Journal des débats 1982-juin-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like to draw to the attention of honourable members that 20 years ago today, the Ontario Human Rights Code became law. Ontario was the first Canadian jurisdiction to enact a comprehensive code of human rights and this became the model for similar statutory protection across the country.

As we mark this anniversary, I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to those who were responsible for the initial development of the code and for its subsequent progressive implementation. Their commitment has ensured that we remain in the forefront in the fight against discrimination. I think particularly of the contribution of the Honourable John Robarts, who took such a strong personal interest in this initiative in 1962.

But we have more to celebrate today than this auspicious anniversary. As members know, this is also the day on which our new Human Rights Code comes into effect. Its significantly expanded mandate, along with important new procedural and remedial provisions, underlines our continued commitment to be in the vanguard in protecting individuals against discrimination.

All of us can take pride today in this statute which will enable us to preserve and protect the kind of society we in Ontario wish to have. The openness of the process by which we arrived at the new code is in itself a reflection of this objective.

As a result of public hearings conducted by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 1975 and 1976, and of the extensive legislative and public debate of the government's proposals, we have, I believe, achieved a code which addresses the major human rights concerns of the people of Ontario in 1982.

All participants in the process, and particularly the members of this House, can be justifiably proud of the contribution each has made. I would like to single out the efforts of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), whose vision and personal commitment to human rights are so clearly manifested in our new code.

As we mark this important milestone in the evolution of human rights in Ontario, I know that the House joins me in expressing our best wishes, and our keen and continuing interest, to the new chairman, Canon Borden Purcell, and his fellow commissioners and the staff, as they move to meet the challenge of their new mandate.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the House to give me a minute to get the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: A brief hiatus.

Ms. Copps: They do not even show up for question period now.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, since there is a brief hiatus in the proceedings of the House as the government whip goes to get some minister or other, would you kindly search out the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) who has missed something like eight out of the last 18 question periods since his budget and has not been here to account? We will sit here and wait for him too.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Speaker: Just while we are waiting, I would like to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1981-82. I would advise all honourable members that these documents will be deposited in the individual post office boxes and may be picked up at their convenience.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) is not here to give his statement. He will give it tomorrow.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ABSENCE OF TREASURER

Mr. Peterson: Where is the minister?

Would you be so kind, Mr. Speaker, to tell me if the Treasurer is coming or, perhaps, the acting government House leader would know the answer to that question? The Treasurer has been conspicuously absent since his budget. Perhaps I could just wait until he comes.

Mr. Speaker: I do not have any way of knowing that, of course. Having called oral questions, I would suggest that we get on.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House until the responsible ministers are here.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that motion is out of order because we have not reached the orders of the day at this point.

Mr. Foulds: We could have a recess.

Mr. Speaker: The standing orders are quite clear, the House proceeds at 2 p.m. and routine proceedings carry on. I have called oral questions; we will proceed.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Since you have just established a precedent, sir, at the request of the government House leader --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not established any precedent at the request of anybody. The standing orders are very clear and, frankly, I object strongly to that insinuation.

Mr. Peterson: Kindly hear me out; just to recall the chronology --

Mr. Speaker: I would ask you to withdraw that statement, please.

Mr. Peterson: Hear me out, Mr. Speaker. Withdraw what?

Mr. Speaker: I would ask you to withdraw that insinuation: acting under the instructions of somebody else.

Mr. Peterson: At the request of.

Mr. Speaker: No, sir.

Mr. Peterson: If you would be good enough to hear me out, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I would ask you, please, to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Peterson: I will withdraw whatever is offensive to you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I understand it but then I would like to proceed with my point.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may.

Mr. Peterson: The point as I understand it, sir, is that about five minutes ago the acting government House leader stood up and said, "We cannot find the minister, who is supposed to give a statement" -- who has now shown up. He asked you for a moment or two while he went to search out that minister; he then left the chamber to find the minister.

2:10 p.m.

In the meantime you decided, in your judgement, to occupy the time of the House telling us that you had just tabled the members' expenses for the year instead of proceeding with either ministerial statements or oral questions from the opposition. When the government whip came back he said to you that he could not find the minister, and then you proceeded with oral questions.

I would suggest to you that somehow or other you agreed to follow his request to you, at least in some measure. Therefore, I would suggest that there is some precedent, that you have the power you have just established to hold up the proceedings of the House or do something else; or perhaps you would like to make another statement of some type or other as we await the presence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who has vacated not only his responsibilities but also this House.

I am extremely upset about the lack of respect on the part of the government, particularly the Treasurer, who has presented us with a most controversial budget, who is not prepared to discuss it in committee, is not prepared to bring forward the budget bills and now is not prepared to sit in the House and answer for his budget.

You ruled, in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party was out of order when he moved for adjournment. I would ask you, sir, to exercise the great powers you do have in presiding over this chamber to make sure that opposition members are treated fairly and that the Treasurer will in fact come to answer for his budget.

If you are not prepared to do that, sir, I would ask to stand down until the Treasurer does come into this chamber today. Or perhaps the acting House leader can shed some light on this mysterious chap.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that what I have done in the proceedings to date is quite clearly written under the standing orders; I have not departed in any way, shape or form. The House leader did inform the House that the minister who was going to make a statement was apparently not prepared to make that statement. I moved on to the next order of business, which is clearly established under standing orders.

It is not my responsibility -- I want to say this again very clearly to all honourable members -- to assure the attendance of anyone in this House, whether he be on the government side or on the opposition side.

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps you might recall that the leader of my party did bring to your attention that during the hiatus, to use his very word, you did proceed with some other business of the House. It seems to me that under those circumstances the government ought to either produce the Treasurer or give some reasonable explanation for his continued absence day after day.

Mr. McClellan: If I may speak briefly to the same point, Mr. Speaker: It would surely be a matter of common courtesy for the government to advise the opposition whether or not the Treasurer intends to be present today. If he is going to be delayed, I would suggest that you put it to the House, for unanimous consent, that we recess until the Treasurer deigns to appear among us.

Mr. Speaker: The acting government House leader has that information, quite obviously, and is going to share it with us now.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, going back to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), I specifically asked if the House would give me a few moments, not the Speaker. I would like to point out that at the present time, the Treasurer -- and, as members know, he has many responsibilities -- is meeting with the Ontario Caterers Association. Yesterday, the member chastised him for not meeting with that very association.

Interjections.

Mr. Sweeney: Why at two o'clock in the afternoon? Why not in the morning?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The acting government House leader had the floor. Were you finished with your statement'?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I wanted to add only that he expects to be here shortly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I think the question before us is a fundamental one. Traditionally in parliament the opposition members of the Legislature have had the authority, the privilege and the responsibility of examining tax measures and budgetary matters.

When the government has taken the action it has now taken of withdrawing those specific bills from discussion in the Legislature, and when the Treasurer has absented himself from the House so the opposition is unable to put questions to him on the single, most important issue in the public domain in Ontario at the present time, the tax measures, surely it is within the Speaker's responsibility, privileges and rights to protect our rights by calling for a recess of the House until the Treasurer has finished meeting with the caterers and we can question him in this Legislature.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party put the point very well given the extraordinary nature of the circumstances here. I would share his request to you to ask for the unanimous consent of this House either to recess until the Treasurer shows up today, to stand down, or else we and the members of the New Democratic Party can sit here in silence and wait for the Treasurer to come.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the Treasurer is expected shortly. He has an important engagement. Rather than waste the question period and the time of the leaders of the opposition parties, may I ask for unanimous agreement of the House to revert to statements?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the budget came in several weeks ago, the Treasurer decided to go to Sault Ste. Marie and the following week he decided to go to Japan. Almost daily, the Premier (Mr. Davis) has asked us to ask him the questions and he would get the answers. I am still waiting to hear some of those answers that were long since promised.

I do not see how we can discuss anything pertaining to the budget when the Treasurer refuses to come to the Legislature. He was not here yesterday and he is not here today. When does he come around to answer for his budget, particularly in view of the fact he is not here to answer and the government will not send any of the bills to committee where people from the outside could make presentations?

We are in a bind. The Treasurer will not answer, he will not show up and the government will not send the bills to committee so there is no way of dealing with budgetary matters. What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to just stand around and ask the Premier who might get us an answer or do we adjourn the House and wait for them to come back? We should recess for a while.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) there is nothing in the standing orders that provides for the questioning of the Speaker.

Mr. Martel: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Mr. Martel: All right, don't panic.

Mr. Speaker: I am not, so the member should not. As I said before, I have no prior knowledge of who is going to be here and who is not going to be here. It is not my responsibility to ensure the attendance of anyone in this chamber. We all know the time this chamber convenes. We all know what the order of proceedings is and I have called oral questions. I would suggest we get on with oral questions by questioning other ministers.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I had asked for unanimous agreement of the House to revert to statements. Perhaps that might give us the time we need.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to ministerial statements?

Mr. Di Santo: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. I have no alternative but to go on with oral questions.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances and these unfulfilled promises, I have no questions until the Treasurer shows up to answer. It is about time he showed up in this House. We will leave the House until he returns.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can you inform me if, when the opposition absents itself, you will run the clock for question period?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the clock is running. That was the very point I was trying to make. I have called oral questions and the clock is running. That is the order of business that has been called.

Mr. Foulds: Could we have unanimous consent of the House to revert to questions when the ministers appear?

Mr. Speaker: I do not understand your request because we do not have to revert; we are now in the oral question period.

Mr. Foulds: In those circumstances, we do not feel that we can proceed with question period. However, we will sit in our places and remain silent in protest.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In light of the swift and speedy passage through second reading last night of a number of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, including one which will provide for mandatory child restraints in vehicles in Ontario, can he tell this House when he anticipates that third reading may be called and at what point thereafter implementation of the program will begin?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act were referred to the committee of the whole House. We had intended to proceed with that last evening but we ran out of time. I will now have to wait until the House leader schedules time for the committee discussion, which I believe will be brief.

I have two minor amendments to introduce, after which time the bill will receive third reading and, I hope, royal assent. I expect that the implementation date will be some time in late summer or early fall.

Mr. Robinson: In the light of the minister's answer, will the minister be encouraging an educational program designed to have parents make use of child restraint devices even now, in the period before the passage of the legislation in the House and its formal implementation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These are the best questions we have had in a long time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the Minister of Health would refrain: Yes, we will be proceeding with an educational program within the limits of the money we will have available. As I mentioned last night during the debate, we do not have a budget that is sufficient to carry on an intensified public relations or educational program.

However, I will be asking members of this House to do everything possible, through their newsletters to constituents and other means they have within their ridings -- press releases, speeches and what not -- to advise the public of these new regulations which will be forthcoming and to encourage people to start using child restraint devices as soon as possible, even before the regulations are in force, for their own personal safety and that of their children.

Mr. Speaker: New Democratic Party? That was the final supplementary.

Mr. Cooke: They want to treat this place like it's a one-party system. A one-party state is exactly how you treat it. You've got no respect for democracy. You don't even know what it means.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I have recognized the member for Durham East.

GO TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I know the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) would also like to ask this question but at the moment he is unavailable.

Could the minister inform the House whether he has made any progress in determining whether the GO train will be expanded to Oshawa? Has the 90-day report been tabled as yet? Has the report on the expansion of the GO train to Oshawa been tabled?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. As I announced in the House a few weeks ago, I anticipated that it would be 90 days before my staff could fully review all the options which we wished to look at. That is in progress now. At a meeting I had with GO Transit officials as recently as this morning, I was told that the work is on schedule and I hope to have the report on my desk by July 30.

Mr. Cureatz: Can the minister foresee any extension of his 90-day format which he indicated to the House about a month ago?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I cannot add any more to what I have said. My staff tell me they will have their work completed and will have their report to me by July 30, which I believe will be within the 90 days I asked for.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Standing order 27(a) says, "The oral question period shall be limited to 60 minutes, including supplementary questions..."

Inasmuch as you have not had any real questions as yet, Mr. Speaker, it is within your power to call an end to question period, if you would like to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called oral questions. I have given everybody in the House the opportunity to ask those questions. The people who stand up are being recognized during this period.

I would like to point out to honourable members, going a little further into standing order 27(a), "The oral question period shall be limited to 60 minutes, including supplementary questions and points of order."

It is my understanding that if questions are depleted before 60 minutes are used up, then we move on to the next order of business.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I wish this would happen more often. I never get a chance to speak with the opposition talking all the time.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

MCKELLAR GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, at a news conference, the McKellar General Hospital nurses urged immediate action. The news release says:

"Evidence continues to mount that the nursing care at McKellar General Hospital is not proper or even safe, but the nurses are unable to get any concrete commitment from either the hospital's administration, the board of governors or the provincial Health ministry for immediate action to remedy the critical situation.

"The hospital administration says they do not have the budget and the board of governors and Health minister Larry Grossman have declined to meet with the nurses."

I would like to ask the minister about that request.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and I am delighted the member for Fort William raised the concerns on behalf of the people in all of Thunder Bay, including the people in the riding of Port Arthur who are so often forgotten, particularly today when their member has chosen not to speak on this very important and pressing matter in the Thunder Bay area.

Mr. Speaker: Now to answer the question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister is imputing motives to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). He knows very well that we are protesting the absence of the Treasurer in this House. It has nothing to do with a lack of interest by the member in this particular issue and the minister knows that. Now that the Treasurer is here, maybe we can get back to dealing with this House in a proper fashion, not as a one-party state.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will answer the question, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Liberals are trooping back from the Science Council of Canada.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You will get your turn. David has only a few years to go.

Mr. Speaker: On to the question, please.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. Look how well you did when Stuart was here.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In any case, I want to address this --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has the floor, answering a question of the member for Fort William.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For those members who are interested in the situation at McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay, I would like to indicate that we have reviewed the situation at the hospital. The nursing staff should be aware that just last week the hospital was in, on Thursday or Friday, forwarding a request to the ministry for some more funding and we will be looking at that as time goes on. We are dealing with that at the present time and hope to have some further answers for the hospital shortly.

I think it is important to remember that there was an independent nursing assessment committee established one year ago. Since that time, there has been extensive action taken by the McKellar hospital. The intensive care unit staff has been increased to approximately 35 full-time employees from the previous 23. There has been a total restructuring of the in-house education programs for nurses in recent months in accordance with the assessment committee recommendations. They have upgraded their in-house orientation program for nurses in recent months, also as recommended by the assessment committee.

Finally, the executive director of McKellar indicates that hospital complement has been increased by 30 additional full-time positions within the nursing department since the assessment committee review occurred in the spring of 1981.

Just to round the picture out entirely, Dr. Peter Neelands, the president of the Thunder Bay Medical Association, confirms our view of the hospital as a safe and proper facility. Dr. Neelands thinks McKellar is "a very good hospital and very safe. If you want to get respiratory care, if you have a head injury in this area, McKellar is still the place to go and you get damned fine care."

In response to the suggestion that I have not agreed to meet with the nursing staff at the hospital, may I say very simply that at the appropriate time when hospitals draw these kinds of situations to our attention, obviously we will be willing to meet with the hospital and anyone else who has interest in the hospital day-to-day management. At the present time, when it comes to questions of the day-to-day operation of the hospital, which is what this is all about, it remains quite properly in the hands of the hospital administration. We are satisfied that McKellar remains a safe and reasonable hospital.

Mr. Hennessy: Can the minister assure me that the nurses from McKellar hospital will receive consideration, not just that the hospital will come down here and meet and the nurses will be forgotten? I think the main problem is maybe the lack of nurses. I would like the minister and his staff to give them every consideration.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the honourable member that we are reviewing the situation very carefully, as he can tell from the detail of this answer. We will be monitoring the situation with regard to McKellar's response to the various issues raised. If it appears appropriate to have the hospital or the nursing group or both in to see me, then with his assistance we can arrange that.

Mr. Speaker: We will revert to the regular order of oral questions as provided for in standing order 27(b). The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson).

Order, order. The Solicitor General.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe you did start the question period. The rule calls for the normal procedure to start where the two leaders can put their questions. They were not here. At other times we have done it on consent when they have wanted to rotate the order. You started with the order for question period, Mr. Speaker; this side started, and they refused to participate in question period. Now you should go to that side with the rotation, but there should be no leaders' questions unless you obtain the consent of the House.

Mr. Laughren: Is this government policy?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The standing orders are quite clear as to the rotation; they are quite clear as to the provision for questions by the leaders of the two opposition parties.

Mr. Laughren: We can now debate your rulings; is that it?

Mr. Speaker: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Laughren: Can we debate your rulings from now on?

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot. I am not debating; I am giving an explanation, if you would open your ears.

We will revert to oral questions as provided by standing order 27(b). The Leader of the Opposition will put his first question.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to welcome the Treasurer back to the House, and I want to say this --

Mr. Watson: Welcome back, David.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Elston: He's just being nice about it. He welcomed him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Having regard for the mood of the House, I request the co-operation of all honourable members by not prefacing their questions with any provocative statements or remarks.

Mr. Peterson: I was being as generous in spirit as I possibly could be in welcoming our lost brother back to the House.

In view of the fact that the Treasurer has missed eight out of the last 18 question periods; in view of the fact that he meets only reluctantly with people and frequently as a result of pressure from the opposition, witness his meeting at 1:30 today with the Ontario Caterers Association; and in view of the fact that he is not prepared to introduce his budget bills so we can have a discussion in this House, surely it is not unreasonable to ask the Treasurer to use his influence to send the Retail Sales Tax Act to committee so we can have an open hearing where we can hear witnesses expressing their point of view on this most controversial tax measure which he has introduced.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Is that the same question you asked last week?

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Is that not true?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the Leader of the Opposition recognized he did not have a question until that point.

If he checks the last 10 question periods, I think he will find I have been here for nine of them. During one of them, I was consulting with the municipalities of this province about some of their problems, as the Leader of the Opposition quickly tells me I should do. I was a little late today because I spent almost an hour with the mobile caterers, as he suggested I should do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I know the Leader of the Opposition works very hard, but I spend as many hours per day seeing as many groups as I can whilst balancing that with my obligations to be here and to be other places. Once in a while, like the Leader of the Opposition, who also has been away the odd day, I have other pressing problems that take me away from the House.

I had a very good discussion with the mobile caterers. Members may question me about it later if they wish.

To get back to the question that was asked: Under standing order 56(c), the Leader of the Opposition and his party have the right to direct that bill to any committee they wish. Why do they not let it pass and do that?

Mr. Peterson: Why does the Treasurer not bring it up for second reading? That is the whole point.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, is that a question?

Mr. Peterson: No. Let me --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not recognize the Treasurer. I would again ask the co-operation of people asking questions to be very careful in the wording they choose in prefacing the question.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Since the Treasurer has now decided to consult me with respect to his schedule, would he not agree it was rather unfair to leave this House the day after the budget to go to Sault Ste. Marie? Was it not rather unfair to the other members of this House and the people of this province to leave for Japan for a week in the week after his budget and then to miss other question periods because he was travelling about?

Would he not agree it was particularly unfair for him not to be here yesterday, Black Monday as it is called by so many people across this province, to answer for his tax increases? If the Treasurer wants to hear a discussion on this, why does he not instruct his House leader to bring in the Retail Sales Tax Act so we can have a discussion on the budget bills here in this House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, let us get our facts straight. He said I was not here for question period after the budget and that I was in Sault Ste. Marie. That is false. I was here the day after the budget. I was also here the Monday after the budget when he left the bells ringing for four days, wasting the time of this House.

Mr. Bradley: One question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was here on the Tuesday --

Mr. Wrye: One. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: We were not sitting on Saturday.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday -- four days.

Ms. Copps: You can't count either.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The bells rang four days.

Mr. Breithaupt: One question period.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have also been here through 7½ hours of the reading of public accounts when Bill 111 could have been discussed. Does the member call that anything but a filibuster? I would just ask him to request an unvarnished, unbiased opinion of anyone in the gallery as to whether we stuck to the facts and progressed through the business of this House in an orderly, expeditious way. The answer is no. He could have done it if he had wanted to.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer can try to fudge the issue, but when the sales tax bill is referred out to committee, which this party has indicated it will do by 20 members standing, will his party block or will it not block public hearings? Secondly, what does he have against public hearings on the sales tax bill? I understand from earlier today in question period that he does believe in a one-party system, but what is wrong with bringing the other 55 members who represent the majority of the voters in this province into debate and testimony in front of the committee so we too can have proper input in making a decision on this bill?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Standing 20 members in their places is somewhat difficult for his party these days.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked the co-operation of those people who were asking questions not to be provocative. I am asking the co-operation of all those answering questions not to be provocative.

Hon. F. S. Miller: As Treasurer, I am charged with adding --

Mr. Cooke: Why don't you take this place seriously for once?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside has asked a supplementary.

Mr. Cooke: Tell that joker over there to take this place seriously.

Mr. Speaker: Let the Treasurer respond.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, what happens in any committee of this House is a function of the opinion of my Premier, the House leader and the committee. I have great confidence in the democratic process, which has lived well for many years with most governments having a majority in most parts of the world. If the third party has suddenly lost confidence in a system of government that is, finally, responsible to the people, then it should not be here.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: What possible reason can the Treasurer have for not letting this bill go to committee, for not instructing his supporters to allow outside witnesses so that we can hear people affected by this bill? If that undertaking is given by him and his House leader, we can easily arrange for speedy passage of the Retail Sales Tax Act through second reading of this House and get into a full discussion, this summer, of some of the details that we think are wrong. Surely it is not an unfair request on our part that the Treasurer ask his supporters to bring in outside witnesses'? He has that power and should not deny it. Why do we not all work along those lines?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition has lots of power too, and he is showing it, which is only fair. That is the democratic process. The opposition takes certain risks and we take certain risks. They are using up a lot of time in what they may or may not call a filibuster, but the risk is that the public will either see us as being wrong, or the opposition as wasting their time. Each of us has to assess the situation.

Mr. Riddell: Go to the people.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend, elections are every four years. We will stand on our record when we go to the people and you will still be on that side of the House.

Interjections.

BUDGETARY PROCESS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not think his attitude as just expressed speaks very poorly about the budgetary process in this province -- and, indeed, at the national level -- when his political ego is on the line, when he can not admit he has made a mistake, especially since he has backed off in three instances already? We believe that if he understood all the effects of what he is doing he would back off in other areas. It is not going to cost him his political career. Other Treasurers have backed off.

Surely it should be part of our commitment to make the budgetary process more open, so that we understand fully how it affects people and thus avoid running into the kinds of problems experienced by the federal government with its budget. Even now the Treasurer is experiencing problems personally because of the many mistakes he has made in his budget.

Why do we in this House not show our commitment to a new budgetary process by working on the budget together this summer to do our best to make it more fair? Is that not a fair request?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it sounds very reasonable. The fact is the job of the Leader of the Opposition is to tell us we are wrong all the time. It is not his job to co-operate with us in running the province. He has stuck very much to that principle. He holds us accountable -- and so do the people -- for the final policies of this province. We have very carefully assessed the needs of this country. I had easy --

Mr. Bradley: Let the people speak.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Please be quiet.

I had very easy ways to take money-raising steps which would not have given the Leader of the Opposition as much chance to sound like a hero. I suggest they were not in the interests of the economy.

We took a much more politically difficult step, including the refund of a quarter billion dollars to Ontario's small businessmen, starting as soon as the opposition allows us to. I understand the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) is all ready to send the cheques, but they are being held up by the opposition party, through their obstructive --

Ms. Copps: You are collecting the tax already.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ignore the interjection and answer the question, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We should let that member go to work for us in Hamilton. The more she is in that riding, the more chance we have of winning.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Let me remind the Treasurer that some of the finest work done by this Legislature is through the committee process. Committees frequently assume a nonpartisan attitude. I would also remind him that he would have a majority on a committee and ultimately would be able to get his way.

Let me remind him, too, that a number of his back-benchers are as unhappy as we are about what has been done. Would it not be fair to ask the Treasurer to subject his budget to that sort of process? Ultimately he will still have control, but I and a lot of our members believe we could have a much better budget if he subjected himself to that kind of process. Why can he not give instructions to start that now?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I then recommend to the Leader of the Opposition that he pass as expeditiously as possible Bill 111, the tax bills and interim supply -- and trust the system.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could I get a clarification from the Treasurer? Did he say he cannot give the small businessmen a rebate because the legislation is not passed, and yet he can collect the sales tax even though that legislation is not passed? How does he explain that inconsistency?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, since it sounds inconsistent, I will find out.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the minister believes in the democratic process and he talks about the introduction of certain steps. Can the minister advise us whether, in the process of collecting a tax for which he has passed no legislation, he has asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) -- and I could see some reluctance in view of his record before the Supreme Court of Canada -- or from the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling) to determine whether his taxation, retroactive as it is, is constitutional in view of the new Charter of Rights in existence since April of this year?

Has he sought a legal opinion, and can he undertake to tell this House that if this law is challenged, and there is a strong chance that it will be, he will not collect the tax while the bill is pending before the courts?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is funny he should ask. Yes.

APPLICATION OF TAX

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for seven per cent Miller. It is a shopping-bag question once again. Can the Treasurer tell me why this set of goods bought at a Dominion store, which includes milk, an apple, orange, yoghurt and a muffin, should be tax free while this set of goods, which is exactly parallel, milk, yoghurt, an orange -- I think the oranges are the same size -- an apple and a muffin, should be taxed because they were purchased from one of the truck vending machines on the streets of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not think those are the same articles just presented to me in my office by the Ontario Caterers Association because they did not have an orange or an apple, but they had most of those things and a couple of others besides.

The idea that one can go and purchase at normal retail any products that may also be sold through a commercial outlet and that they should therefore be treated exactly the same way is rather naive.

Mr. Wrye: It certainly has been since May 14.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second. The price of that apple, the price of that orange, the price of that milk, of the muffin and of the yoghurt are quite different in the store where the member goes to get it and in the convenience location where it is retailed as a food.

I want to go one step further. If the member goes to a normal restaurant -- let us assume our downstairs restaurant -- and orders a lunch that is $6.50 à la carte and orders one pint of milk for 50 cents, he would have paid, until Sunday, June 13, 10 per cent tax on that milk. There is no change. If one purchases a commodity through a restaurant, through a vending location, it has been subject to the taxes applying to that type of location. That is still the same principle.

Mr. Foulds: I will not give the Treasurer the Coke or the Pepsi challenge because they are taxed wherever one buys them, but I would like to send to the Treasurer these two muffins, ask him to taste them and tell me why one should be taxable and the other not. I assure the Treasurer that they have not been buttered, tampered with or poisoned in any way.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I got so carried away with the gift -- by the way, does the member mind having the first bite? -- that I did not hear his question.

Mr. Speaker: I should not wonder. Briefly, will the member state his question again.

Mr. Martel: I want to know which one was taxed.

Mr. Speaker: Ask your leader to ask the question.

Mr. Martel: He asked that; he was never answered.

Mr. Foulds: Is this my final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, or am I just repeating the other one?

Mr. Speaker: You are just repeating the former one.

Mr. Foulds: I want the Treasurer to taste them and tell me why one of those muffins should be taxed and not the other.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A person with my taste should not be given such a challenge.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, speaking of contradictions in the Treasurer's budget -- that is what we are talking about; how he is punishing one and giving to the other and it all nets out -- I want to draw to his attention a letter from L. G. Bell Recycling in Welland. It is a small plant which recycles paper, metal and so on with a waste removal process. They are now saying his two-year tax holiday to small business will be totally offset by the expansion of retail sales tax applied to their particular process.

They are also saying they will lose business as a result of that, as a lot of other businesses are, because consumers will not pay the extra, making those businesses far less competitive. Any tax holiday they may have had under the Treasurer's tax forgiveness program will not be necessary anyway because they are not going to be making any money because of decreased volume. How does the Treasurer explain that contradiction?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would have to see the details of that company's tax problems. I think the member is just choosing two taxes that are unrelated and saying one contradicts the other. When I add a sales tax, an income tax, whatever I add, it generally applies to a great range of people in society. Whether it applies to municipalities on the one hand or companies on the other hand, we recognize that in mid-year one very often makes changes that were not predicted by that company at the beginning of its fiscal period, be it a municipality or be it a private money-making company.

I would that there were some way to say on a given day of the year we will all present our fiscal plans and we can therefore start ours the morning after, but the world is not ordered that way. Companies have rotating fiscal year-ends. Municipalities have one and the province has another. So it is not so simple as to say some master planner can do everything so that no one has any disruption of his plans. I have disruption of my plans; they have disruption of their plans. The fact is that we get along reasonably well in this province.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is aware that around Ontario at this time of year there are a number of cultural events happening. In Windsor it is Carousel, in Oshawa it is Fiesta Week, in Toronto it is Caravan. I am trying to get some clear line as to who will collect and pay tax and who will not.

Will he tell us now how he justifies, in the case of large cultural organizations and celebrations like that, where it is now obvious his regulations will make some of those pavilions collect the retail sales tax and others will not? How is that fair or rational? Can he at least give us a consistent line as to whether they will be collecting his retail sales tax?

3 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with that problem at length and trying to review the old regulations, which gave a $50,000 limit, and the new regulations, which give a $75,000 limit. I would be on somewhat thin ice if I said I knew whether Carousel, which I understand took place last weekend and will be on next weekend, was in a nontaxable state for both. My belief is that Carousel will be nontaxable this coming weekend. I will ask the minister for the definition.

In the case of Caravan, it is my understanding that none of the booths of Caravan will attract tax. I believe that has been cleared by the ministry at this point. The minister responsible is out of the House at present; he was here a few moments ago. He is in a better position to say whether they do or not, but it is my understanding they are clear. We have looked at the event, its purpose, the type of organization running it, the frequency with which it is run and whether it is in the commercial field. We accept the fact that the cultural activities of, say, the Caravan group are just that and should be tax-exempt. That is my understanding.

MCKELLAR GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I might, to return to the Minister of Health with a question about McKellar General Hospital.

Can the Minister of Health reconcile the statement he made in response to the question asked earlier by the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and the statement made so clearly and unequivocally by the Ontario Nurses' Association yesterday, that "evidence continues to mount that the nursing care in McKellar Hospital is not proper or even safe"?

After the documented reports in November 1980 about the situation in the intensive care unit, the nursing assessment committee report in May 1981, I believe it was, and the minister's own inspectors' report of December 1981, can the minister tell us why the nurses still felt that neither the ministry nor the hospital had responded specifically to the concerns they raised? Can he also tell us why he waited until today to respond in the House after they went public yesterday?

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will have to ask the nurses that question. He is asking me to explain why the nurses are still saying these kinds of things and how I reconcile the difference in views. The fact is that the nurses are taking one position. The president of the Thunder Bay medical society appears to give a vote of confidence to the hospital. The people who are responsible for the hospital are satisfied with the state of the hospital. And the ministry, through its area team, is relatively satisfied with the status of the hospital at present.

Some specific steps, which I have indicated, have been taken by the hospital since the initial report, which the member has indicated came to the attention of the public. Therefore, there have been a variety of responses in the Thunder Bay area now. Nothing I can do will ensure that the nurses, any more than the doctors in other situations, will find themselves in agreement with that situation.

If we had to line up the people involved, the member would have to note that the president of the medical society, the administration of the hospital, the board of the hospital and the ministry, all those groups as opposed to the nurses, seem to be satisfied that the hospital is in pretty good shape. We will continue to monitor that and make sure the concerns of the nurses are reviewed by us. We looked at the steps that have been taken and are reasonably satisfied at present.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us what he means by certain bodies being satisfied that the hospital is relatively safe? Why, in his letter of April 8, 1982, did he make no specific mention of the things he is now mentioning, and why did he say he declined their request for a meeting? In their letter, they outlined quite specifically what their concerns were, and the minister failed to respond to those in any detail in his letter.

What is it that makes a professional group that has an enormous sense of responsibility and an enormous commitment to that hospital but that has had a burnout rate in the past year of one third of their staff, go public and say, "We are not getting an adequate response from either the minister or the hospital"? In fact, there is a bureaucratic shuffle and a pointing of the finger of responsibility between the board of governors and the Ministry of Health.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, if the Minister of Health were to meet with all the professional health groups that have some disagreement from time to time with regard to what is happening in various units in the 230 hospitals in Ontario, then quite literally the Minister of Health would have absolutely no time to do any other part of his job.

Obviously it requires a difficult judgement call on behalf of the minister and the ministry to decide which groups should see the minister because the status of their complaints and the status of the local problems appear to be such that they are irreconcilable outside of the minister's office.

It was our judgement in this case, having consulted with all the people whom we contact in the area, that it had not reached that stage. While we were at a point at which the hospital and Ontario Nurses' Association were having a disagreement or a difference of opinion, none the less there were certain steps taken, and they are fairly important steps, which left us satisfied the situation was not one that warranted ministerial intervention at that time.

There are 230 hospitals throughout this province that would like to see the percentage increase in nursing staff that McKellar has seen over the past year. Those are fairly substantial figures; I am sure the member acknowledges that those are fairly substantial figures. A lot of my colleagues and the member's colleagues have been in to see me asking for increases in ministry budgets to allow that sort of increase in staffing complement and they have not succeeded; McKellar has.

Taking that kind of scenario together, I think our decision was right that at that particular time the situation remained one for the hospital to manage and that it was handling it relatively well. If that situation should deteriorate, or because of new facts we become convinced that ministerial intervention is warranted, we will consider it at that time.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister aware of the verdict of a coroner's jury into the death of Miles Sanders, which occurred at McKellar General Hospital on March 15, 1981? The jury's report, which was published in May 1982, reiterated as its recommendations a number of the recommendations that had been made both by the ministry's inspector and by the nursing assistant committee. May I read the following recommendations to the minister and ask him why the jury felt in May 1982 that it could still make these recommendations, which presumably had not yet been implemented?

"1. Make it standard procedure to have two registered nurses on duty whenever there are infants in intensive care unit.

"2. Proper training program be established for all nurses, registered nursing assistants and doctors who use the overhead warmer in the use of and dangers involved with this unit; testing to be followed up.

"3. Limit use to one baby in the unit at one time."

In other words, a lot of the very important new technical equipment that is available in the various wards, including the intensive care unit, cannot be properly used simply because the nurses, who are registered nurses and competent, have not yet been trained in the specific use of that specialized equipment. If they had been, perhaps the death of Miles Sanders could have been avoided.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One of the important functions of coroners' inquests is to arm the administration of hospitals, boards of hospitals and professional staff of the hospitals with the kind of advice the member is reading into the record today. I do not think the member would anticipate that the Ministry of Health should be the ones going in and trying to run 230 hospitals, including ones in Thunder Bay, from the Hepburn Block or Overlea Boulevard here in Toronto.

In point of fact, those recommendations are in the hands of the administration, the board and the staff of the hospital. We look to those people to meet their responsibilities under the Public Hospitals Act to run their hospitals.

3:10 p.m.

If the member is perhaps expressing a vote of no confidence in the board of governors of the hospital or its administration, then he ought to make that quite clear. At present, my area team reports that it is satisfied, as is the chief of the medical association in the area, that the McKellar General Hospital remains a good and safe operation. However, in the light of the questions my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and the member opposite have raised, we will certainly have a further look at the situation.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Wrye: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Before the Treasurer escapes again, I want to seek some clarification to an answer he gave in question period, because it is very important to the people of Carousel --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the honourable member speak to the Treasurer privately or wait until the next question period.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this question period the Treasurer made some reference to the fact that I was perhaps a liability in the riding of Hamilton West. I wonder whether the Treasurer is aware of the fact that his candidate has said the Treasurer's budget is one of the biggest liabilities --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is neither a point of order nor a point of privilege.

PETITIONS

TAX ON CLOTHING REPAIRS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit the following petition signed by 252 citizens:

"We, the undersigned customers, support the protest of the June 14 expansion of the Ontario provincial sales tax that imposes this tax on charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers. We urge the Honourable Frank S. Miller, Treasurer of Ontario, to withdraw this application of his May 13, 1982, budget since it is unfair, inequitable, inflationary and an added hardship, especially on the elderly, the unemployed and the working poor."

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in the Legislative Assembly and signed by 73 residents of Ontario. It reads:

"May 27, 1982, Port Elgin, Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest against the clause in the new Ontario budget pertaining to the charging of seven per cent provincial tax on baking and meals provided by churches, and the United Church Women of the Port Elgin charge in particular.

"We feel that the raising of funds by means of baking and meals to help support this church, its work in the community, in Canada and overseas falls into the category of charitable donations and should continue to be so designated.

"We respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in this matter."

UNIVERSAL MEDICAL CARE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the people of the riding of Simcoe, the people of Orillia, containing 1,100 names, addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). Unfortunately, the petition is addressed to Allan Grossman, but I trust that was simply a slip. I will read it into the record:

"In support of the principle of universal medical care, we wish to submit to you a petition signed by 1,100 residents of Orillia and district.

"Circulation of the petition was prompted by the fact that during recent fee negotiations between the government of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association, a group of 16 Orillia doctors announced publicly that they were withdrawing from the Ontario health insurance plan.

"This brings to 35 the number of Orillia physicians who have opted out of OHIP. There remain only about six opted-in doctors in this small city. As a result" -- and this is something that the Minister of Health has requested in the past" -- universal medical care regardless of income is no longer a reality for most Orillia residents."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's not true.

Ms. Copps: How would the minister know? She is not opted in.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: How would the member know? She has never practised medicine or anything else --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Copps: To continue: "We consider this to be a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs and would request that you and your government act soon before Orillia's predicament becomes the norm across the province. We look forward to your reply."

That is signed by 1,100 residents of a city that is represented by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I will pass this over to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The Solicitor General does not represent Orillia.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: We should draw to the attention of the House that this petition or a similar one was presented to me earlier this week by the excellent member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), who has drawn that situation to my attention. He delivered the same signatures, the same letter, to me several days ago.

Mr. Nixon: He didn't want anybody to know.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When are you going to call them to order? The minister had no point of order. That was a petition that was presented. He did not have the right to get up and make a statement. What are you doing with the rules? What is he getting up on? If he wants to answer, he has two weeks. You asked for a petition in the appropriate manner --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: If he wants to make a ministerial statement, he can do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw to all honourable members' attention that I seem to be criticized for not hearing points of privilege or points of order.

Mr. Martel: He didn't have a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot determine that until I have heard it. I suggest, with all respect --

Ms. Copps: I will correct the record --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that indeed the member for Sudbury East himself was out of order.

Mr. Martel: No. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to debate it and neither are you.

Ms. Copps: To correct the record, Mr. Speaker: I extend my sincere apologies to George Taylor. The member for Simcoe East is Allan McLean.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I draw to all honourable members' attention that it is out of order for them to refer to any other honourable member by name.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BRANTFORD-BRANT ANNEXATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 145, An Act to amend the Brantford-Brant Annexation Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF THUNDER BAY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the City of Thunder Bay Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

AGE OF RETIREMENT ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. MacQuarrie, first reading of Bill 147, An Act respecting the Age of Mandatory Retirement.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, the bill raises the age of mandatory retirement to 70 years but provides that an employee who is not able to perform his duties adequately may be required to retire after attaining the age of 65.

Mr. Martel: Oh, Nick Leluk the Second. Do you think that's going to get to cabinet?

Mr. Laughren: Are you flogging that?

Mr. Martel: Nick used that to get to cabinet. Maybe you'll vote against old age pensions as the Tories did originally.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Sudbury East quite through?

Mr. Di Santo: May I speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No.

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 148, An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that, unlike the last time I introduced this bill, the government has not voted against it on first reading.

This bill provides that prostheses may be prescribed as insured services.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 147, 186, 187, 193, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202 and 210, and the interim answers to questions 183, 192 and 198 standing on the Notice Paper, and a response to the petition presented to the House as sessional paper 122 [see Hansard for Friday, June 18].

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Laughren moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the massive unemployment that will be created by the corporate irresponsibility of Inco and Falconbridge in the Sudbury area which not only will have a devastating effect on Sudbury families and local businesses but also will have a devastating impact on the economy of the entire province.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the motion was received in time. I will be pleased to listen for up to five minutes as to why the honourable member thinks the business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, this debate is necessary. It is an emergency because of the devastating effects of the actions of both Falconbridge and Inco in the Sudbury area. Falconbridge has announced a major layoff of 25 per cent of its work force; that means about 1,000 jobs. Inco had already announced and implemented a job reduction of 850. That represents a total of 1,850 job losses in the Sudbury community in just one year. The spinoffs of that reduction will be serious.

I am pleased the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) is here today, because last Friday, June 11, when that minister was announcing a new Sanyo Machine Works plant in Elmira, he indicated, "My ministry estimates that each job in a new plant subcontracting in this manner supports 15 other people in the community." I question the minister's ratio of 15 to one. Nevertheless, those are his figures and his government must live with them.

The job loss in Sudbury represented by the Inco and Falconbridge job reduction of 1,850, even if we use a more traditional ratio of two to one, indicates a job loss of 5,500. That is very serious. If we were to use the minister's 15-to-one ratio, it would be a job loss of 29,600, which is a staggering number. I hasten to add that I do not subscribe to those numbers, but they are the ones the minister used.

As a province, we must begin to cope with the economic problems we are facing. It is not good enough to blame the federal government, which in turn blames the United States. We need to debate in this chamber how we should deal with the problems of layoffs, unemployment, shutdowns, one-industry towns and indeed the whole nonrenewable mineral resource sector. This situation is an emergency, and this government cannot continue to ad hoc its way from one emergency to another.

We have some specific suggestions to make if this debate continues this afternoon. We believe the nickel industry should be put under public trusteeship while we sort out the problems of collective bargaining and while we do an independent geological assessment to see what nickel resources we have in Sudbury and elsewhere in the province. The long-run goal is to bring that industry into the public sector.

We believe a committee of the Legislature should be established to look at a proper diversification of the Sudbury community and to establish a mechanism so that, if the layoffs are necessary, the workers are properly relocated.

I stress that this is simply the tip of the iceberg. The long-range plans of the mining companies in Sudbury are to reduce the work force to about half the present level. Both Inco and Falconbridge have been extremely well served by the community and the province, and we think their actions should be debated.

I remind the members that Inco has responded to all the largess we have given it by investing its profits elsewhere with a magnificent and ostentatious incompetence. The first four letters of incompetence spell Inco, and Inco spells bad medicine for the future of the Sudbury community. It is time the community debated that matter.

Falconbridge is no better. Despite the concessions it has been given on refining and pollution abatement, it has announced a major layoff in the middle of collective bargaining with its own workers. Given those facts, I hope the members will agree that this is an appropriate debate that should take place this afternoon.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that our party supports the need to debate this afternoon the issue that has been raised by the member for Nickel Belt. I am sure the honourable member would not be surprised if I were to point out that we do not necessarily agree with all his party's solutions to this problem. However, there is no doubt whatsoever in the minds of the members of this party that we have a serious human and economic situation in the Sudbury basin.

I have had an opportunity to be in Sudbury on two occasions in the past couple of weeks and will be there again this weekend. I have talked to people who are unemployed, to business people and to many of the social agencies in the Sudbury basin area about the impact of unemployment there. Compared to many other parts of the province, it is in most serious difficulty.

One of the reasons my party and I stand in support of this is that we participated a few years ago in an all-party committee of this Legislature looking into the Inco layoffs at that time. There are a number of members in this House who participated in those investigations.

At that time we drew to the attention of this government, and of the Sudbury community and of the companies of both Inco and Falconbridge, that some fundamental changes had to be made. Here we are, several years later, facing almost the same problem.

3:30 p.m.

I hope to have the opportunity to refer back to some of the recommendations that were made a few years ago by that subcommittee, to show that the same situation still exists and that the government has not taken the kinds of action we believe it should take. The impact of unemployment on any community in this province is serious. The impact of unemployment in Sudbury is doubly serious because, as has been pointed out by so many members of this House, under other circumstances and other issues, it can be called in many ways a one-industry town.

In my last few visits to Sudbury, I was very delighted to notice there is an attempt in that community to begin its diversification program, but that is not going to happen quickly enough to offset the very negative impact of the layoffs of Inco and Falconbridge. Therefore, we, as members of this Legislature, responsible not just to the constituents in our own ridings but to constituents and Ontarians all across this province, have to be concerned about those kinds of impacts. For these reasons, we support the need to debate this measure this afternoon and we will most certainly participate in that debate.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and it is his opinion and, of course, mine that the lives of the citizens of Sudbury cannot be ignored in this emergency. While we do not necessarily agree with the wording or the substance of the motion, we are in agreement with the intent. If, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, you decide that the matter warrants an emergency debate, we will certainly abide by your ruling.

I have already discussed this with the two House leaders, and I would ask that consideration be given to the arrangements for the Lieutenant Governor to be here for royal assent in this chamber. He has flown in from some distance away to be here. So I would ask the House if we can have unanimous agreement to deal with the third readings and the second and third readings on some private bills.

Agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.