growth patterns, and in assisting them in their administration, directing them to areas of the province where there was greater opportunity of employment, where there would be a more balanced marketplace. I think the ministry has provided great assistance in this area. However, I think more can be done in this area, and, in fact, this has been so stated in the Throne Speech.

[9:00]

One of the concerns that I’ve had expressed to me on a number of occasions by the people in the business community is that while the Ministry of Industry and Tourism through its industrial division has provided great assistance, perhaps more than enough emphasis has been given to the companies involved in the export-import sector of our private sector.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the member for London North (Mr. Shore) listening to that?

Mr. Williams: Most certainly the government has given great support, through the trade missions that have gone abroad, to finding new marketplaces for the Ontario industries. The minister, in making his reports on an annual basis, has clearly demonstrated the success of government involvement in the private sector to encourage more export, which is of course one of the basic and key ingredients of the economic viability of not only Ontario but of this nation. To provide greater impetus in the marketplace as far as the domestic industries are concerned, I know will be well received, and at a time of a troubled economy be more than welcome by the small industries.

I listened with interest earlier to the comments made by the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) when he was talking about some of the environmental problems, particularly as related to the vexatious problem of waste disposal. At that time, he seemed to indicate that the days of the conventional means of waste disposal were passé, should be put aside and that we should be moving into these new directions of waste recovery programmes. However, if the member had participated in the estimates debates at the last session of the House when this very troublesome subject was discussed at length, it was, I think, made abundantly clear at that time that there is in fact a time-lag that exists in bringing on stream of these new, more sophisticated waste recovery programmes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. members keep their voices down. It’s discourteous to the speaker.

Mr. Williams: While a waste recovery programme has been suggested by the member for Halton-Burlington as being the ultimate solution to our waste disposal programme, he has not accounted for or spoken to the most difficult aspect of this whole programme, which is the intermediary period.

Mr. Kerrio: The government doesn’t have any programme at all.

Mr. Williams: All the present time, we have the conventional sources available to us, which relate to the landfill projects of which he spoke, and we also have incineration as the other alternative. If I can use the Metropolitan Toronto area as a classic example, at this point of time there is in excess of two million tons of garbage accumulating each year within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

An hon. member: Right here.

Mr. Williams: That garbage at the present time has to be either incinerated or disposed of in a sanitary landfill site.

Mr. Haggerty: In somebody else’s backyard.

Mr. Williams: At the present time, within Metropolitan Toronto, with a population in excess of two and a half million people, we have a total of three operating incinerators. We have two operating within the borough of North York. We have the Commissioner Street incinerator, which itself was refurbished at some substantial cost of $9 million to bring it up to acceptable environmental standards.

Mr. Haggerty: Is it producing electricity?

Mr. Williams: One of the two major landfill sites within the Metro area, the Beare Road site, has been basically completed and closed down. The Factory Road site is close to completion. Last year the government did give approval to the opening and operation of the new Pickering site, which is the only alternate site available and operating at this time. In the meantime, the government has taken initiatives to provide the more sophisticated type of equipment, such as illustrated by the Downsview facility which was referred to a few moments ago.

But the erroneous suggestion was made that this type of new sophisticated facility, with a high degree of waste recovery component attached to it, will be the end-all solution to our problems. How erroneous that assumption is. We need only look at the Downsview facility as an example of the error in that observation. In fact, as new and as sophisticated as that facility may be in recovering over 600 tons of garbage a day under the recovery programme, yet in excess of 800 tons of garbage a day are compacted and sent to local transfer stations and then sent from there to the existing landfill sites. In other words, more than half of the input into that facility is still being disposed of in the conventional way.

Studies that have been undertaken in European countries would bear out the fact that total waste recovery is not achievable. Most certainly the new facilities that are coming on stream, the type that has been proposed at the west end of the city, the “wafts from waste” project that has been talked about so frequently, certainly would be a move in that direction. But here, too, one has to consider the huge capital cost involved in bringing these projects forward, not only the time lost but the heavy capital cost involved.

Mr. Lewis: You are making an argument against recycling?

Mr. Williams: That particular project in the west end is one that had been proposed and supported by this government; yet the majority of the cost would have to be borne by the local municipality, in this instance the Metropolitan Toronto government.

Mr. Lewis: That is always the way it is with this government.

Mr. Kerrio: Let Hydro do it; let Hydro do it, John.

Mr. Williams: In any event, again the recovery of energy from that project would not be the total disposition of the waste that would be consumed in that facility. A large part of it would still have to be disposed of at local landfill sites.

A great deal of emotion, of course, emanates around the topic of landfill sites, or garbage dumps to use the vernacular if one wants to have the emotional impact in discussing the subject. No one wants a garbage dump in their own backyard; there is no question of that. On the other hand, the fact of life is that some type of conventional facilities of this nature, either new incinerators or new landfill sites, have to be provided in the immediate future to bridge that time gap between the bringing on stream of new, more sophisticated incinerators which have the waste recovery component built into them, or Metropolitan Toronto is going to face a crisis such as it has never been confronted with in the past.

Mr. Lewis: Ah, they have been saying that for three years.

Mr. Williams: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, new landfill site facilities are not provided to bridge this five-year gap. It’s estimated that the bulk of these new projects, such as the Downsview facility when it is brought to its full capacity, are still two or three years down the road. Planning of the central Toronto project is not off the drawing board, it will take two or three years more to plan the details of it, and another two or three years to build. All of these projects that are being talked about, even if they move forward, it would at the very least take three to four years to bring on stream.

By the same token, the existing landfill sites have virtually been totally utilized. There is a great deal of controversy now surrounding the Maple site as being the closest potential new site within reasonable distance of Metropolitan Toronto. Whether, after the environmental assessment and review of that site, we find it is, in fact, acceptable for use for that purpose from an environmental point of view, remains to be seen. Whether it is that site or whether it is one of a number of other possible locations within the proximity of Metropolitan Toronto, some new landfill site facilities will have to be provided within the next one or two years.

Mr. Lewis: On agricultural land.

Mr. Williams: There is no doubt about that question. No matter how you present the argument, no matter what approach you take to the subject, that is a factor that cannot be put aside or avoided. The longer local governments, governments at all levels, avoid that reality the more difficult will become the problem. The bridge period must be dealt with and it must be dealt with now.

On the landfill sites that are talked about, certainly those who oppose them in principle paint a very unpleasant picture with regard to them. Yet every day of the week, thousands and thousands of people drive past probably three of the most recent landfill sites that were developed and completed within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. Today, those lands are not recognized for what they were. They are usable lands. They are lands that are used for recreational purposes. They, in fact, are three sites that flank the Don Valley Parkway. Whether it’s in the winter or summer, you can see children tobogganing down the hills, which prior to them being converted to landfill sites were holes in the ground that were totally unusable for any purpose whatsoever. They were restored to a useful purpose and at the same time met an immediate need in accommodating solid waste material.

No matter what the opposition members will propose in the way of alternatives, that basic problem will continue to be with us. The two together -- the new techniques along with the conventional -- alone will solve and come to grips with the total problem.

Another matter of concern, Mr. Speaker, and one to which I think the budget addresses itself, is the area of tourism --

Mr. Ferris: The budget? Which budget? You are on the Throne Speech.

Mr. Cunningham: We don’t have the budget yet.

[9:15]

Mr. Kerrio: It is okay, we will straighten you out any time you go astray.

Mr. Williams: I said the budget, I meant the Throne Speech, of course. Thank you very much.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Maybe it’s last year’s speech, you can’t tell.

Mr. Williams: Most certainly, next to the farming community the tourist industry is the one that is more subject to the vagaries of the elements, the natural elements, the weather, than other industry and as such is perhaps one of the most hazardous businesses that one would want to involve oneself in. As such, our Ministry of Industry and Tourism has offered, through the Throne Speech, to provide additional supports and initiatives to that sector of the economy, and rightfully so. I’m encouraged to see that the ministry will be offering further assistance in these areas.

An area that has been of some continuing concern to myself, as a member within the large, urban, Metropolitan Toronto area, has been the matter of transportation. Certainly this government has to be commended for its achievements in this area, particularly in the area of support, financially and otherwise, of public transportation. I can certainly well illustrate how the progressive transportation policy of this government will benefit my own area. In approximately a year’s time an extension of the GO Transit system will provide new rail service from Richmond Hill down to Union Station through the heart of my riding. This new undertaking and facility is being eagerly anticipated by my constituents. They look forward to the day when they will be able to drive their cars to parking stations located at the Finch-Leslie area --

Mr. Kerrio: And catch a Greyhound bus.

Mr. Williams: -- or located at the Sheppard Avenue-Leslie Street area and thereby take one of three commuter trains to the Union Station in the early morning rush hour period --

Mr. Cunningham: You are uptown looking for downtown.

Mr. Williams: -- and to use the same service on the return trip in the evening.

Mr. Samis: What time is it?

Mr. Ferris: When does the bus leave?

Mr. Williams: The expansion of that programme from the conventional five-day work week to weekends and holidays will be assessed on the basis of consumer demand and usage after the initial service is initiated.

I am also gratified to see that the Don Valley Parkway extension, which had terminated at Sheppard Avenue, is now, through the initiative of this government, nearing completion in its extension northward to the northern boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

The extension of this facility has been long needed, particularly when the existing road facility had acted as a conduit into which the traffic from areas as far away as Sutton and Aurora had been coming down to the centre of the city using four-lane roadways from Highway 7 down to Steeles Avenue and then funneling into a two-lane country concession road from there on down to what has been up until now the top of the Don Valley Parkway. That constriction of traffic has imposed an intolerable burden on the movement of private and commercial vehicles in the northeast sector of Metropolitan Toronto, and as such, the completion of this extension will indeed be welcomed both by commerce and industry as well as by the citizenry who live not only within my riding but beyond the northeast sector of Metropolitan Toronto.

If I might, I would like to come to what I consider to be perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the Throne Speech and one upon which both opposition party leaders have dwelt at some length. It relates, of course, to the state of the economy and responsible financial planning. I found it interesting to listen to the leaders of the two opposition parties taking the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to task for his forthright and candid presentation the other day of the three-quarter report on the state of the budget.

Mr. Lewis: What three quarters? It was eleven-twelfths. Get your facts right.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s only money.

Mr. Williams: I think it’s regrettable, in fact, that the budget of last year and its virtual fulfilment would be selected as a target for outright condemnation and that there would be no acknowledgement given to the fact that the budget has largely been fulfilled as far as the predictions are concerned. The unfortunate aspect, of course, has been the shortfall in the projected revenues, which is regrettable and has brought to bear additional hardships.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It was predictable.

Mr. Williams: What I think has been accepted by and large by the citizens of Ontario was the need to do what the government did, notwithstanding the heavy criticism at that time by the opposition parties; and that was to bring in a responsible budget which put forward the concept of restraint in the public sector. The wisdom of that decision has proven itself. While it may have been politically unpopular to impose significant financial constraints, nevertheless the objectives brought about by the imposition of that programme have been achieved in large measure.

It has been indicated quite clearly by the Treasurer that there will be a continuation of responsible restraint in this time of economic difficulties, which extend far beyond the boundaries of this province and of this nation and which, in fact, we find existing throughout the free world. It was interesting to note the solutions that were put forward by the opposition parties for curing the economic doldrums that we continue to experience. The opposition parties are no longer so critical of a programme of restraint in the public sector, because I think they have come to recognize that the public at large has accepted and commended the government for that position.

Mr. Breithaupt: They have not.

Mr. Williams: By having shown that leadership in restraint, it has made it more tolerable for the private sector and individuals at large to exercise restraint themselves. Most certainly this government has shown more action than perhaps any other government with regard to not only talking about fiscal restraint but implementing restraint in a very meaningful, responsible fashion.

An hon. member: That’s why we have unemployment.

Mr. Williams: It has been suggested -- notwithstanding the success of the approach that has been taken by this government -- that this government should not try to continue to co-operate with the private sector in the sense of encouraging it to take on a more positive attitude toward the expansion of facilities, toward being more productive. Indeed, are we to act upon the suggestions that were put forward by the opposition the other day that any incentives by way of tax to industry would be inappropriate and wrong -- that we should not be offering any further tax relief as inducements to industry to get back on the tracks? The fact of life is -- and this is what the opposition parties continue to ignore -- the productive part of our society is in the private sector, and until there is productivity --

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean, the productive part of our society?

Mr. Williams: -- there will not be the generation of capital or money -- consumer dollars to permit the individual citizens of this country --

Mr. Philip: How productive is it for you to fly around in your own airplane?

Mr. Williams: -- to enjoy, and continue to enjoy, the standards of living which they have come to appreciate.

Mr. Ferrier: We have to pay taxes in spite of it.

Mr. Lewis: You may be the single most unproductive member of the private sector. Don’t attribute it to others.

Mr. Kerrio: Are businesses thriving in spite of your government?

Mr. Williams: What I think is most interesting, is that the opposition parties, and in particular the official opposition party, continue to carry on a performance that provides no degree of credibility to the public, simply because that party continues to refuse to deal with all elements of our society that have to be dealt with in order to bring a resolution to our problems. They continue to zero in on and blame industry for the woes of our society. They continue to attack government for its supposed excesses or lack of action, but not once will the opposition party --

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you resign?

Mr. Cassidy: Good idea.

Mr. Williams: Not once have I heard any comment made by the opposition party with regard to the other third element in our society, which is so vital and important today, and that is the labour sector --

Mr. Philip: At least from the select committee.

Mr. Williams: -- because without the three working together we cannot bring resolve to our problems.

Mr. Ferris: We surrender, John.

Mr. Williams: We have government, we have industry and we have labour; and so long as the opposition party will not address itself to finding responsible activity in the labour sector --

Mr. Kerrio: Are you going to let him run out the clock?

Mr. Williams: -- as in industry, then there will never be a complete solution found to the problems. There has to be a co-operative effort made by all three if we are, indeed, to turn around our economy and bring ourselves to a healthier prosperity than exists today.

Mr. Ferris: Great speech, great speech.

Mr. McCague: You’ve got lots of time, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Take your time, John.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thanks for your help.

Mr. Williams: I think it would be refreshing and enlightening to have comment sometime, during the sitting of this House, from the official opposition with regard to the posture of labour in our society.

Mr. Wildman: Why, does it not sit up straight?

[9:30]

Mr. Williams: The absence of any dialogue in that particular sector --

Mr. Samis: You make John Bulloch sound like a flaming radical.

Mr. Williams: -- is most noticeable and destroys their credibility. They continue to single out those people in society who are not involved in organized labour as being the wrongdoers in our society and --

Mr. Wildman: The unorganized workers of this province are downtrodden.

Mr. Williams: -- yet do not have the audacity and candour to comment at least, if not criticize --

Mr. Samis: We worry for the people of Oriole.

Mr. Williams: -- things that they see labour doing or not doing that are in the best interests of society as a whole.

Mr. Wildman: Give us an example.

Mr. Williams: And surely, Mr. Speaker, surely, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Wildman: Where do you stand on chocolate workers?

An hon. member: How about Neilson’s chocolates?

Mr. Williams: -- no one sitting in this House can assume that one of those three major factors in our society is completely devoid of any responsibilities or shortcomings. I think we have to fairly and honestly assess all of those sectors --

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: -- the business sector, our own sector in which we are involved and the labour sector. It indeed would be refreshing if the leader of the official opposition would get up in the House and make a critical comment. It may be a positive one but I have yet to hear him get up and make --

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: -- fair comment on that very important element of our society, because labour today is the --

Mr. Samis: This is the greatest non-speech since Themistocles U.

Mr. Williams: -- biggest business that we have in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: I suggest that it is bigger than government.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: I suggest that it is bigger than industry as a whole collectively.

Mr. Samis: You are absurd.

Mr. Williams: And as such, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be refreshing if the Leader of the Opposition would take the initiative to offer some co-operative suggestions between industry and labour rather than continuing to singularly single out the corporate sector as being the violators of all that is good and righteous in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: It would indeed be refreshing to have a new approach taken in that regard.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: That would be an interesting experience.

An hon. member: I think you are ready for one, John.

Mr. Williams: So perhaps, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Tell us about the impending industrial revolution.

Mr. Conway: You make Frank Drea sound coherent.

Mr. Williams: And, of course, that too is of interest, to find the old clichés coming about time and time again in this House -- about the industrial revolution and --

Mr. Conway: Are you the reason for Lorne Maeck’s bill?

Mr. Williams: -- the fact that we are living in the 19th century. We keep hearing these clichés from the official opposition. They seem to place a great deal of merit in the fact that the strike process is current --

Mr. Conway: He is fit to be Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Williams: -- and is in fact finally, in this day and age --

Mr. Wildman: He is north of Queen’s Park.

Mr. Williams: It’s incredible, Mr. Speaker, to --

Mr. Conway: That’s a good word; that’s a good word, John.

Mr. Williams: -- find that our socialist friends are so far behind in trying to find new ways and means of turning about --

An hon. member: I wish we could catch up to you.

Mr. Williams: -- industrial labour, diminishing the industrial strife that exists in this nation --

Mr. Wildman: Are you in favour of industrial democracy?

Mr. Williams: I believe it was one of the leading American labour leaders who suggested four or five years ago that the strike process was archaic and had long ago served its useful purpose.

An hon. member: So have you.

Mr. Williams: New initiatives indeed have to be taken to prevent this nation from becoming what it has become, a nation with one of the highest incidences of lost labour man-hours because of the strike process. This cannot continue to exist --

Mr. Samis: Read the Star last night?

Mr. Ferris: Look at all the time you are wasting.

Mr. Williams: This cannot continue to exist if this country is to remain economically healthy and sound.

Mr. Conway: Or you either, John?

Mr. Williams: And, Mr. Speaker, in order to perhaps make the point, I would like to turn, if I might, to an address that was made by the president of one of our major manufacturing concerns, Westinghouse Canada Limited, an address that was made on March 8 of this year, when he was addressing the Financial Executives Institute of Canada in Winnipeg.

Mr. Breithaupt: An unimpeachable source.

Mr. Williams: There are some very sobering comments that were made in this address, so much so that I think they bear commenting upon this evening.

Mr. Conway: Make it a summary.

Mr. Samis: Just read it; don’t comment.

Mr. Williams: It perhaps will highlight why, today, the talk about parity with our US workers is no longer discussed in this House, because at the very outset of his speech Mr. Marrs stated, and I will quote:

“I would say that we have become so preoccupied in this country with the redistribution of wealth that we have forgotten how to produce that wealth competitively. Canada has become the highest-cost producer in the world. Wages in manufacturing are now 65 cents an hour higher than in the US. Twelve years ago they were 50 cents an hour lower. Taxes are amongst the highest in the world.”

Mr. Wildman: You levy the taxes over there.

Mr. Williams: “Despite the abundance of resources in this country, Canadian manufacturers pay world prices for materials. There are no longer any indigenous cost advantages for manufacturers in Canada; we have not only lost whatever advantage we once had, but are now at a competitive disadvantage.”

Those, indeed, are sobering thoughts that come forward from that observation.

Mr. Lewis: I am certainly glad we have them in Hansard.

Mr. Conway: You make them all so believable.

Mr. Williams: We most certainly know that this is indeed one of the major reasons for our economic difficulties at this point of time. We do not have the same productive capacity. What productive capacity we do have is over-priced. Canada is a nation of exporters, and if we cannot compete internationally then a very substantial part of our economic base is eroded. Without that economic base, of course, our own economic and social well-being in this province is indeed placed in jeopardy.

The president of Westinghouse, in speaking further on this difficult topic, pointed out that --

Mr. Conway: Is there any end to this, John?

Mr. Williams: Ten o’clock.

Mr. Conway: Is that your bed time?

Mr. Eakins: You’re doing good. Keep it up.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Marrs suggested three significant and possible solutions to the problem. He pointed out, firstly, that Canada is now supporting a higher level of services with a lower level of manufacturing activity than any other industrialized country. He then poses the question as to whether, indeed, it is in Canada’s best interests to allow the trend of the past 15 years, away from the production of goods and towards services, to continue.

Mr. Wildman: We agree with him there.

Mr. Williams: We must have greater encouragement in the manufacturing sector of our economy.

Mr. Davidson: You can’t even draw a crowd in your own benches.

Mr. Samis: Look at Harry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Marrs did also point out that there may be advantages to our working our way back into the international marketplace by perhaps seeking wage parity with our US counterparts, which indeed is a reversal of the trend that has existed in previous years.

That, of course, Mr. Speaker, would be a much more difficult thing to attain than what was being sought several years ago when we were endeavouring to bring the income of the labour force up to the level of the labourers in the United States. Indeed, we are in a dilemma; we have over-priced ourselves. Both industry and labour have over-priced themselves.

Mr. Eakins: You are doing well, John, keep it up.

Mr. Williams: Government has tended to over-price itself in its excesses of spending.

Mr. Samis: What government are you a member of?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Williams: This government has come to recognize that it has been one of the contributing bodies in the public sector that has brought about this difficulty. We were one of the first to acknowledge it and one of the first to respond to that situation by bringing forward constructive, meaningful measures in the form of fiscal restraint and restraint in the expansion of government service.

Mr. Breithaupt: Only a billion in the hole.

Mr. Wildman: The electorate recognized it last election.

Mr. Williams: I think because this government has taken this initiative that there has been a degree of encouragement in the private sector, and also in the area of labour. But there has to be a continuing degree of responsibility displayed by the leaders of labour, by the captains of industry, in working co-operatively with this government if we are to succeed.

I stress again the need to consider all three of those components and not isolate ourselves and try to unrealistically place the blame at the feet of only one of those three sectors of our society.

So it appears that we have before us an ambitious government programme, as outlined in the Throne Speech; one which, as I indicated at the outset, appears to have received perhaps more positive comment from our opposition parties than can be remembered in recent history.

Mr. Riddell: Do they use you to drive us insane?

Mr. Cassidy: We are reconsidering after your speech.

Mr. Lewis: You didn’t ask him to go beyond 10?

Mr. Eakins: John, did you say vicious?

Mr. Williams: No, I didn’t. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is encouraging to see an indication of support from the opposition parties to bring about --

Mr. Wildman: The longer you talk the less support you have got.

Mr. Williams: -- the implementation of this ambitious government programme. There indeed is a need to proceed expeditiously to implement this programme, and that can surely only be achieved by the utmost co-operation from the members of both opposition parties. They have assured the government that this co-operation will be there. However, just as they have been perhaps suspect of the content of the Throne Speech until they see the legislation which will bring that programme into existence, so too, I think, we remain sceptical of the opposition parties --

Mr. Davidson: The long-awaited legislation.

Mr. Williams: -- to see whether in fact they will participate in a constructive fashion in the business of the Legislature.

Mr. Ferris: In the fullness of time all things will unfold to us.

Mr. Williams: So Mr. Speaker, it is, I think, with a degree of optimism that I conclude my comments on the Throne Speech.

Mr. Breithaupt: Ours, not yours.

Mr. Williams: The optimism being founded, again, on the very positive programme that is being put forward by the government of the day, and one which, I think, with the co-operation of not only the opposition parties but industry and labour, can bring us through this economic period of crisis.

Mr. Speaker, it has indeed been a pleasure to have commented on the Throne Speech and I have appreciated this opportunity. Thank you very much.

[9:45]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Warner: The Minister of Housing should stick around.

Mr. Davison: John, if you could listen to the previous speaker, you can listen to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner).

Mr. Warner: I didn’t even say anything and he left.

An hon. member: That’s nothing new.

Mr. Kerrio: He should resign.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I’ll do the best to share the time properly so that my colleague in the Liberal caucus can get started this evening.

An hon. member: Stand up!

Mr. Warner: Would you know the difference?

An hon. member: Not if he had a hair cut

Mr. Warner: Following the Throne Speech, it was commented by someone that a royal commission should be established to find the 10 people in the province to whom the Throne Speech did not apply. On the contrary, I think we need a commission to talk to the 323,000 unemployed people to whom this Throne Speech does not apply.

One of the segments that is hardest hit by the unemployment situation in our province, and for whom this Throne Speech does very little, are the new Canadians, particularly those new Canadians who are within Metropolitan Toronto. I think we should understand that when someone comes to this country from somewhere else, they have difficulties in adapting not only to a new language and a new culture, but to a new lifestyle -- in some cases coming from a rural area of their country to an urban area in our country -- and that often they have been exploited in terms of jobs.

These people have been taken advantage of because they do not speak the language well, because they do not understand the customs and because they are normally employed in non-union places with no one to protect them. They are the people who are most frequently the injured workers. They are the people who go to the Workmen’s Compensation Board seeking redress for their grievances. They are the people who normally do not have a strong voice on their behalf on a daily basis.

I say quite frankly that the responsibilities as applied to how this society opens its doors to new Canadians rest not only with the provincial government but certainly, and firstly, with the federal government. Surely the responsibility for new Canadians does not end at Toronto International Airport. Such being the case, I don’t understand why this government cannot continually go to Ottawa with proposals as to how the federal government can involve itself directly and importantly in helping the new Canadians who are trying to settle in our community. I don’t understand why that isn’t done.

I don’t understand, for example, the reluctance of this provincial government to take English as a second programme and to involve itself very directly in the funding as it’s needed, not only in the schools but in the communities and on job sites.

There are some very good models to follow. The University of Windsor, for example, has been operating courses on the line at the auto plant in Windsor. The University of Toronto does a similar thing at the GM plant in Oshawa, offering university-level courses to workers. That kind of model has already been put into place. The universities know how to handle it; they know what they’re doing. I don’t understand why we can’t extend that to teaching English as a second language. It’s entirely possible, but it requires some direction by this government and a commitment to English as a second language.

I don’t understand why we can’t have the proper kind of teacher training so that teachers who go into the schools will understand the new Canadian communities and the kind of job that has to be done in the classroom is more than just the teaching of academics. It has been the experience, and the government well knows it has been the experience over the years, that for numerous reasons we end up with an inordinate number of new Canadians in vocational schools. This is largely because they are streamed off on the basis of reading scores; not academic ability, simply the ability to cope with the English language.

How does one overcome that? There are several ways. One is, as I have already mentioned, attacking the problem of teaching English as a second language directly in small classes and hiring those teachers directly. If the provincial government feels that it is too big a cost to bear they have a legitimate case to put at the doorstep of the federal government. But for goodness sake do something.

I think this government should seriously consider how it can bring in instruction in the first language of the student. Why the students should be forced to try and cope with that new language, be it English or French, without having the advantage of at least some time spent in their first language, I don’t know; but it occurs.

If the government wants to work in the communities with those new Canadians so that they can learn English as a second language then surely it can do some very elementary things. I outlined a very simple kind of illustration that took place in my area in Scarborough, in Agincourt, where a volunteer group canvassed the community, found those mothers at home who wanted to learn English as a second language, got space in the local school, asked the people when they wanted to come to school and taught them the type of English they wanted to learn; that is sufficient to go to the grocery store, to communicate with their neighbours, to carry on some sort of normal function within their community. That was done inexpensively and to the gratitude of those new Canadians. That kind of effort needs to be put forward by this government.

The whole problem of new Canadians, as they have tried to adapt themselves to our community in Metro Toronto and have tried to be part of the Canadian society while still retaining their language and their culture, is that it has been focused through what the media has termed “racism”; that has been the focus of the issue. It is unfortunate that that focus has taken place, but it is there nonetheless, and we have to deal with it, and I think pretty directly.

There are two direct ways in which this government can deal with it. One obvious one is that the courts should be very tough on those offenders who are involved in racial assaults. That should not be tolerated, and those people should certainly be punished according to the utmost of the law. It isn’t being done; it should be.

I think it is consented, and I suspect that many government members would agree, that there are some problems with the police force -- in particular the Metro Toronto police force. It is not without some sort of history to it all, I understand that. it is not without the tension involved in carrying out the duties of the police force, I understand that. But for a variety of reasons there are racial biases built into some of the members of that police force. There is not a proper mix of ethnic background for the police force itself. That is why, at the very point when we are having racial problems, and we know that some of those problems are connected with the police force, we get the reversal by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) that we cannot have citizen boards, that we are going to continue with the police investigating themselves. Such being the case, perhaps there is little hope that that police force can go through the kind of change that it needs to go through.

It is not without co-operation from the ethnic community. New Canadian groups have approached the police on various occasions and offered to put on educational courses for those policemen to try to learn more about the language and culture and heritage of the various ethnic groups in Metropolitan Toronto. I really wish that the police force would take the offer because it would go a long way toward helping with the problem.

No one could possibly go through the Throne Speech without talking about the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Mr. Speaker, I want to leave the government with some of the frustrations that I have in trying to help those people who come into my office. I say quite frankly, at the time when I was elected in September, 1975, I came here with a very open, unbiased opinion about the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I expected that the Workmen’s Compensation Board was precisely what it said -- it would compensate workers for injuries and it would give workers the benefit of the doubt. I expected that. I expected that when cases came before it, they would be dealt with judiciously and fairly; and they are not.

My experience has been a frustrating one. Today, a year and a half later, I find that the board does not co-operate. I find that some of my constituents are forced onto welfare rolls while awaiting a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. They are unable to work. The constituents who come into my office, Mr. Speaker, are often people who cannot seek employment elsewhere, and while they are waiting for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to make a decision several months pass by. They run out of funds. They are forced onto the welfare rolls, a humiliating and degrading kind of experience for those people.

And the cases drag on. I find that I have been inheriting cases that are four and five and six years old. People who have gone back time and time again to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, who are injured to the point where they can no longer work and yet receive no help from that board. And to add insult to injury, I sit here in the House hoping that this is a forum to discuss those problems and find a minister who will not acknowledge that there is one single problem with the board; a minister who defends that board beyond any point of credulity. I think it’s about time that either this House straighten up that board or the minister resigns from her post.

An hon. member: Watch your language.

Mr. Martel: Don’t swear. She will get mad.

Mr. Warner: I will carefully control my language.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Who would you put in her place?

Mr. Warner: Let’s start with the member for Oriole. His enlightened view would fill the place nicely.

Mr. Conway: I nominate the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Wildman: I nominate the member for Oriole.

Mr. Warner: Approximately 100,000 of the 323,000 people who are presently unemployed reside in the city of Metropolitan Toronto. And the hardest hit of that group are the construction trades with an approximately 35 per cent unemployment rate --

Mr. Philip: Dump truck operators.

Mr. Warner: -- and that construction group is comprised mainly -- not entirely but mainly -- of new Canadians. Again, they are the hardest hit group of the unemployed.

And yet there is room for the government to move other than reshuffling. The announcements today were rather astounding, not that I don’t believe in decentralization. That’s something that should have happened a long time ago. The world does not begin and end in Toronto. It never has and it never should.

But decentralization is more than reshuffling. The government reshuffles workers from OHIP offices in Toronto to some other office in eastern Ontario and thinks that it solves an unemployment problem.

Mr. Eakins: Send them up to Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Warner: That’s silly. It makes about as much sense as the reshuffling that went on amongst the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, it is very much like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If the government is really serious about jobs, then it is going to take an active role in the Metroplan issue. It is going to be involved in that critically, involved in meeting with the local officials of each of the boroughs and of the Metro Toronto government. Because Metroplan talks about decentralization. It talks about jobs, and housing and transportation. It talks about direct employment. It talks about fostering growth in a very real and meaningful way instead of shuffling things around.

Yet instead of an active involvement from this government, what we get first is the cutting back in funds for public transportation -- not the capital funds, but the operating funds. And we still have the commitment to the building of expressways in this city. And make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the grand plan is still there. The Fred Gardiner ideal of surrounding this city by expressways, by criss-crossing the city with expressways, is still alive and well in the hearts and minds of many members opposite. There are a few missing links, one of which is the Scarborough --

[10:00]

Mr. Wildman: Over there; the missing links are over there.

Mr. Davison: The member for Oriole.

Mr. Warner: Not making any personal references to members from Oriole.

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: The Scarborough Expressway is a missing link, as are the extension of the 400 and the cross-town expressway. Not for one minute are any of us over here deluded by the fact that the government has talked about public transit to derail us from what is the true initiative still there -- the building of those expressways. It’s not needed. It’s not wanted, it should not happen.

Mr. Philip: Esther Shiner is really the Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Warner: When you talk to the labour unions, as I have and we do -- I don’t know if the members opposite do, but I doubt it.

An hon. member: You don't even know where you are.

Mr. Warner: But when you talk to the labour unions, what they say first is, “We want to be involved in socially useful projects, like building the LRT in Scarborough, and not building an expressway.” You go back and see them, you talk to them.

Mr. Kerrio: He is being very unkind.

Mr. Warner: As is my custom, I send out a questionnaire to my constituents on a regular basis and the one that is presently in the process of being answered --

Mr. Kerrio: What did it say? Tell us.

Mr. Warner: I have approximately 500 to 600 responses, and the major response that is listed on there is unemployment, and the second major response is property taxes.

Mr. Eakins: What is the third?

Mr. Warner: People want to know what this government is doing to them. They want to know why their taxes are going up. They want to know why the tax system cannot be sensitive to income. They’ve never had those answers from this government. What they get instead is an attack upon the Children’s Aid Society, the YMCA, other useful community projects, small businessmen in the community. Yes, small businessmen, who are going to be asked to pay another 21 per cent in their property taxes, while the distilleries will have a decrease of 40 per cent in their taxes.

Some hon. members: Shame.

Mr. Warner: The government then turns around and says, “Ah, but wait. The tenants in this province will get a break in property taxes.”

Mr. Wildman: That’s why they didn’t allow beer at the ball park; so the 40-ouncers could go instead.

Mr. Warner: The government turns around and says the tenants will get a break in property taxes. That’s part of the Blair commission report. What it doesn’t say is how the tenants will get a break in their taxes. Those tax rebates will likely go back to the owners. Let’s see if they’re passed on to the tenants, I doubt it; I doubt that it will help at all. Since some members of the government opposite are looking for constructive suggestions --

Mr. Philip: Not construction suggestions.

Mr. Warner: Constructive suggestions -- I’ll lay out one again. The government over there introduced some very useful legislation last year that allows the Metro government to designate lanes for the express purpose of buses, taxis and cars with designated numbers of passengers. It is one of the approaches to transportation, one of the desperately needed approaches. But it was done simply as putting it on a plate. There was no follow-up to it; no suggestion as to how they parallel that with rail service, as to how they will help the municipalities with the rail transit that’s needed or improving the bus service. You have to do more than just put things out on a plate, you have to follow it up with some action.

Mr. Eakins: What’s your priority, David?

Mr. Warner: The other little item that’s come up, and my colleague from Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) mentioned it earlier today, is the whole problem of condominiums. What is so annoying to me and to the residents in my riding who live in condominiums is that a while back the government told them not to apply for reassessment on their condominium. “Don’t do that. Everything will be ironed out in the future.” But then, lo and behold, rebates were issued to those who had applied, and those who had taken the government advice not to apply didn’t get any money. Surely those rebates should come back in an orderly fashion over the next some years, so that some equity is gained for those owners of condominiums.

Mr. Philip: P. T. Barnum approach to government.

Mr. Warner: Heaven knows, they’ve got enough problems with the condominiums themselves. When the roof leaks and it takes $15,000 to repair it -- that ends up in a maintenance budget to be split by the owners of the condominiums, not by the building. And the list goes on and on and on.

In summary, I really do think that the Throne Speech could have been useful had it done two things: Had it addressed the problem of unemployment in this province, so that the 323,000 people could got back to work; and had it provided some good sound economic direction -- a little more than simply opting into the AIB and all those wondrous effects that the government thinks it will have.

I don’t know when the next election will come and, in some sense, I really don’t care. Whenever it comes, I’m ready to fight those very non-policies about employment and economic priorities that his government has set for 34 years. It’s time for a change.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the Throne Speech debate. At this time last year, I afforded the members of the Legislature a little background on the constituency of Wentworth North. Tonight, I’d like to share with you my concerns about a number of subjects. I offer these comments in the hope that in a small way, they help to build a better Ontario.

I was gratified to see in the Speech from the Throne that the province will not unnecessarily involve itself in freezing land at the expense of the farmer. Many of us -- especially in southwestern Ontario -- are concerned about the evaporation of good farmland. There is not likely a constituency in that part of the province, where good farm land -- soil classes one to four -- have not been ploughed under for industrial or residential purposes. What is worse is the large number of acres held by speculators that lie idle year after year. There are also a tremendous number of small farms that are hardly productive. The farmer can barely make an existence, yet cannot effectively or profitably dispose of his land.

I believe the small farm today is a basic element of our private enterprise system and very vital to our social and economic fabric in this province. It must be protected. As essential as it is to recognize the importance of protecting the land and the farm, we must also give serious consideration to the preservation of the farmer. While the liberally improved Farm Income Stabilization Act may help protect some farmers, we have a long way to go in compensating farmers appropriately, ensuring the farm family a decent standard of living and a fair return on its investment

A major problem that we face in preserving agricultural land is the problem of land-use planning itself. Since the implementation or should I say imposition, of regional government in my area, we have been awaiting the establishment of a regional plan. The authorities of the Hamilton-Wentworth region have just recently tabled their plans. In the interval, many farmers have gone by the board while some of our best farm land has been developed. Small and non-viable areas should be developed. Areas of prime soil classes one to four should be preserved -- but, again, not necessarily at the expense of the individual owner of the farm. The province would do well to consider the development of a compensation plan to provide adequate compensation to farmers wishing to dispose of their lands.

The best method of protecting our farms would be to ensure that agriculture is once again a profitable means of earning a living. Improved methods of supply management, farm income stabilization, greater consumer awareness, and better foreign trade agreements will assist us all as farmers and consumers.

Ontario is not alone in facing the serious problem of unemployment. For many decades, Ontario was insulated from the effects of recession that caused severe hardship in other parts of this country. For the first time in many years, our unemployment level has reached what has to be the danger level. Clearly, it is a reflection on our economy in this province. At the same time, the current high level of unemployment in Ontario has a very severe effect on our economy.

From my perspective, the current situation reflects our preoccupation as a province with resource-oriented industries intent only on the export of our non-renewable resources. Clearly, over the past 20 years, we have been negligent in building up a diverse, productive manufacturing sector. Our preoccupation with priority industry has unnecessarily tied our economy to those of other nations.

The question naturally arises: “What do we do when our resources are totally exploited?” The hollow rhetoric of commitments to equality of economic opportunity for all Ontarians will not wash with our unemployed, especially our young people; nor will it be accepted in northern and eastern Ontario where the economic disparity is most severe.

While the increase in unemployment can be directly related to the economic recession in Ontario, much of it must be related to a costly educational system that leaves so many of our young people ill equipped and poorly trained for the future. Many of our trades programmes are a disgrace.

Instead of exporting manufactured goods, Ontario has involved itself unnecessarily in the export of our young people. We train doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers for other countries.

Mr. Bain: Isn’t that what Prime Minister Trudeau suggested?

Mr. Cunningham: While our nurses and teachers leave for other countries or work in restaurants or drive taxi-cabs, we continue to graduate more teachers and nurses.

Mr. Bain: Especially cab drivers.

Mr. Cunningham: This is all done at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer while, at the same time, disrupting families and friendships.

Mr. Bain: How about lawyers?

Mr. Cunningham: With educational costs on the rise, it is now more important than ever that our entire educational system be more practical and oriented to employment after graduation or completion of studies.

Mention was made in the Speech from the Throne of the creation of a Ministry of Northern Affairs. Having travelled through many parts of the north, I can say that the creation of such a ministry will do little for the people of our north.

Mr. Bain: Let’s vote against it.

Mr. Cunningham: If all the ministries we do have would do an effective job, no such ministry would be needed. Its creation further recognizes the unequal treatment that our northern citizens receive.

Reference was made by Her Honour to some changes in The Environmental Assessment Act. I look forward to seeing these changes and welcome any move designed to protect our citizens in northern Ontario while, at the same time, developing appropriate, reasonable and co-operative development of resources there. While there is little argument that the record of the existing Conservative government in preserving and protecting the environment in southern Ontario is poor, it is dismal in northern Ontario.

It is little wonder, in these days of lead pollution, DDT, PCBs, mercury poison, human waste pollution, landfill sites, sulphur emissions and air pollution, that the average person in the province of Ontario is sceptical of our commitment to the environment. The inability of our statutes to effectively protect our citizens from abuse causes me to seriously question the sincerity of the government and the incumbent minister, who said: “The polluter will pay.” To date, whatever fines have been levied in this province represent only a licence to continue to pollute.

The Speech from the Throne refers to the government’s “continuing commitment to clean air and water and a healthy environment [which] will be advanced through amendments to The Environmental Protection Act, The Ontario Water Resources Act, and The Pesticides Act.” Associated with these amendments, I would say, should be a commitment by the minister to improve the quality of the Environmental Assessment Board, the Environmental Appeal Board and the Pesticides Appeal Board, which all have recently become repositories for the current minister’s political cronies.

One of the most serious problems facing us as a province and a nation is the development of an appropriate energy policy. Our entire way of life revolves around energy, most of which is non-renewable. If we expect to continue to enjoy a high standard of living in Ontario, we will have to dedicate ourselves to a sincere conservation programme.

During consideration of the energy estimates last year, I suggested that the sales tax be removed on insulation products. At the time, the incumbent minister didn’t seem particularly impressed with that but, eventually, I realized the tax was removed.

Mr. Philip: He warmed up to the idea, Eric.

Mr. Cunningham: I would think some of his cabinet colleagues warmed up to the idea.

I would respectfully suggest that we consider further tax incentives to encourage real energy conservation. Any product related to housing insulation and energy savings should be made tax-exempt. Likewise, the costs of insulation improvements or double-glazing of windows should be made partially tax deductible at least. This would add further incentive to both business and individuals to properly insulate their businesses or homes and thereby save valuable fuel.

[10:15]

At the same time, serious consideration should be given immediately to restructuring the rate system of Ontario Hydro. Currently there is little incentive for the home owner to save hydro with the current system which continues to cost the consumer more and more every year. Clearly the less you use, the less you should pay. This would be of particular benefit to the penny-wise and especially to our senior citizens and those on fixed incomes whose hydro demands are less than the rest of us. Currently their rates are structured at the highest level. That is unfair.

No one contemplating environmentally aesthetic improvements should expect increases in their assessment. A guarantee to that effect should be made to all home and cottage owners. No one in Ontario need be penalized for saving energy. To that end, we would do well to consider making a real effort to develop the use of solar energy for residential construction. I would hope that many of our students will consider making summer jobs out of insulation activities. These are things that must be done.

Notwithstanding any commitment by our federal government, we must proceed with better forms of rapid transit. It is not my place to be provocative, but our record in this regard has been poor. The job must be done. It must be done as quickly as possible.

The day of the big V-8 cars should be just about over. Clearly we cannot afford to have cars that operate at 12 to 13 miles per gallon. The sooner our North American car manufacturers adjust to the realities of our energy limitations, the sooner they will protect themselves from extinction as a result of Japanese and European domination. Our licensing and tax structure should improve incentives for smaller energy-conserving cars.

All cars should be required to submit to a yearly or twice-yearly engine tune-up. This would reduce oil consumption and emissions, and save fuel. Ontario Hydro would do well to remember the mood of the select committee on rate increases. At the same time, serious consideration should be given to returning to water generated hydro. The growing cost of fossil fuels will seriously undermine our ability to use non-renewable fuel as a source of energy in the future.

It’s obvious to me from the Minister of Energy’s (Mr. Taylor) statement last week that this province has no energy policy whatsoever. Our party has over the years consistently warned the government of the necessity to come to grips with the reality of energy shortages and to develop a fair, pragmatic, comprehensive energy policy. Canada has a higher per capita use of energy than the United States, Holland, Great Britain, Japan, West Germany, Switzerland and France. Our survival depends on the development of an intelligent conservation-oriented energy policy.

The commitment in the Throne Speech to encourage our young people to study French as a second language is welcome on my part. At the same time I recognize and commend the government’s recognition of our many ethnic heritages through the government’s commitment to the heritage language programme.

A major consolation to those interested and dedicated to seeing a decent standard of living afforded to the less fortunate was the appointment of the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Obviously it is an improvement over his predecessor, who could only be described as being slightly right of Attila the Hun. Hopefully he may convince his colleagues of the need to raise family benefit assistance to reflect the increase in cost of living. To ignore these people who cannot help themselves is cruelty at its highest.

The indication that the province will provide assistance for small business should be welcomed by all parties of this Legislature. We, in the Liberal Party, have a basic commitment to competition and diversity as essential elements of a solid and prosperous economy. The small business sector employs between 50 and 60 per cent of all working Canadians. Clearly, the future prosperity of this province will relate directly to our ability to promote and encourage those involved in small business.

Mr. Philip: Where do you stand on Bill C-42, Eric?

Mr. Cunningham: It is encouraging that the Treasurer has finally recognized the importance of the small business sector. This appears to be a departure from his recent submission to the royal commission on corporate concentration wherein he said:

“While I can accept the need for more government presence in certain aspects of government activity, at the same time I also accept the fact that in many sectors, businesses are going to be larger and more concentrated in the future. I do not think we should necessarily resist this trend with outdated notions of competition between a large number of small firms.”

That, in essence, I would think would reflect the feelings of the current Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs -- clearly a big fan of big business concentration of interests.

For some time I have suggested a meaningful review of the operations of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Most members of this House -- yourself I’m sure included, Mr. Speaker -- have experienced nothing but frustration in dealing with this board. We’ve all heard the stories of late cheques, no cheques at all, misplaced correspondence, senseless correspondence and misplaced or lost files. Nobody wins with this kind of misadministration.

The costs go up tremendously. These are passed along to business and labour. The net result is a high cost to small businesses, many of which are over-assessed already. In many instances this reduces the possibility of jobs. The cost associated with this confusion at the Workmen’s Compensation Board undermines its ability to pay or compensate people at a humane or decent level. This is a real tragedy. A review of its operation is long overdue and should be welcomed by all members of this Legislature.

Notwithstanding the serious problem of unemployment, the most pressing problem facing us all as legislators is inflation itself. It, without doubt, is the cruellest tax of all. It is imposed without regard on every one of us. It fosters greed -- self-interest in the pursuit of higher prices, higher profits, higher wages and higher salaries. It affects every citizen -- those on fixed incomes, the young couple striving to buy a home, the average taxpayer who works every day to improve or at least provide a decent standard of living for his or her family. It is not an easy time for these people.

There are no easy, short-term solutions to inflation. We all know that a lower rate of inflation usually occurs at the expense of higher unemployment. Federal finance minister Donald Macdonald appears to recognize this. While there are no simplistic or easy answers to this problem, one thing governments can do is attempt to reduce their own expenditures.

To this end I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne at least a vague continued commitment to some form of restraint. The former federal auditor general, Max Henderson, in his report last year, made 184 recommendations, I believe, where savings to the taxpayers could be effected in this province. While the progress to date has not been particularly encouraging, I look forward to seeing meaningful efforts to cut out many areas of waste.

My concern in this regard emanates from our very serious deficit position. A key factor affecting our economy has been the impact of government on industrial society. The end of the last war saw the end of our laissez faire system of economics and the advent of Keynesian policy through continuing government spending as a factor in our gross national product. Initially, this government involvement was welcome and created stability where it might not have otherwise existed. It created jobs and reduced the extent of job dislocation.

Unfortunately, there are some serious ramifications associated with such government involvement in any economy. Currently, over 40 per cent of our gross national product relates directly to government spending. Our dollar has deteriorated in value to the detriment of everybody. That inflation must be directly associated with this, and has contributed in so many ways to selfish demands by manufacturers for their goods and labour for their services. The increased cost in the product or service, be it through the public sector or the private sector, has caused great hardship for our senior citizens and those on fixed incomes.

This province has played a significant force in accommodating itself to the period. The Hon. Leslie M. Frost, in 1944 in his budget address -- he was Treasurer then, at the same time -- said: “We are building not only for these times, we are planning for a greater population, for industrial explosion, for prosperous farms, for happy and healthy people. We are laying a sure foundation for a greater and stronger Ontario.”

Those, Mr. Speaker, were the days. In that year, our net expenditures stood at $132 million. Twenty-six years later in 1971 the provincial net expenditure had reached $4.2 billion, more than 32 times that 1945 level.

Mr. Wildman: Thirty-two times in 26 years.

Mr. Cunningham: The budget last year provided for spending of $11.7 billion and revenue of $10.8 billion. Our current Treasurer refers to this shortfall as a “net cash requirement.” As a realist, I prefer to call it debt.

For the past two years, projected net cash requirements have been underestimated by $200 million. We learned last week that our shortfall currently is $158 million.

Referring to the Treasurer’s foresight, the late member for London North (Mr. Shore) was quoted as follows: “One can place less confidence in the Treasurer’s forecast in view of the historical evidence which shows that the provincial government makes a practice of underestimating expenditures, and, I must submit, in many instances overestimating its revenues.”

Our preoccupation in Ontario with government empire-building has stretched our financial limitations to real extremes. In 1976 we spent $766 million on debt retirement. That excludes the debt of Ontario Hydro. When compared to our annual rate of growth from 1972 to 1976 it represents 20.8 per cent, the highest rate in Canada. Our total debt in Ontario in 1976 was $3.59 billion. In 1975 it was $1.9 billion. There can be no question that we have gone wrong. The current government solution has been to fund these deficits and interest payments with taxpayers’ pension funds and though capital markets abroad.

I was listening this afternoon to the Treasurer indicating his commitment to relocate different government offices across the province and I commend him on that decentralization effort. We have been suggesting it for a number of years. Recognizing that so much of our money is borrowed in Germany, I think he would probably be inclined to relocate the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs in Munich.

The current government solution I have to reject, as far as its borrowing practices are concerned. We cannot continue to borrow the extensive amount of money that we have from pension plans -- $128 million from the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, for instance; $750 million from the Canada Pension Plan; $228 million from the Teachers Superannuation Fund. To date, Ontario has borrowed $4.4 billion from the Canada Pension Plan and the annual interest on that is about $340 million. Eventually, in the not too distant future, we will wear out our welcome there.

In 1976-1977 we will borrow $813 million from the Canada Pension Plan, $330 million from the Teachers Superannuation Fund, another $180 million from the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. Our total not cash requirements for 1976-1977 will be $1,388 million. This is again $158 million more than originally forecast by the Treasurer.

Big government means waste, whether it is at the federal, provincial, or municipal level. A waste in government stimulates inflation, which means paying more for less. When a citizen pays more and gets less, he cannot distinguish between jurisdictions. He feels powerless and confused. The incentive to work hard, to produce, to economize, is undermined seriously.

The effect of big government on private enterprise is just as serious. Taxes increase to accommodate a growing civil service. Red tape and government interference become further road-blocks to effective corporate managements. Profits decline, unemployment results. The time has come to clarify the judicial and legislative process so the people know where they stand when they wish to invest money or remedy a problem. How can this be done?

Last summer I had the pleasure of meeting in the United States with the congressional committee on small business. Not only do they look at methods of helping people in that particular sector, but they also make specific recommendations to government on ways of reducing its own growing bureaucracy. Agencies, boards, commissions, et cetera are studied, reviewed; their effectiveness and worth are re-assessed; as a result of this committee some are being disbanded. The same thing should be done in the province of Ontario. We would do well to consider such an activity. We have a multitude of boards and commissions which serve no purpose, save only maybe a haven for political appointments to defeated Tory candidates.

Many members have read the memo that appeared in the Globe and Mail in the not too distant future quoting a high official in the Ministry of Government Services --

An hon. member: It appeared in the future?

Mr. Foulds: Your verb tense is correct -- “appeared”.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Could the hon. member find an appropriate place to terminate his remarks? We have reached the time for adjournment.

[10:30]

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I would conclude now by asking who let the hon. member for Sudbury East out of his cage, and I’ll sit down right now.

I got the wrong guy, I’m sorry.

Mr. Cassidy: That was gratuitous.

Mr. Martel: Know what you’re talking about before you start to howl.

Mr. Cunningham: I’ll sit here and listen to you.

Mr. Mackenzie: You’ve got a long way to go.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t bother.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order please.

An hon. member: Get back in your cage, Eric; crawl under your rock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Cunningham, would you move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Cunningham moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In accordance with the provisions of standing order 27(g) and provisional rule 4, appropriate notice has been given by the members for Nickel Belt and Sudbury East and in accordance with standing order 28(a), I deem a motion to adjourn to have been made. I will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt for five minutes, and the minister will have five minutes if she chooses to reply.

Mr. Breithaupt: Betty will fix you.

CANCER AND ASBESTOS

Mr. Laughren: Thank you Mr. Speaker: We are here because the minister and the Workmen’s Compensation Board have refused to recognize laryngeal cancer as a compensable disease. It is truly worthy of more than a 10-minute debate and I shall suggest a route which I hope will be more fruitful than I suspect this debate will be before I conclude my remarks.

I shall attempt also to deal with the issue without any kind of rhetoric or passion, although I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it’s difficult to do so once you’ve spent any time at all with people like Aime Bertrand, who is of the Sudbury area. He and other workers in this province are truly leading, as someone said, “lives of quiet desperation,” waiting for some kind of justice to be dispensed by the government.

The facts as I see them are that Aime Bertrand’s work history includes 30 years as a maintenance mechanic in the Inco operations in the Sudbury area and include exposure, not only to one carcinogen but many, including such compounds as nickel, copper, iron, zinc, lead, silenium, cadmium, cobalt, arsenic, asbestos, and sulphur dioxide.

There has been much medical evidence brought to the fore since the debate with the minister and the Workmen’s Compensation Board ensued around Mr. Aime Bertrand, including -- and I shall put some of those on the record -- a letter from Dr. A. Cecilioni of Hamilton. He stated: “Enclosed are the results of the analysis of the sample of Aime’s hair which I just received in the mail. The cadmium and nickel content do not appear above normal, but the silica content is quite high, 46 parts per million, and even higher is silicon dioxide, 98 parts per million. Since a major ingredient or component of asbestos is silica and silicates, I believe you have sufficient grounds to repeal the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s decision.” That was Dr. Cecilioni’s quote.

And then he says: “In conclusion, I would say that the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the appeal board should review and reconsider their decision in rejecting the claim of Mr. Aime Bertrand, especially in the light of our present knowledge about the effect of prolonged exposure to not only one but many carcinogenic agents, both gaseous and particulate, that are present in the work place. Some of these have an additive or a synergistic effect when combined with cigarette smoking.” That was Dr. Cecilioni.

Then Dr. Selikoff, a world renowned expert on the effects of exposure to asbestos and various forms of cancer, prepared a report in which he followed 17,800 insulation workers, workers who had been exposed to asbestos between 1967 and 1975. Dr. Selikoff came up with the following statistics for different kinds of cancer.

Lung cancer; the expected death rate was 92.28, the observed was 427. Two different kinds of mesothelioma; the expected was zero because of the nature of mesothelioma, the actual was 52 and 92. Esophagus cancer; 5.77 expected, 16 observed. Stomach cancer; 12.71 expected, 22 observed. Colon-rectum; 33.89 expected, 53 observed. Larynx, 4.45 expected, nine observed.

Mr. Lewis: Every one of those should be compensable.

Mr. Laughren: Oral pharynx, 7.41 expected, 17 observed. Kidney, 7.08 expected 17 observed.

And the minister, of course, has decided that larynx cancer will not be one of the ones that is accepted. Yet those are the results of Dr. Selikoff’s studies; and I might add that the minister has not refuted those in any acceptable manner whatsoever.

Back in December, 1976, this whole matter was raised during the estimates debate and Dr. McCracken at that time testified that there was no proven causal effect. At that time he did not mention the fact that the Workmen’s Compensation Board had undertaken a study. Now he says in an interview with the Globe and Mail that he has indeed undertaken such a study. Why he did not mention it at that time is something that perhaps the minister could explain to us. So we are in a position now where, despite the work history of this man for almost 30 years, despite the epidemiological studies of Dr. Selikoff, despite Dr. Cecilioni’s reports, despite Dr. Ritchie’s warning about cancer of the larynx, the Workmen’s Compensation Board goes out and seeks contrary evidence, despite the proclamations of the minister that the benefit of doubt goes to the worker, in order to refute the claim of Dr. Selikoff.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you. Mr Speaker. My final statement would be that I would ask the minister, since she is apparently unwilling to change the position of the board, to appoint a medical referee to determine and dispense justice in the case of Mr. Aime Bertrand and any other worker who has been exposed to asbestos and ends up with cancer of the larynx.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Labour has up to five minutes for her reply.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the basis of the establishment of a disease as an occupational disease and, therefore, one directly related to the hazards of the work place and therefore compensable, is in fact the consensus of informed opinion of a number of reputable scientific experts as determined from critical examination of all the relevant retrospective and clinical research available. As I have explained to the hon. members in the past, and as I will say again, just as one swallow doth not a summer make, one researcher doth not a scientific fact make.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is well to remember that science is not infallible --

Mr. Deans: We in fact agree with that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and that indeed it is necessary to have a number of studies done in order to develop the kind of informed opinion upon which a responsible decision can be made.

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: How many cadavers do you want for evidence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Workmen’s Compensation Board differs in no way from any other responsible group of people attempting to make rational decisions for the benefit of the people they serve.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is precisely what is being done in this case. The situation report upon which the hon. member has requested tonight’s discussion is that indeed a report was prepared by Dr. Selikoff. I would reiterate again that although I believe that Dr. Selikoff is a dedicated researcher, it would be appreciated by all of his colleagues who are just as dedicated and just as expert throughout the world if he would at some time publish his findings, which he has never done, in order to permit them to be subjected to the critical scrutiny of his peer group which is the basis upon which valid scientific decisions can be made.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Oh that is slander, blasphemy.

Mr. Davidson: Why is he recognized as a world expert?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let’s have some order please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Dr. Selikoff is recognized as an expert in the world. There are several others who are recognized as just as expert in various places around the world.

Mr. Lewis: Like whom?

Mr. Laughren: McCracken? Name one.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not going to name Dr. McCracken, of course. Dr. Mollie Newhouse of Great Britain is also an expert.

Mr. Lewis: And she agrees with Selikoff right down the line. She agrees with everything he has written.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In addition, as a matter of fact, we will present to this House a report from Dr. Newhouse, when it is received in full form --

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, sure.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- which in fact does not agree with Dr. Selikoff.

Mr. Lewis: She came to the conference.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There was a document presented by Dr. Selikoff to Dr. McCracken at Dr. McCracken’s request. It was indeed given to Dr. Miller, who was the epidemiologist who was asked by the board to examine all of the information provided in Dr. Ritchie’s study about asbestos and cancer. Dr. Miller has examined Dr. Selikoff’s report and I would like to read one paragraph of his letter. The entire letter I will submit to the hon. member for Wentworth who asked for it.

Dr. Miller states in the final paragraph of his letter: “I feel that we are no further ahead than we were before. The data we now have from Dr. Selikoff if anything makes us less certain of the relationship than we were with the earlier data; and since we have no fresh data at this time we must proceed with our own study in order to establish a valid situation.”

Mr. Philip: Because they do nothing to start them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Here is precisely what is happening: A study has been established. It is being carried out by reputable scientists in Canada. There is yet a further study in Great Britain which is being carried out. It is anticipated that we shall have some results within the next two or three months on this study -- the European study -- and there will be results, hopefully, within six months to 12 months from our own study. On the basis of this compendium of information, it should be possible to make a decision which is valid and which will stand up. In the meantime, I have promised --

Mr. Davidson: You are stalling again.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that I would, indeed, re-examine the case of Mr. Bertrand, which I shall do --

Mr. Laughren: Can’t you lead sometimes?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- in order to try to establish any kind of relationship with the other materials to which he has been exposed. But a causal relationship must be established if, indeed, compensation boards anywhere in the world are to function responsibly on behalf of the people that they are designed to serve.

Interjection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the hon. member for Sudbury East for five minutes.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister to say she was going to send me something.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is nothing out of order. The official opposition asked for five minutes to discuss this.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. Martel: This afternoon I raised the question with respect to the fact that there seemed to be a growing number of cases that were going unsatisfied and workers were having difficulty. The minister responded, no, this wasn’t the case.

In my own riding office in the past 11 months we have handled 457 claims; that doesn’t include the ones we’ve sent back to the union or unions in the Sudbury area, because the union official was working on it. It doesn’t include those we just gave advice to. Those were actual involvements. For example, yesterday we had 15 in my office, a daily occurrence of four to five to six workers. And, tomorrow, Jim Hickey of the United Steel Workers will handle seven cases before the appeal tribunal in Sudbury or the appeal board; one on my behalf, seven for his own membership.

The minister also said today in her response that 91 per cent of the people were satisfied with the way they were handled. I’m going by her statistics. There were 433,000 claims last year. That means that nine per cent weren’t satisfied and that represents 38,970 workers who are dissatisfied.

Mr. Warner: That’s right.

Mr. Martel: And if we include their families, we are talking about 150,000 to 160,000 people who are affected by the delays that occur at the Workmen’s Compensation Board. In my office I see people who are financially destitute. I see quarrels between the husband and wife. I have seen in the past month two marriage break-ups. I have seen functional overlays. I have seen despair.

Because of the inability to cope with the problems and the stupidity -- and I say stupidity advisedly, because of the decisions which are coming from the board despite adequate medical information to get claims established. And the reasons given are the most stupid reasons -- lost files, a lack of medical information. They don’t tell the worker, “We need more medical information; we’ll give you three weeks to get it.” They cut his damn cheque off. Well, that’s stupidity, in my opinion.

So the worker doesn’t realize his cheque is cut off. He waits his two weeks for his next cheque. He figures it’s in the mail. He waits another week or so. He finally shows up at our doorstep. He has been three, four, five weeks without a pay cheque and the board hasn’t even advised him that he’s been terminated. And this isn’t one or two cases -- this is many, many cases. And all of my colleagues can tell the minister the same thing, all of us. It is so depressing. Let me give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker.

Here’s a man who was taken out of work by his doctor on January 23 -- by his doctor’s instruction. An investigation was conducted and finally I got involved -- about two and a half weeks ago. Last Thursday we got a decision -- 10 weeks.

[10:45]

Here’s the type of letter you get from the Workmen’s Compensation Board: “According to our present policy and regulations, we can only consider payment for cost of travel that is necessary. There is adequate treatment available in Noelville.” Well, the one doctor there that day happened to be at the Olympics. I don’t know where he was supposed to get treatment. The board decides it is not going to pay. So they paid $20 for 60 trips back and forth to Sudbury. That’s the sort of treatment.

Mr. Seguin, a constituent of mine, writes, “I appeared before the board on Dec. 22. I am still awaiting a decision.” The man has been out of work since December. What the hell do I do with him? The minister says to me, “Well, your language is bad.” What do I do with a father of four children who cries in my office because he has no income and he won’t go to the welfare in Sudbury because of one Mr. Paul Schack, who degrades people so badly they refuse to go on welfare. The minister’s people know it in Sudbury. What do I do with a Mr. Willard Dupont when a Dr. Morrison Mitchell, whom the minister knows, writes the following letter:

“May I at least have an immediate reply acknowledging this letter? I find that you simply ignore my letters, my phone calls to your office in Sudbury, and ignore the fact that the man has been examined on several occasions by you or your consultants.” And that’s turned down. Morrison Mitchell is the president of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, he’s the president of the PC organization in Sudbury, and also a doctor.

What do you have when you have a report from a neurosurgeon and the doctor says, “In my opinion there remains a period of approximately nine to 10 months when the patient received 50 per cent compensation benefits, when it is my contention that he should have received 100 per cent. My reason for stating this is that the patient is not and has not been able to return to work.” That’s a neurosurgeon’s report, and it’s turned down. It just goes on. Mrs. Yang, who’s been tested for retraining, grade 13 equivalent --

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

Mr. Martel: Thank you; just one final statement, Mr. Speaker. A brilliant girl, could be retrained for anything, one year on compensation, and they haven’t started the training programme. The minister wonders why we stand over here in despair and I want to tell her it’s because of the stupidity. Until she decentralizes that bloody office those workers aren’t going to get a fair shake.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the hon. member for Sudbury East in the only way that I can.

Mr. Davidson: Defensively.

Hon. B. Stephenson: If indeed the hon. members do have specific difficulties with certain sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Board --

Mr. Warner: How many hundred do you want?

Mr. Davidson: When will you stop protecting that board?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- it would be extremely helpful to me if indeed they could document them for me, so that I may trace them through the system in order to try to find out where the problems lie.

An hon. member: Can you handle 1,000 cases?

Mr. Cassidy: Make the system work.

Mr. Warner: That’s not the question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have specifically asked the administration of the board to examine very carefully the claims section because it seemed to me last year that that was an area in which problems were arising.

As a result of my request a specific area in the claims section has been established in order to ensure that claims will be expedited as rapidly as possible. As a result of that activity, almost 50 per cent of initial claims are now being handled totally within three days. That I think is a very real achievement, when a very large number of claims is received every hour within the board.

Decentralization may in fact be an answer eventually. At the moment and for the past several months the board has been attempting to automate the claims system and the information system so that indeed the computer terminals at the various regional offices could be activated in order to provide instant information for those requesting information at the various regional offices.

Mr. Foulds: The local board office uses my constituency secretary.

Hon. B. Stephenson: At the end of February this year, that system was completed, and at this time instant information can be obtained by anyone inquiring of the regional office about any claim which they have concern about.

It is important, I think, to remember that indeed this is a very large organization dealing with a very large number of people in very unfortunate and unhappy circumstances.

Mr. Wildman: Decentralize.

Mr. Davidson: Then spread it out.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Workmen’s Compensation Board has decentralized quite dramatically in the last four years.

Mr. Laughren: Not true.

Hon. B. Stephenson: They have developed regional offices with much more competence than they previously had.

Mr. Davidson: You still have to get all the answers in Toronto. No decision-making.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And the impetus toward improved claims activity, improved appeal mechanisms and improved rehabilitation services is a matter that I have been specifically concerned about.

Mr. Davidson: Why do the problems still exist, then?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I'm pleased to tell you that within the next several months there are going to be almost double the numbers of vocational rehabilitation officers, who thereby, as a result of a smaller case load, will be able to deal much more rapidly and I think much more effectively with the vocational rehabilitation of those individuals who require that kind of service.

There are specific problems which do arise as a result of late medical reports. There is no doubt about that at all, and it is difficult to ensure --

Mr. Davidson: Cases 10 years old?

Mr. Warner: And to lose files?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that indeed the medical reports do arrive on time. Cases which have been dealt with in the past are sometimes reported inadequately medically and must be re-examined. But think it is extremely important --

Mr. Davidson: What do you do, make them up and look at them?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that if indeed there are problems with the processing of claims, if indeed there are problems with the lateness of arrival of cheques, that it would be useful, particularly to me, if my colleagues honestly want me to try even harder, and I have been trying very hard to improve the service of the board, to let me know the areas specifically in which they are having difficulties so that I may personally examine --

Mr. Lewis: You have been doing that for 10 years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No. Unfortunately --

Mr. Laughren: You never listen. Why don’t you try some other line of work?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- I have yet to receive, outside of one or two specific claims from the Leader of the Opposition or any other member --

Mr. Lewis: Why should we go to you direct?

Mr. Davidson: We wouldn’t send them to you because you wouldn’t handle them properly.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- a specific name or number on individual claimants.

Mr. Laughren: That is a lie, an outright lie.

An hon. member: That’s untrue.

Hon. B. Stephenson: When, indeed, I have received those --

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Do you want a response from the minister or not?

An hon. member: Yes; an honest response.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That’s why we’re here.

Mr. McClellan: I’ve sent you three or four cases in the last month.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I can adjourn the House right now if that’s your wish.

Mr. Laughren: You might as well.

Mr. Davidson: You might just as well.

Hon. B. Stephenson: When, indeed, I have received that specific information, I have made a valiant attempt to find out the reasons for the problems and to resolve the difficulties.

Mr. Lewis: But that is not the way we should proceed.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And that is precisely the course that I can follow, because if I know where the major --

Mr. Wildman: You are going to have to have an awful big office.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- problems or roadblocks seem to lie, then it is possible to attack them.

Mr. Deans: What about the people who don’t go to members of the Legislature?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have been attempting to resolve the problems which have been drawn to our attention in an equitable way.

Mr. Warner: You should try protecting the workers instead of the board.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And it is indeed, I think, my responsibility and the responsibility of the board, to ensure that the action which is defined by The Workmen’s Compensation Act is carried out responsibly by that board.

Mr. Davidson: Change the Act.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Act is the responsibility of the Legislature --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister’s time has expired.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and the board functions specifically under that Act and can only function that way.

Mr. Davidson: Change the Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.