The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs passed a motion that the government direct Ontario Hydro not to reopen the Rolphton NPD nuclear generating station until such time as the committee has finished its review of nuclear safety matters.

As members may be aware, the select committee met yesterday to discuss an application to the Atomic Energy Control Board --

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I please have a copy of the minister’s statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable minister have copies of his statement?

Hon. Mr. Auld: They are here and in the process of distribution.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t look well. Has he had an illness?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Have the copies been delivered at the moment?

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that the minister continue or not?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then we shall have the statement of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Have you got copies? I am pleased to announce three recent government initiatives we are taking through the Employment Development Fund, which exemplify our continuing interest in and support of Ontario’s industrial base.

We have just completed successful negotiations with Tridon Limited, a wholly-owned and managed Canadian firm with head office in Burlington, whereby the Ontario government will provide the company with an Employment Development Fund grant of $800,000.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, that’s incredible. Hon. Mr. Grossman: In return, Tridon will make an $11 million investment in the Halton region, an investment which will create 360 new jobs and represent $10 million in new export sales.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Tridon doesn’t need government help.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition as always is opposed to it. Tell them in Burlington, not in Prescott.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Tell them in Dryden. Mr. S. Smith: It is easy to give away the taxpayers’ money to a wealthy company. Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tridon is in the process of expanding its manufacturing --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You can’t stand to see us win some companies for this province. Tell the people in the Halton region and in Hamilton that you are against doing it.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you don’t want any of this in Liberal ridings, let us know.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I’ll let the minister know. We don’t want it in any part of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You don’t want any in any Liberal riding.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition aren’t applauding that. The member for St. Catharines is not applauding that.

Mr. Bradley: Helping healthy companies is not a credit to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: We never wanted it and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tridon is in the process of expanding its manufacturing capability to build on the world leadership it has achieved in the manufacture of plastic wiper blades and wiper arms for the automotive industry.

Mr. Bolan: Why doesn’t the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) go back and sell used cars? He can’t sell his ideas. Go back and sell some Edsels.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Employment Development Fund grant will assist Tridon in maintaining a strong presence in Ontario. The project typifies the kind of development we intend to support through the fund. It will provide stable, long-term employment, foster the development of needed job skills and stimulate export development.

As a result of earlier negotiations, culminating in the recent meeting in Detroit at which the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer and I had discussions with senior officials from the automotive industry, I am pleased to announce that we have succeeded in obtaining a major auto parts expansion for Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: For Niagara Falls.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Close. We have agreed to assist TRW Canada Limited in securing North American production in Ontario for their new products. To this end, $420,000 will be provided through the EDF to assist TRW in a $5 million expansion of plant and equipment in their St. Catharines operation, I would say to the member for St. Catharines whose leader doesn’t support this type of program, and an $8 million project in Tillsonburg, whose member does support it.

Mr. Bradley: They’ve expanded already.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is right that I don’t. They would have done it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Leader of the Opposition’s member can go back to St. Catharines and tell his constituents that, I’d like to hear him do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This will create 100 new jobs in St. Catharines and an additional 100 new jobs in Tillsonburg. As a result of this expansion, TRW Canada Limited will manufacture automotive valves and parts for auto steering systems to be used in the new lighter, more energy-efficient automobiles. The entire production output will be exported.

The Employment Development Board has also concluded an agreement whereby the government of Ontario, through the EDF, will guarantee a chartered bank loan of $4.3 million to HSA Reactors Limited of Rexdale. HSA Reactors is a 74 per cent Canadian-controlled company. Significant funds from the private sector over the past five years have permitted the company to engage in major research --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s what the government should be doing -- guaranteeing loans, not giving out money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and a state-of-the-art technology for waste management in metal plating industries has been developed. This technology has a wide variety of potential applications.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not a giveaway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition just can’t stand it.

Mr. S. Smith: Why did the government not give them a grant? Why the guaranteed loan?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a guaranteed loan. Was the Leader of the Opposition paying attention?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Why didn’t you give them a grant like you gave the automotive people?

Mr. Warner: Throw the member out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because we shape our program to the needs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind the honourable members that on Thursday 30 minutes is allotted for ministerial statements. There are a number of statements to be made. I wish the ministers making the statements would disregard the interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Shape up or ship out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope the Leader of the Opposition’s back-benchers don’t disregard them.

Foreign firms are anxious to acquire such world-leading technology and have offered financial arrangements in an attempt to ensure that any future production takes place in foreign jurisdictions. We want to give this Ontario-based research and development a chance to expand into international application and production. In order to ensure this, we have provided a guarantee to allow HSA to obtain local, not foreign financing. In exchange, we have obtained an undertaking from the firm that it will establish production facilities in Ontario on a major scale and maintain domestic ownership.

Our support of this project is an example of this government’s commitment to encourage the development of new processes through Canadian-based innovation.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: I just wanted to be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of this statement.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I have.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yesterday the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs passed a motion that the government direct Ontario Hydro not to reopen the Rolphton NPD nuclear generating station until such time as the committee has finished its review of nuclear safety matters.

As members may be aware, the select committee met yesterday to discuss an application to the Atomic Energy Control Board by a group of concerned citizens in Renfrew county for a public hearing into the safety of the Rolphton station. In its application, the concerned citizens’ group stated its belief that: (1) Rolphton is operating in breach of its licence and in breach of AECB’s safety standards; (2) the licence for operating Rolphton should be revoked because its emergency core cooling system is inadequate and would be unable to prevent overheating in the reactor if the main cooling system failed.

Since this matter was first raised, the ministry has been in touch with AECB and as late as this morning it has discussed with the director of the reactor and accelerator branch of the control board the status of the Rolphton station and the views expressed by the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group.

In addition to the information I provided to the House in my statement of May 10, 1979, there are a number of matters of which I believe members should be aware.

Rolphton is a 20-megawatt electric Candu demonstration station owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and operated by Ontario Hydro. The station was started up in 1962.

In AECB’s view, Rolphton is not operating in breach of its licence nor in breach of the control board’s safety standards. The control board is satisfied with the safety of the Rolphton station and that satisfaction is evidenced by the fact that the control board has continued to allow the station to operate at 100 per cent power.

The control board is satisfied that the emergency core cooling system at Rolphton is adequate. Rolphton is currently shut down for routine maintenance. That maintenance is not related to the emergency core cooling system.

The control board is today studying the application of the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group for a public hearing and assessing how it intends to respond. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on their decision but I have been advised that it will be available shortly.

The councils of several communities in the Rolphton area have considered the matters raised in the application of the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group. These communities are: Deep River, Chalk River, Petawawa, the united townships of Head, Clara and Maria, and the united townships of Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie and McKay.

I should like to read into the record an excerpt from a resolution passed by these communities following a meeting with the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) on May 11. I am also attaching a transcribed copy of a letter these communities sent to the Leader of the Opposition on May 16 setting out the full text of the resolution:

“That the area municipalities ... emphatically reiterate their past support for the nuclear power industry and, in particular, express their confidence in the nuclear installations, operations and personnel at AECL’s Chalk River laboratories and at Ontario Hydro’s [Rolphton station].”

As the honourable members know, the Atomic Energy Control Board is the agency which has the technical capability and legal responsibility for licensing the operation of nuclear reactors in Canada for establishing nuclear safety standards in Canada. As I previously indicated to the House, the control board is “satisfied with the safety of the Rolphton station and that satisfaction is evidenced by the fact that AECB has continued to allow the station to operate at 100 per cent power.”

Mr. Cassidy: It’s culled passing the buck.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In the light of this technical capability and legal responsibility, I believe it is appropriate --

Mr. Cassidy: Have you read the report of the committee?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- that the concerns expressed by the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group be assessed, as they are being assessed, by the Atomic Energy Control Board in the context of the board’s expert knowledge and its nuclear safety standards.

If the control board determines that the concerns being expressed have any validity, we have been assured that it will take the necessary steps to see that any deficiencies are corrected. This will not require any action by the government as Ontario Hydro will automatically comply with any order issued by the control board.

Mr. S. Smith: You should have made that statement at the committee.

[2:15]

CHILDREN’S SERVICES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wish to inform the Legislature and the public of the province’s plans for proclamation of the eight pieces of legislation relating to children enacted by the Legislature during the last session.

The new laws make major changes in such areas as child abuse, adoption, standards of service and children’s rights. I will be making a further statement about these changes at a time closer to the date of proclamation.

Proclamation date for all of the acts will be June 15, 1979. It had been our intention to proclaim on June 1 but this has been delayed to ensure that all new court forms, procedural rules and explanatory materials have been received by every children’s aid society and every family court.

Over the past six months a great deal of work has been done to prepare for the proclamation. Training materials have been drawn up and training sessions held for children’s aid society employees across the province. New regulations and court forms have been prepared. A special effort has been made to produce forms which are understandable to all involved in child protection cases. Most importantly, a complete set of rules of procedure for child protection cases has been developed. These rules emphasize both full disclosure before the court hearing and pre-trial conciliation in an effort to resolve matters without the need for a possibly destructive adversary proceeding within the courtroom.

Proclamation is being delayed on two sections in the acts, one in the Child Welfare Act and one in the Day Nurseries Act. In the Child Welfare Act, proclamation of section 20 dealing with legal representation for children will be delayed until October 1 in order to enable the Ministry of the Attorney General to complete the work necessary to implement the new system for such legal representation, one which will include training programs for those lawyers wishing to appear on behalf of children under section 20. All of the remaining sections of the Child Welfare Act will be proclaimed on June 15.

The second section is within the Day Nurseries Act and deals with the completion of applications and needs tests by parents or guardians within the day nurseries themselves.

A number of municipalities have indicated that substantial sums of money will be required to pay for the administrative costs of implementing this section. I have decided, therefore, to delay proclamation until we know precisely what, if any, additional costs are involved. We should have the answer within two months. At a time of limited additional resources, I am very concerned that all new funds go into direct services to children, not to support or create administrative structures or new administrative procedures.

Mr. McClellan: It should save money if you do it properly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Convince the municipalities of that.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On Friday last my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), informed the Legislature that motor vehicle fatalities --

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, I hate to interrupt the minister, but we do not have a copy. Perhaps if these copies could be distributed ahead of time instead of kept by the assistants under the gallery, it would facilitate matters.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On Friday last my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, informed the Legislature that motor vehicle fatalities had climbed a shocking 67.5 per cent across Ontario in the first three months of 1979.

It was deeply disturbing to me as the minister responsible for law enforcement in the province to learn that 270 people had been killed in traffic accidents up until the end of March. These grim statistics are simply unacceptable, I know, to all of us. During this past week I have instructed the Ontario Provincial Police to step up law enforcement on Ontario highways and to increase their visibility in every way possible.

I should like to advise members of the Legislature that we will be taking the following steps immediately to achieve these objectives: First, the number of aircraft patrolling provincial highways in high-accident areas of southern Ontario will be doubled from three to six. The additional funds required for this stepped-up aerial surveillance have been made available and the extra aircraft will be on the job as soon as possible.

Second, increased enforcement of our seat-belt legislation, which passed with the support of all parties in the Legislature, will begin at once. The legislation has now been in effect for three years and statistics show this law has saved hundreds of lives. In the January to April period, provincial police laid 9,500 charges and issued 14,000 warnings to motorists for seat belt infractions. I have asked Commissioner Graham to instruct his men to lay more charges instead of issuing warnings in the months ahead, since every Ontario motorist must now be aware of the legislation and its obvious benefits.

Third, in addition, the commissioner will be instructing all OPP officers to be on the lookout for flagrant traffic infractions, whatever their assignment. Greater use will be made of unmarked patrol cars to apprehend speeders and lane hoppers on provincial highways.

Mr. Bolan: What are they doing now?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Fourth, discussion has already taken place with the chief judge of the provincial court in relation to the appropriateness of increased and more uniform fines for speeding and moving traffic violations imposed in the criminal division of the provincial court.

Mr. Conway: Down with government limousines.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Fifth, I am writing to all crown attorneys to alert them to the increasing public concern about highway safety. I am asking that they bring this public concern to the attention of the courts when dealing with the sentencing of motorists convicted of Criminal Code offences related to driving. These offences include criminal negligence, dangerous driving and alcohol-related driving charges. There were 57,000 convictions for these offences last year.

It is also my intention to enhance the role of the Ontario Provincial Police in the whole field of traffic safety in the province. I am pleased to announce the formation of an ongoing highway traffic safety co-ordinating council under the direction of the Ontario Provincial Police, with representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ontario Police Commission, the Ontario Association of Police Chiefs and the Ministry of the Attorney General. This council will seek long-term solutions to the upward trend in highway deaths revealed by the recent statistics.

Studies related to police visibility undertaken by the Ministry of the Solicitor General show higher visibility does reduce the carriage on our highways. In an effort to provide higher police visibility, I will be asking my cabinet colleagues to consider approving funds for the hiring of additional OPP officers in 1979.

As honourable members are aware, I announced earlier this month that MTC was undertaking a statistical survey of the drinking and driving habits of Ontario motorists from approximately 250 sites at 16 selected locations across the province. The ministry is working with local police forces and the OPP using a number of roadside breath testers known as ALERT devices to obtain a meaningful sampling on which to base our future programs against drinking drivers.

On the completion of this sampling, it is my hope, these ALERT devices can be made available to the OPP as an enforcement tool. I am personally deeply committed to stepping up our crackdown on drinking drivers, which senior OPP officers inform me played a significant role in the terrible slaughter across Ontario last winter.

I want to assure honourable members that despite the reservations some people may have about a get-tough policy, I am personally committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to reverse the alarming upward trend in highway deaths.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that the Leader of the Opposition does not take this matter more seriously.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yon should be damned well ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What’s the point of privilege?

Mr. S. Smith: I wish to raise a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It surely should be obvious to the Attorney General that we take the matter of this carnage extremely seriously and we also take the matter of dealing strenuously and with great severity with drinking drivers very seriously. We do not take seriously, however, an obvious attempt to play for headlines unrelated to any real change in any real policy.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Absolute nonsense and the honourable member knows it. I repeat, you should be ashamed of yourself, damned well ashamed of yourself.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is not a high school debating society we’re talking about human lives. The honourable member should understand that.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude stating that this, action is being taken to protect the lives of the vast majority of Ontario’s 4.7 million motorists who obey the rules of the road, and I suggest that every citizen deserves to be protected from the callous or unthinking minority who flout the law and endanger us all.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy: Is it true, as has been reported in this morning’s article and as has been rumoured, that Ontario Hydro has decided not to go after Babcock and Wilcox for the full cost which resulted from the defective boilers delivered by that company to Hydro on the basis that to make Babcock and Wilcox pay the full cost might bankrupt the company? If there is any truth to that, would the minister please explain what good a guarantee is from a company if forcing them to honour it would render them bankrupt? Why would Hydro not have demanded, in order to protect the public interest, a bond from that company when getting into that arrangement in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a full statement about the Babcock and Wilcox boiler situation tomorrow. I had hoped to do it today but, unfortunately, there was a meeting going on between Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox. All the files and people were involved in the meeting; so I was not able to get all the information. I will have it tomorrow.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary:

We look forward to the minister’s statement, and in the statement would he please include reference to what I have just asked?

Would the minister also table the agreements between Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox, and would he tell us whether it is true that Babcock and Wilcox was chosen over other companies without a tendering process in this particular case simply to give that company a boost? Would he not agree that MLW of Quebec, for instance, was also capable of making these boilers? Why would Babcock and Wilcox have been chosen without going to the tendering process?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will cover that. I think that was on the air this morning -- I heard a bit on early morning radio involving Mr. Morison and somebody -- but I will cover that tomorrow too.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since Hydro has had inspectors at the Babcock and Wilcox plant all during the period that these boilers were being constructed, could the minister explain why the defects in the boilers were not discovered before they were actually taken from the works in Cambridge? Why was it that a full year had passed on the entire production line of boilers before the defects were discovered? Would this expense not have been avoided if Hydro’s inspectors had discovered the defects at the beginning of the production of these boilers?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I can answer that today. As I mentioned on May 10, or whenever it was that I gave the previous statement, there is something like 29 miles of tubing inside the boiler; the final step in constructing the boiler, after all the welding has gone on inside, is to cover it with a welded cover. Then the heat treatment is done, and that is apparently when the difficulty was caused; you could not see inside.

Mr. J. Reed: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: If this is such a difficult problem to discover, how did it become discovered?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will be covering that tomorrow, and I think I had better leave that until then, if the honourable member will wait, because otherwise, without it written down, it will take me about 10 minutes, as the honourable member knows, and I think he will be happier if he gets it in a concise form tomorrow.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it is possible that there is a design defect in the Babcock and Wilcox boiler which means that the tubes will bend when given this heat treatment process, and since if it is a fundamental design defect, it is possible that after it is repaired the same thing is going to happen again, which might be both a financial and a safety hazard, why has the minister not made it his business to find out the reason why Atomic Energy of Canada Limited did not buy the Babcock and Wilcox boiler in its most recent order for Korea and instead chose one from Foster Wheeler? Why has he not made it his business to find out the reason why they made that decision since apparently, according to what the minister says, he doesn’t know whether it was due to financial reasons?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I covered that last question in a reply to the member’s question previously.

Mr. S. Smith: No, you didn’t.

ACCESS TO REPORTS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the House Leader. Given the results of the recent federal election and the fact that Mr. Clark supported --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: -- freedom of information and his support of freedom of information was presumably one of the reasons why he won the election, can we assume that this government’s support of him implies the same sort of willingness? Can we, in particular, expect to have access to the inspection reports on the various nursing homes in Ontario, which are undoubtedly of great interest to the Russians or to any other enemies we might have and are, therefore, kept highly secret? Can we have access to the X-ray machine inspection reports which are in the custody of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell)?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to respond to the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition, I was interested that he would attribute some success by the Prime Minister-Elect to the whole question of privacy. It is obvious that the people of Canada elected Joe Clark and his people because they were tired of an arrogant, insensitive Pierre Trudeau and his administration.

Mr. Makarchuk: Next time it will be your turn.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The people of Canada, the jury, finally decided that they had enough of that man and those associated with him, and I say thank goodness for that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as the question is concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister of --

Mr. Makarchuk: He looks like a member of the Rhinoceros Party.

Mr. Breithaupt: Will the other members of the quartet be coming in?

Mr. MacDonald: There has been a fire sale.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to reply to a remark that came from the opposition side. If they like the red, white and blue I am wearing so well, I know where they can get one just like it. I would also like them to know that we are going to use the proceeds from the sale of these suits for a fund for the preservation of Liberals as a dying breed.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And now back to the answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in addition, I should also serve notice that the Minister of Natural Resources will also be adding the Liberal Party to the schedule attached to the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If you administer that program like the rest, we don’t have anything to fear.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It should be noted, as the chief government whip has entered the House in such resplendent attire, that we have reintroduced the colour of blue, along with the red and white, which of course is a very important combination.

The balance of the Leader of the Opposition’s question, as I recall it, had some specific reference to the Ministry of Health. I undertake to draw the attention of the Minister of Health to that particular question.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since it is obvious that the continuing secrecy is to be a policy in that particular area, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of the Environment? Can we have the site inspection reports from the Upper Ottawa Street site and from all the other liquid and hazardous waste dumps in Ontario, or are these also to be kept as a deep, dark secret?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to continue to send over to the Leader of the Opposition our certificates of approval. We have sent over a dozen in the last little while. I see no reason why we shall not continue to do so.

Mr. S. Smith: I referred to site inspection reports. We have not received any. We asked for them two months ago.

An hon. member: They’re getting pretty arrogant over there.

Mr. Breithaupt: Do they sell men’s clothes where the chief government whip bought his suit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Now that he is back from his pursuit of foreign investment in Japan, can the minister explain why Ontario is putting such an effort into attracting Japanese investment, rather than building Canadian-owned industries, to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I found it very intriguing that some of the potential Japanese investors in this country, with whom we met -- for example, the auto parts people,

the automotive people and the electronics people -- were considering very many locations, some of which we did talk about, in tidings represented by members on his party’s benches. Again, if it is the policy of his party that we should not encourage those multinationals into his party’s ridings, I would appreciate being informed in that regard.

I should also tell the honourable member that a major part of our effort over there was to promote the very Canadian-owned industries of which he spoke. To this end, we spent several hours meeting with the presidents and vice-presidents of Toyota, Nissan and Honda to encourage them to purchase more Canadian-made auto parts. To that list I might add Tridon, which we have supported, as I indicated earlier, and which is one of the major suppliers of the Japanese market. Our attempts over there were to encourage them to look after Canadian interests and to buy our very high-quality auto parts, in spite of some of the policies they have had over there which, quite frankly, as the honourable member well knows, discouraged imports into theft market.

I might add that we feel that we had a great deal of success in this regard. We got some very positive indications that auto parts in particular would be purchased in greater amounts from this country. There is no question they will be purchasing auto parts in larger numbers from the North American market, and a major part of my time there was spent ensuring that a large number of those auto parts are purchased from our very good and successful Canadian auto parts industry.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Gallup polls have been showing consistently since 1975 that seven out of 10 Canadians think we have enough US foreign investment in Canada, can the minister say what makes him think that the people of Ontario want Japanese investment to solve our economic problems?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member is suggesting that we should not have Japanese investment in this country, and that the level of American investment satisfies him and we should concentrate on -- I do not know where he is suggesting we concentrate, other than on Canada, which we do -- I want to tell him quite simply that there are thousands and thousands of jobs in this country that can be created by proper, carefully considered, product-mandated Japanese, German, French investment, as well as American investment in this country.

Just so there is no misunderstanding about the difference in philosophies between the member’s party and our government, let me say, yes, we do want proper, carefully considered multinational investment to create jobs in this province.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What about Canadian investment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’ve always had it; it’s always been a large component of our employment in this country. He believes we shouldn’t have any, including Japanese, and I think that’s one thing that the voters in very many ridings of this province should be well aware of next time around.

Mr. Martel: It depends on the type.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since Tridon exports auto parts from Canada to Japan, can the minister show us what assurance he has that Japan will not now raise a countervailing tariff against these parts because of the $800,000 giveaway, a subvention by the Ontario government to Tridon?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are satisfied that under the new GATT code --

Mr. S. Smith: Table it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- negotiated, the incentive grants we are talking about will not bring down countervailing duties.

Mr. S. Smith: Table your legal opinion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would have to refer the member to the communications we have had with Jake Warren and the federal government negotiators who have been dealing with this matter.

I might also add that, as I am sure members will recall, an injury test would have to be shown, which in the case of the products that Tridon exports in any event, notwithstanding everything else that is contained in the GATT agreement, in itself would eliminate any possibility of countervailing measures being taken.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: In view of the fact that Canada pays over $7 billion in interest, dividends and debt-servicing; and in view of the fact that the outflow of investments from Canada is higher than the inflow; and in view of the fact that last year our trade with Japan will amount to $2.5 billion in manufactured goods in Ontario, while Japanese investments in Canada are in the resource industry, doesn’t the minister think that he is encouraging the Japanese to take over our economy even more when we need to develop our manufacturing industry --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. di Santo: -- here in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One of the things the Japanese have pointed out to me with some regularity is that, in fact, Canada had a trading surplus with Japan.

Mr. di Santo: In resources.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As we pointed out to them, that surplus was totally on account of our export of resources. We then indicated to them that that wasn’t satisfactory; that we measure the value of international trade in terms of the jobs it creates in our country. I offered to measure our trade balance with them in terms of the jobs created in their country as against the jobs created in our country. Of course, they immediately agreed that that is an imbalance in their favour.

Therefore, one of the major purposes of our trip was to point out to them that, in order to continue a healthy and fair trading relationship, they were going to have to greatly expand their trade with us, in terms of importing many, many more of our manufactured products from this province.

DAY-CARE POLICY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, arising out of my question on May 11, 1979, about day-care cutbacks.

Is the minister aware that the social services committee of Metropolitan Toronto has today passed a motion expressing its extreme disgust at the answer by the minister in his allegations about inefficient administration as the cause of proposed cuts in service by Metropolitan Toronto social services? Will the minister reconsider the government’s cutback policies in order to ensure adequate funding so Metro can meet the need for at least 900 additional day-care spaces in Toronto this year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The answer to the first part of the question is no. I wasn’t aware of any resolution that had been passed today.

In respect to the second part of the question, my reference in the House on an earlier occasion to the $800,000 figure, to my recollection wasn’t couched as an allegation of irresponsible administration, or however the honourable member phrased it. At that time I knew of what I was speaking.

[2:45]

I don’t have it with me at the moment, but I could document specifically the recommendations that had been made by my staff in a meeting with the administration -- not specifically referring to day care but referring to other areas of social service administration in Metropolitan Toronto.

I want to make it clear I’m not alleging irresponsible or inefficient administration. I did suggest there were ways, and we had recommended them, that by a careful review of certain administrative expenditures those savings could be achieved, and I stand by that.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want the minister to know he has caused great offence to the social services people in Metropolitan Toronto because of the allegations he made in this House two weeks ago.

As a supplementary, I would ask the minister, given the economic impact of the provision of day care, and the problems it’s creating for couples who must both work in order to make ends meet, and for single-parent families who cannot get off welfare unless they can get adequate day-care services, does he not believe that both for social and for economic reasons, it is desirable to ensure there is adequate provision of day care in metropolitan funding? If that’s so, how long will the government continue with the present freeze on day care in this city? When will that stop?

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect, again, perhaps I can deal first with the statement by the member and then the question. I trust there was no offence created by my response in the House on the previous occasion; although I suggest, and I don’t mean to be provocative, but I’m sure --

Mr. McClellan: It was disgust, not offence -- extreme disgust.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- if there is any way the members opposite could make it offensive, or appear that I was intending to be offensive, they would dearly love to do that.

Mr. Swart: The minister can do it on his own.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would suggest, given things like press releases I have seen recently --

Mr. Swart: Perish the thought.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and statements issued on the NDP caucus letterhead, and so on, that the member is doing a very effective job in trying to undermine the very good intentions and the very sincere efforts of the people in my ministry and to make it appear we’re out to offend people in the social service field.

An hon. member: Distortion is an art. Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect, I’m not shedding tears but in times of some economic difficulty in this province, when we are determined to preserve the quality of social services, it requires a little integrity and a little co-operation on the other side of this House as well.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, despite the hyperbolic, outrageous rhetoric from the minister, I want to ask him a question by way of supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: Would he tell us very simply why he has imposed a five per cent ceiling on day-care expenditures, singling it out from all other children’s services which have been given an increase of 9.9 per cent? Why has he imposed that ridiculous cutback level ceiling on day care in this province?

Ms. Gigantes: For Mini-Skools.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, again with these statements that precede the question, I can’t resist responding to the statement initially. Talking about rhetoric, I think it would be interesting if, for posterity, the press releases of the member for Bellwoods could be preserved. I have yet to see anything that make such nonsense -- that is couched in words that --

Mr. McClellan: Unlike his programs, they’re preserved.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- he just sat down and digested the dictionary and is regurgitating

-- choosing the largest words first in a way that doesn’t necessarily make any sense. But I would say this --

Mr. Breaugh: I was afraid of that. Hon. Mr. Norton: That I would say this?

Maybe I shouldn’t. What was the member’s question anyway?

Mr. McClellan: The five per cent ceiling.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Day care has not been singled out from any other programs with respect to the five per cent ceiling on growth in administrative and other expenses.

Mr. McClellan: Children’s services are 9.9 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It applies to all transfer programs. The additional funding available in children’s services represented by that 9.9 per cent increase is funding that is available to assist and encourage the development --

Mr. McClellan: The 9.9 per cent is just bunk.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- of more preventive programs --

Mr. McClellan: What do you think day care is?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and to assist agencies in the transition from, in some cases, very high cost but secondary or tertiary care, if you wish, to earlier care, intervention and prevention programs across this province, in response to the almost unanimous message we have received from the people involved in child care across this province --

Mr. McClellan: Yes, we need more day care. That’s the message.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- during the last two years in our consultations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with a final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad the minister lashed out at the members of this party because it shows how sensitive he is becoming about the failures of his ministry.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Balderdash. Why don’t you talk sense once in a while?

Mr. Rotenberg: Nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister now acknowledge the damage the cutbacks policy is causing both on children and on families across the province?

Mr. McClellan: He’s exceeding James Taylor’s cutbacks.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the government prepared to abandon the cutbacks policy in order to ensure adequate day-care services in Metropolitan Toronto and across the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: My lashing out at the honourable member opposite has nothing to do with any particular sensitivity about conditions in the ministry at this point in time.

Mr. McClellan: It’s part of your leadership ambitions, right?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would suggest to him I have always been sensitive to what I may regard as irresponsible politicizing and trying to take advantage politically of a situation which I think is the responsible way to deal with the delivery of services in this province.

Mr. McClellan: Cutbacks, that’s all it is, cutbacks.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Second, I would respond by simply saying there are no cutbacks in children’s services funding.

Mr. Martel: We don’t believe that. What about the money for Thistletown?

OTTAWA COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Government Services. Can the minister advise if he was correctly quoted last week in the press? I don’t think he realizes I’m asking him a question. All right. I realize this minister has been having an easy time.

Can the minister tell me if he was correctly quoted in the press last week in Ottawa saying the Ottawa-Carleton community will have to be satisfied with the present court facilities for another five years? Can he explain why it takes two years to get architectural plans and why it takes five years to renovate the old teachers’ college? Can he tell us why he treats the Ottawa-Carleton community with such contempt when the court facilities there would be intolerable any place else in the province?

Mr. Sterling: You know what the delay is.

Mr. Handleman: The new government will help.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Actually, the question was asked. It was a good question.

Mr. Roy: Yes. Does the minister agree with his colleague from Ottawa South --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: -- who states, “Surely to goodness, if we can build courthouses in London and St. Catharines, we need a proper building in the nation’s capital”? Does the minister agree with that?

Interjections.

Mr. Handleman: Thank goodness for the new government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. I’m sure all honourable members want to hear the answer.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the honourable member’s question, number one, I suggested to this member back a few weeks ago that May 22 would correct the big obstruction we had in the way of the Ottawa courthouse.

Mr. Roy: Yeah, blame it on Ottawa. Why is it going to take five years?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Number two, with regard to the honourable member’s question about the quote in the paper, I haven’t seen the quote to which he is referring.

Mr. Roy: Did you say it or not, about five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I have not had the opportunity to look at it; the honourable member has not sent it over.

Mr. Peterson: If we asked five minutes ago, you wouldn’t remember, would you?

Mr. Bolan: Did you make it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I explained to the press that once we corrected the House of Commons and got the property cleared up for the courthouse --

Mr. Roy: Okay, but why is it going to take five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- and once the decision was made to move ahead with the building --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It takes time to make plans.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- once that decision was made and once everything was in order to appoint an architect --

Mr. Roy: Two years. We’re not building First Canadian Place.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- past experience tells us that it takes ordinarily from one to two years for the architect to prepare plans and for a contract to be awarded and for work to start on the project.

An hon. member: Two years.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Then, depending on the contractor you get, it could take one and a half to three years.

Mr. Conway: Oh, Claude Bennett can get one faster than that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: All in all, you could read it either way, from three to five years.

Mr. Roy: You said five years.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, I didn’t. I quoted to the press quite clearly three to five years.

Mr. Roy: Can the minister advise whether possibly the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or somebody else got to him and said, “Let’s delay this decision on spending money in Ottawa-Carleton to help us balance our budget”? Is he asking the people of Ottawa-Carleton to accept facilities which the citizens inspection panel described just last week as being “inadequate, lack security, small and poorly furnished, poor acoustics, no smoke detectors or air conditioning” and so on?

How is it that on the one hand we have the Attorney General professing he’s gung-ho on law and order and this minister on the other hand is delaying a process which would facilitate this? Why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: For once the honourable member is correct. This building has been delayed, or any announcements. On December 16 I visited the federal minister in Ottawa. I requested property from him at that time. Let’s add it up -- December, January is one, February is two, March is three, April is four -- that’s five months and not a positive response. The five months’ delay the member suggests lies right at the door in Ottawa.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask the minister how much faster than five years he thinks the job could be done if there is a dangerous incident in the Ottawa court facilities? That seems to get things speeded up in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If the honourable member bad been listening, I think I pointed out quite clearly, I said from 18 months to two years from the date we appoint an architect before sod turning takes effect, and then from 18 months to three years. I pointed that out quite clearly.

Mr. Roy: Why does it take five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is quite clear that the honourable member’s party in Ottawa has not informed him of the plans. The majority of the building would be a new building.

Mr. Roy: What are you going to do tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No problem, that will all be corrected.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Mr. Rodney Turner claims to have spent two hours of terror in a Scarborough police station. When will the minister present to this assembly a full report of the events, including the names of each police officer involved?

Secondly, will he also speak to his good friend, the Attorney General, asking him to bring forward legislation to correct a serious flaw in our system of justice by guaranteeing that each person in this province has the right to a telephone call at the time of arrest or detainment by the police?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know personally about Mr. Rodney Turner’s allegations. I will inquire and report back to the Legislature. I don’t know the details of allegations made by the person referred to by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Lupusella: In view of the minister’s concern in relation to highway safety and in relation to the question raised by my colleague, considering that too many incidents like the one raised by my colleague involving the public and the police officers have occurred in Ontario in the last few years, and remembering that the government promised --

[3:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would say to the honourable member that this is not a supplementary.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister willing to introduce legislation in this House establishing a citizens’ complaints bureau to deal with these types of problems?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The whole issue of citizens’ complaints is under review. I’d like to say that in the last year in particular the Ontario Police Commission has played a major and, I think, a very effective role with respect to the general policy relating to citizens’ complaints. Since the Moran report into police practices in Metropolitan Toronto, the Metropolitan Toronto police department has upgraded its citizens’ complaints procedures considerably. Given what has been accomplished, I want to make it very clear that I don’t have any intention at this time of introducing legislation in this area. But we’re going to keep it under continuous review in case the need arises where it would appear that we have got to the point, which I don’t believe we have got to, where we can say to the police of this province that they are not to be trusted with respect to policing themselves. As far as I am concerned, we haven’t reached that point, and I hope we never do.

Mr. Cassidy: You are going to put it off as long as you can.

TRUCK DRIVING LICENCE

Hon. Mr. Snow: Last Friday the member for St. George asked me a question concerning Mr. Norman Makela who has had his truck driving privileges removed because of his diabetic condition. The member was right when she stated that the gentleman had been driving heavy trucks for many years -- I believe she quoted 30 years -- with Imperial Oil and for quite a few of those years with his diabetic condition. But she also left the impression that Mr. Makela had not been grandfathered in as a truck driver when the driving licence system was changed.

It was because of Mr. Makela’s past driving experience and a satisfactory medical report that the medical standards established under the classified drivers’ licence system were waived and Mr. Makela was issued a class A licence in April 1977 during the one-year transition period. This licence was issued subject to Mr. Makela’s diabetic condition remaining stable.

Unfortunately, in 1978 the ministry’s medical advisory committee received new medical reports concerning Mr. Makela. I cannot go into details on these reports. I am sure the honourable members will remember when this legislation was changed about two years ago there was a special clause that I introduced into the legislation that makes all these medical reports confidential to the ministry. But suffice it to say it left the committee no choice but to recommend that Mr. Makela’s class A licence be downgraded to a class C licence.

As I have stated before, I very much sympathize with Mr. Makela and others with similar problems, but on the advice of medical specialists it is imperative that the privilege of driving trucks and buses be denied under these conditions for the safety of the general public using our highways.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Rotenberg: I have a question of the Premier. In the light of the election results on Tuesday would he care to comment on how this might affect federal-provincial relationships and specifically how it might affect our stand on the alleged problems of the constitution?

Mr. Warner: What a set-up!

Mr. Peterson: Are you moving him to Jerusalem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know that all members of the House would join me in expressing to the Prime Minister-Elect the best wishes of all of us for what will be obviously a difficult and onerous responsibility. While we all had our partisan involvement in that particular campaign, it is over and I am sure all of us wish the Prime Minister-Elect and those who he will select to join with him, our very best wishes.

An hon. member: For an early retirement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In case some members of the gallery were concerned about some of the notes appearing here and the large sums of money that were sort of arriving on my desk, I can only make it clear that if they were declared as income, they would still not offset what I have lost on certain other wagers, on certain other events. I just want to make that clear.

Mr. Roy: I am still way ahead.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Argo account.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, but you know what I said, or you said I said, I really didn’t say it -- Joe Clark in the spring of 1979, the Argos in the fall of 1979. I might be half right.

Mr. MacDonald: What was the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The very important question from the very distinguished member for Wilson Heights, was how I perceive the events of Tuesday with respect to the federal-provincial relations.

I think I can express most subjectively that the events on Tuesday really are in the process of bringing about a new era in federal-provincial relationships -- a period of consultation, a period of co-operation, a period of setting of national objectives, and of dealing with the provinces as partners in Confederation. I am very optimistic that the changes that took place on Tuesday will be beneficial to the people of this province and the people of this country.

As it relates to constitutional discussions, I expect the Prime Minister-Elect will have this as one of his priorities. I think he understands the views of the government of this province that we support patriation but we are opposed to referendums. We think it should be done with respect to the amending formula on the basis of provincial cooperation consensus and agreement. I thank the honourable member for a question I was afraid no one was going to ask.

Mr. Martel: Is that why you planted it?

Mr. S. Smith: If I might just rise briefly on a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to associate ourselves with the comments made by the Premier, the good wishes to be extended to the Prime Minister-Elect as he takes on his very serious duties which will be very important to the future of the country. We all wish him well in the assumption of those duties. I certainly want to associate myself with the Premier in that regard and I also want to just say a very brief word of tribute to the man who has been Prime Minister for 11 years and who has, at some considerable personal sacrifice, served the country that he loves and that he loves dearly, and served it very well.

Thank you very much.

JAMIE BONE CASE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is it true the Ontario Human Rights Commission has recommended that the minister call a beard of inquiry to resolve the discrimination complaint of Jamie Bone, a former quarterback at the University of Western Ontario football team, against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats? If so, when will this inquiry be held?

Mr. Conway: The perfect union is in divorce court, I guess.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, it is true I did last Tuesday sign an approval order, indicating it was in order for the human rights commission to proceed with a board of inquiry into the Jamie Bone matter.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: Would the minister use the authority or power of his office to expedite this inquiry, particularly for rookies, in the light of the football season being imminent? Secondly, when the inquiry is complete, would the minister share the findings of that inquiry with us and also with the federal human rights commission which is also interested in this and with the new Prime Minister who made a personal inquiry of Jamie Bone as late as last weekend? It will perhaps encourage him to see the federal human rights commission takes some course of action to see Canadian quarterbacks are not precluded from playing for Canadian football teams.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will be glad to indicate to the human rights commission the concern that all members have that this matter be heard as expeditiously as possible, and when the report is issued I will be pleased to share it with the members.

HAMILTON ROADS STUDY

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Will the minister assure the people of the east end of Hamilton that they will not be pressured into a major north-south freeway through King’s Forest and the Redhill Creek valley, that they are not dealing with a fait accompli, and that their views can reverse a decision that has the potential of destroying an ecologically fragile valley that is the last major greenbelt in the east end of the city?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t think I can assure the honourable member of that because the study is now being carried out, and I have not received a final report as yet. I believe the study is presently being presented to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the city of Hamilton, and this is a study being carried out jointly by staff and officials and elected representatives of the city of Hamilton, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and officials of my ministry, with the consideration of consultants,

I wouldn’t want to comment on the recommendations of that study until I have had an opportunity to read it and see what is recommended and what is the decision of the locally elected representatives.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the people of the east end of Hamilton have been presented with six potential routes, all of which go down the valley, which have been rejected now three times by the city of Hamilton and city council? Would he also lay to rest the public perception of virtual provincial blackmail, in terms of funds for other highway projects or roadway projects, if the people don’t choose the valley route?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know where the honourable member gets that kind of hogwash because that is not the situation at all. It is NDP propaganda.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Will the minister explain to this House why he has not even read the studies that have been made available to people in the city of Hamilton when he is the Minister of Transportation and Communications? Doesn’t he care about what is happening there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That shows the ignorance of the people over in that corner, Mr. Speaker, because the study is being prepared by the staff -- as I have already explained to his colleague, but obviously he wasn’t listening -- the staff of the region, the city, and with the co-operation of staff from my ministry. The study is not complete yet and I have not received it which is why I have not read it.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: On May 11, the honourable leader of the third party asked various questions related to such chemicals as methyl yellow, benzidine and MBCA. These particular substances are classified as aromatic amines and they are also used in the manufacture of dyes, or are dyes in themselves. They are not manufactured in Ontario, but are used in the textile, paper, carpet, plastic and other industries.

I think that the main concern with respect to these substances is exposure to them by the workers in the various industries that use them, and the Ministry of Labour has occupational health guidelines which cover such hazardous materials. In fact, in the 1976 handbook, to which the leader referred, was part of a summary of the knowledge we had on these substances in relation to occupational health guidelines. The Minister of Labour may well have further comments to make relative to the safety of workers who are dealing with these substances. I want to stress the substances are not manufactured in Ontario and, of course, the greatest risk is in their manufacture.

The air and water monitoring we have done so far has turned up no indication of ill-effects on the environment by these materials; nevertheless, we are going to have the MacLaren study done so that we can be absolutely sure.

[3:15]

I think I should point out that the leader is a little in error when he says that the MacLaren study is being commissioned in order to control or limit the use of these chemicals. As indicated in our written response to his party’s critic some time ago, the substances are already controlled. Indeed, their use is decreasing as other substances which are less toxic become more readily available. I think it is a mistake to leave the impression that these substances had been freely available over the last couple of years without any controls.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since these substances are being used by the ton in Ontario, even though they have been banned in some other jurisdictions such as West Germany, can the minister explain precisely what the MacLaren study is intended to create? Is it the government’s intention to ban the use of these very hazardous substances, as has been acknowledged in the government’s own hazardous products textbooks, or is the government simply going to leave these in use at the potential risk of workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can go around banning every substance that has some potential harm. That is a nice, idyllic world; it is not the way it is. We establish standards where the health of workers is protected under the other ministries. In that case, we have to expect that there will be some use of these materials -- but under very controlled conditions. As I said in my reply, they are not being manufactured here, and they are used under very controlled conditions. Surely those conditions which the Ministry of Labour is prepared to administer are the safeguards that we want -- that my friend wants and that I want. Surely he will accept that we cannot just ban every material that has any possible harmful effect. We would probably ban everything but water. That is just not the practical world in which we live.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I understood the minister to say he was going to have further tests made on these substances. Is he planning to do these with his own staff, or is he hiring outside consultants for this testing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the MacLaren report, when we receive it, will have a great deal of information. Obviously the members know that just last week, or the week before, we banned a particular material on the basis of scientific evidence. Frankly, the evidence is not all in on 2,4,5-T as yet, but we said we would err on the safe side; that is the basic philosophy of the ministry: to err on the safe side. But surely we should not just indiscriminately ban these materials until the evidence is all in.

We will be asking MacLaren to look at these hazardous substances, and many others, to recommend to us what they think should be done. In the final analysis it will be the staff of the ministry that will have to make the recommendations and, after that, I guess in the final analysis I will have to make the decision.

DREE PROGRAM

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the counties of Simcoe, Grey and Bruce and parts of the counties of Dufferin and Wellington were in the last federal-provincial Agricultural and Rural Development Agreement; in view of the fact that he stated recently that the federal government would not allow these areas in the new program; and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in the television debate that it was up to Ontario to decide which areas it wanted covered by the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion program --

Hon. W. Newman: You heard in estimates what happened.

Mr. McKessock: -- which I think clearly showed that the newly decided upon areas were determined by a federal civil servant, against the government’s expectations -- with a new government elected but the same civil service in place, what does the Treasurer intend to do to see that our area is included in the new DREE program and that the same civil service decision does not remain?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly discuss and, if necessary, fight with our colleagues to see that the areas we believe should be included are covered.

Mr. Breithaupt: Dissension already?

Mr. Conway: That was a very high tone that the Treasurer’s eastern Ontario colleagues put on that debate.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I might say one thing about it: I have enough faith in the members who were elected this time --

Mr. Conway: The member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) put a very high tone on that debate. He really ought to be congratulated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: That will give the Tories two seats in Quebec for ever.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Havrot: He’s a mouthy little brat.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable minister continue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is I really do believe that the people who are elected now probably can govern the civil service.

Mr. McKessock: Does the Treasurer agree with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and myself as well as, I am sure, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) and the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), that the areas that were covered under the old program should also be covered under the new program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, some of those areas were not included in the discussions that were going on. The federal government never even brought them into the discussion. The areas that were included for very early discussions were Grey and Bruce. Simcoe as I recall, although the province asked that parts of it be covered, was not ever considered by the federal government.

Mr. Gaunt: Since the minister has indicated that he intends to negotiate with some vigour in respect to including the areas mentioned in the new program, when will those negotiations start, and when does the minister anticipate getting results from the new federal government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, I have to find out with whom I am negotiating. Once that decision is made, I can assure the member we will start the approaches very quickly and pursue them assiduously.

INMATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Correctional Services: I would like to ask the minister what rationale he used in closing the education programs at the Windsor, London, Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto East detention centres. Would the minister not agree that the elimination of these programs is a step backwards in the helpful process that has been developed by the former minister? Would he not also agree that the education program was a very important aspect of the rehabilitation process in the detention centres?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the education program is very good for rehabilitation. Regrettably, in the short-stay institutions like the detention centres and jails to which the member made reference, the average length of stay is about two weeks. That is not enough to provide a suitable period of education. We have therefore concentrated our education provisions in the longer-stay facilities, and education will be continued there at an increased rate.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: If this program was not useful, why does Mr. Hildebrand and the education staff at the Windsor jail say it was useful? Since such programs as remedial reading, English and mathematics were being offered, does the minister not think these types of programs are crucial if these inmates are to develop the skills necessary to survive in our society once they are released? Does he not also agree that there are inmates who remain in the detention centres and jails for a considerable period of time?

Ms. Gigantes: For a year.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Where education is useful, in the long-stay facilities, it is being provided.

Mr. Cooke: Why don’t you just tell us about the budget cut?

Hon. Mr. Walker: In the short-stay facilities, it is not being provided.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary: Doesn’t the minister realize that many of those residents are crying for an opportunity to at least begin their education, and that anything he can do, even on a short-term basis, provides an entry for them into the educational system? I think that something like 16 per cent of them have only a grade five reading comprehension level. Anything the minister could do, even on a short-term basis, would be of great benefit. Doesn’t the minister realize this?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We are certainly well aware of the value of education. In some respects, with respect to short-term facilities, community resource centres and temporary absences are being used to permit the individuals to be provided with education within the community, where we think it can be delivered quite well.

WILD RICE HARVESTING

Hon. Mr. Auld: Last week the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) what measures he was willing to take to ensure that all those concerned will realize that there is an appearance that no favouritism will be involved in the awarding of wild rice harvesting licences in the northwest. The Premier said he would be delighted to discuss this with me and that I would have a short, concise answer today.

Prior to 1978, wild rice harvesting licences were issued on a first come, first served basis by our offices, with the exception of a number of registered areas which had been licensed to native people since 1960. I’m informed that over 200 licences were issued up until 1978 when honourable members will re call that as a result of the Hartt commission the government declared a moratorium on further licences in the Dryden and Kenora area except to native people.

The member also asked me about Mr. Ratuski and his company, the Shoal Lake Wild Rice Company, which, he said, held 28 licences that covered more than 2,000 lakes and waterways. Actually, Mr. Ratuski has 18 licences, and there is no way the area covered there would include 2,000 lakes and waterways.

REPORTS

LANARK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today a report which I requested from the provincial auditor on grant payments for transportation to the Lanark County Board of Education.

It had become evident, in the course of a review by personnel of our eastern regional office, that certain of the board’s bus routes were significantly shorter than had originally been recognized by the board as a basis for its payments to the contractor and its claims to the ministry for the grants. Since some public disagreement had been expressed about the amounts involved, I felt that it was important and desirable to ask the provincial auditor to investigate, as provided under section 17 of the Audit Act, 1977.

The report shows that the board has taken proper action to correct the situation. It also shows that the decision of our regional office to investigate the matter was clearly justified. I appreciate the assistance of the provincial auditor in this matter and the co-operation of which was extended to his staff by the Lanark County Board of Education and its officials. The recommendations in the report are now being studied in the ministry to determine the best way of putting them into effect.

I have noted the discussion about this report in the standing public accounts committee and I’m asking the Clerk to make copies available to that committee as well.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO AFFAIRS

Mr. MacDonald from the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs presented the following interim report and moved its adoption:

The purpose of this interim report is to bring to the attention of the Legislative Assembly a matter of compelling importance requiring its immediate attention. The committee terms of reference, approved by the assembly on November 24, 1977, ordered the committee: “To examine Ontario’s nuclear commitment.”

During this ongoing examination, the committee on May 23 by a vote of five to four adopted the following motion: “That the government order Ontario Hydro not to start up the NPD reactor at Rolphton until the committee concluded its consideration of the matter.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the procedure as recommended by the procedural affairs committee, it’s my understanding now that the chairman of the Hydro affairs committee will; move the adjournment of the debate and it will then go on the Order Paper so that we might call this item.

I would remind the House that that is the understanding at the moment. I would invite the chairman of the committee to move the adjournment of the debate, in accordance with the standing orders.

On motion by Mr. MacDonald, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that private members’ ballot item 20, standing in the name of Mr. Kerr, be debated on May 31, and such remaining ballot items standing in the name of a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus be similarly advanced in the schedule of items to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

[3:30]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 174 to 178 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Pursuant to standing order number 13, I wish to indicate to the House the order of business for the remainder of this week and next week. This afternoon we will consider ballot items numbers 15 and 16; this evening we will go to legislation, starting with Bill 34 in committee of the whole House, then second reading of Bills 87, 32 and 33, along with Bills 43, 44, 45 and 17 and any committee work which follows.

On Friday, the House will sit in committee of supply, to continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Monday, May 28, the House will sit in committee of supply to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Tuesday, May 29, in the afternoon, we will go to legislation, dealing with Bills 29 and 25 in committee of the whole House. In the evening the House will be in committee of supply, to conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. I would repeat that: on Tuesday evening next, we are going into committee of supply to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Wednesday, May 30, the resources development, general government and justice committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, May 31, in the afternoon, we will consider ballot items standing in the names of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Hall). In the evening, we will consider Bills 71, 93 and 94, both second readings and committee of the whole House, as required; and, if time remains, we will resume the budget debate.

On Friday, June 1, the House will sit in committee of supply to commence consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROGRAM COST DISCLOSURE ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved second reading of Bill 69, An Act to provide for the Disclosure of Information relating to the Financial Cost and Economic Impact of Government Programs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker and members of the assembly, I would like to start off by suggesting that this bill is presented to the assembly with the very sincere hope that every member will be allowed to vote on this bill according to the dictates of his or her own reasoning --

Mr. Warner: Don’t bet on it.

Mr. Van Horne: -- and with the sincere hope that no one party will attempt to block the vote.

This bill, An Act to provide for the Disclosure of Information relating to the Financial Cost and Economic Impact of Government Programs, is also presented as a sincere attempt to provide a framework of financial accountability for the government of Ontario. If adopted, it will also provide all elected members with sorely needed background information to assist them in the decision-making process.

When I first came to this Legislature in 1977 I was amazed at the lack of information given to members before they were called on to vote approval of budget estimates and items brought to the House. That is not to suggest that information might not be made available if it had been sought by me or, for that matter, by any member. As a matter of fact, in some instances I had more than adequate background costing data supplied to me -- for example, in the case of reviewing costs at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. On the other hand, I could find numerous examples of situations in which I was not able to get very much background information on program costs.

I use here, as an example, the heritage language program which was introduced in the fall of 1977. This program is a prime example of the need for such legislation as would be provided by Bill 69. I say this because I am convinced that 90 per cent of the members of this House -- and perhaps I am being generous here -- haven’t got a clue about the cost of the heritage language program.

I am not, and I repeat not, being critical of the program, its aims or objectives or of the merits of the program; but I am being critical of the fact there was virtually no indication of how the estimated cost of $1 million to $2 million was arrived at. We learned very quickly that the cost of the program in Metro alone would I exceed $1 million. In fact, the cost in the whole province in that first year of implementation of the program was going to run between $3 million and $4 million -- approximately double the original estimate.

I would like briefly to review the seven sections of the bill before I give any more illustrations of how it might have been useful in curbing costly government programs that have helped to put the deficit of this province in the state it now is.

The first section of the bill defines auditor, program and public money. In a sense the terms are self-explanatory but the word “program” requires a further word of explanation. It is the intent of this bill that any and all programs, projects, works, undertakings or services that are considered by executive council and approved by them for implementation he included under the terms of this act. This definition would serve to prevent any government in Ontario from drawing an arbitrary bottom-dollar cost below which they could possibly act without informing the House according to the stipulations of this bill. It would in other words, make the government deal carefully with all amounts of money, large and small.

Section two in a sense is the heart of the bill. This section puts some teeth into the standing orders of our Legislature. I am referring now to the little booklet we all have at our desks, Standing Orders Approved by the Legislative Assembly, Thursday, December 14, 1978. If members wish to make reference to it, page 10, section 32(c) indicated: “on the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends an act amended previously in a session.”

Perhaps that is fine as far as it goes, but these compendiums for the most part are really not very helpful in determining program costs or economic impact. By the way, my colleague from London Centre (Mr. Peterson) will have more to say in this debate about economic impact.

Many compendiums are not much more than a summary of background reading material or recent research papers with very little financial or economic information in them. I have brought along with me one example. If any members in the House haven’t had the experience of looking at a compendium, I would like to show them the size of the compendium that was supplied with Bill 25, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

What do we find in this large pile of paper? We find a report of the industrial inquiry commissioner concerning grievance arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, a copy of the act, a copy of the Ontario Labour Management Arbitration Commission Act various documents submitted to the Kelly commission. In seminary, having looked through all of this, we still find ourselves looking for some indication of what the cost of implementing this bill, if it were passed, would be.

In other words, “compendium” as it is defined in the standing orders, or as it is understood by the members of this Legislature, is not good enough. This bill would hopefully allow for a much more complete compendium of costing data and other financial data that is required before members can properly and thoroughly think out a proposition brought to them and vote on it with any kind of intelligence.

I would point out further it is the intent of this section that once any program is approved by executive council through either legislation or regulation or internal policy, then this section would apply. I would repeat that. The intent of this section is once any program is approved by executive council through legislation or regulation or internal policy procedure, then this section would apply. That too, then becomes an extension of standing order 32(c) and makes 32(c) of necessity, something that would have to be changed.

Section 3 of the bill requires our ministers stay on top of program costs under their jurisdictions. Programs that exceed or will exceed estimated total costs will be reported in a cost-excess statement. Secondly, the new cost of these programs will be reported in a supplementary cost-excess statement. That is the reason for the first and second sections. All members will be able to assess if program costs are being effectively projected and it will also assist ministers and members in effectively dealing with supplementary estimates in any program prioritizing. This, of course, is further defined in section 4 of the bill which requires an auditors investigation into the requirement of a cost excess statement or a supplementary cost excess statement.

Section 5 of the bill ensures all members of this Legislature are notified of any proposed expenditures through the filing of compendium data with all members, the auditor, and the public accounts committee. As far as the public is concerned, that public which we all serve, it will be provided through the central office of the ministry concerned. If anyone chooses to look, it would be there available for her or for him to see.

If I may stop and digress for a moment from the prepared text I have, it may seem of itself to be onerous and costly but I would submit to you -- and I’m pleased the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) is here. A question was put to him last week by one of my colleagues about the use of ministry computers and that was quite coincidental to my being asked to speak in London, Ontario, last night to a group of data processing students from as far away as Sarnia, Seaforth, Windsor, and other places in southwestern Ontario. In order to speak properly to these students I had to contact some of the very well trained, very dedicated people who are working in the member for Lambton’s ministry -- for example, Mr. Leo Belanger.

Mr. Belanger was able to supply me with very strong evidence that the capacity of the data-processing facilities in our three major data-processing centres of the ministry and the Ontario government are very capable of supplying the kind of data that would be required by this bill. We’ve got the resource and I would submit to the minister, it’s incumbent upon the government to use its own data-processing equipment and the expertise of its staff to provide the information that would be required by this particular bill. It’s not an impossible task. The minister’s people are capable. In fact, they can do this at a cost that would not be horribly high. As a matter of fact, it would end up saving us money as we would be better money managers.

The last two sections, as I mentioned, are the routine sections that require no further definition at this point. Let me address myself to what I think should be a major concern of any member of Parliament, provincial or federal.

During the recent federal campaign TV debate on May 13, our new Prime Minister spoke of the power of the House to control spending. Those members who watched the debate will recall in the last section of the program, the last half hour --

[3:45]

Mr. Nixon: Trudeau won that hands down.

Mr. Van Horne: -- the major topic was the power of the House to control spending.

Mr. Peterson: A great debate.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Not true.

Mr. Van Horne: I want to quote our new Prime Minister, the former Leader of the Opposition. Our new Prime Minister said:

“The Liberal government has inadequate control over public spending.” I am sure that that comment has been made in this House about the Conservative government of Ontario -- “inadequate control over public spending.” Both he and the Liberal leader agreed that there was a very evident need to tighten control and they went on to sing the praises of the report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, or, if you will, the Lambert report.

It is interesting that our legislative library has only two copies of this report. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the light of these days of restraint et cetera, we should encourage every member to do as I did and spend $8.50 to get his or her own copy and let it become his or her Bible. If members of the assembly want to make a serious job out of being a member, this should be required reading. It’s called the report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. It was published in March of this year. The chairman of the commission was Allen Lambert of the Toronto Dominion Bank and I am sure all the members are aware of him. This is a must to read. The two leaders as well as the leader of the third party, Mr. Broadbent, have made reference to this royal commission report.

The media is fast becoming aware of the Lambert commission report or this royal commission report as witnessed by a May 21 article in the Globe and Mail. The title of this article, which I am holding up for any of you who care to look at it, is “New Government Must Fight to Take Control,” May 21, 1979. The author is Wayne Cheveldayoff and I am going to quote a word or two from it.

“The new government will need every gram of imagination and courage it can muster to deal with these two problems.” The problems, of course, are the size of the deficit and the number of people unemployed.

“The bureaucracy will not be easily moved,” it goes on to say. “After two years of careful study, we have reached the deeply-held conviction that the serious malaise pervading the management of government stems fundamentally from a grave weakening, and in some cases an almost total breakdown, in the change of accountability, first within government and second in the accountability of government to Parliament and ultimately to the Canadian people.” I would submit to you that that statement could be reiterated for the province of Ontario.

That article ends up by saying: “Ultimately, either the Canadian public regains control of the extravagant dinosaur or the piling up of debts for future generations will continue and further deepen our distrust of the political process.” And if you don’t think there is some distrust of our political process, Mr. Speaker, answer me this -- why were all 13,000 copies of the first printing of Ed Murphy’s book, A Legacy of Spending, which was certainly a condemnation, a litany of the sins and errors of the federal government over the last few years, sold out in one week? I am sure when I retire from here I could do the same thing, write about a legacy of spending in Ontario and probably assure myself of a better retirement pension than I will get as a retired member of this place.

The point is, the public is concerned and we, as members, should be concerned.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but agree with the Lambert report’s introductory comments which observed that “it has become apparent that the management of government requires greater attention from Parliament, ministers and public servants than it has been given in the recent past.

“Programs and activities must not be approved without more carefully defined goals and objectives, and a realistic forecast of costs. Parliament should pursue more vigorously its role of holding the government to account. The cabinet and individual ministers should I provide more leadership and direction to officials to ensure that they administer their operations with economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and should be more directly involved in holding them to account for carrying out their assigned tasks.

“In addition, the unsustainable rate of growth of government and its complexity” -- my understanding, by the way, is that we have over 60,000 civil servants; I am not sure if the minister could verify that, but that is the number that I have, 67,000, and that is certainly a large number to deal with -- “and size make it increasingly obvious that there needs to be greater care in the use of resources that have been entrusted to government. Not only is waste to be avoided, but in the context of today’s fiscal situation and the pervasiveness of government activity, managers in the public service are being challenged to rediscover a sense of frugality and a commitment to the careful husbanding of resources.

“The system should be capable of planning and defining the government’s priorities; converting priorities into programs with clearly defined and agreed objectives, allocating the requisite resources and setting centrally-imposed standards and procedures; delegating to managers the authority to implement programs by developing the assigned human, physical and financial resources; and providing monitoring and appraising procedures to ensure that all the actors are held fully and clearly accountable in a progressive and unbroken chain of linkages carrying through to the sovereign Parliament.”

There is no question that our province’s deficit, whatever it is, whichever set of numbers we wish to look at -- $1.3 billion is a popular one -- is so large because of many factors we can all speak to: inflation, productivity, international money markets, increasing demands for social services, to name only a few.

The factor which our present Conservative government here in Ontario shrinks from, in my view, is financial management and accountability. How accountable was this government in the affairs of the Ontario Land Corporation? In an exclusive Toronto Star article on May 5 this year, the indication was that taxpayers are responsible for carrying charges of $28 million on a $311 million costing in the land-banking programs.

I could go on with other examples, Mr. Speaker, I realize my time has lapsed, but I do want to say very sincerely in conclusion that I hope that the members consider these thoughts carefully and that they use their individual judgement in voting on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Bryden: I find this bill preoccupies itself with formalities rather than with substance, and that it is what too often comes out of the other opposition party, I am afraid, because I don’t think legislating a government into this kind of action is going to produce results. It is going to give the government simply another excuse for inaction.

Any government that is not already preceding any new program or new activity with studies of the sort requested by this bill is a government that should be changed; it is beyond hope, and I don’t think legislation of this sort can improve the matter. What we need is a government that believes in planning and in action, and this legislation will simply substitute studies for action and will encourage governments to hire a lot of high-priced civil servants and outside consultants --

Mr. Peterson: Have you read the bill? You are so far wrong that you should sit down right now.

Ms. Bryden: -- to carry on spending taxpayers’ money in that way, instead of using the taxpayers’ money to deliver services to people.

There are two main reasons why I am opposing this bill. One is that it suggests that the studies required should happen only at the stage when the executive council approves the implementation of a program. That is far too late for any such studies to be undertaken. If they have not been undertaken already, the program cannot possibly be presented to the House or to any estimates committee, where money will have to be voted, with any sort of confidence or any opportunity for attaining approval of the program.

For a new program which requires legislation, it is already required that a compendium of information be presented at the time of the introduction of the bill, which would summarize presumably what studies have been done. They may not all be as full as is requested in this bill, but it is up to the members to keep demanding the additional information when the bill is going through.

If it is a program which does not require legislation, it has presumably gone through the stages of the policy field committee --

Mr. Peterson: The honourable member does not understand the files.

Ms. Bryden: -- the policy and priorities board, the Management Board of Cabinet and the cabinet. If this kind of analysis has not been done, then I do not see how those committees could have even considered it.

While I do not disagree with the member’s bill in that we need this kind of analysis and we need an assessment of the number of jobs that will be created by each program, I just think he is going about getting it in the wrong way. He is trying to impose a legislative straitjacket on any government in power instead of letting the government do its pre-planning and then come to the House with a program that is not only planned, but on which it is ready to act. This will simply delay action for a considerable period and give the government a good excuse for delaying action, which it uses far too often anyway, by referring matters to committees.

Also, the bill really substitutes a new form of accountability on top of our present form of accountability in the House which is the estimates procedure and the supplementary estimates procedure. I do not think either of those procedures are perfect and I think we need a lot of improvements in them, but I do not think we need a third system imposed on those two. It is much better to improve them. For instance, one of the main things we need before we can really evaluate what kind of studies the government has done is a freedom of information act. When we get that, we will be able to have foil access to all the studies the government presumably has done and be able to ask them long before we get to the implementation stage, and long before we even get to the introduction of a bill stage, what studies are being undertaken. That is essential and an alternative to this bill.

We also need the rules of the House strengthened regarding the tabling of compendiums of information. At the time ministerial statements are presented, there should be a similar compendium to what is presented at the time a bill is introduced. We also need to know the effect after the new program is put into operation. For instance, we have never yet been able to find out from the grants given under the Ontario Development Corporation whether any of the grants actually produced the number of jobs the government said would be produced by a given grant. That sort of analysis after the program is in effect would be far more useful than some of the pre-analysis which simply gives a forecast while we never find out whether they are carried out.

We also would like to know the results of the tax concessions which the government gives to industry after they have been given with the promise that they are going to create so many hundreds of jobs. Every year there should be a report not only on the value of the tax concessions that went to each company, but what they actually produced for this province. Those are known as tax expenditures in the jargon of the tax people. We do not have any accounting of those tax expenditures. All we know is what the government itself spent through the money we voted to it.

[4:00]

We also need more vigorous reviews of what are known as ABCs -- agencies, boards and commissions -- of which we have more than 300 now The agencies review committee has so far only dealt with 47 of that 300, and I think they’ve only decided to discontinue about seven. So there is a big area for examining the economic impact of government activities -- that is, of existing government activities, not just new ones.

The government also seems to delight in forms rather than action, in that periodically they go through this alphabet soup in their attempt to evaluate their activities. We used to have PPB, which is program planning budgeting. Then they substituted MBR for that, which was management by results. Then they tried ZBB, which is zero-based budgeting.

But none of these seem to have produced any real results in giving us an analysis of how many jobs the government is creating and what sort of productive efficiency it is able to measure in the delivery of services. It seems to me, mainly, that these programs are a smokescreen designed to indicate the government is attempting to evaluate its programs; really it is not willing to tell us what sort of improvement in services to people it is able to bring in.

Even the estimates books have only been improved very slightly. I can remember 10 years ago when I was research director for this caucus, it was our caucus which persuaded them to bring in the standard accounts classification. This is now a part of the budget books and enables us to look at the total amount spent on each standard subject like salaries, travel and things of that sort. Before that, they never added those things together for every ministry and they had no idea how much they spent on each category.

They still don’t give us last-year figures in the estimates book on the individual items, only on the totals. They still give us descriptions of the programs in the estimates hooks that are a laugh. They are an exercise in meaningless words that do not really tell what the program is aiming to do. They only cover everything the ministry might like to cover. If one asks them how they are implementing this particular wording, they can’t really say.

We still don’t get enough background information in the estimates book for the estimates. They don’t compare the number of employees who are on contract and who are in the public service year by year so we can see whether they are actually increasing the contract employees at the same time as they may be appearing to decrease the public servants.

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

Ms. Bryden: To sum up, while I agree we need much more information and analysis, I don’t think this is the right vehicle for it and it would put us in a legislative straitjacket.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I commend the sentiment of my colleague from London North but I am very confused as to why he would introduce a bill such as this. That confusion arises from the fact the government, in a very routine manner, currently assesses all the factors concerning past and new programs that this bill seeks to have included in the proposed compendium.

Furthermore, these assessments, carried on primarily within the ministries responsible for various submissions, are by no means withheld from legislative scrutiny. Certainly, and sensibly, any assessment carried out in connection with the cabinet’s decision-making process, or its policy formation, should not be subject to mandatory public disclosure.

By and large, however, these matters which comprise the facts and statistics upon which government programs are planned are brought to the attention of all parties in the House during the annual estimates debate. As we all know, it is at this time the detailed listing of the amounts of money the government proposes to disburse for the fiscal year are made by each ministry. The estimates are set out in the prescribed format for review and approval by the Legislature. Since 1963, the cost breakdown of wages, salaries and maintenance, or in other words the standard accounts, have been presented on a program-by-program basis with accompanying program and activity description.

I think it is worth emphasizing, since section 3 of Bill 69 addresses itself to this, that the funds appropriated in the estimates cannot be exceeded except through special approvals such as supplementary estimates or special warrants.

In pointing out the obvious, I merely wish to draw to the attention of members the fact that while accountability is the essence of the democratic process, there is more than one chain of accountability in the parliamentary government which we practise. Ultimately, the government and all members of the assembly are accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario, but first and foremost the government is accountable to the Legislative Assembly since it is only with the confidence of a majority of the members that it can continue to exercise the responsibilities of office.

The estimates, then, are the traditional, and certainly the most significant, means of achieving accountability because they form the basis of government requests to the assembly for authority to spend money.

It warrants mentioning that certain improvements have been made in the presentation of the estimates.

For example, we now include approved or actual estimates figures from previous years through which comparisons and better appraisals can more easily be made. As a routine procedure in the estimates review, the government now supplies the opposition critics with supplementary information prior to the commencement of the review process. This information elaborates on both the program description and numerical content of the printed estimates and is seen as a method of ensuring a more complete analysis of each ministry’s fiscal plans.

The Management Board of Cabinet requests ministries, normally in the fall of the year, to submit their proposed estimates for the coming fiscal year. Each submission is guided by directions developed through the multi-year plan, which will also serve as a basis for developing the estimates that are presented to the Legislature. The financial data contained in the submissions is only one of their components, since other information is necessary for internal planning and control purposes. I should say it is what I view as a third chair of accountability in addition to those which I referred to earlier.

Cabinet and the ministries must provide the leadership and direction to their officials so economy and efficiency within government operations can be maintained. To this end, accompanying each proposal or submission to cabinet is precisely the kind of economic impact evaluation referred to in Bill 69. In short, any new policy being considered is evaluated from both a private and public sector economic standpoint.

Specific areas considered are: Job creation and/or job loss; effect on investment capital; encouragement for the formation of new business; duplication of the intent and functions of existing organizations; effect on consumer prices; reduction of the incentive to work; and cost of compliance.

In terms of the public sector, the effect on the government work force and on the particular ministry’s resource base are closely examined. Finally, reasoning must also be provided in cases where no economic impact is expected.

The Management Board of Cabinet, in its role as general manager of government operations, requires that each ministry quantify in specific terms a statement of results to be accomplished by the use of the funds it requests. The ministries, by agreement with Management Board, commit themselves to the achievement of results over the course of the fiscal year. The results are calendarized and records are maintained, thus providing the basis on which planned results are carefully compared with the actual results. In this manner, the board exercises control over the expenditure of public funds.

I am personally of the conviction that the government is successfully achieving that measure of internal control which is necessary to maintain the principles of accountability.

Mr. Peterson: What about the opposition? What about the rest of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The Lambert report, I might say, is really a blueprint of what we are presently doing in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: What about giving the opposition access to that report?

Mr. Bolan: He says it with a straight face too. Who writes your speeches?

Hon. Mr. McCague: One indication of the effectiveness of this system is that actual spending has come well within estimates for the third year in a row.

Some comment on section 4 of Bill 69 is also warranted. I fail to understand why a provision is included for an auditor’s inquiry where a cost excess statement would be required under this act, Since this would be done, and is currently done, as a matter of course under present legislation.

Section 12(2) of the act to revise the Audit Act, 1977, outlines the contents of the provincial auditor’s annual report. This section of the act serves to illustrate the recent increase of broad examination powers given to the auditors by the amendment. The new provisions allow the auditor to report on cases in which he observes that money is expended without due regard to economy and efficiency, or occasions on which procedures to measure and report on the effectiveness are not established by ministries, or where established these procedures are not satisfactory. Since the auditor’s annual report is delivered to the Speaker of the assembly after the public accounts committee has laid its report before the House, one assumes the issues or cases of inefficient spending are brought both to the attention of members of the Legislature and the members of the public.

By way of conclusion, I would like to state that in so far as this bill attempts to make public certain information upon which policy decisions are made, this provision deals with issues currently under review by the Williams commission. The Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy was established in 1977 to study and report to the Attorney General on ways and means to improve the public information policies of the Ontario government, as well as its relevant procedures and legislation.

The commission has been directed to examine public information practices and developments of other jurisdictions in order to consider possible changes which would be compatible with our parliamentary traditions. It will ultimately also identify categories of information which should be exempted and applied in Ontario. I do feel we should await the commission’s final report before taking legislative action. The freedom of information commission will, I am sure, define in detail its findings and opinions on the information regarding government programs and executive decision-making. For this reason, and those I have mentioned, I would urge the members of this House not to adopt this bill.

The honourable member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) did mention early in his remarks that he was getting more than adequate information when he asked for it. He did mention some difficulties in establishing a cost for the heritage language program. I think he well knows that is a very difficult cost to establish because it is voluntary at the school board level and it was very difficult to know how many would take on that program.

As for the number of people in the employ of the government now, I am told it is between 82,000 and 83,000. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) did mention that we were finagling the figures. That is not so. There has been some increase in the number of civil servants and a reduction in the number of contract people. That varies back and forth a little, but we are getting them practically all on to the regular civil service now and the contract employees have been reduced.

I do commend the member for Beaches-Woodbine for the comments she made at the beginning of her presentation in that we are really doing what is mentioned here in the bill. We are trying and are accomplishing a great deal from time to time in the whole area the honourable member mentioned. More information, improved reporting systems, approved accountability and improved productivity are all important.

Mr. Peterson: I am very happy to rise in support of my colleague’s bill. May I compliment him? It is exactly the kind of legislation that is needed in this House.

Frankly, I am quite astounded by the naivety of the remarks of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She is one person whom I thought would have some appreciation for the necessity of this kind of discipline in government behaviour and government expenditures. I have only one of two conclusions: either she doesn’t understand it or doesn’t care. I would have to conclude probably that she doesn’t care. She mentioned that we need more action. She resorted to the old socialist diatribe on income redistribution and everything else, in my opinion without once addressing her mind to the principles inherent in this bill. I wasn’t very happy with it.

[4:15]

She said in her speech that we needed freedom of information laws and went into a speech about that. What does she think this is? This is freedom of information. We are starting somewhere; we are starting to put some discipline into government, to force it to come to the Legislature and give us some rational basis upon which to check its expectations against what was actually accomplished.

The minister chatted about what’s been done already and said, “We’re already doing it. They are fine people. They are a model for the Lambert commission. People in the ministries are concerned about efficiency, productivity and all other good things.” But they aren’t prepared to bring it to the House. The compendium of information brought to committee of supply is not what we’re talking about here. It’s one possible part of it, but that is not the kind of discipline this bill is asking for. We are asking to know, folly, the government’s intentions for every piece of legislation introduced into this House and what it’s going to do in a variety of different areas -- things like balance of payments, job creation, the effect on the incentive to work; all the other kinds of financial indicators by which, and only by which, some kind of effective measurement can be made of a program.

The reality is that when a bill is brought into this House the minister usually doesn’t even make a comment. We are presented with the bill; and one or two or three weeks later we stand up on second reading, and usually the critic from the official opposition starts with the first speech, then it goes to the member of the third party and eventually the debate goes back to the minister. The minister doesn’t have to justify; he doesn’t even have to speak, he doesn’t have to do anything. The opposition is left only with the information they root out themselves. The opposition has no idea what the government’s expectations are. They have no idea what the government expects to accomplish except what they surmise or read or pick up in the newspaper or extract from the civil service.

We see a lot of government decisions made -- and I go back and quote my little friend the Treasurer from Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), who said: “You know, I make a lot of decisions on impulse.” We get that feeling from the government. If every bill were brought in here with a specified set of expectations, we could look at it a year later and see if the government was right or wrong. Not only would it force a discipline on the government which I think is so very important, it would also allow it to be aired publicly. It would allow the government programs to be scrutinized and we could make sure that what we collectively wanted accomplished was being accomplished.

I can tell you another thing, Mr. Speaker, it would dramatically improve the quality of debate in this House. We would all end up talking about the same things because we could measure those expectations.

I don’t think the process we are involved in now is serving this House well. The government says: “Well, we do this during estimates.” I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it isn’t done during estimates. That is usually after the money has been spent and it doesn’t necessarily apply to legislation but rather on a department basis. We have the complement of staff, but there is no cost benefit analysis, it’s just a bunch of statistics. As I said, we have that after the money has been spent, not before the money has been spent; and if those estimates are varied one penny, of course, it’s a matter of confidence.

The estimates debate has become a meaningless waste of time for most of the members and most of the ministers. It’s our collective fault. As an opposite member let me say I am very sad about that. Another day, in another debate I am going to speak about that at great length, because I think the estimate procedure in this House has deteriorated to a deplorable level. Obviously we need a forum for general debate, and maybe we should use throne or budget or something else; but the meaningless diatribes that go on, the constituency things aired and all the time involved, the obfuscation by the ministries, all the people hauled in, has become in my opinion almost a waste of 420 hours. It’s an indication, collectively, how seriously we take that process, inasmuch as rarely, if ever, have those 420 hours been used in total; and we have to do something about that.

So don’t come into this House and tell me the estimates procedure is an effective device to measure the efficacy of government legislation, because it is not. It is after the fact and the information is not presented there in the way this bill asks it to be presented on a specific, bill-by-bill basis. I want the minister and the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine to understand that what they address their minds to is not what is being addressed in the bill of my colleague and my friend.

Mention has been made of the public accounts committee where we have scrutiny through the provincial auditor. Again, that information is a year or two years old, having all been analysed. The committee goes through it and questions various witnesses. I happen to sit on that committee, and never is that committee able to get its bands on the person who actually made the decision because he has been moved somewhere to another department, moved up or down, or has done a lateral arabesque.

It is impossible to get any kind of precise information about who made the specific decision. It is a most frustrating process. Then we file a report, and the government gets that report and files it in the garbage can. Members of this assembly have no influence whatsoever, in a meaningful sense, over either the measuring of programs or the spending of money. I think this whole area has got to be one of major concern for the members of this House. I hope the procedural affairs committee takes this on. I, for one, will put in my three cents there at the appropriate time.

I want to say that this bill is not a panacea to curb government spending or to bring all government programs under control. It is part of a number of programs by which, legislatively, we can provide a counterweight -- and we need opposition forces -- to the great weight of bureaucracy and the government structure. This is the one way to force one form of discipline on the government.

It is not the only one. Collectively we have to use every management tool and device we can possibly conjure up. I have talked before about a systematic program of deregulation, I have talked about zero-based budgeting, I have talked about sun-setting. None of these is the end of the world, or perhaps individually all that significant, but those three approaches, in conjunction with an economic impact study program, are going to force care and concern, not only on the ministers but on the people who work for them.

I realize that cabinet ministers get a lot of briefing documents. They should. If they didn’t that would be crazy. A lot of the information they have is secret and private, it is information that never gets to the House. We have no way to evaluate the decision on the basis of the same information that ministers had in their evaluation of that decision.

Therein lies the problem. If the government says a particular bill is going to create 700 jobs in the province, it may or may not be right. We have no idea what its expectations are. The government should share information with us so we can collectively apply our minds to it and collectively decide if that is a wise allocation of government resources.

This is just one device. It’s a freedom of information bill. That’s what it is. It is getting more information in a specific way. I am not holding my breath waiting for a general freedom of information bill in this House. We have been yelling about it for years, and so have our friends in the NDP. The honourable member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) has done a lot of work in this area. The federal Tories have talked about it. We have Carlton Williams examining it.

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

Mr. Peterson: We are all concerned about this. I am not optimistic that we can move the government to action, but here, specifically, is one important segment of the financial area. I would urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), has brought forward a bill which I suspect has grown out of some of his frustration over the process we experience in the assembly. If one just reads the explanatory note, I would think it would be difficult, even for the minister who spoke, to speak against the concept that is developed in the explanatory note. In fact section 2(1) is a tough one for anyone to speak against. The basic idea, that the elected members of the assembly, and then the public, should have a good knowledge of government spending, is obviously a laudable one. I would assume that is something every member of the assembly would support, the proposal that we should know where the money is being spent and on what because it is tax dollars.

Unfortunately, to date we have never found a useful way to come to grips with how our dollars are squandered in the private field. Every time a motor company manages to turn out 50,000 defective automobiles we all pay for that in the long run. As the company is required to rectify the problem they then increase the cost of the automobiles. So the motor company’s inefficiency ends up with the public paying more money. We have never found a way to control that.

However, the one place where the public can exercise some control is over expenditure of its tax dollars by the government. The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who unfortunately I guess had to leave, spoke in favour of the Small Business Development Corporation Act the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) brought in, as we did in this party. I think part of the reason that bill gained support was that it was an initiative taken by the Treasurer. He freely admitted he was not sure whether this was going to work. He was prepared to put up $200 million, even though he was not sure it was going to work, but felt it was worth frying.

The problem under this bill my colleague has proposed is that it would curtail that initiative because there wouldn’t be any way of estimating in advance how many jobs are going to be created. Neither would there be any way of estimating the exact cost of the program. That amount of money is set aside; we don’t know it is going to be spent, maybe none of it will be or maybe it will be more than $200 million.

I would hope if the government latched on to a good way to support small business, to create a lot of jobs and strengthen our economy, it would be prepared to spend more than the $200 million. That kind of flexibility has to be allowed the government.

Yes, I want an accounting of public dollars; yes, I want to know exactly how much money is being spent and for what purpose, and it would be nice to know in advance. Perhaps we could head off a Minaki Lodge if we knew in advance; that kind of wasteful pork-barrelling could be cut off at the pass if we knew in advance. But I am afraid that in enabling the government to do that by way of this bill, we at the same time might cut off some of its scope for initiative. Our fear was that it might just end up as a slush fund; but we don’t know and neither does the Treasurer, no one knows at this point. We will find out later on, maybe a year from now or in two years or whatever; but that kind of initiative can’t be spoiled.

I think the other thing my colleague perhaps underestimates is the tradition of our system. While he refers to a book by Lambert, I would refer him to a book by Erskine May. All of us, as members of the assembly, have various ways and procedures available to us to extract the information we need; particularly if the government is reluctant to give us that information there are many ways to deal with the problem. Ultimately, if these measures fail and we are not able to get the information we need, if we are not able to evaluate the programs properly because of secrecy, the people of Ontario have the opportunity to make a selection. We do that once in a while, sometimes every couple of years, we do that to permit the people of Ontario to voice their opinion about the government.

[4:30]

If the government chooses to be overly secretive and the people of Ontario object to that, they will voice their objection in the ballot box. All I can say is that when I am a member of a New Democratic Party government I certainly intend to put forward the cost estimates and the cost expenditures for programs. At the same time I would expect to have the kind of flexibility to initiate new programs where I do not know exactly how many jobs are going to be created.

I would assume that every member of this assembly would expect that when the House is not in session and a disaster occurs in his or her area, as has happened with flooding, the government should be able to move swiftly to provide the funds needed to correct the problems without having to come to the assembly. That is what is done now by order in council, and it is part of our system that is extremely important. The member for London North would be the first to complain if a disaster occurred in his area when the House was not sitting and the government could not react to provide the funds needed until the House was sitting; he would be the first to complain and I would be right beside him.

In conclusion -- and this may come as a little surprise to the member for London North -- based on what I have said, I am going to support this bill because I want to see it go to committee. I would like to see it dealt with in committee. In my opinion, the member has a good idea, and if I can curb what I perceive to be his attack on the civil service, if at the committee stage I can inject a clause that will allow the government some flexibility and some imagination in planning, then I will be happy to support it. So for the time being I am going to support the principle and hope the bill goes to committee where I can attempt to bring about some of the amendments I believe necessary. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope this government does not guillotine the hill this afternoon, as it normally does with private members’ bills; we will wait and see.

Mr. Cureatz: May I begin my opening remarks by saying what a privilege and fine opportunity it is for me to speak to this bill, especially as it is a bill presented by the member for London North, a member I respect very much and whom I think is very sincere in the work he does in the House and in committees. I know in the association I have had with him I have always been impressed with the kind of work he has attempted to do. No doubt, as the previous speaker, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, pointed out, the bill has probably been brought forward by a degree of frustration that I think we all feel from time to time when we sit on committees and consider the ministry estimates.

There are just a few concerns I have that I would like to relay to the member for London North in the few minutes I have. My colleague, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) has just explained to us the present mechanism through which expenditures are controlled. It becomes Obvious that extensive and rigorous methods already exist to ensure accountability of government expenditures. Furthermore, when private sector impact studies are applicable, they usually appear as part of the policy proposal when funding is sought.

I do not wish to belabour the points made by the honourable minister. Suffice to say that I feel sufficient mechanisms exist already in the financial management of the public purse. Each ministry, therefore, is held accountable for its expenditures in its regular applications for funding from Management Board. But accountability does not stop at the ministerial application to Management Board level. As legislators we are all involved annually in the approval of government spending. This is a reference, of course, to our role in the estimates process. The committee of supply, meeting to consider the estimates, provides an opportunity for all members of the Legislature to examine the proposed expenditures of the ministries of the government and the sundry other government bodies which expend public funds. Members are free to examine programs and expenditures to whatever degree they desire in the supply committee.

Committee members are provided with briefing booklets and other materials before particular estimates begin. The briefing material contains short descriptions of programs and program areas as well as the number of dollars proposed to be expended on the programs. A recent addition has been the inclusion of the dollar expenditures of past years. These aid the members in making comparisons of expenditures over a period of several years.

In estimates, as all members know, the expenditures of a particular ministry or body are broken down into items and votes. A member who has any serious disagreement with a particular expenditure can register this disagreement through a statement during the discussion of the item and/or through a dissenting vote.

Of course, the ultimate accountability by the government to the people obviously occurs on election day and, as was so well and aptly put, quite often from year to year.

In conclusion, without repeating comments made by my minister, let me merely say that I do not feel I can vote in favour of this proposed piece of legislation from my friend from London North. I see no reason to legislate a process of accountability when the process is already in place without legislation and seems to be working sufficiently well.

I might add that the few minutes I have left I would like to turn over to the member who proposed the bill so that he might make a few last comments.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments both pro and con made on this private member’s bill. I would like to reiterate the comment made in the television debate between our parties’ two leaders, because it really does reflect what happens here in our private members’ hour. The question put to the then Prime Minister was, “Why do you misappropriate power and block the business in private members’ hour?” Again, I would plead that we allow members to vote on this particular bill.

In summing up what I think of the comments made, in one way, shape or form, each person who has spoken has spoken in favour of this, at least in principle. I do not think there is any question, as was mentioned by the minister, that there are many aspects of this bill that are covered by the present procedures and present legislation, in whichever form we wish to look at it,

On the other hand, speaking as a backbencher, and as a relatively new member, I think he should appreciate that this frustration comes not only from me but from every, practically every, other new member, as was mentioned by the last speaker from the government party. All of us feel this way. I am speaking not just for myself but for many members of this Legislature. We want to see the procedure changed and improved. If we could at least accept this bill in principle, which we would hope to see go to committee, some of the frustrations we have in dealing with the moneys of this province would be resolved and we would do a better job as legislators in managing the moneys of this province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That concludes the allotted time for ballot item 15, and it will be dealt with further at 5:50.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING ACT

Mr. Makarchuk moved second reading of Bill 83, An Act respecting the Purchase of Goods and Services by the Government of Ontario and Government-supported Institutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, initially I will try to explain how I hope the bill will function. The purpose of the bill is to provide Canadian-owned and operated businesses some recourse in their dealings with publicly owned and publicly financed institutions.

The government to a point has a buy-Canadian policy, and by and large -- I notice the minister is here -- the minister does follow it and allows a 10 per cent cost increase in order to show favouritism to Canadian businesses, which I think is a commendable thing, and I certainly support it.

In general, where the program falls down, and where my bill is aimed, is in dealing with other publicly owned institutions and, specifically, publicly financed institutions. These are the hospitals, the schools and the universities. Among themselves they consume a lot of public funding, and yet in many cases they do not have any kind of a buy-Canadian policy; nor do they show any favouritism for Canadian businesses and manufacturers.

What this bill will do is provide businessmen with some financial recourse against an institution so that they can collect, if necessary, a fine from the institution if it refuses to buy Canadian. It seems to me that there will not be any argument from members here that, if you are using Canadian public funds or taxpayers’ money, it’s only reasonable that perhaps some effort should be made to spend that money on Canadian goods.

What the bill will do is probably break up some of the existing commercial relationships, particularly between the purchasers in these institutions and their long-time suppliers. The relationships have been developed for many reasons, but the most damaging relationships, shall we say, exist where, in the first place, the firm -- it’s probably an American-based firm -- has been around for a long time, there have been favours passed either way, but particularly to the purchaser, and, as a result, a Canadian or somebody else who tries to break into this charmed circle to sell finds that he is cut out. He may have a pleasant hearing but in the long run the contract for the purchase goes to somebody else.

In this situation, with this bill, and the possibility that some court action can be taken, I think the purchaser will have to look very closely at everyone who is trying to sell goods or services to a hospital, a university or another institution.

Only recently I had a case of a very distraught man who was a salesman for a Texas-based company that was selling hospital equipment to hospitals in Ontario. He had a falling out -- there was a dispute with the company -- and he went ahead and applied for a job with a Canadian firm providing similar equipment. The Texas-based company went to various extents, including court injunctions, to try to prevent this man from working for the Canadian company. The reason for that was the fact that this man had the contacts, he knew where to go, and if he did go to those hospitals where he had been selling he would probably be selling Canadian equipment and the American firm would be cut out.

He related various stories of what went on in terms of the trips that were laid on for various people, shall we say the homes that were established, the various condominiums that were provided, et cetera -- favours that were provided to certain people in order that they would continue to trade with a foreign-owned or foreign-based corporation. Certainly the interest of the Canadian public was not taken into account in this situation, because the equipment was basically the same, and the prices were almost the same, but the fact is that the company wanted to keep this man out for the simple reason that they had the contacts and they knew that if they had the contacts they were going to sell the equipment or make that kind of persuasion.

Because there will be a 10 per cent fine levied, the bill will make the purchasing agents in the hospitals and the universities, and particularly the business administrators of the school boards, look very closely at Canadians who are trying to sell to them.

The other advantage that can flow from this bill that we have to take into account is the fact that there is a 10 per cent advantage to Canadians. It will allow a Canadian firm to charge 10 per cent more than what the costs would be of a foreign-owned firm, much like the government policy at this time. Although this may be costlier in the short run, in terms of the economic advantages that will flow to Canada from buying Canadian, from creating jobs here, from everything related to this economic activity and growth, it will more than offset the slight cost that could be incurred initially.

[4:45]

It will also give Canadian firms certain advantages in terms of a chance to plan ahead where they know there is a market. In many of these cases it does not require major manufacturing facilities to produce the equipment. The equipment is of a highly technical nature and the equipment can probably be produced by four, five or maybe a dozen people, but the point is it is the design, the research and everything else that has to go into developing this equipment.

It will also help the 10 per cent advantage arid the knowledge that the advantage will persist. It will also help us in research and development of Canadian corporations so that they would be able to plan ahead, they would also operate on the basis that they are assured of markets and, consequently, we will have more research and development. Of course, there is no argument right now as far as the government is concerned, or anybody in this House. I am sure they agree we need more in Canada and we are lacking sadly in that area.

The bill is simple in the sense that it does not require any bureaucracy for administration. It is really self administered. The businessman has the option that if he makes a bid or puts in an offer to provide a service or equipment and it is turned down, if he checks it out and finds out that he was within 10 per cent, if he wishes he can then go to a court and collect from the institution a penalty up to 10 per cent of the total cost of the contract.

I don’t think there will be any big rush or any great desire on the part of very many businesses to try to sue everybody. I think in general they will like to keep the goodwill they can develop or that can he there, but at the same time it will make the purchasing agents look very closely at Canadian goods. If the purchaser or the purchasing agent refuses to buy Canadian, I am sure the board of governors of every institution, or the trustees of a school board, or the board of governors of a hospital or a university will look very closely at the administration when they find out they are saddled with a 10 per cent bill for which they have received absolutely nothing.

In many cases right now where we have boards of governors, particularly of hospitals and universities, they are really not involved in the day-to-day operation of the hospital. They know very little about the purchasing policies, they know very little about the equipment being bought. The idea of whether they are getting Canadian content, buying Canadian content or Canadian supplies is not really a matter that is of consideration. However, if they see they have to cough up another 10 per cent for something they haven’t received, I am sure they will start looking very closely at how the system operates.

We should realize that the public spending is something like $30 billion between the provincial and municipal governments. Out of this, about $9 billion goes for equipment, for operating costs and so on, if because of this bill we manage to shift the purchasing patterns by even one per cent, and I think the shift will be a lot more than one per cent, but even by a matter of one per cent that means millions and millions of additional public funds will be spent to the benefit of Canadian industry.

Again as I said, the bill puts teeth into the boy-Canadian program. It is not a perfect bill. It poses some problems. I think most of us here understand that when we are drafting a private member’s bill, we do it in a hurry and we don’t go into all the details and everything else. I would like to see support for this hill. I hope to see that it eventually goes into committee where we could sort out some of the problems that even I see are inherent in the bill in terms of Canadian content or what is a Canadian owned and managed corporation and how we define these things, or what specific regulations we would use to ensure we get what we are aiming at. I think this can be carried out in committee.

So I ask the support of other members of the House to ensure that when we talk about a buy-Canadian program we actually give that small independent businessman out there some assurance that we are serious about it, and if he has to buck some of the existing purchasing arrangements he at least has something, he has the support of this Legislature and the government of this province.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In responding to this particular bill as the Minister of Government Services, I would first like to tell the House that I am fortunate today to have Brooke Central Public School students up in the gallery above you, and I am very proud they are here.

Mr. Speaker, it’s no difficulty at all for me to take a stand on this bill. First, I would have to tell the honourable member that the proposals of the bill are excellent. The only difficulty is that they are redundant. As the government we now carry out fully all the proposals recommended in this particular bill. To support that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the Ontario manual of administration distributed to all people in purchasing positions within this government. First it deals with purchasing policy and Canadian preference. The following policy was approved by cabinet and released in a memorandum from the Chairman of Management Board on April 19, 1974, a little over five years ago. It was rewritten in a standard format and approved by Management Board on April 17, 1976.

The purpose is to assist Canadian firms to compete for government business against foreign producers of goods and services. The application of this directive applies to all ministries, and to those agencies, boards and commissions designated by Management Board. In addition, commissions, municipal governments, school boards and other bodies receiving provincial grants should be urged to follow similar purchasing guidelines.

The previous speaker mentioned several of the boards covered by our directory. I would go further. The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) questioned me about this a few weeks ago in my estimates on behalf of the city of Windsor, I pointed out our guidelines, so maybe he would like to send this particular part I am speaking on now to the city of Windsor, because I am going to point out just what he asked me for at that time and what this particular bill says.

Mr. B. Newman: I’d appreciate receiving a copy.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Okay. Now first the definition of Canadian content. The difference between the laid down cost and the dutiable value of imported goods or imported parts, plus all values added in Canada, including labour, materials, transportation, duty and taxes, and the Canadian supplier profit, fall into Canadian content.

The policy statement by this government is, and I refer back to the April 1974 and August 1976 policy statements: “1. In order to comply with the policy of the government to encourage the production of Canadian goods wherever such goods can be economically produced, ministries shall allow a price preference of up to 10 per cent to be given in respect of the Canadian content of goods and services supplied to the government.

“2. Ministries shall be vigilant against the possibility that the Canadian preference price allowance will encourage inefficiencies in domestic suppliers or will be used to generate an unwarranted profit.

“3. Major purchasing or service contracts presented to the policy and priorities board or to Management Board for approval shall specify the degree of Canadian content as it applies to the contract.”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to read into the record two or three examples of how this particular 10 per cent applies to actual tenders that we as the government have received, and the end result.

This is very technical. Wherever price quotations for goods imported into Canada are received, as well as the Canadian quotation on any product, the 10 per cent price preference calculation is applied to determine the recommended awardee. The formula for this calculation is as follows. First the discounted price is the quoted price, less quoted price times percentage of Canadian content.

As an example, if the quoted price is $90 and Canadian content 25 per cent, the discounted price is 90 times 0.25 over 10, which makes that bill actually $87.50 for bidding purposes; it is reduced by that amount.

Our highest present formula works this way. For example: (a) 100 per cent foreign product, quoted price $500; (b) part Canadian product, 25 per cent is Canadian, quoted price $512; (c) 100 per cent Canadian product, quoted price $550.

Now I am going to point out the results of (a), (b) and (c). For comparison purposes (a) would remain as it is, that’s 100 per cent foreign product; the original quotation is $500 and it would remain at $500.

Example (b), the $512 bid, had 25 per cent Canadian product; so we would take $512 minus 128 over 10 which would mean their bid would be $499; reduced from $512 to $499.

The next one, item (c), would he deemed to cost $550. We take off $55. That puts the price of it at $495.

So as I say, we go back to the original quotation. The foreign product would be $500 and would remain at $500. The 25 per cent Canadian product at $512 would be reduced to $499; and the 100 per cent Canadian product with a bid of $550 would be reduced to $495. That is how it works.

Next, Mr. Speaker, I would like to use another example. Am I getting near my time? I didn’t look when I started.

We have bids on typewriters from Olympia, IBM, Olivetti, NTI, Facit, SCM and RemCan. I could use any one of these you wish, but I will use Olivetti. The Canadian content of Olivetti is 79 per cent compared to NTI’s machine, which is only 25 per cent. The original bid for the Olivetti typewriter in this particular bracket is $514.50, with 79 per cent Canadian content. The adjusted price then moved from $514.50 to $473.85.

[5:00]

I carry you on down then. When we take bids on typewriters, we consider the cost of ribbons over a seven-year period. On the Olivetti machine, we estimate that the cost of the ribbons for the seven years would be $72.80. The average trade-in value at the end of seven years on Olivetti would be $129.48, leaving a net cost at the moment for the new Olivetti typewriter of $417.17.

On the NTI, the Royal machine, the original bid was $776. The Canadian content was 25 per cent. When we adjust the price on the 25 per cent we then come up with a price of $756.60. The ribbon cost over the seven years is $31.85, which I might compare with that of the Olivetti ribbon, $72.80. The average trade-in value of NTI’s machine is $137 at the end of seven years. When you compare them, the adjusted price of the NTI is $651.45, while that of the Olivetti is $417.17, after we apply all those things.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to oppose this bill, because it would result in more work, more civil servants, and it would be very difficult to make work. In addition, what the honourable member is proposing is redundant; it is already in the manual of instructions.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly and to commend the honourable member for introducing Bill 83. I think it deserves the support of all members of the Legislature, and I hope that the members will support the bill and that the government will bring it forth in committee so that it can be discussed.

When I introduced my Small Business Act, I was told the same thing by the government at that time; it was full of bureaucracy and everything else; they didn’t want to act on it. I believe the time has come when we should be supporting our small business sector. Not only should we support this bill, but I feel that it is also time the government acted to ensure that a good share of government purchases be placed with the small business sector.

Both our Small Business Act, which I introduced, and our industrial strategy paper would go even further than my colleague’s bill, which he has just introduced, in supporting Canadian-owned and controlled firms through government purchasing policies.

My Small Business Act would establish a target of 40 per cent of government purchases contracts or subcontracts which should he placed with small businesses, which are defined as independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operations. At present, the Ontario government does not even know how much of its business goes to these firms, because they group them together with branch plants operation in Canada.

It is rather interesting that the definition we use for small business -- independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field -- is also the definition that has been accepted by the Prime Minister-elect, Mr. Clark. He has stated that he would develop a small business policy, and that his definition of small business would be the same as the one outlined in the Small Business Act, which I introduced in the Legislature. So it looks as if the federal party perhaps will lead the provincial Conservatives in the field of supporting small business and in recognizing the small business sector.

We should also establish a small business subcontracting program to ensure that businesses are considered fairly as suppliers and subcontractors to recipients of large government contracts. Any firm, I believe, awarded a contract of something around $500,000 should designate a small business liaison officer for this purpose. I believe, too, that the government should provide that a small business liaison officer may be an existing member of that firm and that most firms would not likely employ an additional person for that purpose, although we would not want to interfere with any firm that might wish to do so.

It is interesting, too, that a report prepared by the Department of Communications for the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, but which was not for public distribution, found that a 76 per cent premium was justified in the purchase of Canadian-made communications equipment. In other words, if the price of the Canadian product is less than 176 per cent of the price of the import, then buying Canadian is justified.

While there are several qualifying factors, I believe there is a great deal this government can do to support the small business sector and to comply with many of the aspects of Bill 83. I only hope the government will not use the same old line, which is full of bureaucracy, which is that it is going to take civil servants a long time to develop this. I think government members should support it. It deserves the support of all members of this House and I want to thank the honourable member for introducing this bill.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly in support of Bill 83, introduced by my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk). At the outset I would like to state that I really do not understand the position of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson). On one hand he has been telling the House that the government practices are directed in the way the bill suggests; on the other hand he says he is against the bill. That is a contradiction I cannot understand and it probably is inexplicable.

The scope of this bill is rather limited. It requires not only the government of Ontario but every public institution in the province to give preference to Canadian-made commodities over foreign commodities when such are available on the market. Not only should the government adopt a buy-Canadian policy, but so should municipalities, boards of education, universities, hospitals, every public institution in the province of Ontario.

This is not a new policy, but as my colleague the member for Brantford said before, it is a reasonable and fair preference given to domestic products and materials in government procurement. The intent is to establish procedures to ensure that Canadian products are treated fairly. We have to realize that if we take a number of dollars for procurement and place them with Canadian rather than foreign firms, they yield a much higher value in gross economic activity and in tax receipts for the provincial treasury, which means that this buy-Canadian policy is also important from a fiscal point of view because it increases revenues for the provincial treasury.

This policy was enacted in the United States in 1933. Very recently, on March 5, the US Senate passed a similar bill, a buy-American bill; and there are states like West Virginia and New York state which have similar legislation.

At this point municipalities, boards of education or other public institutions are not compelled to buy Canadian. As a matter of fact, they can buy foreign-made products without any restriction whatsoever. We know there are other countries which have similar legislation. In the hearings held by the American Senate it came out quite clearly that there are countries like Italy where it is almost impossible for foreign firms to get into the market when the government buys commodities for public use. Japan is another example, as the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) could tell us, the restrictions are just fantastic. It is almost impossible to break the barrier the Japanese government has put around its borders for end products that foreign countries would like to export to Japan.

We are especially concerned because small Canadian businesses are at a disadvantage, not only because of the present situation, but they would be even more disadvantaged when the GATT negotiations are finished. Right now we import duty-free, 63 per cent of our end products from the United States; when the negotiations are over, we will import over 80 per cent of our end products from there. This means that between Canada and the United States, as far as end products are concerned, there is virtually a free market. Canadian businesses at that point will be at a real disadvantage; they need the protection of the government if we want them to survive.

I think this should be extremely important. That’s the reason I don’t understand the opposition of the Minister of Government Services. Small business in Canada is the sector that creates more jobs. The Canadian National Federation of Small Business, in one of their reports in April, said that small business alone has created 80 per cent of jobs in 1978. If we do not put small business in a position to compete with foreign firms they will have a very tough fight once our tariffs go down as a result of the GATT negotiations.

With Bill 83 in place I think the government will be induced to ask foreign companies, or branch plants operating in Canada to develop Canadian content in terms of research and development in the same way that foreign countries also treat all Canadian companies. All of us know what is happening with Northern Telecom, which is one of the most advanced Canadian firms in the communications field. They have a big contract in Turkey, but the requirements imposed on this firm by the Turkish government are very strict; we don’t even dream of doing anything like that in Canada.

Of course if we start at the government level, and at the level of other public institutions, to set a good example, I think we will encourage our small businessmen and we will create more jobs in Canada. We will help the economy in general, because as all of us know most of our trade deficit, which last year reached the staggering amount of $12 billion, is in manufactured goods and end products. All of us know this.

If we want to start solving the Canadian economic crisis we have to encourage small business to manufacture goods in Canada. One of the ways of doing this is to have our markets absorb Canadian goods. Right now we know that isn’t happening because the Canadian market is extremely fragmented. We know that it doesn’t happen because there isn’t a real buy-Canadian policy. We have only rhetoric. The provincial government says it is in favour of a buy-Canadian policy but it doesn’t do anything concrete. By not accepting this bill -- which is not a very radical bill; it’s simple common sense, and as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t go as far as it should to protect Canadian manufacturers, especially the small businessman -- the minister, and I hope he speaks only for himself, makes a very serious mistake,

[5:15]

As I said before, at this point we have no possibility at all of controlling institutions other than those of the provincial government in buy-Canadian products. As a matter of fact, there is no mechanism at all to control foreign firms dumping products on the Canadian market. There is no mechanism that gives the provincial government the ability to prove foreign firms are dumping products in the Canadian market below cost. We know that it happens. It has been revealed several times in hearings of the American Senate. In Canada we have never had any inquiry of that type, but we know it happens.

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

Mr. di Santo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are countries which give incentives to export firms in order to prevent other foreign firms from invading their markets. I don’t understand why we shouldn’t do the same and why we shouldn’t encourage our businesses.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill as presented by the member for Brantford.

Mr. Wildman: Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Eaton: I share the same views of the minister. I think the minister has already stated his belief very clearly, that the main thrust of Bill 83 is currently being met by the government’s administrative policy --

Mr. di Santo: What about the other institutions?

Mr. Eaton: -- which does provide for the application of a 10 per cent price preference calculation to quotes obtained for the purchase of Canadian goods. This is not something which is optional, rather it’s a directive of Management Board. It is also a feature of this government’s administration. I think it is a somewhat more sensitive or more responsive mechanism for gauging the allowances made for purchases of Canadian goods than the one proposed in the member’s bill.

The minister again pointed out a particular fact which I think is important. He pointed out that some commodities, while assembled and manufactured in Canada, are wholly constructed of materials purchased abroad. Bill 83 contains no means whatever by which the Canadian content of goods or services can be defined in any way. It is lacking very much there.

Mr. Makarchuk: It provides for regulations that would define it.

Mr. Eaton: The requirement set out in the manual of administration referred to by the minister certainly does make this distinction, and I think it’s a very important distinction.

This point leads me to the reason for my opposition to this bill. It is not that the stated purpose of the bill is already seriously followed by the government that I am concerned with. I am not against the legislation of Shop-Canadian programs, if it can be done effectively. I think that’s the question: Can it be done effectively with legislation the member proposes? I don’t think this is possible and I think this bill demonstrates this point pretty clearly.

If I might, I’d like to briefly comment on the bill on a section-by-section basis and point out some of the difficulties I see arising with the kinds of requirements the member for Brantford is seeking to have imposed upon the purchasing process.

Firstly, the Minister of Government Services has already discussed the difficulty of defining or interpreting the terms used in the bill.

Mr. di Santo: He didn’t talk at all about the bill.

Mr. Eaton: Despite its provision that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that define the terms “resident in Canada” and “substantially produced in Canada,” specifically the term “Canadian producer” does not cover jobbers, for instance, or distributors, retailers, agents -- a number of people who might be involved in that way.

Section 2 also contains a requirement that “a purchasing authority must ascertain what commodities or services are competitively available in Canada.” That’s a very difficult thing to do. The phrase found in that section, for instance, “make a reasonable effort according to the circumstances” is quite vague and left undefined, although damage claims could result from that. How do you start defining them? You can get into serious court actions over it. You can get into some very complicated situations that could result from various interpretations of the intent. It could result in things that probably weren’t intended by the member in the first place.

The section also implies the need for a Canada-wide bid solicitation for requirements of $100 or more. To start a Canada-wide process of distributing the bid calls will result in purchasing delays and increased expenditures in administration when we get into some of the many situations in these institutions where purchases are from $100 to $1,000, and from $1,000 to $2,000.

It also implies the use of formal written or advertised invitation to tender procedures for, all requirements of $100 or more. This will also add considerable expense and cause delays in the purchasing process. Some particular product you want which costs $500, could cost $10,000 in carrying out the advertising program necessary to see that bid goes across Canada.

I have two concerns with section 2(2), which calls for the actual purchase of Canadian-produced goods or services. First, substantially produced in Canada is not defined. This section does not deal with the commodities and services which might be more or less substantially produced in Canada. For instance, should au item 100 per cent produced in Canada have any preference over an item 75 per cent produced in Canada, and so on? I think the minister clearly laid out how that process is handled under our present directives.

Second, limiting the comparison to competitive price overlooks such factors as availability, delivery, delivery prices, after sales service and many other evaluation criteria that are normally used in looking at bids. I think there are very important factors overlooked in the bill.

Section 3 makes the provision for identification of alleged damages. What are alleged damages? I think it is a term that is very difficult. It implies public opening or bid disclosure of all potential contracts of $100 or more. This practice is not common to all purchasing groups and will increase administrative expenses considerably. The requirements of this section would likely incur considerable verification and audit expenses, especially with variable situations such as substantially produced in Canada claims.

Sections 4 and 5 of Bill 83 are problematic only in that they show the same shortcomings found in section 2. However, I might emphasize my doubts as to whether regulations could in fact construct a definition of substantially produced in Canada. That would be sensitive to our complex manufacturing business and our industrial economic sectors. In concluding, I think it is quite obvious the bill as it stands is very loose and imprecise. One of the foremost examples already pointed out is that a purchasing authority would have a reasonably easy job in justifying decisions concerning the purchase of goods or services simply because the quality of a commodity or the service is in most instances very difficult to quantify.

I do sincerely believe we are stuck with our present system, which in the case of the public institutions receiving more than 50 per cent of our government funding relies primarily on the honour and the encouragements of government to follow its lead. I think it would be incorrect to say the bill could not be drafted in a more precise manner. However, as the minister pointed out, legislation such as this would necessitate such extensive administration procedures that the cost of purchasing would significantly increase and the process would be really unbearably hampered in many cases, especially the numerous small ones over $100.

Certainly the encouragement of the Shop-Canadian program should be undertaken whenever and wherever possible when it is feasible and realistic. I think this government has taken the lead in doing that in this province and will continue to take that lead.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this bill is one of the cases that shows the kind of action needed. Therefore I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill as it is.

Mr. Hall: I rise to support Bill 83 presented by the member for Brantford, even though I have some feeling that he possibly borrowed it from our Liberal caucus.

Just briefly, I might again put on the record that I had the privilege on April 21, 1977 of putting forth a resolution in this House, and I will read it to members: “In the opinion of this House, every effort should be made to encourage the consumption of Ontario-grown fresh and processed fruit, vegetables, jams, juices and wines, and that the government of Ontario should require that all fruit and vegetables, jams and juices consumed in provincially-operated facilities, whether purchased directly or by contract caterers, exclusively be Ontario-grown fresh and processed fruit, vegetables, jams and juices at all times that such are available for purchase.”

This resolution was never discussed, because if my memory is correct the government decided to force an election eight days later, on April 29, 1977. However, the former Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea), did provide assistance to our processors and promoted our products in his capacity as minister. However, without central purchasing of food stuffs, difficulties were encountered in ensuring an effective policy.

On the matter of an industrial strategy on which our party put out a comprehensive paper a month or more ago, an important first step in a progressive industrial strategy is a strongly supportive procurement policy. A captive domestic market is crucial as a base upon which domestic firms can build and become strong and large enough to expand internationally. One important way to guarantee this domestic market is through procurement policies.

The Liberal Party in Ontario would undertake that all purchasing, wherever possible and reasonable, be from Canadian-controlled firms or from foreign-controlled firms which comply with a certain code of corporate behaviour. These firms would receive preferential treatment as to price vis-á-vis imports and non-complying foreign firms. This preference could extend, in our opinion, to as much as 40 per cent in some cases. Preference is justifiable because of the secondary benefits of unemployment reduction, new construction, expanded research and development, and taxes on profits.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, some federal studies which were done by the Department of Communications and by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, while apparently not having wide public distribution, have found that as high as a 76 per cent premium could be justified in the purchase of Canadian-made communications equipment. There are several qualifying factors that would have to enter into it having to do with the fact that there would be no point in using a premium if the government had a negligible portion of the market. Therefore, size of market and possible government share would have to be analysed in arriving at any appropriate premium level.

The level of any premium would depend on the level of unemployment as well. Naturally, as unemployment was lowered the premium would drop correspondingly. The amount of any premium which would be justified on government procurement would also depend on capital utilization. As utilization rises, the maximum premium would approach zero and any premium would therefore have to be adjusted from time to time.

The policy we have stated would also have a qualification that any firms that participate would have to obtain a certificate from the government stating that at least half of the value of their products is added in Canada. We visualize that a purchasing policy to support an industrial strategy would extend to Ontario Hydro and all agencies and institutions of the provincial government, including hospitals, colleges and universities, as well as municipal governments and school boards. These additional institutions are large purchasers of goods and services and a procurement policy would not he truly effective without their inclusion. Price differential would have to be paid by the provincial treasury and not by the local municipal bodies and boards.

However, I reiterate, the long term goal of establishing stronger Canadian industry and a captive Canadian market would be worth the price differential in our opinion.

[5:30]

Of course there are branch plants of foreign money multinationals that wouldn’t fit into this too easily, but when it is necessary for a government to purchase outside the proposed procurement policy we favour, products of the branch plants in Canada would be favoured over imports, so we think it’s a progressive step. We think more attention has to be focused by government taking the lead. Private-sector procurement is also important but we, as a party, feel that is best left up to the private sector. However, we feel that to encourage the private sector the government has a very strong role to play. Ontario, through a more enlightened procurement policy, could lead the way in helping to build a stronger industrial base in the province. I therefore hope that all members will support this bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough West for eight minutes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is better than the one minute I got last time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague from Brantford’s --

Mr. Acting Speaker: I might ask if the member for Brantford wants his whole nine minutes. He does? All right.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Eight minutes is satisfactory. I am very succinct. It is unfortunate, I think, that my colleague from Brantford has to bring in a bill in a very mild form and try to word it in a fashion that will not offend the sensibilities of the members opposite, and yet they come back and attack it. I am pleased to see that members of the Liberal Party have decided to support this bill. I hope that members opposite will see the wisdom of going along with us.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Surely there are more important issues, though, than duplicating things we are already doing.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I do not think it is duplicative, I might say to the minister. There is a substantial difference involved in this. The member for Middlesex wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that what the government is doing at the moment is fine and this duplicates it, and then he attacks this as being unenforceable. I just do not think he can have it both ways. If he can, I will have it both ways myself and say that it is definitely enforceable, that this does not go far enough and that I hope this goes to committee to get strengthened so as to get even more teeth put into this. It seems to me at the moment there is a very good case to be put for the fact that hospitals and universities are not making use of existing regulations, if you will, and the enforcement side of this is vital.

I am not going to speak to all aspects of this bill, because I think the member for Downsview has done so very well, as has our leadoff speaker -- and I am sure, in conclusion, he will speak to a number of the government’s reservations about his bill -- but there are a few things I would like to raise. One has to do with the price differential of 10 per cent. I think that is an inadequate amount, but I am glad to see it being used. I accept the ruling by the Science Council of Canada which says that in certain commodities, especially in high-technology commodities, you could go up to a 75 per cent price differential in some of these things and still have an economic benefit to the country. I think we should look at that very seriously when this goes to committee.

I recently heard of a case that was brought before a particular minister and had to do with a company which, although it had put in a price 25 per cent below that of a United States competitor, was ruled out for various and sundry other reasons. Therefore, I would say again there is no ability to enforce the present act and there is a need for the company to file for restitution.

I would also like to see the prospect of an enlargement of the idea of making a reasonable effort as quoted in section 2(3), because there are certain kinds of important high technology, in terms of equipment and service systems, that need advance notice if Canadians are going to be able to compete. I think in particular of computer systems. If a university wants to put in a computer system for registration of its students, as an example, it is more likely just to adopt a present system already used by an American company and to ask for tenders for that particular system rather than to give adequate notice that it wants a system and then to file open tenders and allow Canadian companies to compete on that basis. We are never going to be able to establish a network of high-technology corporations unless we give special preference in this area.

The only other thing I want to talk about is the punitive aspect of this. We are not setting up a bureaucracy, as it is always claimed we do as New Democrats when we try to protect people and business and to promote growth in this country. What the member for Brantford is suggesting -- and I think it is very wise -- is that a company dealing with a specific purchasing agent, a purchasing officer in a university, or a hospital board, or whatever, would have the ability to file, if he felt or she felt they were not being dealt with properly under this act. At the moment, there is no way for them to appeal any decision that is made by a minister, or one of these public corporations, or institutions.

I think this just makes sense. If you don’t put that kind of teeth into a bill or a regulation, Mr. Speaker, then you are essentially saying that you don’t believe in the principle. I think for that reason, members opposite, if they are serious about promoting Canadian producers and Canadian corporations and the small business sector, should think very seriously about sending this bill to committee to try to tighten up the aspects they don’t like, but let’s get it down as policy agreed to by the whole House.

In conclusion -- and I will stop now and allow the member for Brantford to have extra time to respond -- I would like to say that it is unthinkable to me that the members opposite would not consider this matter important enough to be taken to committee and discussed by members, to develop a means of actually enforcing this.

The member for Downsview raised very well the question of the number of jobs that could be created by an actual enforcement bringing back into this country the one to two per cent of the billing presently going out of the country, by enforcing this with our institutions. At this time, especially taking the position of the Tory federal party on this whole matter into consideration, it is unthinkable that the government members would not support this bill in principle and allow it to go to committee.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Is there any other member of this House who wishes to speak to this bill for three minutes? If not, the member for Brantford?

Mr. Makarchuk: After listening to the comments from the government, I am wondering whether we are talking about the same bill or not. It seems to me either they can’t read over there, or else are not prepared to start reading.

Mr. di Santo: I am not surprised.

Mr. Makarchuk: I want to point out to the members opposite who seem to have the great knack for nitpicking -- I have never seen such a collection of nitpickers going through the bill, particularly the member for Middlesex, and saying, “If we haven’t this and we haven’t that, we couldn’t do this because of this, et cetera.” -- they should look at the bill we passed recently, the Small Business Development Corporations Act. If we had nitpicked on that bill, it would never have got through the House, because that is one of the most vague, loosely-worded bills there is; yet the government has certain faith that eventually we will try and work it out. It is the same with any other bill; we do not and we cannot -- and we know that in this Legislature -- cover every possible situation that could develop. That is something we do as we go along; it is a normal part of our legislative procedure.

I want to deal with the argument that there is going to be some kind of a bureaucracy created by this bill. The point is that there is absolutely no bureaucracy whatsoever involved. I have a feeling the reason the Tories object to the bill is that they will not be able to stick their bureaucracy into this kind of situation.

All the bill provides for is that we set up a framework where the businessman, if he so wishes, can take action against the purchaser, in this case an institution that is publicly financed. There is no bureaucracy telling him he should. There is no bureaucracy involved to examine the prices, or anything like that. It is strictly a relationship between the businessman and the institution, and nothing else. How members opposite get the feeling that there is a bureaucracy, how they read that into the bill just boggles my mind. It boggles my mind that their comprehension of the English language is so limited.

The minister, and I am glad that he is here in all his massive bulk --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Don’t be jealous.

Mr. Makarchuk: I am envious. I am envious.

Mr. Riddell: There is a big green tile right up to your door, Lorne. It goes all the way down to Florida.

Mr. Makarchuk: The minister states that the government has a policy. If he had been listening, he would have beard that I said the bill is not specifically aimed at the government; we recognize that the government has a policy. We recognize that it is actually working towards that end and in some cases is having a measure of success. There is a recognition in this.

What the bill is aimed at is all those other institutions that live from public funding. They spend or receive close to about $15 billion of public funds, over and above what the provincial government spends. We are trying to make them follow government policy. We are not going to coerce them or anything like that. There is no coercion on the part of businessmen to take action against these institutions.

All we are saying in this bill is the framework exists if one feels one has been done wrong, if one feels the institution did not follow a buy-Canadian policy, if one feels one has been discriminated against by the institution because of previous trading arrangements or favours exchanged between the foreign-based corporation and the purchasing officer and so on. And the members know those kinds of situations exist; they exist all over the place. What we are trying to do is break that up. If we are going to have private enterprise then we are going to have private enterprise in the sense that it should exist. We are trying to encourage this thing and this is the purpose of the bill.

You have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that in many cases Canadian firms labour at a disadvantage. Most of them are relatively new. Most of them do not have the massive sales force the American firms have. Most of them don’t have the experience or the contacts a long-established firm has, which in most cases is foreign, generally American. They have to break through this in order to sell to publicly-financed institutions.

Why the government objects to this I really cannot understand. It is not as if the government took action that could be misconstrued by us or anybody else as some kind of repentance. I acknowledged from the start of the speech that indeed the government is following that policy. We acknowledge that and congratulate the government on doing it. What we are trying to do is extend that same policy to other publicly-financed institutions. That is the intent of this bill.

Again, it is not difficult; it does not require any bureaucracy. It is strictly an arrangement between the businessman and the institution. And as I said before, he is not going to be too anxious to embark upon any lawsuits, because he wants to preserve his goodwill. He does not want to be known in business circles as the guy who wants to start suing everybody. But the point is, once purchasing people know that if they do not treat Canadian producers or Canadian owned or managed businesses fairly, then they may get annoyed and take action against them. As a personal thing, the purchasing agent will understand that the pressure will be on him to oblige and to try and spread the cost throughout.

The other factor in this situation is that we are dealing with institutions, universities, hospitals and schools. In most cases the equipment they buy is of a highly complex, highly technical nature. But it is not the kind of equipment that has to be produced in large assembly plants. It is equipment that can be produced by a few people, but it requires a great deal of engineering know how, physics know how, et cetera. This is the kind of equipment I am trying to emphasize, or that should be emphasized in this bill.

We have, in Canada, all sorts of people who have the know how, who have the ability, even people who are working for foreign corporations who may have to move out of those foreign corporations and set up their own operations. If they have the knowledge that they can compete, plus the 10 per cent which gives them some kind of leverage or some cushion in terms of developing this equipment, they are going to move in this direction.

Like anything else, Mr. Speaker, one cannot go into this kind of business on the basis that in the next six months one is going to have this policy and then afterwards one may not; or the institution may afford to buy this equipment for a period of time but then afterwards they may change their policy. They have to have some assurance from the government that this policy is going to be consistent, and will prevail, not one year or two years from now, but for numerous years ahead -- for at least five years it will be on the books. With the kind of legislation in this bill, they know it’s a law of the province, that the options are there, the influence upon the purchaser is there by legislation, and they can go ahead and proceed to develop.

[5:45]

We can talk at great length about the lack of money spent on research and development in this country in comparison to other nations. We are dealing here in an area where research, development and people with skills -- not branch plant operations -- can be put to use, can provide jobs for Canadians. Again, the government decides to vote against this.

In conclusion, I am I really concerned when the government decides to oppose this legislation. Admittedly, it is not perfect; it is a private member’s bill that is drawn up hurriedly, and it doesn’t cover everything. But certainly the legislation could be put to committee; it could be improved and certainly it will provide that incentive.

If the government opposes this bill, as they have indicated they will, then the government does not have any confidence in the ability of the Canadian small businessman or the Canadian people to be able to manage their affairs. All we ask in this legislation is for some assistance to overcome some built-in handicaps they cannot overcome right now. That is all it is. It’s a request to provide some assistance to overcome the handicap posed by the built-in, long-established companies over the newly-emerging firms. The Tory government in Ontario refuses to give them that opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to spend the remaining time on this bill?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to respond to the remarks of the honourable member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has already spoken. The standing order says you can only speak once.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Okay, no problem.

PROGRAM COST DISCLOSURE ACT

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 69.

Mr. Warner: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I followed the procedure quite carefully and it appears to me that those members who objected stood and were asked to remain standing until their names were recorded. At that time the Clerk then determined whether or not there were 20 members standing.

I would ask you to make an interpretation, then, of section 64(2)(e) which says the names of those members objecting will be reported. Would you rule whether or not that means even if only one member stands to object to the motion being placed? Perhaps you could report back whenever you have an opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will be glad to do that.

The following members objected by rising:

Auld; Ashe; Baetz; Brunelle; Cureatz; Drea; Eaton; Gregory; Handleman; Havrot; Henderson; Hodgson; J. Johnson; Lane; Maeck; McCaffrey; McCague; F. S. Miller; Norton; Ramsay; Rollins; Rotenberg; Rowe; Scrivener; Snow; C. Taylor; Villeneuve; Watson; Welch; Williams; Wiseman -- 31.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 83:

Auld; Ashe; Baetz; Brunelle; Cureatz; Drea; Eaton; Elgie; Gregory; Handleman; Havrot; Henderson; Hodgson; J. Johnson; Jones; Lane; Maeck; McCaffrey; McCague; F. S. Miller; Norton; Ramsay; Rollins; Rotenberg; Rowe; Scrivener; G. E. Smith; Snow; G. Taylor; Villeneuve; Walker; Watson; Welch; Williams; Wiseman -- 35.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.