Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members the presence in the Speaker’s gallery this morning of Mr. R. B. Duncan, MP, a member of the Legislative Assembly for New South Wales.

HOCKEY GAME

Mr. G. I. Miller: On a matter of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to pay my debts this morning. I bet the Premier of Ontario $1 that Boston would win last night, and they almost did. If it hadn’t been for the assistance of the referee in the last few minutes, I think they would have come across.

The real reason that I support Boston is that Stan Jonathan, who is a neighbour of ours, won the sixth game for them. I thought they were going to come through again in the seventh. It is a pleasure for me to present the Premier with this dollar this morning.

An hon. member: The Premier usually bets on the Argos.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s a great pleasure to receive the dollar. It compensates for others I have lost on other athletic events. I just wanted to say to the honourable member that I understand why he was betting on Boston. I know the rest of his caucus, like all of us in this House, is totally committed to national unity and that our sympathies and support were behind the Montreal Canadiens. At least, I think that’s the case, although I happen to know of a couple of the member’s colleagues who didn’t.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

USE OF HERBICIDES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House may recall, in March I announced plans to temporarily prohibit the use of two herbicides, 2,4,5T and 2,4,5TP in Ontario. This was achieved by amending the regulations under the Pesticides Act to bring the application of these herbicides under strict regulation by permits. Since then, we have denied permits as a matter of policy. This action was taken to allow time for the Ontario pesticides advisory committee to review the report and the action taken of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

I have now reviewed the committee’s report and shall table it for the information of the members. It is entitled, Report on Assessment of a Field Investigation of Six-year Spontaneous Abortion Rates in Three Oregon Areas in Relation to Forest 2,4,5T Spraying Practices.

After careful consideration of all available data, the committee has determined that the scientific basis of the American study was inadequate. It did not, by itself, justify the conclusion and subsequent action of tie Environmental Protection Agency. After deliberation, they have recommended that continued use of the two herbicides should be allowed in Ontario, subject to strict permit system.

I bring to the attention of members that officials in the federal Department of Agriculture, and Health and Welfare Canada independently came to the same conclusion, that, after a review of the recent American study and all other relevant and available scientific data, there are no grounds to invoke a regulatory ban at this time.

However, knowing of the great public concern over the use of these two products, I am extremely reluctant to act on the pesticide committee’s recommendations at this time. Federal authorities are of the opinion that the absence of much crucial information has made a full assessment of the American study impossible. Appeals launched in the American courts against the EPA decision have placed legal constraints on the availability of necessary background information. It may be many weeks before these details are available.

Before we make a final decision on the use of 2,4,5T and 2,4,5TP, this data is needed to assure a thorough assessment. Therefore, the restricted classification for these herbicides will remain at this time and we will continue to deny permits for their use.

I have advised the Honourable Eugene Whelan, Minister of Agriculture, Canada, by letter, of my position on the subject and I have requested that his ministry assess the need for further health studies in Canada concerning these two herbicides.

While on the subject of pesticide use in this province, I would like to table another scientific report by the pesticides advisory committee. This report, entitled, A Review of the Use of 2,4D, Other Phenoxy Herbicides and Picoram by Ontario Government Agencies, reviews the use of these pesticides by Ontario Hydro and the Ministries of Transportation and Communications and Natural Resources. This review includes quantities of herbicides used and an overview of the programs which each agency administers.

It should be noted that the pesticide advisory committee concludes its report by stating that the effect of these herbicides on the environment is minimal and that the programs run by the respective agencies are both effective and safe.

SPENDING BY ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on April 3, certain members raised questions pertaining to royal commissions.

While I fully appreciate the position which must be taken by government to control the spending of public funds, one must be concerned, however, that a proper balance is maintained between the responsibility of government for public funds and the necessary independence of royal commissions. The primary role of government is to provide the necessary logistical support which a royal commission requires.

To understand the need that royal commissions be independent, one only has to consider the nature of the matters with which they are charged. They, of course, encompass a wide variety of subjects and include matters of major public concern and interest, matters relating to the conduct of government itself and, occasionally, matters relating to the conduct of the judiciary.

The initiatives of government to ensure effective spending of public funds, therefore, must not fetter a royal commission to the extent that it will not be able to effectively and properly discharge its mandate. In this regard, the government introduced guidelines for royal commissions in the manual of administration on July 20, 1978. The purpose of these guidelines, as stated in the manual, is “to ensure the efficient expenditure of public money.”

Reference was made to a comment by the provincial auditor that the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment and the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning had not complied with section 50(8) of the manual of administration in that they did not submit legal bills in amounts in excess of $1,000 to my ministry for “review and approval” prior to payment. One member asked how it was that these funds for legal counsel were expended without my authorization.

First, the operative documents pertaining to the administration of royal commissions are contained in section 65(11) of volume one of the Ontario Manual of Administration, issued July 20, 1978; and the Administrative Guidelines and Procedures for Royal Commissions, issued by Management Board in May 1977 and revised in May 1978. Neither of these documents requires that the billings of private sector legal counsel be submitted by royal commissions to the Ministry of the Attorney General for review.

Such a requirement is, in my assessment, redundant inasmuch as the director of common legal services of my ministry, prior to the engagement of legal staff of a royal commission, evaluates the professional qualification, expertise and proposed duties of lawyers to he engaged. A rate is then established, based on rates currently being paid in the private sector, and is submitted to Management Board for approval in accordance with the provisions of the enabling order in council.

It should be noted that neither the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment nor the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, which commenced on July 13, 1977, and July 28, 1978, respectively, are funded through the Ministry of the Attorney General. In referring to this fact, I am not in any way suggesting any impropriety or mismanagement of public funds, but rather simply informing the members that the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General was a consultative one only. The orders in council establishing these commissions authorize them to engage such counsel and other staff as they deem proper at rates of remuneration and reimbursement approved by Management Board of Cabinet.

Section 50(8) of volume one of the Ontario Manual of Administration, as revised and reissued on December 8, 1978, no longer contains a provision that billings from the private sector legal counsel for amounts in excess of $1,000 be submitted to the Ministry of the Attorney General for review and approval before payment is made. Rather, the revised policy contains a provision that ministries, not royal commissions, shall obtain the approval in writing of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, common legal services, prior to engaging private sector legal services. Furthermore, there is a provision by which this requirement can be waived if it is judged to be impractical or unnecessary.

It must be stressed that royal commissions are not ministries, agencies, boards or commissions of government and should not, in my judgement, be restricted or limited in their selection and utilization of necessary legal counsel.

With respect to the earlier version of section 50(8), the previous wording did include a provision requiring the Ministry of the Attorney General to review billings from private sector legal counsel for an amount in excess of $1,000. However, this section was specifically in reference to the use of private sector legal counsel by a client ministry and not by a royal commission.

The Ministry of the Attorney General has traditionally had the responsibility for the courts and other judicial and quasi-judicial offices. It seems to me entirely unrealistic to set policies that are unnecessarily restrictive, when the purpose of these commissions is to conduct unrestricted investigations of various areas of public policy. I must categorically state that the practice whereby the chairman of a royal commission recommends counsel is fundamental to the independence of a royal commission.

There is an effective working relationship between the Ministry of the Attorney General and the five royal commissions currently funded through my ministry. The commissioners and their staff have been provided with and are aware of the guidelines contained in volume one of the Ontario Manual of Administration and the Administrative Guidelines and Procedures for Royal Commissions issued by Management Board. Furthermore, my officials provide such assistance as those royal commissions which are funded by other ministries may request.

The question was also raised whether or not there are salaried counsel available within the Ministry of the Attorney General who could provide the required advice within the existing budget. As I stated in my initial reply of April 23, I do believe there is very expert legal advice available within the Ontario public service. The crown law office, civil, has a complement of 23 lawyers and the seconded legal services number 119, including the ministry directors, and service a total of 21 ministries. Currently, one lawyer is seconded to the health records commission and one to the PGB inquiry. To my knowledge, there have been no requests for crown counsel to serve as counsel to select committees.

I believe there are four fundamental considerations in the provision of staff lawyers to royal commissions and select committees. First, the demonstrated need of a royal commission or a select committee to retain counsel in which it has confidence is fundamental to the success and independence of a royal commission.

[10:15]

Second, the possibility of a conflict of interests must be scrupulously considered. I’m certain that all members will agree that where such a possibility, real or imagined, exists, utilization of such legal staff is unacceptable.

Third, the availability of suitable legal staff will always be a determining factor. Legal counsel within government with the necessary expertise may not be available because of their on-going responsibilities.

Fourth, the existing demand for the legal services of the crown law office, civil, and the seconded legal services, if coupled with the provision of legal services to royal commissions and select committees on a regular basis, would require additional legal staff. This would, therefore, necessitate an increased salary budget. There’s also the practical consideration of the availability of and effective use of legal expertise employed in every field in anticipation of their possible requirement on royal commissions and select committees. The cost of such a program, if in fact it could be achieved, would be unwarranted, prohibitive in cost, and not an effective use of public funds.

I was asked whether I would consider having the legal bills of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment taxed by a master of the Supreme Court of Ontario. I have reviewed a summary of the legal fees paid to the three lawyers who assisted the northern environment commission. There is no need to have these accounts taxed.

The Management Board secretariat and the Ministry of the Attorney General are continuously reviewing the guidelines for the administration of royal commissions.

In closing, I would like to reaffirm that the role of government is to ensure that public funds are wisely expended and, in the case of royal commissions, to ensure that they are provided with the necessary funds to discharge their mandate in an effective and independent manner.

Mr. Nixon: The auditor is wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: The auditor’s wrong.

Mr. Nixon: The auditor’s mistake.

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was drawn to my attention that imported carrots packed by Hardee Farms International Limited were being sold in some Dominion stores with a Foodland Ontario logo on the package. Needless to say, the misuse of the Foodland Ontario logo is a great concern to me.

My staff began an immediate investigation. It was discovered that Hardee Farms had packed imported carrots in bags with the Foodland Ontario logo on them.

Mr. Riddell: Has Bill Stewart got anything to do with Hardee Farms?

Hon. W. Newman: You know, that’s pretty down.

Mr. Wildman: That’s what Mel Swart said yesterday.

Mr. Nixon: He’s running Hydro and the banks; now he’s getting into this business.

Mr. Breithaupt: A carrot by any other name is still a carrot.

Hon. W. Newman: Listen, why I don’t you go and chew on a few of them and listen?

Hardee Farms advised that 24,000 two-pound bags bad been packed. My staff took steps to make certain any of the packages remaining at the Bradford warehouse of Hardee Farms were detained.

Mr. Laughren: Were they detained overnight?

An hon. member: Did they take their television away too?

Hon. W. Newman: Hardee Farms have agreed to remove any unsold imported carrots in packages containing the Foodland Ontario logo from retail stores. Dominion Stores Limited have also agreed to remove the product from their shelves immediately. They started doing that yesterday and I think they’re all off now. The Foodland Ontario logo will have to be completely obliterated before any packages may be offered for sale.

Hardee Farms have advised my staff that the Foodland Ontario logo was printed on the carrot bags in error by the manufacturer.

Mr. Martel: Another clerk! What an inefficient bunch. Always somebody else.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. MacDonald: Do you buy that?

Hon. W. Newman: You’ll be gone next time.

Apparently the Foodland Ontario logo was used earlier in the season when Ontario carrots were being packed. Hardee have also advised the improperly marked packages were used only between May 8 and May 10, 1979,

I am advised that the supply of marketable Ontario carrots has been almost depleted and that is why US carrots are being imported and repacked for sale.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the members that this unfortunate incident is being cleared up, and the parties concerned are both cooperating fully.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). Could the Premier explain how it is that the X-ray machines, which I asked the minister about yesterday, are inspected at best only once in five years, when the opinion of Dr. Taylor at least is that fluoroscopy machines and others should be inspected every three or six months? Since his government is able to inspect elevators on a far more regular basis, why is it unable to inspect X-ray machines on a more regular basis?

Can the Premier tell us what happens to the inspection reports on these machines? Will he make them available for us to peruse and will he also explain how it can be that some people told the Globe and Mail that their machines hadn’t been inspected in as much as 22 years? What is going on in the inspection branch of the ministry and what can we expect to happen in the very near future?

Mr. MacDonald: Nothing. That’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Health intends to make a further statement on this matter on Monday. I don’t think it would serve the purposes of the House for me to endeavour to get into a detailed discussion here this morning, other than to make the observation to the leader of the third party -- and I say this very objectively because I watched some of it last evening -- that while one doesn’t minimize the potential problems, to suggest, as really was implicit in what he said, that people should not take X-rays or the machines should be shut down is totally irresponsible.

I just glanced at the report. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I think it is really totally irresponsible for the leader of the third party to go out --

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you answer the question that was asked? You haven’t answered a question in a month. You’re a clown.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- before television and to be suggesting that these machines should be closed down.

Mr. Martel: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just think it’s irresponsible.

Mr. Martel: Why be such a hypocrite and not answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is another point that needs to be made.

Mr. McClellan: It’s pretty silly for you to talk about being serious when most of the time you give a half-baked impression of answering.

An hon. member: What’s that got to do with this question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it has. Why be so defensive? As I said, the Minister of Health will make a statement. I cannot give the numbers of inspections. I did listen to the minister very carefully yesterday though. I think it is also necessary to restate this. I am not an expert, but my understanding is one can inspect a machine today -- the Leader of the Opposition would know this -- and one can have a cardiograph today that tells one he is very healthy. Two hours later one can have a heart attack.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition also something I think is important. This province is perhaps one of the very few jurisdictions in North America that has undertaken this sort of review that is endeavouring to bring some form of standard or regulation.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition I also watched channel 11 last night in order to catch up on what was happening. I don’t often get this opportunity. I was encouraged to see that the medical people in the city of Hamilton, as one area, had undergone some form of study encompassing all of the hospitals in Hamilton. The chief radiologist from McMaster said that in terms of any potential problems for the public being served in that part of the province -- and it related only to Hamilton -- that they were safe. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition must have been encouraged to hear that.

I think it's an important issue and the Minister of Health will have further statements or information to relate to the members of the House on Monday. He is in the city of Ottawa -- well, he may not be as he was delayed a little bit because of fog at Malton International Airport. But he will be here Monday to make a further statement.

Mr. J. Reed: He has been in a fog for a long time.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I am sure every member of this House is happy to hear when properly inspected machines turn out to be providing no excess hazard for the public. The problem, as the Premier knows, is that a report exists which indicates that the machines are not being properly inspected and many do present a hazard to the public. Therefore, I would ask the Premier does he not recognize that, apart from the study which is being undertaken, there is a need now for every machine in Ontario to be tested, not necessarily by the ministry, but on instructions from the ministry, by people in the various hospitals in the various communities and for the results to be posted immediately.

Does the Premier not recognize that when a doctor orders an X-ray he is making a judgement, as when one orders any kind of blood test or anything else, between the benefits of the X-ray and the possible risk? The doctors must know to what risks they are subjecting their patients. Why doesn’t the Premier undertake this within the month so every doctor knows the status of the equipment being used on his or her patients?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I, once again, don’t purport to be an expert in these matters, but I would assume, and it is only an assumption, that the radiologist at a particular hospital certainly would acquaint his fellow colleagues with whether or not there may be a problem with the machine.

Mr. S. Smith: He doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I would suggest perhaps part of the responsibility has to lie with the person who has the responsibility for the X-rays within any given institution to have some knowledge of this. My understanding is a lot of them do.

Now, as I say -- I want to emphasize this -- I don’t purport to be an expert in this field and I think this matter is important and it should be discussed when the minister is here. He is certainly more knowledgeable than myself and he is going to be here on Monday to deal with it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege: First, I did not say the people should refuse to take X-rays. I suggested the defective machines should be closed down.

In view of the fact Dr. Taylor, the author of the study, has told us some 200 to 250 X-ray machines across the province are, in fact, defective and emitting excess I radiation, is the province prepared to act immediately in order to ensure those X-ray machines are closed down? Is the province prepared to act in order to provide funding to replace those defective machines, given the fact many people in the province are needlessly being exposed to levels of radiation which far exceed, for example, the maximum radiation which is permitted for workers in Ontario Hydro’s nuclear plants?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I won’t add to what I said earlier. I would only say to the leader of the third party he may know what he felt he was saying yesterday, but I can tell him in terms of the perception of a lot of people across this province, by way of his contribution through the media, they would have gained the same impression I did. If he is saying today he didn’t intend to create that impression, then I am delighted to hear that from him.

I would say it has been pointed out to me that not only should one be concerned about those within institutions, but chiropractors also use these machines. I was at the dentist myself the other day and the dental profession also use machines.

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is quite obvious that if the ministry knows of a defective machine that needs to be repaired, or what have you, obviously they are going to do it. No ministry and no institution is going to knowingly tolerate a machine that is not working properly. I think to suggest any of them do is making a mistake. Certainly, the ministry is prepared to assist those institutions if, in fact, a machine is not working properly.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn’t you say that in the beginning?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact Dr. Taylor’s study indicated equipment to monitor the exposure rates for radiation of X-ray machines is, and I quote, “simple, easy to use and readily available, but not now in use,” will the government act to make that equipment available to all of the major X-ray users in the province so they can monitor and inspect on a regular basis rather than having to wait for five-year inspections by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the leader of the third party is tending to overlook something, and that is it was the Ministry of Health that initiated a great deal of this discussion and initiated the report. I think the leader of the third party should understand the Ministry of Health is a totally responsible ministry. They are the ones trying to find an answer to the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier is right that the ministry is certainly responsible for the fact X-ray equipment in Ontario is not properly inspected. They are responsible all right.

[10:30]

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Minister of Education, Colleges and Universities and sundry related matters. Would the minister explain to us with regard to apprenticeships how it is that her predecessor, the member for Oxford, said on June 6, 1978, the federal government would be providing $8 million for employer-sponsored training? He went on to say: “Within the next year we expect to see several thousand people go to work across Ontario in employer-sponsored training activity.” Yet it would appear that only 750 people are in the program, of whom 100 would have been in anyway under the former program, and a very small fraction, only $1.5 million, of the federal money has been spent on the program.

Why was the minister’s predecessor so wrong? What happened?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor was not wrong. The commitment of the federal program in support of apprenticeship and light training was of the order of $7 million to $8 million for the year 1979-80. It is the intention of those responsible for the program within my ministry and those responsible for the negotiations on the part of the federal government that this commitment will be totally accommodated and will be absorbed by the program established.

All the figures relating to this program and others in the apprenticeship area will be released in a statement I shall give to the House early next week. All of the details will then be available to all members in the House.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary -- I am not sure if it should be a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote from the then minister’s statement of June 6, 1978. He said: “A contract recently signed with my ministry will provide up to $8 million in the current fiscal year” -- that was as of June 6, 1978 -- “for employer-sponsored training projects.” He went on to say, “Within the next year we expect to see several thousand people in the employer-sponsored training activity.” The minister should not try to push it off to another year.

Furthermore, in responding to the question, would she also tell us how she responds to the Hushion report on the legislative basis for apprenticeship training in Ontario which basically says there is a policy vacuum that has existed for some time? As I read it, it says the blame lies on the present legislative setup, namely the government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to say 1979-80, I should have said 1978-79. That was an error on my part.

Mr. McClellan: That is all right, correct the record. Give us this day our daily correction.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Hushion report has been received by the ministry within the last six weeks. It is a very comprehensive report examining all of the reasons for problematical areas within skill training programs in this province. I think it is one of the most comprehensive reports that has ever been commissioned by any government to examine the problem.

Mr. Van Horne: The apprenticeship program is a disaster.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The report is being examined right now by the industrial training council. We, within the ministry, are also examining it. We will be having discussions about the ways in which we can solve some of the problems which have been delineated by Mr. Hushion in that report within the very near future.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Can we expect new initiatives on the part of the government where the provincial government adds some of its own resources into the apprenticeship program in this province, rather than the $8 million of federal money last year? And can we expect a new approach on the part of government where industry also contributes to maybe a grant levy system, or some type of program that has been successful in other countries, so that all corporations share in the costs of training people through the apprenticeship program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There has been a major commitment in terms of personnel and energy and time by the provincial government in support of the program which has already been established. I should like the honourable members to know the program has been extremely successful in terms of recruiting interested employers and the interest of trade unions in the support of such programs. There are now I think something in the order of 30 community industrial training committees throughout the province. I know that a new one has been established in my own area within the last month.

Also there is a great deal of activity going on which is involving the commitment of employers, trade unions, educators at all levels of education, and the interested people within the community. I believe with that kind of co-operative commitment we will be able to make very significant progress in the area of employer-sponsored training.

In terms of apprenticeships, as I told the House last week, and the honourable member will note it if he reads Hansard, the problems with apprenticeships are several. One that has been disturbing has been the apparent rigidity of programs. We are having discussions with both trade unions and employers about the ways in which we may produce programs that are more flexible and responsive.

We are also having discussions on the methods which might be used in order to ensure that there is a broad spectrum of apprenticeship places available throughout a number of industrial sectors involving small, medium and large employers. That is a problem that has been identified and one which must be solved. There are a number of approaches to that problem which I think were very clearly demonstrated in last June’s Skills for Jobs conference.

Those approaches are being discussed with the relevant people in order to ensure that we develop the right kind of program. This whole area has a very high priority within the ministry and within the government. I can assure the honourable members they will be hearing a great deal more about it.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of final supplementary, since my first question was, how come the minister who preceded the present minister was wrong when he said on June 6, 1978, that there were eight million federal dollars available and that several thousand people would be in the program within the year, and it is now May and we find that only $1.5 million has been spent and 750 people are in the program? She said the minister wasn’t wrong, it was intended for 1979-80. By way of supplementary I got her to admit it was not 1979-80, it was 1978-79.

Could she answer the original question and tell us what happened to the money, why the ministry couldn’t spend it, why there are not several thousand people in the program as the minister promised, and why was he wrong?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the propensity for the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to assign single blame for any kind of activity --

Mr. S. Smith: You’re all wrong. I just spread it around.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- really is somewhat annoying at times. I did say that I would have the details of this program available for the members of the House early next week. All of that information, all of the details and all of the figures I will be very pleased to provide early in the week.

DAY-CARE POLICY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services about cutbacks.

In December 1978, a survey of home day-care needs in Metropolitan Toronto identified a need for 230 places. We have done a survey now which indicates there is a need for 645 day-care places in home day care according to the waiting lists of all of the agencies in Metropolitan Toronto. In addition, there is a need for 250 places in group day care identified by Metropolitan Toronto’s government itself.

In view of the fact that there are now 895 children on the waiting list here in Metropolitan Toronto for day-care services, can the minister explain why the government’s funding formulas for this year will not allow the creation of even one additional day-care place in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, certainly there is no planning on the part of the government --

Mrs. Campbell: You’re right.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- that would lead to the conclusion that the honourable member has suggested. We have not made that determination strictly. There is provision within our budget for a modest increase in day-care spaces in Ontario of about 400 this year.

The situation, though, in Metropolitan Toronto as it stands at the moment is that last year Metropolitan Toronto exceeded its budget by -- my recollection off the top of my head is some $500,000, which we have committed to make up and in fact to build into its base for day-care services this year, and make that part of the base on which the calculation of the increment is made for this fiscal year.

I think that once there has been a little careful planning on their part they may not be in what they are portraying at the present time as a desperate situation. I say that not critically of them, hut I would point out it was only about a week ago they were talking about the possible need to lay off in excess of 100 employees because of a shortfall in their budget, for which they blamed us, claiming they were short about $850,000 in terms of their needs in one of their departments this year.

The following day a senior official of my ministry spent half an hour with their senior administrative officials and demonstrated to them where without any cut in service, but by efficient administration, they could make reasonable administrative decisions which would save $830,000. Again, I say that not critically. Before they portray their situation as alarming, I would urge them to sit down and very carefully assess their administration and areas where they might make more efficient use of the resources we have at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Metropolitan Toronto government has now gone through the exercise the minister talked about, but because of the province’s five per cent spending guidelines they have in fact, been forced to cancel the 200 additional day-care places in home and group day care they were intending to create this year. Can the minister say what action his ministry is prepared to take to meet the desperate need for close to 900 day-care places, most of which are for children of parents who face the very difficult choice of if they can’t work for lack of day care, they may well have to go on welfare? What action is the ministry prepared to take in order to ensure this desperate need is met?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as always, the staff of my ministry are prepared to work co-operatively with the Metropolitan Toronto staff. Of course, we cannot usurp the administrative responsibility they have.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, would the minister explain how effective his co-operation is without dollars attached to that co-operation? He talks and he talks but the responsibility he leaves with the municipality. Where is his responsibility for these children in the International Year of the Child?

Mr. McClellan: International year of the hypocrite.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, there has been, I suggest, a more generous rate of increase in funding in the area of children’s services than probably in any other area of government spending.

Mrs. Campbell: Children’s mental health centres. Don’t talk.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member knows, if she will sit and be honest, and stop sensationalizing things, for one moment, that for over two years we have been consulting with people across this province engaged in working with children and people in the general public, and consistently they have been saying to us it is important there be some redirection in the services for children in this province. We have been listening to that. We have been planning and we have been planning carefully --

Mr. Martel: Cutbacks.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and now we are at the point where we have to make some very tough decisions in order to execute the plans that have been developed --

Mrs. Campbell: The execution is clear.

Mr. S. Smith: You are executing the program. You are assassinating it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- with the support of the people in this province.

I ask the honourable member, is she really being honest with us and everybody else in this province, or is she going to dig in her heels and thwart the efforts on our part to do what we know is right and what she knows is right and what has been recommended by the people engaged in children’s services in Ontario?

Mrs. Campbell: Point of privilege: I have never yet spoken or acted in anything other than an honest way, and I resent that insinuation. I ask it be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I have no control over that sort of thing. I can’t insist, unless it’s unparliamentary, and I don’t see that it is.

Mr. Peterson: Tell the Sergeant at Arms to run a sword through him.

Mr. Warner: Apologize.

Mr. Swart: Apologize to the children.

Mr. Warner: Apologize and then resign.

[10:45]

Mr. McClellan: As a supplementary, what I want to ask the minister is this: Within his budget, although it is true he has given a 9.9 per cent increase for children’s services, why has he imposed a five per cent ceiling on day-care services? That exceeds even the most oppressive measure that the former minister (Mr. J. A. Taylor) took. Surely it makes sense to the minister to provide additional funding above a five per cent ceiling to day care, because this is the most effective preventive children’s service we have available?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m not sure. I’m not saying that the last statement of the member is incorrect, but I’m certainly not sure that it is correct.

Mr. McClellan: It’s the minister’s own statement I was reading from. It could be incorrect then.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I agree that there are many people who feel very strongly that quality day care is an important preventive tool.

Mr. McClellan: Take the ceiling off, that’s all we’re asking.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Although, at the same time, I would point out there are many other services that have been identified as necessary as preventive measures in serving the children of this province. One of the realities which goes with responsibility for government programs and accountability to the public for expenditures we have to face is that one must engage in what is a very difficult task at times of establishing priorities, just as the member has to, I trust, with his own personal budget in serving his own family, or meeting the needs of his own family.

Mr. Warner: Why doesn’t the minister get a job as the keeper of Newgate?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Surely the member too must establish certain priorities? We have engaged, in the last two years, in what I believe to have been one of the most extensive priority-setting exercises ever.

Mr. S. Smith: The government spent half a million dollars on one multinational to buy out another multinational.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would also point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the future of our children in terms of employment is also something that we have to be concerned about. We do not, in this government, develop tunnel vision.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister doesn’t have any kind of vision, tunnel or otherwise.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would point out to the honourable member that, certainly, if we had unlimited resources available to us, rather than simply generous resources --

Mr. Peterson: So you threw away succession duty revenues in the Year of the Child.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- then obviously we would try to meet every expectation and perhaps every need in the province. Maybe we would do that, but clearly we cannot do it. So what we have to do is try to assess essential needs, try to assess realistic expectations that we ought to be meeting and do our best to meet those.

Mr. Warner: Scrooge is a lawyer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We cannot be all things to all people at all times. That is the reality of 1979 in Ontario and in Canada, and it’s the reality of life in the western world. We’re still doing a better job than almost any other jurisdiction in the western world.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I lose again.

Mr. Cassidy: Your party lost out in BC again too, yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: How did you do?

Mr. Cassidy: Not bad. We’ll take it next time.

Mr. Foulds: We will take 47 per cent of the vote any time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: We got 47 times the combined votes of the Conservative Party in BC.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member for Ottawa Centre has a question please put it, or I might even recognize the member for London Centre.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment arising out of his answer to a written question from my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) about carcinogens being used in the plastics, rubber and pigments industries.

In view of the fact that the ministry’s hazardous substances handbook noted back in December 1976, more than two years ago, the extremely dangerous nature of such chemicals as methyl yellow, benzidine and MBCA, can the minister explain to the House why it took almost two years before the government commissioned the MacLaren study to determine what should be done in order to control or limit the use of these very hazardous chemicals?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take that question as notice.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the 1976 handbook said about methyl yellow that no exposure by any route should be permitted and about benzidine that any exposure is considered hazardous, can the minister say why in his written reply he said that the use of these chemicals was relatively small, when it came up to 25 to 75 tons per annum? Can he tell the House why there are not standards in Ontario even now for exposure to these very hazardous chemicals?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll take that as notice.

Mr. Speaker: That’s taken as notice too.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Van Horne: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning nuclear energy and public safety. Can the minister explain the discrepancy in the information provided in a recent CBC television news report from the Bruce and Douglas Point nuclear plants? The report made two points. One was that local police, fire and ambulance people have had no education from or through Ontario Hydro in how to respond to an emergency at nuclear plants. The second point was that one contingency system consisted of placing a disc in front of the home of a lady. When the lady was interviewed, she was able to say that her information was that if the disc went off or an alarm sounded from the disc, she should get into her car and drive off somewhere, not unlike Don Quixote, I suppose.

Mr. Riddell: Where? Into Lake Huron?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: London North.

Mr. Van Horne: There is a discrepancy between those comments and the minister’s comments of April 2, in which he indicated that his ministry was the lead ministry in matters of safety. He made specific reference to the fact that “should evacuation be required, this would be under the control of local authorities who are represented by the control group.”

There seems to be a discrepancy. Can the minister explain it?

Mr. Wildman: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, the question of off-site contingency plans was dealt with in great detail at the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. I would refer the member to that for a more detailed review of the problem.

We are aware of the fact and the member is aware of it too, that the Bruce generating station does have a fairly detailed off-site contingency plan.

Mr. S. Smith: It just so happens that nobody knows about it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can’t deny that we have much to learn from all that has gone on over the past few weeks. All of us have a lot to learn. Immediate plans are under way to carry out a full-scale, mock disaster situation at Bruce, simply to inform the public and the various groups involved, the fire department and the police department, so that a situation such as the member has reported to us -- and I saw the program he saw on TV that night -- does not occur again.

Mr. S. Smith: What did you think of it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have the same concerns the member has about the fact the public in that area doesn’t feel it’s well informed, and we will move to correct it.

Mr. J. Reed: You’re concerned about everything but you’ve done nothing about it.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: I have the minister’s statement of April 2 and I have the information from the select committee, but there is still the question as to when these people are going to be informed. As recently as the last few days, they say they have not been informed. How long is the minister going to wait?

Mr. Warner: Clean up your act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, there are two parts to the question of any nuclear situation that may be of an alarming nature. The first is the on-site plan, which was gone into in great detail at the committee and which the member is fully aware of.

The on-site plan also requires that there he a certain awareness of the community involved and that it take some responsibility for that. In addition to that, my ministry as lead ministry and, I might say, under the direction of the emergency committee of cabinet, has a responsibility for off-site contingency plans. Those plans have been drawn up.

We have had two mock exercises in the Pickering area. We are now planning a mock exercise in the Bruce area. We recognize the need for that sort of educational process to inform the public and we all have learned a lot from the situation which has occurred in the past few weeks. I acknowledge that. We are now proceeding to have the public and the facilities, such as fire and police, better informed about what to do in the case of any disaster situation.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not agree that in terms of public perception it is much better to have the public fully informed? Therefore, does he not agree that instead of having just one or two mock exercises, it is important the public be fully informed of the procedures and that the mock exercises be carried out on a regular basis, simply because there is a transitory population in both those areas?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That has been our policy in the Pickering area, as I mentioned in my previous remarks.

Mr. Foulds: Two in how many years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Two in two years. It is our plan to carry out that sort of regular exercise at each of the plants. The member can appreciate it hasn’t been an easy matter to develop contingency plans that are that thick for each plant, but they are being developed and they are developed in particular with regard to Pickering and Bruce.

We are going to proceed with the mock exercise at Bruce and will do so on a regular basis.

Mr. Sargent: Being aware of the minister’s thoroughness, I know he will follow through on this. But is he aware there was a release this morning from Washington that 41 nuclear plants in the United States will be closed down very shortly if they can’t come up with immediate evacuation plans?

I am not aware of the minister’s communications with the plants, but is he aware that last night there was a unit alert that lit up like a Christmas free -- an evacuation last night at Douglas Point, Bruce A? Does he have communications about things like that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not have immediate access to communications such as that unless the on-site contingency plan alerts the off-site group director. I would not have knowledge of that unless the on-site planners, Hydro in that case, felt there was any possibility of an off-site concern. So I would not automatically know of that.

CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT

Hon. Mr. Elgie: During my absence from the Legislature on Tuesday last, questions arose concerning the present Status of our discussions with the province of Quebec concerning its regulation restricting the rights of construction workers resident in Ontario to gain employment on projects in Quebec.

Suggestions have been made in the media and elsewhere that a compromise agreement has been reached between our two provinces and that a firm decision has been made by the Ontario government not to proceed with Bill 136, an Act to Stabilize Employment of Tradesmen in the Construction Industry. I wish to advise members that both of these assertions are incorrect.

As to our discussions, I last met with Dr. Johnson, Minister of Labour and Manpower for the province of Quebec, on March 23 in Montreal. At that meeting we once again reviewed the entire matter and Dr. Johnson advised me of certain changes to the Quebec regulations that were about to be made, unrelated to the Ontario situation. Frankly the proposed changes were not ones that made the prospects of settlement any easier from Ontario’s point of view.

Notwithstanding that fact, I undertook to consider the proposals he made, discuss them with my colleagues and respond as soon as possible. Subsequently I received a letter from Dr. Johnson dated March 28, 1979, in which the proposals made at our meeting were set out in writing.

It is quite clear from the text of that letter that Dr. Johnson was under no misapprehension that an agreement had been reached. In fact his summary of the points discussed is premised by the phrase, “The proposed solution could be drawn up as follows.”

[11:00]

On April 6 I replied to his letter and in my reply expressed my disappointment that the impression had apparently been created that we had reached agreement at our meeting of March 23. I reminded him I had made it clear I would have to present his suggestions to my cabinet colleagues and to my caucus before I was in any position to respond. I went on to say that on further reflection, it had become apparent there were four specific matters of substance which required clarification before I would even proceed further to discuss it with cabinet and my caucus.

The four matters upon which I required further information were set out with particularity in a letter to him on April 6. That letter concluded with the statement that once I had received the requested information, I would pursue the Quebec proposal with my colleagues and advise him of the results of our deliberations as soon as possible. I have not yet received a reply to that letter.

The questions I asked were, I believe, simple and straightforward and the information I have requested is essential before any further decision can be made. In an attempt to expedite the matter, I have sent a Telex to Dr. Johnson asking when I may expect to receive a response.

As to Bill 136, An Act to Stabilize Employment of Tradesmen In the Construction Industry, members will recall that it was introduced in the House for first reading on June 22, 1978, and was subsequently referred to a standing committee. In the current session, it was reintroduced and received first and second readings on March 6. On the same day it was referred to the standing committee on resources development.

I hope this clarifies precisely where the matter now stands. It would be premature and unproductive for me to comment further on the substance of our discussions with the province of Quebec, at least until I have received a response from Dr. Johnson.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister table his exchange of correspondence with the Quebec Minister of Labour and Manpower and the specific letters which he cited, in order that the Legislature can be fully informed about this matter?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous response, I do not feel it would be productive at this time for me to table the correspondence. When I have discussed the final process with cabinet and with my caucus, I will be pleased to consider doing so.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s open government.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That’s responsible government.

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I believe the Minister of Agriculture and Food has breached a privilege where he has inadvertently misled the House in his statement this morning where he said he had been advised the improperly marked packages were used only between May 8 and May 10, 1979. I can bring him a sworn affidavit that the carrots improperly marked were purchased before that time in the Dominion stores in St. Catharines.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege. I said in my statement that Hardee Farms have also advised the improperly marked packages were used only between May 8 and May 10. This is the information that we got from their office yesterday and if there were some before May 8 --

Mr. Swart: It brings into question their credibility, doesn’t it?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t mislead the House; they said that so don’t let yourselves get carried away.

An hon. member: You say what they say.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He reported what they said.

Hon. W. Newman: I’m reporting what they said.

Mr. Speaker: Really, nobody’s privileges have been breached. Obviously, there’s a difference of opinion and I see no reason why we should take the time of question period in this way. It seems to me they are honest differences of opinion and it will all come out in the wash.

DISEASES AMONG MINERS

Mr. M. Davidson: I have a question for the Minister of Labour with regard to the federal study, Cancer Mortality in Selected Northern Ontario Mining Communities. Does the minister agree with the remarks made by Dr. McCracken of the Workmen’s Compensation Board when he says: “It is not the policy of the board to review unpublished documents; what I would hope is that Dr. Wigle will have it reviewed, analysed and commented on by his peers.” This statement implies to me that the hoard is prepared to do nothing, therefore would the minister not agree that it is the responsibility of the board, and not of his ministry, to initiate its own study based on the findings of Dr. Wigle?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think there may be some misunderstanding about the whole question of a study of disease, including mortality in miners in Ontario. Some time ago this ministry, in conjunction with the board, commenced a study related primarily to uranium miners, with other miners being used more or less as a control group. It soon became apparent such a study was going to involve collecting all of the health records of all of the miners, including non-uranium as well as uranium, and there might be a lot of valuable information to be obtained by gathering data on all of those miners from the information records we have which go back to 1955. It, therefore, was obvious the study needed to be expanded so we could have greater information about the incidence of various diseases in all miners, be they uranium or non-uranium miners. That’s what we have been doing now and that’s a study that’s under way.

The Wigle study from the federal government might be termed a sort of a mini-study in that it’s selected two or three communities and zeroed in on them. His findings, of course, and the study are not in conflict with what we are doing but are rather a collaborative sort of effort. I don’t see any suggestions that anyone’s not interested in the Wigle study. I am interested in it.

Mr. McClellan: What about McCracken? He’s not interested.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Hang on or I’ll get my dog after you.

I have asked my staff in the occupational health and safety division to specifically review the Wigle study, having in mind there may be some information in it that requires us to explore some matter in greater depth. We are attempting to establish a broad understanding of diseases and complications from the workplace that miners I are exposed to and there’s no interest in doing anything else. There is a commitment to try and understand what has gone on in the past and to try and correct it for the future.

Mr. M. Davidson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given that the study shows some very dramatic deaths having resulted from lung cancer in comparison to what may normally be expected, is the minister now prepared to assure us a central registry for all miners in Ontario will be established as soon as possible? This registry, I might add, has been called for by this party and the United Steelworkers of America for a good number of years. Will the minister assure us that not his ministry hut the board will in fact, initiate its own study based on the findings of Dr. Wigle?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1978, does have provision under regulations for the establishment of certain worker registries and we will be proceeding in that area. I might tell the member, the first registry we intend to set up is one related to silicosis. That’s not to say there are not other equally important registries; one does have to establish some list of priorities in which one will proceed. We do have an interest in establishing certain registries and the new legislation does give us that authority, but let’s not assume there are no lists or compendiums related to miners in Ontario. The Workmen’s Compensation Board, as the member knows, has a full list of miners in Ontario. It goes back, as I mentioned, to some time in 1955. There is a list, and we do have access to it, and in conjunction with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, we are involved in this study. They are involved and are showing their interest in the whole problem.

Mr. McClellan: You didn’t deal with McCracken.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: I am going back to Dr. McCracken’s statement. Over the years it has been our experience that certain trends and certain illnesses start to develop which ultimately lead to the untimely deaths of miners. I remind the minister of Elliot Lake and the cancer problem in the sintering plant in Sudbury. Why is it the compensation board, when that starts to occur, does not institute its own study to try and head off a total disaster?

Dr. McCracken’s statement indicates they are not prepared to move in that direction. Will the minister direct the compensation board, when it starts to get these type of figures, to look into those matters immediately?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, I think there’s clear evidence we are concerned about this problem and are carrying out a joint study in conjunction with the WCB. If there’s a suggestion the Wigle study from the federal government is going to be ignored, it’s not a correct assumption.

Mr. McClellan: You should initiate your own assessment of it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have directed the occupational health and safety staff to review it to see whether or not --

Mr. McClellan: Don’t leave it up to them.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- there should be any change in the direction our own study is taking. At our forthcoming meeting with the hoard, I will also get their assurance they will be involved in the same sort of review of the Wigle study. There’s no doubt about that.

Mr. Martel: That’s not what McCracken says.

AUTO REPAIRS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Does the minister realize that if a consumer in this province finds himself in the unfortunate situation of having totally unauthorized work done in the repair of a car, that the use of the Mechanics’ Lien Act will force the person to pay for that work, whether it was authorized or not, if the person wishes to have the car made available to him or to her? Does the minister have knowledge of this kind of a practice and does he think that that is a proper application of the Mechanics’ Lien Act, where work has not been authorized?

Hon. Mr. Drea: From time to time that is brought to our attention. There have been and there are continuing discussions with the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding this problem. I am very hopeful that those discussions will lead to the inability, in a procedure where the work has not been authorized, for a mechanic’s lien to be filed.

There are some areas in the field of automobiles where, quite frankly, a mechanic’s lien should be filed, even though there is no authorization for any work, particularly in the field of towing, where a vehicle has been abandoned or what have you. I am not talking about an accident where there is a driver or that type of thing. But in terms of what the member is talking about, namely, repairs, there are ongoing discussions with the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding this problem.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: To take the example which I have here of a lady who took her car in for an oil change and the garage had a new motor put into the car without any authorization, would the minister not agree that in circumstances such as that the use of the Mechanics’ Lien Act is wrong? What powers does the consumer protection bureau have to attempt to remedy matters like that and avoid a forced payment if the person wishes to obtain the car?

Mr. Makarchuk: Was the oil in the motor or did they add it later?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously we have certain powers, notwithstanding the use of the Mechanics’ Lien Act. The mechanic’s lien and other types of liens are used in areas other than automobile repairs. It has been our policy to move in and deal with the problem. If the mechanic’s lien is not removed voluntarily, while we don’t actually participate in the court case for civil action against the person who laid it, certainly we provide sufficient expert evidence that it is a relatively easy and not a financially straining proposition for the person who is involved.

I would say that while the example given by the honourable member certainly is bizarre -- and I don’t know anything about it -- I would presume that the argument there is it was a verbal thing. I don’t want to get into the merits of it. That is why I have a fleet of ghost cars on the road. Nobody has asked me a question since January about the fleet of ghost cars that are operated by this ministry.

Mr. Nixon: Tell us about the ghost cars. Why don’t you make a statement about it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: You will find honesty and integrity and things like that out there.

Mr. Speaker: If they are ghosts, I don’t know how they would be aware of them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the reason I said that is that I said in December we would do it.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you the ghost writer for the Premier’s review of Morty Shulman’s book?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The use of the ghost car in this type of operation has diminished that type of activity quite remarkably.

Mr. S. Smith: It sounds as if the lady doesn’t have a ghost of a chance.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Supplementary: If the minister would come back to the original question raised by the member for Kitchener, in his ministry’s dialogue with the Attorney General will he tell the House today that he and his officials will make strong representation to the Attorney General in cases where the Mechanics’ Lien Act cannot be used, in those cases where payment is sought for automobile repairs where there was no authorization by the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Drea: As I pointed out to the honourable member who asked the original question, we have been making strong representations for a period of time to the Ministry of the Attorney General, but it is not as simple as he has just laid out. It is not as simple as “there is no authorization,” because there are times, particularly when a vehicle is abandoned --

[11:15]

Mr. M. N. Davison: Just for repair.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- that is considered to be a bill. There are also other times when the automobile repair man’s defence in business is the mechanic’s lien. This is how he gets a hearing when a customer says, “I don’t like what you did, regardless of how you did it,” and refuses to pay.

It is not a simple thing; it is a very complex thing. None the less, I understand the point of the honourable member’s supplementary question and that is the area we are trying to resolve. We are trying to resolve it as expeditiously as possible, so that a person will not be victimized by the relatively automatic placing of a mechanic’s lien which suddenly turns it from a dispute between a consumer and a businessman into the courts. Then the law comes in on the side of the businessman, much to the detriment of the consumer.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Since the Minister of Industry and Tourism and his colleague, the Premier, have been trying to sell Ontario first to the British and then to the Japanese, would the Treasurer share with us his views as to why he thinks increased foreign ownership of Ontario is an appropriate economic and industrial strategy? Does he not think that creating jobs in Ontario can best be achieved by rebuilding our own Canadian manufacturing industries, rather than inviting someone else in, which would cause even more foreign ownership? And is he not afraid the continued sellout of Ontario will result in the Toronto Star endorsing the NDP in the next provincial election?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is perhaps the kind of assistance we are looking for to get a real majority.

Mr. Foulds: The minister will eat those words.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are selling the English and the Japanese on Ontario. I think that is the key difference.

Mr. S. Smith: You are selling Ontario to them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are selling the English and the Japanese on Ontario in many ways, not just to invest here. We will be quite honest; we are glad to have investment here.

Mr. Warner: Make sure you’re selling it, not giving it away.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At the same time we want to make sure we make it easier for Ontario business to be done in those countries. The Japanese in particular have made it difficult for other countries to sell into Japan, I think the members would agree. The latest round of GATT negotiations I think almost foundered on that point of view. We also have to encourage, as I have said many times, Ontario and Canadian citizens to get back into the habit of, and confidence in, investing in their own country and we need to help them do that.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact the Treasurer does seem to think that increased foreign ownership is a good thing, is he aware of a very major study that was done by Professor Powrie of the University of Alberta on the contribution of foreign capital to Canadian economic growth? I will be very brief; there are only three major conclusions:

1. From 1950 to 1976 if there had been zero inflow of foreign capital into Canada for all 26 years, the Canadian standard of living would still be at least 98.7 per cent of its actual level in 1976.

2. If there was zero inflow of foreign capital into Canada for the entire decade from 1977 to 1987, the Canadian standard of living --

Mr. Speaker: That question should really be put as an inquiry of the ministry.

Mr. Laughren: Okay. I will summarize my question then, Mr. Speaker.

In view of this major study which I would ask the Treasurer to read, would he please tell us and perhaps even table in this chamber, information contradictory to the conclusions in this major study which indicates foreign ownership is not a blessing for Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are many opinions on that matter; there is no one unique solution to the matter. I do not think anyone in this chamber would like all the multinationals or all the capital to withdraw from words. this country. What we do need to do is create jobs in this country, some of which are going to have to involve multinationals, and at the same time encourage Canadians to invest in this country and support those small industries that are starting 10 become large companies.

One of the great things I am finding is we are getting Canadian multinationals these days. I think we should encourage Canadian multinationals to invest in other countries and have their home base here.

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

Mr. B. Newman: A question of the Minister of Revenue: As it is understood by some municipalities the new formula or weighting factor for the calculation of the resource equalization grant will be available in June of this year, will the minister inform the Legislature as to the date of the introduction of this new formula and what opportunities municipalities will have for input to express their concerns over the new formula?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The equalization factors will be gazetted by July 15. That is when the municipalities will be officially advised of the new equalization factors.

They have from July 15 to some time in November to study their equalization factor to see how it affects their present condition. Then, if they feel the equalization factors are wrong, they have the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board which will assess whether or not there has been a mistake made.

PETITION

CABLE TV SERVICE IN OHC PROJECTS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 214 senior citizens of Ontario Housing in Welland, and a few in Port Colborne:

“We the undersigned, being residents of the OHC senior citizens in Welland, object to the termination of the block purchase of cable TV which enables us to obtain greatly reduced rates. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Minister of Housing to reconsider and authorize officials of Ontario Housing Corporation to negotiate continuation of the agreements with the cable TV company.”

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND SECURITY GUARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 84, An Act to revise the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The bill is an amended version of Bill 87 which received first reading in the last session. The bill would substantially modernize the legislation which was last updated in 1965.

The current Private Investigators and Security Guards Act will be extended to apply to new groups such as the burglar alarm industry and security consultants. The bill would provide, in addition, for improvements in the licensing system and the powers of enforcement.

A new tribunal would also be established to hear appeals to the decisions of the registrar respecting licences.

The proposed law is intended to alter and renovate the existing regulatory process for the betterment of the industry, the licence authority and the public.

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved first reading of Bill 85, An Act to provide Political Rights for Public Servants.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that public servants will be able to write, to speak, to contribute, to solicit funds, to work, to join, to hold office and to vote on behalf of, in, for, or to a political party or candidate in a federal or a provincial election. It will protect public servants from punitive action by their superiors or from being forced to carry out partisan duties as a condition of their employment.

It’s designed to end the second-class status, as far as political rights are concerned, of Ontario’s public servants. It’s time this bill was adopted now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to speak in this budget debate --

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order, I want to ask the Speaker if I could have a ruling as to the adjournment of a debate. If I remember correctly, on Monday afternoon last the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) adjourned the debate. I was under the general impression that parliamentary procedure was that that person carried on in the next debate.

Mr. Haggerty: There are no other speakers indicated, though.

Mr. Speaker: The member was under a false impression, if he had that impression. There’s a general agreement by the whips, who order the speakers, that speakers follow in rotation. On numerous occasions in the past we’ve had members get up and adjourn the debate on behalf of a particular party. It’s just whoever happens to catch the Speaker’s eye. I’m assured by the Clerk that from time immemorial you follow the normal rotation as long as you have speakers to fill the slots.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I don’t beg to differ. That was the general operation of this House for the last 11 years I’ve been here. At the time the member for Oriole adjourned the debate the problem was there were no NDP members in the House, and maybe that was the reason.

Mr. Speaker: I think if the honourable member will check back to the last time we had this item before the House, I think it was the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) who adjourned the House, and the next speaker was the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed). I think if the member will check back on that, we’re not establishing a precedent here this morning.

Mr. Foulds: Well done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Philip: It’s a pleasure to take part in this debate on the budget. Ifs a budget that once more socks it to the middle-class taxpayers who have built this country and made it the great country that it is. It’s a regressive budget by a regressive government. It’s a doctrinaire budget. Gone are the days of the pragmatic practices and pragmatism of John Robarts, and so enters a new version of Goldwater and Adam Smith fundamentalism in economics in this province.

The budget gives lip-service to one of the most pressing problems and then falls into its rigid ideological trap of assuming that complete reliance on private enterprise, with little direction or leadership from government, can somehow produce the kind of growth necessary to put this province’s 300,000 unemployed back to work.

This blind faith in private enterprise is also reflected in the lack of any initiatives in the consumer field. The very least the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) could have done was to provide an Ontario food prices review board to protect consumers from unjustified increases in food prices. He fails to do this. It is little wonder that the consumer is being ripped off daily in this province.

We saw recently, in the condominium bill that was introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) and debated in this House, that even the simplest requests from condominium owners for some consumer protection were rejected. Even the simplest requests for the licensing of management firms, a request that was backed by many of the reputable management firms, were rejected not only by the Conservatives but also by the Liberals, out of some kind of blind faith in Adam Smith economies.

[11:30]

What was important was a rigid ideological position taken by the government and by the Liberals, not the basic needs of the consumer. The consumer be damned; ideology is what’s important to this government.

As transportation critic in this Legislature, I spend a great deal of time documenting the lack of policy in this ministry. The very fact that there is, right now, an inquiry into the Ontario Highway Transport Board is ample evidence of the lack of leadership by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). Instead of accepting the fact that mistakes have been made in the past in a vacuum of any kind of policy, he has engaged in the kind of shoddy polities that have no place in this province.

The most recent example of this was the speech made on May 8 at the Ontario Traffic Conference. I was present when he told the audience that it took 19½ hours to vote only $50 million, and half an hour to vote over $1 billion. The minister implied, of course, that members of the opposition took all this time on matters of minor importance and were not interested in the concerns of people who attended that conference.

Mr. Eaton: That’s right on.

Mr. Philip: I didn’t see you there, so how would you know?

Mr. Eaton: I was at it.

An hon. member: Where were you, Bob, under the table?

Mr. Philip: The minister conveniently neglected to mention that a great deal of the time was spent on the first vote, a vote dealing with policy and, therefore, affecting more than the specific costs to the administration. He failed to mention that part of the time for estimates was taken by an inquiry into the transportation board, an inquiry affecting billions of dollars to shippers and to transport companies in this province.

He failed to mention that much time was spent on safety, a vote which, once again, is important not only in economic terms but also in very real, human terms.

He failed, also, to mention that there are Conservative members on that committee and that they spoke on many of those early votes. He failed also to mention that the committee was chaired by a Conservative, and had that chairman properly administered the new standing orders of the first vote, much less time would have been taken on the vote.

Mr. Eaton: He was a much better chairman than you ever were.

Mr. Philip: In fact, the minister even failed to give the correct information. He misled that audience.

The facts are that after 9:45 p.m. on the day he referred to, the committee voted on votes 2604, 2605, 2606, 2607, 2608, 2609 and 2602, and it adjourned at 10:25 p.m. The total vote prior to 9:45 p.m. was for $74,018,920. These figures can be checked.

I dare the minister to table his speech so that all members of the Legislature can see the kind of shoddy politics the Conservatives are engaged in. Instead of policy in terms of transportation --

Mr. Eaton: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of privilege.

Mr. Eaton: I thought it was unparliamentary in this House to state that somebody misled. I would ask that the statement be withdrawn by the member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member did use the term “misled” and I wonder if he would withdraw it.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the rule indicates that it may not be stated a member misled the House. I did not say that the minister misled the House, I said that he misled a conference that I attended.

Mr. Eaton: He’s still accusing a member of the House of misleading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I really don’t feel that’s parliamentary and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr. Philip: Since I have a lot of respect for the present Speaker, then, I’ll withdraw the remark. What the minister said is evident. I challenge the minister to table his speech and we can all examine what he said.

An even shoddier form of apologetics in transportation was the letter that was sent to all the northern newspapers by Mr. Oliver Korpela of Sudbury.

At that time, Mr. Korpela, in his letter to all of those newspapers, suggested that somehow the New Democratic Party and the Liberals were responsible for the fact the people of Chapleau have to pay 69 cents for a loaf of bread. He stated that 24 cents of that price were freight costs and that was because, in the words of the minister -- quoting from a conversation with the minister -- somehow “the Liberals and the NDP had combined to defeat a bill in the House.”

I would like to read into the record a letter which I and some of my northern colleagues have sent today to all of the northern newspapers. I want to show those people that they cannot get away with this kind of shoddy, cheap politics.

It reads as follows:

“Recently a letter from Mr. Oliver Korpela of Wesmak Lumber Company Limited, Chapleau, Ontario, appeared in the North Bay Nugget and other northern newspapers charging that NDP and Liberal transportation policies are responsible for higher bread prices in northern Ontario.

“Mr. Korpela’s letter is a totally inaccurate attack on the NDP which, we suspect, is politically motivated, coming as it does during a federal election campaign. Political differences are no excuse for using fabricated figures to support one’s own self-interest.

“To begin with, the allegation that a 24-cent difference in bread prices exists between Toronto and Chapleau is nonsense. The same premium brandname, 24-ounce loaf that sells for 64 to 67 cents in Toronto sells for 67 to 68 cents in the Sudbury region, a price differential of one cent. Mr. Korpela, according to bakery company officials, is referring to private store bread when he mentions the 45 cent figure. These loaves are produced for chain store operators who, in many cases, use the product as a loss leader, as a means of attracting customers by offering a lower price -- often below cost.

“Transportation costs between Toronto and Sudbury amount to 2.5 cents a loaf, not the 24-cent figure which Mr. Korpela quotes. Some of the bread sold in Chapleau actually comes from Shaw Bakeries in Thunder Bay. Godbout General Store sells this bread for 65 cents a loaf, while Dominion Stores offers it for about 63 or 64 cents. Dominion also offers its own brand at around 45 cents as a loss leader in this town.

“It is clear that Mr. Korpela is comparing apples and oranges, and using false information as well.

“Mr. Korpela’s concern about empty trucks returning from Toronto after delivering lumber to Toronto are understandable, but his company could not service the Chapleau area with bread. Trucks bring the bread in on large racks which are returned to the bakeries along with stale products left over from the previous deliveries. This means that service to the Chapleau area is a two-way process, not the one-way operation implied by Mr. Korpela.

“Mr. Korpela points to regulation of the trucking industry as the root cause of the problem of empty frocks travelling between northern and southern Ontario. We in the New Democratic Party, on the other hand, believe that this problem stems from the type of economy that has been forced on the people in northern Ontario.

“This economy, supported by the Progressive Conservative policies and by the present budget, is based on the mining of natural resources, with almost no attention paid to secondary manufacturing. A diversified economy in northern Ontario would improve the situation considerably. We remind Mr. Korpela and the Conservative Party that it was Darcy McKeough, the former Treasurer of Ontario, who indicated in 1977 that there would be no secondary industry in northern Ontario for at least 20 years.

“As to whether liberalization of the trucking industry would reduce freight costs, a select committee of the Legislature, chaired by the Conservative MPP Bud Gregory, concluded that this would not be the case.

“The committee discovered no significant differences in tariffs between the regulated trucking industry in Ontario and the unregulated trucking industry in Alberta.

“On the contrary, however, the committee did find that transportation costs are less expensive in Saskatchewan, which does have a regulated industry.

“Mr. Korpela also states that in his discussions with Mr. Snow, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, it was indicated to him that Mr. Snow attempted to liberalize trucking in Ontario and that it was blocked by the New Democratic Party, aided by enough misguided Liberals.’

“As to whether the Liberals are misguided or not is neither here nor there, but the facts of the case are materially different from those stated. The Minister of Transportation and Communications presented a bill to the Legislature, Bill 21, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

“On May 2, 1978, this bill was withdrawn without ever having been debated and a new bill, Bill 78, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act was introduced. This bill also remained on the Order Paper for many months and at no time did it receive second reading. Simply put, it was never voted on.

“It is a well-known fact that there is a split in the Conservative ranks over the question of deregulation. When the critics of the two opposition parties indicated that they were prepared to proceed with a bill which would remove the North Bay restriction, the government chose not to call the bill because it could not count on the full support of its own caucus.

“In conclusion, Mr. Korpela’s letter should be dismissed as a politically motivated attack on the NDP” -- and I might add on the Liberal Party -- “for which it has no substantial basis in fact.” That kind of shoddy politics which is used as an absence for any kind of policy in transportation is the kind of thing which is unbecoming to members of the Legislature or to their supporters and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that any time we run into that kind of thing we will attack it in the same way that we have dealt with it right now.

I would like to deal briefly with a matter that concerns many people in my constituency, and that is the matter of health care. I would like to read to you excerpts from an article which appeared in the Etobicoke Guardian, Wednesday, May 9, which I think deals with the matter of how this particular government is destroying the health care system in this province. The article, written by Leslie Ferenc says:

“Approximately 1,200 outpatients turn to the services provided at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital when times get rough. But when the hospital closes in September, these individuals will be forced to look elsewhere for help.” It is that “elsewhere” of course, that the minister has promised to take care of, but so far we see no evidence of that.

“Currently there are approximately 15 outpatient programs serving the borough. People who rely on the 89-year-old facility for such services as day-care programs, alcohol clinics and behavioural therapy programs which will soon begin to feel the side effects of the closure.

“Ontario Health Minister Dennis Timbrell has promised $1.3 million will be spent for community-based services. But with only 114 days left before the hospital locks its doors, time is running out.

“Mike Travers, a vocational counsellor and assistant director for the DARE program” -- Day-care Assessment, Rehabilitation and Education, Etobicoke -- “says the service will not be able to meet the needs of all the people who will be coming out of Lakeshore when the facility is closed. A relatively new organization” -- I am proud to be on the advisory council -- “called Friends and Advocates also is doing its share to help individuals who have been discharged from Lakeshore. Program co-ordinator Jill Butler describes the organization as ‘a people’s program.’

“‘We feel, however, that there was a great need for more outpatient programs in Etobicoke, even before the minister announced that Lakeshore will be closed,’ she says. ‘When there is no support from the community, some people will be forced to go back into the hospitals.”

A letter was sent to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) by the Family Service Association of Metropolitan Toronto on April 6, 1979. When I spoke to them last week they still had no answer from the minister. The letter points out that the Family Service Association is “the only professional family counselling and family support agency in the Etobicoke community. Yet the minister has not informed anybody as to why Dr. Lynes's outpatient transfer committee has not contacted this professional association.”

[11:45]

I would ask the minister, assuming he will be reading this speech, to table a list of those agencies that have been contacted to date in this regard, since the minister knows that the FSA cannot handle the large increase in referrals sent from the psychiatric sources. Since it cannot handle them under its present facilities, where is the slack going to be taken up?

Is this association going to be given additional funding? What other associations are being contacted? One would think if the minister were serious about providing the kinds of outpatient services he has promised, he at least would have contacted this organization as one of the first organizations to be involved in some kind of planning.

As they said in the Guardian article, two days ago, there were 114 days left. Now there would be, by my arithmetic, 112 days left and one wonders what the ministry is doing.

There’s been a great attention paid in this Legislature and in the newspapers to the inadequacies of this particular budget. The commentators and editorial writers have had a great deal to say about the inadequacy in providing employment. Much attention has been focused on the problem of cutbacks in medical services. In all of the heated debate, perhaps housing has not received the kind of attention it really deserves.

To many seniors in our society, housing is a major problem. The fact is the present Conservative government at Queen’s Park is taxing many seniors out of their homes. Last year the budget promised property tax reform and enriched tax credits for seniors. They are still waiting for it and some have simply given up and reluctantly have bad to sell their homes.

Only this week a report adopted by the Toronto planning board suggests seniors who can no longer afford to retain their homes should be allowed to convert them into smaller senior citizen apartment blocks. The report points out there is a shortage of accommodation for seniors in the Toronto area. Whatever the merits of the report in creating new senior citizens’ accommodation, isn’t it sad seniors in their retirement age should be asked to open up boarding houses? That’s basically what’s happening as a result of the actions of this Conservative government.

Where are the golden years the Premier loves to talk about when he appears?

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I don’t see a quorum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised there is a quorum. Would the member for Etobicoke continue?

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really think the Conservatives should use their whip rather than the bell in order to get some of their members into the House. I notice there were two present at that time.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You’ve only got six. There are 28 of your people missing -- 98 per cent.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There were 100 per cent missing for prayers.

Mr. Philip: Since part of my comments were missed, I guess perhaps I should start at the beginning and go over them. Only this week a report adopted by the Toronto planning board suggested that seniors who can no longer afford to retain their homes should be allowed to convert them into smaller senior citizens apartment blocks. The report points out there is a shortage of accommodation for seniors in Toronto. Whatever the merits of the report in creating new seniors’ accommodation, isn’t it sad that seniors in their golden years must be asked to turn into boarding house operators?

Mr. Haggerty: That’s the NDP policy; sharing the wealth.

Mr. Philip: Where are the golden years for these people the Premier (Mr. Davis) loves to talk about when he comes to my riding -- only at election times, mind you -- to visit the seniors at R. J. Smith and West Acres senior citizens’ residence? The education and social services component of property tax is an enormous burden on the elderly. We in the New Democratic Party feel this should be shifted to a more progressive form of taxation. However, the present government is moving in the opposite direction.

In 1975, the government met 61.4 per cent of the average education costs across the province. This left 88.6 per cent to be paid by property taxes. This year the government’s share is expected to be only 51.5 per cent, so property taxes must meet 48.5 per cent of the total.

In Metropolitan Toronto, as our critic, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has pointed out, the shift is even more dramatic. The government provided 85.1 per cent of the education costs in 1975 but will pay only 20 per cent this year. In other words, while property taxes had to provide 64.9 per cent of Metro’s education dollar in 1975, in 1979 they must meet fully 80 per cent of the cost.

Property taxes are regressive taxes. They take from those who often can least afford to pay -- the retired, the person temporarily unemployed, the disabled and the middle-income earner. In provinces like Saskatchewan, where the NDP is the government, they have moved to a more progressive form of taxation, and one need only compare the property taxes of seniors and others in Saskatchewan with those of Ontario.

I find it hard to understand why this government is so insensitive to the needs of the seniors in this province. It is not as though the government doesn’t know the issues. Groups such as the United Senior Citizens of Ontario have done an excellent job of making the views of seniors known to all members of the Legislature. One would think that even from a purely pragmatic political point of view the government should be interested in seniors issues. The USCO, for example, has almost 1,000 affiliated clubs across the province and these people are articulate and increasingly politically sophisticated. If the government doesn’t respond to their needs they will soon turn to those political parties, such as the NDP, that are listening to them.

The government should also be aware the average age of the population is changing. While the percentage of seniors, that is, people over 65, was 8.4 per cent in 1971, we can project that by the year 2000 the percentage of people over the age of 65 will be 13.6 per cent.

Mr. Philip: Conversely, while 37.9 per cent of the population consisted of people under 19 in 1971, the projected drop is to 23.3 per cent by the year 2000. Thus, the needs of seniors today will be multiplied considerably within the next 20 years. It is therefore necessary from a purely pragmatic point of view to understand senior citizens’ needs and to develop new programs that can be used in the years ahead when a very large part of our population, some of ourselves included, will be part of that retired population.

I have been pleased to have a close association with the United Senior Citizens of Ontario. Only last week I had an opportunity, as transportation critic for this party, to accompany a delegation of them to a very profitable and very worthwhile meeting with officials from the Toronto Transit Commission.

The USCO has presented a number of thoughtful briefs to this government. It has pointed out how regressive the system of taxation is and how it imposes hardship on seniors. In the brief presented in December 1978, we find a number of recommendations on housing that make an awful lot of sense. If I may, I would like to quote one section from it that I think deals with a problem that has certainly been brought to my attention by many seniors in my riding.

The brief says they have received a number of requests for two-bedroom apartments to be supplied in senior citizens’ housing projects. The need for this type of housing becomes apparent in the ease of a married couple living together, when in the event of illness the occupancy of one bed is not in the best interests of both parties. Another reason for two-bedroom apartments is so two friends could share one apartment and thus reduce costs. One might add that in those instances they might also reduce the need for someone going to a nursing home or other institution of more intensive care.

The brief also recommends an alternative to the housing situation is for the ministry to relax the rules of qualification and for people waiting for such housing to be subsidized in their existing living quarters.

We have in our riding an excellent experiment called Highway Terraces, in which we have 50 units geared to income. The others are on a non-profit payment basis. It means what we have in that building is an economically wide cross-section of seniors who are in the one building and are able to share their talents and their wide variety of experiences with one another.

Mr. Ziemba: One day the grey power will drive out the Tories.

[12:00]

We have not created in that building the kind of ghettos that will be created if senior citizens’ housing is restricted to only the very poor. I suggest that that kind of experiment is worthwhile and is certainly needed,

Seniors may not in some instances have an economic need for senior citizens’ housing, hut they have a psychological or health or other reason for wishing to live in that kind of accommodation. Simply because they have been able to save some money is no reason they should be restricted from the advantages that come from living in that kind of accommodation.

Some seniors are confined to nursing homes for long periods of time. At times they have a need for certain privacy. A particular nursing home in my riding, Kipling Acres, has an excellent chief administrator and an excellent staff who are able through a number of experiments to provide that kind of privacy. However, this is not common throughout the province. It strains the staff and resources of every nursing home when we find there is a need, either for medical reasons or for psychological reasons, to have a resident given the kind of privacy that may be required. USCO deals with this in its brief. It recommends that nursing homes provide rooms for their patients when needed, at the recommendation of the patient’s physician. I think that is a very reasonable kind of suggestion.

Another suggestion that has come from seniors in various groups has been about the extremely expensive cost of automobile insurance. Some seniors find that because of the location of accommodation -- in our case, for example, those who are on geared-to-income rents at 75 Tandridge in Rexdale -- the only way they can get out is by automobile. Yet car insurance is extremely expensive for them. Certainly the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations should conduct a complete study on the high cost of car rates charged to senior citizens. Many seniors contend that this age group has fewer accidents and should be considered for rebates on car insurance. A study of this might produce some interesting results and provide some basis for negotiations With the automobile insurance companies to give what would be fairer rates to seniors.

This budget is a reactionary budget. It gives more tax concessions to the resource corporations and it does nothing for the seniors and for middle-income groups. I find it is certainly a budget that in conscience I cannot support.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the all-important budget debate for this year. In so doing, I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this particular budget. It is one that realistically looks at our financial past and gives consideration to our financial needs in the immediate future, as well as commenting on long-term considerations of a financial nature.

The bringing down of the budget each year is of course the time of financial accounting. It is a time when government must really face the moment of financial truth. It is very easy for governments to embark on ambitious programs to provide either hard or soft services to the community, and it is indeed an obligation of government to ensure these basic services are provided. There is a particularly heavy onus that rests on the government in power to ensure these objectives can be achieved in a responsible financial fashion.

We always must bear in mind it is not the government per se that makes the financial wherewithal available in order to provide these services and distribute the wealth in a meaningful way to ensure this society is equitable, fair and desirable, so citizens from anywhere would like to live in it. Indeed, those cash resources are located in areas other than government. It is axiomatic that we do have to look to the individual citizen and to the business enterprises that operate within the private sector of our society to ensure the financial wherewithal is available, in order that we, as a responsible government, can ensure basic and fundamental services are attended to to ensure the basic wellbeing of all people in our society.

The Treasurer of the province has, of course, a unique and singularly important role to play in having to match these programs in all sectors of our government as identified by the different ministries. He has to be able to relate these in a very businesslike fashion to the all-important consideration of cold, hard cash and the dollar equation.

There is an amount of rhetoric forthcoming from members of this Legislature, on an ongoing and quite often repetitive basis, about the lack of services provided to the people of this province which create purported welfare ghettos and pockets where people live below the poverty line and have yet to see the light of day as far as having the basic social amenities available to them. These types of speeches continually go on.

One never hears attached to them the important responsible financial considerations that must accompany any government program brought forward to assist the less fortunate in our society, and indeed to ensure there is an orderly behaviour of all of our society, whether it be through the provision of appropriate law enforcement agencies or just responsible statute law by which people govern their activities in society on a day-to-day basis.

I think it is a fundamental part of our democratic system that there has to be a financial accounting on an annual basis and the government in power has to account to the people as to how it has not only administered the programs in the preceding year but found the financial wherewithal to ensure these programs have operated within a responsible fiscal budget.

The thing that has interested me over the years in listening to the budgets that have been brought down has been observing the reaction of the opposition parties when the budgets are presented. As we all know, the budgets speak to the successes of the preceding year, that is as to whether the government services and programs have been discharged during the preceding 12-month period within the financial allocations that were designated in the budget. But they also provide some financial prognostication as to how we can best afford to provide continuing and basic services within reasonable limitations, bearing in mind the state of the economy as a whole.

What has surprised me is why the members opposite sometimes obviously feel -- by the looks on their faces -- uncomfortable and perplexed and sometimes bewildered at the time of budget presentations. I look in particular to the members of the third party. They seem to be floundering about somewhat when they have the cold, hard facts of economic life presented to them. I’ve often wondered why this is so and why it showed up so obviously among the ranks of the members of the third party. But after reflecting on this for some time I came to realize that perhaps the reason for this is that they lack a grasp of the significance of budgeting and of having to account for dollars and having to raise taxes from people in order to present these government programs.

It’s interesting that throughout the year, from one budget period to another, the third party in particular brings forth a wealth of proposed legislation, by way of private members’ bills or resolutions or --

Mr. Philip: We don’t make as many promises as Joe Clark.

Mr. Williams: -- just through debate that would bring services like they’d never been seen before.

Mr. Philip: Have you costed Clark’s proposals?

Mr. Williams: I can think of some of the bills that have come forward in recent times, and in concept one can’t argue with them. But when one is not part of the government one doesn’t have to be responsible for accounting financially. One never hears mention of financial accountability or the availability of the dollars to provide these marvellous programs our socialist friends bring forward.

Mr. Warner: You missed Floyd Laughren’s speech.

Mr. Williams: They have no real, true concept of what the meaning is all about of attaching dollars to government programs.

Mr. Philip: Sounds like Joe Clark.

Mr. Williams: This is why they’re so perplexed and bewildered.

I look behind the party as a whole to the individuals and I can understand this is probably generated by the fact that none of them has worked in the private sector. While each end every one of them undoubtedly has come from an honourable profession and occupation, I don’t see one of the members sitting over there -- if I’m in error, I’d like to see any stand up who can be the exception to the rule -- who has ever worked in the burly-burly of the private sector --

Mr. Warner: Stand up. Stand up.

Mr. Williams: -- who has worked in the real world of trade and commerce.

Mr. Warner: There they are.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Three out of 20.

Mr. Williams: Those who have seen fit to join the party --

Mr. Warner: Half of those now in the House.

Mr. Williams: -- and castigate and chastise --

Mr. Ziemba: There are more opposition members standing up than government members.

Mr. Williams: -- the government when we talk about financial restraint and responsibility, are the ones who’ve never had the privilege or opportunity --

Mr. Ziemba: You don’t know what an honest day’s work is.

Mr. Williams: -- in their whole lifetime ever to go out and have to sell a product or to worry about operating expenses or financial losses or having to pay their employees. They’re all people who have been on government salaries and staff --

Mr. Warner: John you’re absolutely right. You’d do well in selling baloney.

Mr. Williams: -- or they are people who have worked with the big unions and have worked for the multinationals and all they’ve had to do is pick up their pay cheque at the end of the week. They haven’t had to worry about where the money’s coming from. They might be teachers -- and that is an honourable profession -- but they don’t have to worry about where the buck’s coming from. All they have to do is pick up their pay cheque each week for professional services truly rendered. They don’t have to be concerned about --

Mr. Philip: What’s your business background?

Mr. Williams: -- the responsibilities and the difficulties and the business risks involved in running a business and in hiring people and having to pay them their benefits, and having to compete with other people in this --

Mr. Philip: Where’s your business background?

Mr. Williams: -- hurly-burly world of trade and commerce. They don’t know what the word means. That’s why they don’t understand budgeting.

Mr. Warner: So says the lawyer.

Mr. Williams: It is because they just don’t have any comprehension or real appreciation of the fact that one has to relate dollars to provision of services. I’ve come to understand now why --

Mr. Warner: Let’s hear it for the lawyer.

Mr. Williams: -- they are so perplexed and why they flounder about each time the budget comes forward. They just don’t know how to handle it. They simply get up and go on with their continuing rhetoric of more social programs and we never hear mention of the dollar factor at all.

[12:15]

Mr. Warner: We admire your sense of humour.

Mr. Williams: Some of the bills that have come in in the past session alone would eat up the provincial budget of the past five years if they had their way. There is just no reality at all between the fact of raising a tax from the poor taxpayers and the corporations and having to provide those services. That’s the difference between responsible government leadership and that from those in opposition who are so far removed from --

Mr. Philip: If the government is so responsible, how come it owes so much?

Mr. Williams: -- the realities of the situation that they continue to live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world. It’s reflected in the rhetoric, the response and the reaction that we get from them in this Legislature on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s complete nonsense.

Mr. Williams: We’ve learned to live with it, but I think the people of the province get pretty sick and tired of hearing that nonsense when it can’t be substantiated with responsible considerations and dollar considerations.

Mr. Warner: That’s why there are 33 of us here.

Mr. Ziemba: You’re almost bankrupting us the way you’re running the store.

Mr. Williams: I think they would be a lot more respectable and responsible party if they started doing that. I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future. That’s why they will never be the governing party of this province.

Mr. Ziemba: If you’re so smart, why aren’t you in cabinet?

Mr. Philip: He can’t even make parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Williams: There is another consideration which comes in directly in this budget that we have before us. Not only is it talking about dollar considerations, but this budget is directed very strongly towards the private sector and the fact that there must be an initiative by this government on a continuing, co-operative basis to support the private sector that has had its difficulties in these difficult economic times. The difficulties have not been of a regional nature or a provincial nature or a national nature. They have been international in scope.

No one government alone has been able to counteract the onslaught of inflation. It’s been a world phenomenon. The private sector has reeled under the impact of the negative aspects of inflation, as have the workers, because when the private sector can’t function and when it can’t provide its productivity to its full extent, we all suffer.

Mr. Philip: Now I know why I am not a Conservative. I would never get to sit beside anyone intelligent.

Mr. Williams: This budget clearly recognizes the need for the government to work with the private sector.

Mr. Philip: The Minister of Education can’t take any more.

Mr. Lupusella: She is leaving.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’d love to stay and listen to it because it’s worthwhile listening to. Get the bananas out of your ears.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s why you’re leaving.

Mr. Williams: The Minister of Energy concurs.

Mr. Ziemba: It’s called comic relief.

Mr. Williams: I was going to be referring to bananas later, but I’ll save those for a few moments down the line. It’s in this area that we must he concerned and we must be developing a positive attitude towards the private sector. Often in previous years people have considered government to be on a confrontation basis with the private sector and that we’re out to try to regiment and control the private sector out of business.

Mr. Ziemba: No, only small business.

Mr. Williams: This simply is not so, not with this Conservative government in any event.

Mr. Philip: You look after big business but you shaft small business.

Mr. Williams: Those in the opposition, particularly the third party, who suggest we’re giving the private sector a free ride and that it’s not being taxed enough and not being dunned enough, should sit back and reflect once in a while --

Mr. Philip: Not the private sector, just the multinationals. You don’t give a cent to small business.

Mr. Williams: -- rather than shouting and yelling as we have seen exemplified here this afternoon.

Mr. Philip: Why don’t you do something for small business for a change?

Mr. Williams: If they would just sit there, reflect and think about what’s going on and about the fact that this government has perhaps enacted more legislation and has responsibly provided, where needed, reasonable controls on the private sector and in certain industries than any other government, then I think --

Mr. Ziemba: Trickle-down theories.

Mr. Williams: -- they could not criticize this government for not having responded to consumer concerns and needs. The fact is that we have been able to respond in a very responsible way to ensure that all sectors of the private sector do have an opportunity to succeed --

Mr. Ziemba: You responded to Judy LaMarsh all right.

Mr. Williams: -- with reasonable, and only reasonable, government intercession and control, where it was deemed absolutely necessary.

Mr. Ziemba: How about the 2.2 million Judy LaMarsh got?

Mr. Williams: It’s been a stated objective of this government to withdraw from some of the areas where we have, because of given specific circumstances, moved in with legislation at a certain point of time under a certain circumstance to regulate a certain industry.

Mr. Philips: All you did was to try to ruin the trucking industry in the province.

Mr. Williams: Once the difficulty has been resolved, this government has no hesitation in backing out, if we find that an industry can indeed behave in a responsible fashion towards the consumers of this province and let it regulate itself, if necessary. We have no hesitation in recommending this.

Mr. Warner: Tell us about Inco.

Mr. Williams: The contrary is the attitude of our colleagues in the third party.

Mr. Philip: How would you like to have a few million dollars invested in the trucking industry?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. It’s fine to have a few interjections -- they are in order

-- but the member for Oriole has the floor, and running dialogues in opposition to what he is saying are not in order. If you want to make a few interjections that’s all part of the game, but we can’t have this continual chat. The member for Oriole may proceed.

Mr. Ashe: They don’t like hearing the facts of life.

Mr. Ziemba: Try not to be so inflammatory.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for imposing some reasonable restraint on our colleagues across the way.

Mr. Ashe: The facts of life are scary.

Mr. Williams: One other attitude I have to comment on that I see coming forth from members of the third party when they are speaking about the budget, and about the big corporate enterprises and the multinationals, and big government spending too much money or not spending it in the right direction is the fact that that party will never be a creditable party as long as it continues to consider only two parts of the three-part equation.

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t give away your trade secrets.

Mr. Williams: We are all fully aware of the fact that there are three major elements that contribute to the economic life and facts of life of this province. We have, of course, government itself, of which we are members. We have big business, and of course we have big unions and labour.

Mr. Haggerty: Big government too.

Mr. Williams: This province cannot move forward and flourish and become an even greater province than it is without co-operation from each of those three sectors. None of them is perfect; not one of them. We all commit our errors, we all try harder, but none of us is perfect and we all make mistakes.

Mr. Ziemba: I’m glad to hear you say it.

Mr. Williams: I alluded a few moments ago to legislation this government has felt, from time to time, the need to enact to control a particular industry in the private sector, or to give some means of regulating an industry so that there is no chaos and confusion in the marketplace. By the same token, we have no hesitation, if there is some element in the labour movement that is giving cause for concern to the public, to respond to that situation too.

When we are criticized as a government for spending too much money and bringing this economy to a point where over 40 per cent of the work force in the province is in the public sector rather than in the private sector we know we have a problem. We realize we have a responsibility to exercise restraint and control and to contain ourselves. It’s a perfect example of the fact that we ourselves are getting too big for the purpose and the function we have to ensure that there are proper laws, that there is order within our society, and that we can outgrow ourselves.

We ourselves have to show reasonable restraint. If we are going to ask the private sector to show this type of restraint and control we have to go to big labour, we have to go to management, and we have to ask them as well to follow our lead in showing restraint and control in the manner in which we conduct our affairs, so that no one in our society will be prejudiced by inappropriate and irresponsible actions by any one of those three sectors.

The area where I find there is a lack of real credibility from our colleagues in the third party is the fact that they continue --

Mr. Philip: You at least recognize who the opposition is.

Mr. Williams: -- to recognize only two of those three elements. They understand where their power base is. They know they have to rely on the large unions to ensure their financial support and success, and they get much of their direction from that source. For that reason, I can understand that they are very reticent --

Mr. Ashe: Bashful.

Mr. Williams: -- to be critical if criticism of their benefactors is needed.

Mr. Haggerty: That marriage is going to be fractured after May 22.

Mr. Williams: Of course, by the same token they will criticize this government as being supposedly in the hip pocket of big management, which is nonsense. We are prepared to look at all three elements. We are prepared to look at our own house and clean it where necessary. We are prepared to chastise big industry where it needs to be chastised. We are prepared to enact legislation if labour unions are misbehaving.

If I might exemplify the point, it wasn’t too many months ago that I introduced a bill during the private members’ hour. It was Bill 169 and that bill was an amendment to the Labour Relations Act. That bill was designed to deal with a segment of the labour community which our friends in the socialist party have forgotten about. They are so enamoured and taken up with satisfying the top management within the labour union movement they forget sometimes about the rank and file.

Mr. Philip: Even the Minister of Labour voted against your bill.

Mr. Williams: I brought a bill in to deal with an area that had been neglected for so long and I feel it has been neglected by all parties. It was a bill that I felt would have given a fair shake to the rank-and-file working man who is a member of one union or another.

I felt there were areas where we could be pulling together existing legislation from other provinces and from the federal government that would bring certain security to the voting as to whether or not to have a strike within their union or whether it had to be with regard to financial accounting to the rank-and-file union members, or whether indeed the moneys raised from the union members to support the union activities should be contained as far as the amount of dollars that could go out of this country was concerned, rather than being invested in our country to ensure more Canadian jobs here. These were real, legitimate concerns I had for the rank-and-file union workers.

Our socialist friends over there had apoplexy. I have never seen them become so uptight. They were jumping up and down, they almost lost reason that day. It was unbelievable. I have never seen such a performance in all my life. They feel that their particular sector that they ignore continually is free and clear of any wrongdoing in any way that would contribute to any problems we may be experiencing in our society.

The problem in particular that I brought up in that bill had to do with the fact there wasn’t sufficient accountability from the large unions, large and small, to their members. It is quite true that even our own Minister of Labour was sceptical whether we needed the type of legislation that existed federally to file detailed returns, as do corporations about their financial wellbeing and their financial activities to provide some degree of accounting to the shareholders. This may be done through filings with the Ontario Securities Commission or through the federal government on taxation matters, whatever it may be. I felt there truly was a need for this type of accounting.

I mentioned the fact of recent experiences in the United States where major swindles had taken place within the unions, which has unfortunately given the union movement there a black eye. It is a fact of life in every industry, whether it is the legal profession, the medical profession or some other occupation, that eventually there could be a bad apple in the barrel and it reflects on the whole industry or the whole profession, whatever the case may be.

I had the audacity to suggest this could even possibly happen within the labour movement. The cries of outrage were unbelievable. I have never seen such a performance. In particular my friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) was just about prostrate on the floor. He couldn’t believe what was being said.

[12:30]

Even the members of this party, I must admit, were sceptical as to whether such a thing could ever happen. It was on November 23, 1978, I spoke to that bill. I stood alone in support of it and I would have no hesitation in introducing it again and debating it again in this House, because I think it deserves much more consideration than it got that day. It was interesting that within three months of that date, a headline on February 6 in the Toronto Star read, “Mail Union Audit Hunts $150,000 In Lost Funds.”

There wasn’t a comment in the House about that particular incident. What brought it about? Simply this, Mr. Power who is an executive of the local involved, said: “There was strong evidence the funds had been fraudulently and systematically misappropriated.

That is the very thing I was speaking to in my I bill. There could be cases where persons who wanted to take advantage of their positions could indeed, if they were of that state of mind, perpetrate a fraud and cause an event to happen that would work against the wellbeing of those members who have placed their trust in their union leaders and have given their weekly pension dues to those union leaders to administer properly and invest for them.

Mr. Ziemba: I am glad you are a strong supporter of the letter carriers’ union.

Mr. Williams: They may find all of a sudden, and it’s no reflection on the union per se, but even within the ranks of the union executive there may be a misguided individual who could commit this very type of thing. It’s happened in the United States. I was pointing it out that day in the debate and I said this country is not completely immune from that type of situation possibly happening here. It did; it happened three months after I spoke to my bill. The union leader clearly stated it: “It appears that the funds have been fraudulently and systematically misappropriated.”

It may be, even with the financial filings that I’d asked for and as existed in federal law, this fraud still would have been carried out. It’s alleged this has happened, and I’m not suggesting it has been proved because it’s still before the courts as far as I know and it’s certainly under investigation. There was sufficient evidence at that time to arouse the concern of the union officials and acknowledge there appears to have been some misuse of union funds, $150,000 of hard-earned money of the rank-and-file members of that particular letter carriers’ union. The money had been misappropriated and apparently misused.

We’ll soon know the final outcome of that. I suggest to the House that is only the tip of the iceberg. Why is it the members of this House are not prepared to do what they can do to further ensure the security and wellbeing of the rank-and-file workers in the union movement throughout the length and breadth of this province?

I’m suggesting that type of legislation is entirely realistic and would assist them and accommodate them I and provide that measure of security that heretofore they haven’t had. They may think they have it, but they don’t. I think it’s regrettable this situation came up, but it simply went to prove my ease. I felt I had to refer to it today to show this bill was not unreasonable and was not irresponsible, as some of our friends suggested that day in fits of hysterical rhetoric.

Mr. Ziemba: You would ask for public disclosure of union funds but not corporate funds.

Mr. Warner: You should be ashamed.

Ms. Williams: Mr. Speaker, as I say, I had no regrets about introducing the legislation, and I hope in due course similar legislation will be given consideration by this House.

It brings me back to my main point that members of the third party take this type of attitude towards budgets where they don’t seem to grasp the realities of the financial needs and realities of raising taxes from the community. As long as they continue to ignore one sector of the triumvirate that really governs the wellbeing of the provincial economy, then I don’t think they can be considered as creditable.

They can come forward with all the social programs they want, but without putting a price tag to it they’re continuing to misrepresent the simplicity of implementing programs, many of which they speak to but which we have, in the past, talked about and have openly wanted to do ourselves but have said, quite frankly, there’s no way we can afford to do them at this time. One example has been universal dental care. That’s a program this government has had under consideration for a number of years and the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself has said it will come in the full passage of time, the sooner the better, hut it will take time to bring forward such a program.

Mr. Ziemba: Get one started.

Mr. Williams: It is not one that can be purchased overnight and that the people of this province or this government can afford, but with these people it’s a “put it in tomorrow” type of attitude. It’s just unrealistic.

Mr. Warner: You wouldn’t even start with dental care for children.

Mr. Williams: For these reasons I can better appreciate the mentality of the members in the third party.

Mr Warner: Take a little visit to Saskatchewan.

Mr. Williams: What really concerns me at times is that even three of their more responsible members sometimes get involved in dialogue and rhetoric and get caught up in their social program.

Mr. Ashe: Who are they?

Mr. Williams: They get encouragement, of course, because all of their supporters believe in that socialist philosophy that you can buy all of these services with air; that everything will operate well and that you can run --

Mr. Ziemba: Just the money you give Judy LaMarsh.

Mr. Williams: -- the automobiles on air and you can heat homes and provide the energy needed to turn the wheels of industry on air. These are the kinds of airy-fairy approaches that just don’t stand up under careful analysis and consideration and the public understands and appreciates that. You can fool some of the people some of the time, as they say, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

So in a way I feel sorry for the third party when they take such an extreme position towards these budgets and in their attitude towards the private sector. That’s the hand that feeds them and they can’t put all their eggs in one basket, as the Hydro critic from the official opposition has been saying about the Hydro program over the past few days.

Having looked at this budget, there are three areas that I would really like to zero in on. One I would like to speak about very briefly brings me back to the business of developing a positive attitude within the private sector and the need for government to be responsive to the private sector. What has been of great concern to me, even earlier today in the House session during the question period, is an attitude that I understand coming from the third party, but now the official opposition is starting to get on this bandwagon of attacking the multinationals; of crying wolf about investment by foreigners in this country; that it’s not good for the wellbeing of the province; that we can go it on our own and let’s get the big giants off our back and, as far as Inco is concerned, let’s just completely take over.

Mr. Warner: The sooner, the better.

Ms. Williams: This is the kind of attitude that doesn’t foster confidence and wellbeing within the private sector, although it is great stuff for home consumption. I have occasion to go to the States from time to time to talk to businessmen, and while that home-consumption stuff is great and they love reading about it in the press, it goes beyond our borders. People who are looking objectively at this province read some of the rhetoric and the sabre-rattling and the flag-waving that goes on and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, in talking to some of the people, I find their response is, who needs that kind of aggravation and who needs that kind of hassle? We have got lots of opportunity -- I am speaking about the bankers and the business people within the --

Mr. Ziemba: Who needs them?

Mr. Williams: That’s the type of attitude I have been talking about for the past half hour, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ziemba: They don’t do any work.

Mr. Williams: That’s a classic response that you will get from our socialist friends. Who needs them?

Mr. Ziemba: They just live off working people. You are talking about the parasites

-- the parasitical element.

Mr. Williams: This is a real concern, particularly because the official opposition seems to be pushing this at the moment. They are doing it a little more carefully, but nevertheless they are questioning foreign investment -- whether or not it is in our best interests. These foreign investors don’t need us; we do need them. I think it is important that we regulate them in a responsible way when they come in, to ensure their investments are going to benefit the country.

Mr. Ziemba: Give him a job at the US embassy.

Mr. Williams: We need industry in here.

Mr. Ziemba: Tell us about how you control Inco.

Mr. Williams: There is the simplistic approach that is being taken by our socialist friends; I was reading it in one of the federal campaign brochures that came around -- “Canadian ownership means Canadian jobs.”

Mr. Ziemba: Right.

Mr. Williams: Everything implied in it is that if the industries have not been financed or have not been established here by foreign enterprise, somehow we will be better off. It implies that if they did bring investment here, they should go home and leave it to us to run all these operations.

Mr. Ziemba: That is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says too. That is what Mr. Bulloch says. Are you saying that Bulloch doesn’t know what he is talking about, John?

Mr. Williams: That is almost an irresponsible attitude to take.

These business people get an ongoing responsible report on all activity that is going on, not only within their own country. I am speaking of the United States in particular, but this happens in Japan and in Germany and with the other major investors in our country. They keep a very close eye on what is happening. They know Ontario is the industrial centre of Canada and they know that as Ontario goes, so goes the trade and commerce of this country in large measure. We have a very important responsibility to encourage these people within reasonable guidelines. We should attract, not deter, those who might be interested in coming here.

We are 22-odd million people strong in a country that is the second largest in the world, I guess, geographically. To the south of us we have a country that has 10 times the number of people and resources. They have had confidence in this country; they have seen the potential benefits here; the wealth they can earn for their shareholders, as far as the private companies are concerned; and also as far as building and staying in Canada and providing jobs to the local people.

I haven’t heard anyone here do a count on how many companies here are truly Canadian and what percentage of the labour force they employ as compared to foreign corporations. I am not restricting it to the United States because that country is always the whipping boy when we turn to the multinationals. They seem to be considered the lowest on the totem pole and they are always good for use as a whipping boy. Yet it has been through American ingenuity and know-how that this country has come in large measure to appreciate the standards of living that we enjoy today.

Mr. Ziemba: Why don’t you run for office in the United States, John?

Mr. Williams: It is through their technology and know-how that we have been able to capitalize on it and to learn from it and to develop our own strategies and technological know-how. Were it not for our neighbours to the south, we wouldn’t be enjoying these standards today. Yet I hear in the House today, and in days gone by, this continuing attack on the multinationals and how they are down-grading our society and locking us in --

Mr. Ziemba: Not paying their taxes.

Mr. Williams: -- and leaving us dangling without people being gainfully employed and so forth.

There are ways and means of regulating and controlling these industries through company law legislation and though other forms of legislation. Our legislation lets them come and be good corporate citizens, as the vast majority of them already are. But it’s wrong to scare off foreign investment and to let people know we can go it on our own and to say, “We don’t need your type of investment. Somehow you are going to do harm to us. While you might benefit from your investment in Canada, you are going to hurt us.” That type of attitude just doesn’t accord with responsible consideration.

[12:45]

To take it to the extreme, not only has it affected the multinationals and the foreign investors and the foreign companies, but our own domestic companies are finally starting to realize that yes, they have had some of this hassle here and some of the confrontation and some of the anti-private-sector attitude, to the point where they have decided: “Look, maybe we are not welcome in our own house; maybe we should go elsewhere.” In fact they have. They have not gone away mad, they have just gone away.

Some of the largest corporations that are in the field and have the highest labour content, namely the development and building industry, are not here any more, they are down in the United States building. They have never had it so good. They have gone away because of frustrations, whether it be because of existing legislation -- I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I think the land speculation tax did a great deal of harm in this province. The repeal of it by this government could not have come fast enough. I appreciate that it had to be done at the time under the given circumstances, but I do not think we should have withdrawn it faster than we did. It had a tremendous negative impact on those who were considering investing or setting up shop in this country.

There is no question the rent control legislation, while we felt it had to be done and it has benefits to the people who cannot afford their own housing and have to have rental accommodation, it too has had some negative impact, as I guess was verified by the Ontario Economic Council, which felt that rent controls should go because they have completely dried up the rental accommodation building sector.

I am not sure that we have moved in that direction, but I think the new legislation that is coming forward is going to provide a much more suitable climate that will continue to protect the concerns and needs of the tenants while perhaps providing a greater degree of latitude than has existed under the present legislation -- if the new legislation ever comes forward out of committee.

It is somewhat discouraging to see that our own corporations and companies, not only those in the land development sector but in other areas as well, have seen fit to go abroad to really prosper and do well; not only earn reasonable returns for their shareholders but to grow in every sense of the word.

I have spoken to some of the businessmen down in the United States and they are just befuddled. They cannot understand how so many Canadian companies have come down there and have done so well and are in fact taking leadership in the marketplace down there. I will be speaking to that part of the activity of companies that have gone down there in the land development field later in my budget remarks, but it is a genuine concern.

I think we have to be a little more careful in the comments we make in this House about foreign investment and foreign capital. I have no hesitation in agreeing with members that there must be a mechanism or a vehicle for ensuring that those who do come to our country and have a genuine feeling of support for our country come in a way and fashion that will be beneficial to our economy as a whole, and to all of our citizens, and that it will ensure job opportunities and will contribute in a very significant way to our economy.

As I said a few moments ago, some of these remarks that are made are very dramatic and they are very sensationalistic and they get the headlines in the local papers. It is great for home consumption, but it is hurting our image abroad, it really is. I think we have to be a little more careful. There is lots of room for constructive criticism on ways and means of improving the system, but to simply turn around and in effect say to those foreign business people who are looking at us, “Go away”; or, “If you are coming here we are going to control you so tightly that before you get through the front door the conditions of coming here are so onerous why bother with it at all?” That’s the type of attitude I don’t think we want to see projected.

If I picked up a copy of Hansard for one day when the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) was speaking and sent it to the United States it would probably turn away 10 or 20 industries that are considering coming into the province because of the rhetoric and extreme views and attitudes expressed in that official document of this House.

While we are going through these difficult economic times, and I think our budget has been designed to recognize this and has been designed to assist the private sector, I would hope with the support of the responsible members within the opposition ranks -- and I look to the official opposition party for that type of support -- we can assist the private sector to come through these difficult times. There are better economic days ahead that have nothing to do with the activities of this one government or the federal government, but that will bring the world out of its present economic woes.

Those are some of the concerns I have with regard to this government supporting the private sector in the fashion outlined in the budget. It is a realistic and responsible approach, and one I know has been applauded by the private sector everywhere.

There is another important area I would like to get into. It is an issue members from the opposition have been speaking to during the budget debate, and I think it deserves discussion and debate. It is the one that deals with Ontario Hydro and the whole matter of energy for the people of Ontario. It has to do with the nuclear problem and the safety component; it has to do with our long-range forecasts and the responsibility of this government as a matter of policy to support the initiatives of Ontario Hydro.

In the budget debate, as in the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, I think Ontario Hydro from time to time has perhaps been used as a whipping boy and has also been subjected to heated rhetoric and emotional charges as to a willingness or otherwise to be totally accountable to this government.

Mr. Warner: They’re out of control.

Mr. Williams: Because of this, I think it is important another perspective be brought to that part of the debate. Members from both opposition parties have seen fit to speak to it.

One of the things that really concerns me about the debate occurred in very recent days. It has to do with the image being created in the public’s mind because of some of the statements or misstatements made, either in committee or in this Legislature, with or without intent, with regard to the willingness of Ontario Hydro to be accountable to this government, and through this government to the people of Ontario.

I will quote from Hansard of a day or two ago to make my point, and from there I would like to elaborate.

It was interesting that the member of the Legislature whose remarks in the Legislature I’m going to quote had in effect to be brought into line by a member of his own party, because indeed be was, I suggest, giving an inaccurate impression of Ontario Hydro’s willingness to co-operate with this government, and with the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs in particular.

I’m going to quote from Hansard, the report of the afternoon sitting on Tuesday, May 1. I would like to read this comment into Hansard and proceed from there. The leader of the third party asked this question of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld):

“How can the minister expect the public to make informed judgements about nuclear energy, a very serious problem now in the province of Ontario, when Hydro has been so reticent about providing the public with both accurate and full information related to nuclear safety?”

He goes on to add: “In the spirit of freedom of information, will the Minister of Energy direct Ontario Hydro to make a full revelation of all material related to nuclear plant safety in the province of Ontario, without constantly having the information dragged out of them?”

That’s the type of attitude that has been engendered by that type of statement. I think it conveys to the public of Ontario a suggestion that somehow Ontario Hydro and its officials are being dragged screaming and kicking before the select committee --

Mr. Ziemba: Aren’t they?

Mr. Williams: -- to testify under oath, and that they have been holding back on the operation of Ontario Hydro --

Mr. Warner: You missed the speech of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor).

Mr. I Williams: -- and that it’s been a cloak-and-dagger affair that the public of Ontario has been unaware of for all these many years.

It was interesting that following that statement the chairman of the select committee on Hydro affairs felt compelled on May 3, two days later, to issue a press release to the select committee. I’m going to read that press release into the record because obviously that type of statement was a matter of great concern to the chairman of the select committee. That wasn’t the only one, but I think it dramatizes the situation, because that type of question was used for dramatic effect and for that very purpose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just in case it’s a long press release, I wonder if the member wants to continue or adjourn the debate now.

Mr. Williams: I think it will take a minute or two to read it into the record. Perhaps I could get it on the record and then I’ll adjourn the debate -- it will take about a minute and a half -- so that the two statements are together in the one copy of Hansard. Then I’ll continue on Monday.

The chairman issued the following statement: “If public concerns regarding the generating of nuclear power in Ontario are to be dealt with effectively, there must be the fullest possible disclosure of documents relating to it. Otherwise, the suspicion that legitimate public information has been withheld will continue.

“There is a widespread lack of information as to what this committee decided last Friday in this connection. For the benefit of the public and the media, if not the committee members, let me emphasize what was decided.

“By unanimous vote of the committee, it was decided that we will see, for our consideration, each and every document relating to nuclear safety. Hydro will indicate to us which of those documents they feel should not be released to the public, but the committee itself will make the decision as to which, if any documents, are not to be released.

“The mechanism for reaching this decision was also decided by unanimous vote of the committee. The documents will be considered, in the first instance by our steering committee. If there is a unanimous agreement in the steering committee that a document should or should not be released to the public, that decision on behalf of the committee will stand.

“If, however, there is not unanimous agreement in the steering committee, then that document or documents will come to the committee as a whole, meeting in camera, for a decision.

“For those who still harbour a suspicion that the committee will not get all relevant documents, may I remind you that in all the committee hearings so far Hydro has provided the committee with every document and all information which we have sought. I am confident that that full disclosure will continue in the future, and as chairman of the committee it will be my intention and obligation to see that it is so.”

Mr. Warner: It’s a good thing we raised it.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.