Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker: When the House recessed, the member for Windsor-Riverside had the floor.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I will be just a few more minutes. When we recessed, I was talking about where the provincial and federal governments could go on the auto pact now. I was talking specifically about the Chrysler Corporation and the golden opportunity that both the provincial and federal governments have been given for making sure we get our fair share of jobs, of research and development, and of skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled jobs.

When I had my dinner break, I read with interest the headline story in the Toronto Star. It said the reason the provincial and federal governments did not make an announcement today on Chrysler is that they are having serious problems with Chrysler corporation, in particular, with the international president, Lee Iacocca. He is refusing to give both levels of government the kinds of job guarantees that this party has been pushing for and told the provincial government it did not get in the Ford agreement. I think we have done our job in criticizing the provincial government on the Ford agreement. I think we hit home, and showed the provincial government that it had to push hard for job guarantees. Now those criticisms are bearing fruit in the negotiations with Chrysler. I say to the provincial government to hang tough. There is no use giving Chrysler corporation the money if we do not get the guarantees we need. When they do get the agreement, I look forward to having it tabled in the House and, before it is signed, sealed and delivered, having the opportunity to debate it, to see whether the government did hang tough.

We have a golden opportunity with Chrysler. One of the basic things we have to do with that corporation is to attempt to form, as closely as is possible with a multinational corporation, a truly separate Canadian Chrysler corporation that operates at arm’s length from the parent corporation. I think that can be done in the case of Chrysler because most of the parts they use in their car production are not in-house parts, as they are in the other two of the Big Three. They source most of the parts from independent suppliers.

We can put a condition on Chrysler that their parts be sourced in Canada, which would obviously mean primarily in Ontario. We could demand that in their car plant they produce a small, compact car that has worldwide appeal and can be marketed not only in Canada, but also in the United States and throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

If we create that kind of corporation, and if the parent corporation ever does go bankrupt, we will have a viable corporation operating in Ontario that can maintain itself and maintain jobs. It will be a viable corporation that can survive.

As you know, Chrysler Canada has made more money over the years, whereas the parent corporation has been in serious trouble. To make Chrysler Canada a viable corporation, we have to make sure the deal that is struck with our two levels of government includes the retooling of the car assembly plant, the van plant, the engine plant and any other adjustments in the Ajax and Etobicoke plants, and any necessary changes in the spring plant.

We have a golden opportunity. We must be tough in the negotiations. We must maintain our status and insist on job guarantees that can be enforced.

One of the ways that job guarantees and the other parts of the agreement can be enforced is if we maintain or attain an equity position in Chrysler so that, if they do not live up to their obligations in the deal, we will have a piece of the action that we can use to enforce the agreement.

As far as General Motors, Ford and American Motors are concerned, over the years we have given at least two of those corporations a fair number of concessions when it comes to duty remissions. To maintain the credibility of the auto pact, we must stop the duty remissions for those corporations. We must insist that they live up to the letter and the spirit of the auto pact.

We know that over the next number of years -- I think up until 1985 -- we are expecting something in the neighbourhood of $60 billion to $80 billion in North America of new investment from the Big Four. We must now make sure we get our fair share of that investment for down-sizing. Up to this point, we have not done a very good job. Before we recessed for the dinner hour, I did go through the statistics for investment. Looking at the latest layoffs at the Ford Motor Company in Ontario, we see in Oakville that they closed down or reduced to a great extent production of LTDs, which obviously are not in demand any more. They closed down the casting plant in Windsor, and they gave us absolutely no commitment at all about retooling.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), as well as the president of Ford of Canada, has simply stated to us that if the market demand changes they will then go back into production of LTDs and open up the casting plant in Windsor again.

You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that with the crisis we have in energy and with prices going the way they are, the LTD with a V-8 engine and the castings that were being made in Windsor for the V-8 engine are never going to be in demand again. In fact, what the corporation is saying is that that plant is closed, and this provincial government, which actually has a minister who represents Oakville, is willing to sit back and watch that happen and watch thousands of auto workers lose their job totally.

The Ford Motor Company can say they are mothballing some of those plants for further production in the future when the market changes, but unless they retool, those plants are not mothballed; they are closed. We have to make sure that out of that $60 billion to $80 billion we get our fair share of investment so that those plants are retooled to make cars, engines and trucks that will meet the needs of the marketplace over the next number of years and provide us with long-term jobs.

I do not think the way to get a fair share of investment is by bribing corporations like the Ford Motor Company. We criticized that grant to Ford. Contrary to what the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Industry and Tourism have said, my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) and myself have been very consistent. We have said here in the Legislature and back in Windsor that we oppose that grant; we oppose the giveaway. We did not believe there were adequate conditions and, even if there were adequate conditions, we did not feel that a $68-million grant should be provided to a profitable multinational corporation like the Ford Motor Company. We felt, and I still do, that under the terms and the spirit of the auto pact that engine plant should have come to Windsor with no strings attached.

I want to read to the Legislature tonight a statement that Mr. Iacocca made in an interview on The Fifth Estate program on CBC when they were talking about the Chrysler corporation. He was talking about when he was president of the Ford Motor Company in the United States. This is from the transcript, word for word:

“Well, I -- but I’ve had great experience with this. I’ve played Spain versus France and England so long as I’m tired of it. Ford, when I was there, and General Motors, Chrysler -- all over the world -- we pit Ohio versus Michigan. We pit Canada versus the United States. We get outright grants and subsidies in Spain and Mexico and Brazil -- all kinds of grants.” And this is the most important statement: “With my former employer” -- referring to the Ford Motor Company -- “I, one of the last things I did, on the threat of losing 2,000 jobs in Windsor, got $73 million outright.”

That is the statement Lee Iacocca made on The Fifth Estate. We have a government at the provincial level and a Liberal government at the federal level that to this day still, support and defend that grant.

Mr. Nixon: Dr. Shulman says Ford is going broke.

Mr. Cooke: Dr. Shulman says a lot of things on his program. I am not sure Dr. Shulman knows what he is talking about all the time.

Mr. Nixon: He used to be an NDP member.

Mr. Cooke: In any case, I am coming to an end, if the other party will let me.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Don’t forget he was one of you. He used to sit on the front benches here.

Mr. Cooke: Well, he suggested to me when I was on his program that there should be some kind of a plaster bust in our hallways commemorating him. I suggested that I didn’t think many of my colleagues would want to commemorate him in that way or any other way.

Mr. Renwick: You will have our colleague from High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) on his feet on a matter of privilege.

Mr. Cooke: After being on his program and talking about the auto industry, I have a lot against Morty.

We are facing some very serious problems in the auto industry, not the least of which is the competition from the foreign auto makers. The competition and the market penetration they have achieved in both Canada and the United States spells a great many problems for our auto workers and the number of jobs that we are losing.

The only way around that problem is to sign duty remission agreements with each of the foreign auto makers that want to sell their cars in our country. Those agreements with the corporations would spell out conditions whereby they can sell their cars in Canada and get duty-free access, but at the same time they would have to produce jobs and build plants in Ontario and in Canada.

Mr. Nixon: Dr. Shulman says Toyota cars are better than Camaro cars.

Mr. Cooke: I drive a Camaro, and I am very pleased with it. Now I have lost my train of thought.

What we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is sign these agreements with the foreign auto makers and make sure they produce here in Ontario.

I received information today from one of the United Auto Workers locals in my city that Governor Milliken from Michigan went to Japan very recently. In fact, I think he just returned. Honourable members will remember that our people, including the Minister of Industry and Tourism, also went to Japan. I don’t know whether the Premier went with him on that junket or not, but it has been a year and a half, or two years since they returned and we have nothing to show for it, whereas Governor Milliken went over and he has a commitment at this point for a Toyota auto parts plant in Michigan, which will produce thousands of jobs. We should get on the ball and get some of those plants in Ontario. We should make sure we get our fair share of jobs. We should make sure the value added in this province is not 60 per cent or 50 per cent, but is something in the neighbourhood of 70 or 75 per cent. Then, we can get the jobs, and we will have jobs protected for the long-term future. However, we are not doing the kind of work that is necessary, and by the time our government gets around to it, all the plants will be located in the United States, and we will continue to have massive unemployment in the auto industry.

One of the amendments that also has to be made with the auto makers, the Big Three or the Big Four, is that we have to look at changing the value added, or the percentage of Canadian value in our cars, from the 70 per cent where we now operate to 75 or 80 per cent to achieve more jobs. The 70 per cent is no longer relevant and is not producing the jobs that are needed in Ontario. If, in fact, we achieve a 75 per cent Canadian content in those cars, or Canadian value added, we would produce 7,000 more auto jobs in this province. If we went up to 80 per cent, we would achieve at least 15,000 new auto jobs in this province. You can see how very important it is.

That is why our federal party has suggested that the time has come for us to talk seriously to the American government about the auto trade agreement. Some changes have to be made to it because of the decisions of the foreign auto makers, because of the problem with the auto parts sector in Ontario and Canada and because of our huge deficit, which is getting to be a chronic deficit. These are chronic problems, and the only way they can be solved is through changes in the auto pact, by bringing in this duty remission program with the foreign auto makers, and by signing letters of commitment with the Big Four so that when they are putting in $60 billion to $80 billion of new investment, we are sure to get our fair share.

I want to make one final comment. It is as important as or maybe more important than, all the other comments I have made. We are going through a very dramatic change in the auto industry. While the change and the retooling take place there are, as we all know, thousands of auto workers who are losing their jobs for long periods of time. We cannot provide financial assistance only to corporations; we have to provide financial assistance to the auto workers who are dislocated as well. In the United States they have what is called TRA, the trade readjustment allowances program. In Canada, we used to have TAB, transitional assistance benefits, but that program was eliminated a few years after the auto pact by the federal Liberal government.

In the last federal election campaign, one of the reasons the voters in the Windsor-Essex area returned three Liberals to the federal House was a promise they made that they would support transitional assistance benefits for auto workers. They now are in power in fact, all three of them are in the cabinet, and they tell us they have a lot of influence -- but all we get from the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration is a program that simply extends unemployment insurance benefits and makes it easier to get on unemployment insurance.

It is not the type of program we were talking about. It doesn’t meet the need even in Windsor and it certainly doesn’t meet the need of the workers in Oakville, Oshawa, the Niagara Peninsula, the workers at Budd Automotive Company of Canada Limited in Cambridge. It doesn’t meet the need whatsoever. It is a very short-sighted, very limited program and is another example of a broken promise by the federal Liberal government.

One angle they took was to say that, in order to create work in the Windsor area so that those workers who didn’t have their 10 weeks to qualify to get back on unemployment insurance, they would put more money in the Canada Works program.

We got the announcement from the federal government on the Canada Works program and found that for the tri-county area, which comprises Essex, Kent and Lambton counties, they are giving us $250,000 for Canada Works. That is approximately $80,000 in the Windsor-Essex area. According to the local people from Manpower, it will meet the need for maybe 300 workers -- but there are literally thousands of workers who need the jobs to requalify for unemployment insurance.

We have three federal cabinet ministers in Windsor; they have broken their promises. We have silence from this provincial government in pushing the federal government to meet the commitment it made in the last federal election campaign.

In the meantime we have a city that has 20 per cent unemployment. I am not going to go into all the problems associated with the unemployment. We did that during the emergency debate, and I have done it two or three other times during appropriate supplementary estimates. But we have a very serious problem.

Oakville is going to have very serious problems when its people start running out of unemployment insurance when more layoffs take place and when the supplementary unemployment benefits run out at Ford, which is projected to be some time in June.

I predict that Oshawa is going to have problems in the future because the types of cars produced there are also larger cars, not the kinds that are going to be in demand over the next number of years. The Niagara Peninsula already has more than 10 per cent unemployment -- I believe it is 13 per cent or 14 per cent in the St. Catharines area -- so they are already in serious difficulties.

What we need from this government is serious, strong leadership, negotiating immediately with Chrysler. But on a longer term we need them to look at areas like Windsor and St. Catharines and to go in there with some job-creation programs. We need them to speak out loudly in favour of transitional assistance benefits for the displaced auto workers. Most of all, we need to make sure we get the kinds of jobs on a long-term basis in the retooling of all our auto plants in Ontario so we will have long-term jobs and small-sized cars that will meet the market in Ontario, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, and so we will not have this type of unemployment which seems to be occurring every two or three years with all the human tragedy that accompanies it.

I thank the members of the Legislature who have listened. I am glad our party put a priority on this issue to put me second after our leadoff speaker in the budget debate. Our treasury critic included a large portion of his response on the budget on auto matters because we know it is such a serious problem. I hope soon the government will begin to take the problem as seriously as we do.

8:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to take part in the 1980 budget debate. I will not dwell at length this evening on the 1980 estimates of the Ministry of Health. There will be ample opportunity to deal with those in detail in about four or five weeks when we get to estimates in the standing committee on social development.

An hon. member: Leadership candidates are expected to show a breadth --

An hon. member: Why is the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) in the place of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio)?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member for Niagara Falls has changed. I am not sure whether it is for the better. Is the member sure he didn’t go to the chiropractic dinner? He has lost his way; he is in the wrong seat.

What I would like to do this evening is to put on the record of the assembly the points of view which I expressed in my statement to the Health Services Review 1979 under Mr. Justice Emmett Hall.

Mr. Nixon: Are you going to talk about health services? Don’t you have any other strings on your bow? This is supposed to be a general debate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I could dig out some of my old speeches on energy, if the honourable member would like. Maybe we could rehash the 1976 debate and talk about the member’s positions on energy prices. I would be glad to do that.

Mr. Nixon: Sure, let’s do that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If there’s time. I may get to that at the end. I will try to fit it in somehow.

Mr. Riddell: Please elaborate on ambulance services.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, now I can tell who has been to the chiropractic dinner.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I think we had better have a little order and let the minister carry on.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Suffice it to say, I hope that all members of the House have taken the time and the trouble to read carefully, word by word, the detailed brief we submitted to Mr. Hall.

I enjoyed having the opportunity to read the brief from the New Democratic Party. I don’t agree, of course, with all of the points of view expressed in it, but it was none the less an interesting brief. I will be even more interested when I see the follow-up material they are going to send to Mr. Justice Hall in answer to his question of how they would do some of the things they said they would do.

It is unfortunate I didn’t receive the brief from the Liberal Party. It must have gone astray in Her Majesty’s post.

Mr. Nixon: This is where our views on health services are expressed; this is where we vote against you, and the NDP votes for you.

Mr. Speaker: Only when you are recognized by the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sure at some point in the not too distant future, at least in this decade, we will find out the point of view on this subject of the Ontario Liberal Party, or the Liberal Party in Ontario, or the Liberal Party of Ontario, whatever their name is now -- the interim Liberal Party?

I doubt that there is another person anywhere in Canada, or at any time, who could bring to this assignment of reviewing health care in Canada the kind of experience and commitment that the Honourable Mr. Justice Emmett Hall has.

Mr. Nixon: You fought against his original recommendations tooth and nail. If it hadn’t been for the Liberals, we would never have had medicare.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Or Bill 100 perhaps, and a few other things those members now have changed their minds on. I told the member my view of traditional liberalism. They say, “Here are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

Mr. Speaker, as the national hospital insurance plan enters its third decade of service to the Canadian people and as our medical insurance plan begins its second decade, we feel that it is entirely appropriate that Mr. Justice Hall has been asked to review the operation of these programs and to make suggestions for the future.

Ontario is proud of its health insurance program and its health-care system. Ontario residents place a very high value on their health-care system and are very satisfied with it. As a government, we have put that evaluation into action by making health a high priority in our planning and in our funding decisions. One need only look at the 1980 estimates of the Ministry of Health tabled last week, and in the portion of the remarks of my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) a week ago tonight, to see the evidence of that.

Further, our health system in this province has received a great deal of attention from analysts and advocates of health insurance in other countries, like the United States, as they move, however haltingly, towards the introduction of national health insurance plans. In fact, a study prepared in the last year or so for the then Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of the United States suggesting that many features of our plan and its management deserved emulation there. Considering the great number of publicly funded health schemes around the world, this attention is gratifying.

While these official endorsements are quite flattering, there have been far more eloquent testimonials to Ontario’s health-care system from other parts of the world.

An hon. member: The member is not reading a speech, is he?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew North has a fixation about members referring to their own notes. I want to remind him that the standing orders say that you will not read at length from other documents.

An hon. member: He seems to be reading at length from a prepared text.

Mr. Speaker: As long as he prepared it himself.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What a great range my friend from Pembroke has. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, you have quite rightly pointed out one of his fixations. Friday morning he was talking about his fantasies. I wonder what is next.

An hon. member: The minister was talking about fantasies last night.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member alluded to them. I only expanded on the situation and suggested he consult his leader professionally. He is opted-in, to boot.

Mr. Speaker, we all felt a great sense of pleasure and pride when little Herbie Quinone returned to his Brooklyn home after his widely publicized treatment here a year ago in our Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. The choice of London as a treatment centre for the American singer Della Reese and the decision to bring the ailing infant Princess Hurmah of Brunei half way around the world to the Hospital for Sick Children were both widely publicized. Such decisions were taken after every other possibility in the world had been explored. Physicians and units in these hospitals were found to be the last hope of saving these individuals. I know of countless less dramatic examples of patients who have sought the professional skills and technical resources of our health-care system from among literally a world of choices.

The interesting thing to remember in these cases is that this world-class service is available to every resident of this province on a regular basis. I think Mr. Hall should feel a personal sense of pride in this, because the health-care system which we enjoy in this province in this country owes part of its genesis to the work which he and his colleagues did more than 15 years ago.

The health charter for Canadians expressed by the Hall commission in 1964 gave all levels of government, health-care providers and the general public, a clearly stated goal, a compelling sense of what was wanted and how to provide it. The charter was implemented implicitly by the Medical Care Act (Canada) back in 1967, which not only enabled provinces to finance medical care insurance plans but also provided a context within which all of the program details of the plans were to be developed.

The principles that guide us in developing our health-care system today are based on the Hall commission report and the Medical Care Act. The Health Services Review 1979 has been asked to examine the charter of health for Canadians as expressed by the Royal Commission on Health Services in 1964 and the 1967 medicare principles, and to advise whether they are still relevant or in need of modification.

Ontario sees great value in maintaining a set of general principles agreed to by all governments that attempt to define the national interest in health insurance. Canadians expect the provincial health insurance plans will have sufficient common features so that Canadians can move from province to province with uninterrupted coverage and similar basic health-care services.

At the same time, the principles must be general and flexible enough to permit provinces to implement them in ways consistent with their own local conditions. The existing principles, I submit, have served us well over the years. Canadians have a national health insurance plan established in accordance with varying provincial traditions and yet providing the same basic services.

8:30 p.m.

Ontario has always believed that public services are best provided by individuals or agencies located as close as possible to the recipients of the service. We recognize that governments are relative newcomers to the health-care field and that local communities established and supported hospitals and other health-care facilities without significant government assistance for several decades.

Government involvement has strengthened hospital resources and removed the threat of individual financial hardship. At the same time, it has been careful to preserve a significant role for representatives of the local community in determining the detailed manner in which health-care services are provided.

For example, the Ministry of Health does not direct hospitals in detail on how to spend the dollars allocated to fund their hospitals. The ministry develops broad guidelines regarding the services required across the province and leaves the local hospital boards to apply the guidelines to their own situations.

The same reasoning applies to the advisory role of district health councils. We have found the effective use of the wide range of health services and facilities available in Ontario is best achieved with the guidance of broadly representative local bodies that fully understand local conditions, traditions and values and can plan for the delivery, co-ordination and rationalization of these services in a way consistent with these factors.

An hon. member: In Brant County particularly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, in Brant County. It has worked well. Ontario is also convinced that because our society is so diverse it is highly unlikely the same solution can be applied to every problem. Ontario respects the plurality of interest held by its citizens. The arrangements for local involvement in planning and management of health services have facilitated the expression of these various points of view.

We bring the same perspectives to bear on federal-provincial interaction in the field of health care. Matters relating to health care and health services long have been understood to be under provincial jurisdiction. In concert with the evolution of Canada’s constitutional arrangements, the role of the federal government has become less direct and the provinces have assumed full responsibility for the planning and the operation of their health-care plans.

Most proposals in the current constitutional discussions also suggest limits on the exercise of the federal government’s spending powers. The April 1, 1977 change in the financial arrangements which implemented a block-funding mechanism was, in our view, an important step in the direction of disentanglement, one that gave due recognition to the primacy of the provincial role in dealing with matters of a social, cultural and local nature.

We value nationally expressed broad principles regarding the general features of the health insurance program for Canadians. At present, these principles provide room for provinces to design health-care systems that best meet the needs of their residents, while at the same time ensuring common features that facilitate movements within the country. They establish goals without specifying the means to obtain those goals.

The constitutional question is but one of the matters which I understand Mr. Hall is addressing in his review, a report we expect within the next two to three months.

Issues related to our national medicare principles, such as the range of services, the adequacy of health funding and access to services are, in our view, of equal importance. On the range of services, our tabled brief provided a detailed review of the development and the scope of coverage in Ontario. In my remarks, I would like therefore to focus briefly on new services.

It is sometimes argued that Ontario should extend health insurance benefits to cover programs like prescription drugs, dental treatment and alternative lower-cost forms of care. In Ontario, prescription drugs are already available without charge to those with the greatest need, such as the elderly and those who are in receipt of social assistance. This benefit was made available six years ago without benefit of any cost-sharing at all.

Life-saving drugs are also available from hospitals on an outpatient basis. Private insurance plans cover six million people outside of these categories. Further, the Parcost program, which now dates back more than a decade and which provides for price comparisons, generic dispensing and quality assurance, has been of assistance to consumers in all parts of the province.

Similarly, dental treatment without charge is also available to recipients of social assistance. Some public health units, reflecting local priorities, also provide dental preventive and educational programs. Fluoridated water is provided to 72 per cent of the population served by communal water systems. We can discuss that later.

An hon. member: You have some obligations. What do you do with your kids’ teeth?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What is my friend going to do with his?

An hon. member: They are covered under my plan. What about yours?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Good. I am glad they are covered by something.

Mr. Speaker, more than 40 per cent of employees included in collective agreements are covered by dental plans, and this is the fastest-growing fringe benefit. Altogether, some three million Ontario residents now are covered by private dental insurance plans.

To provide services in the most effective manner, the government of Ontario remains convinced that this blend of private and public programs best meets the needs of Ontario at this time.

Since millions of our citizens are already covered privately for such services, we feel our attention should be directed towards programs designed to address unmet needs.

Home care services are fulfilling just such a need. Our first home care program began in 1961, again without any cost-sharing, only two years after the start of hospital insurance. In 1964, acute home care was an approved program, and it expanded across the province as it gained professional and public acceptance.

A whole range of ambulatory forms of care has developed in hospitals as they sought better ways to meet their patients’ needs. The members will recall I am sure, that in the recent speech from the throne the government announced that chronic home care services will be available in every part of the province by 1982.

The need to change the health insurance benefit structure is always under review. However, at this time, Ontario is confident that it is meeting real needs in the most appropriate manner.

If I may, I would now like to turn briefly to the question of funding of the health-care system.

In 1978-79, the last fiscal year for which we have complete statistics, every 1,000 Ontario residents received, on average, 1,300 days of active-treatment hospital care, 430 days of chronic or rehabilitation hospital care, 1,100 days of care in nursing homes, and made more than 1,000 visits to outpatient departments -- 60 per cent of these were to emergency departments.

In addition to these considerable and impressive statistics, an average of more than seven claims for Ontario Health Insurance Plan medical services were processed that year for every resident of the province. I might add that represents an increase in utilization of about 30 per cent in the previous five years.

More than 28 per cent of total provincial expenditures were devoted to the Ministry of Health in 1978-79. Other ministries also provide health services, of course, most of these services having at one time or another in recent years been in the Ministry of Health: for instance, children’s mental health services in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, health education in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, occupational health in the Ministry of Labour, and environmental health in the Ministry of the Environment.

In fact, when these expenditures are added to those of the Ministry of Health itself, the health share of provincial expenditures rises to 31 per cent or $4.4 billion in the 1979-80 fiscal year just completed.

This then is the largest single area of provincial expenditure, and clearly it is a massive commitment of resources, especially in a time of generally tight budgets throughout the country.

We have sought to curb the rate of growth in spending on health care over the past years and we have met with some success, in that the rate of spending as a percentage of gross national product has stabilized. However, we find suggestions that our system is underfunded are unacceptable. Our provincial contribution remains greater than 50 per cent of our costs as compared to the federal contribution, and our commitment to provide funding when needed has been amply demonstrated.

Last year about $58 million was provided to hospitals in addition to the $2 billion already in place. Over the next three years, $100 million of lottery proceeds is going to be dedicated to hospital capital programs, in addition to our ongoing construction programs.

Finally, this year, 1980-81, the hospitals have received an increase of $164 million for their operating budgets, bringing the total to be spent on hospitals in fiscal 1980-81 to more than $2.25 billion.

This is not to say we are uninterested in cost efficiency. That requirement is, and always will be, with us.

I might add here that in my visits to every part of Ontario, including the week when I visited the hospitals on the west shores of James Bay, I have not yet met a physician or a hospital trustee who could not see the benefit of injecting a good dose of efficiency into our hospital operations. That is exactly what has been done. That difficult task is well on its way to being accomplished.

8:40 p.m.

In the broad context, we are pursuing four courses of action to make our system more effective and more efficient. We are reducing the traditional emphasis on acute hospital care. We are increasing the emphasis on prevention and on community health services. We are encouraging individuals to accept more of the responsibility for the maintenance of their own health, and we are decentralizing the whole process of health-care planning.

With regard to the first element of this equation, our strategy is to relieve the pressure on active-treatment hospitals. Surveys of the medical condition of patients in hospitals showed repeatedly that from 10 to 20 per cent of patients in active-treatment beds could have been cared for in chronic-care facilities. Between 20 per cent and 50 per cent of patients in chronic-care beds could have been in extended-care facilities. They did not require the intensity of care available in the bed they were using.

Active-treatment bed guidelines have been revised on two occasions to achieve a better and more appropriate balance between inpatient and alternative settings. At the same time, more emphasis has been placed on lower cost alternatives to active-treatment hospital care: for example, chronic-care facilities, nursing homes and home care programs.

We have encouraged other approaches, such as day surgery. In fact, I am told that 15 years ago probably no more than 10 per cent of the surgery in this province was day surgery. Today, it is more than one-third.

An hon. member: I remember it well.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Was the member born in a day surgery?

Mr. Nixon: What about vasectomies?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll ask the member about that after.

Laboratory tests and workups and treatments such as dialysis and psychiatric care are all being done on an outpatient basis. Moreover, within hospitals all avenues for increased efficiency of operation receive our full support.

Some examples are shared services, or collaboration in the provision of medical and support services, and new high-cost technology, a subject which the member from Pembroke and I discussed at length recently.

Despite this process, the need for more long-term care for our ageing population actually has seen a net increase in institutional beds. It is true -- and, not unexpectedly, people will zero in on the fact -- that we have in the last five years reduced the number of active-treatment beds in the province by 3,500, but in the same period of time we have increased the number of chronic, rehabilitation and nursing home beds by 6,700. In fact, in the last five years, rather than there having been a reduction in the number of institutional beds available for the people of Ontario, there has been a net increase of at least 3,200, and the numbers continue to grow.

In addition, where local conditions and local planning authorities recommend, additional beds are being provided to meet needs resulting from population changes. For instance, despite the reduction to the bed planning standards, the next five years will see the construction of two completely new hospitals on the outskirts of Toronto and major expansions to three more.

Further, the ministry is continually monitoring changes in population patterns. We will continue to approve plans for new beds or hospitals, where required. Mr. Speaker, as you will know, perhaps more than most members, we are replacing outdated facilities, such as the beautiful new McCausland Hospital in Terrace Bay, which the Speaker and I had the great pleasure of officially opening on March 7 or 8 of this year.

An hon. member: Don’t feel compromised, Mr. Speaker. It’s the price of saving the political face of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Let me congratulate and thank the minister for what he did in Scarborough.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let Hansard note the laudatory remarks.

An hon. member: One ministerial lackey apologizing for the other.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The second major direction for reform in our health-care system is an emphasis on community health programs. This reflects our recognition that the most significant opportunities for future improvements in the overall level of health lie in the prevention of disease. I say, and I would hope that my colleagues opposite, the two health critics, would agree with me, that far too little credit has been given to the public health sector, in all the consideration of and debate about health care in the last decade, to the contribution it has made in the improvement of the quality of life in this country and on this continent, and in the status of health of the population. Simple little things that are now taken for granted, things like the pasteurization of milk, for goodness’ sake --

An hon. member: Let’s hear it for Mitchell Hepburn.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I suppose there had to be something that Mitchell Hepburn did that would be of note -- aside from the events of 1942-43, that is. But, certainly, that is one example of the tremendous contribution of the public health sector to the status of health in this province which is given far too little credit.

I am afraid we have, for a variety of reasons over the last 25 or 30 years, instilled in the minds of the population that quality health equates to bricks and mortar and that is the only way you can judge quality health. Of course, we know that to be untrue and we have to commit ourselves to further improving the public health sector.

The third direction is towards increased personal responsibility for health which we are promoting through public education programs. Through such programs we hope to sell people on the benefits of healthier lifestyles.

The fourth direction is the decentralization of planning. As I have indicated, it is our belief and our experience that no one is better able to assess and co-ordinate the health-care resources of a community than the people who live and work there. Thus, we have developed a system of district health councils to examine available resources and needs and to make recommendations on the health priorities for their communities.

Briefly, that is our strategy for ensuring our resources are used most effectively. But again we reject any notion that our system is underfunded, just as we reject the notion that all publicly funded health systems are somehow predestined to fall victim to such an occurrence.

On that note, I will turn to the question of access to services.

Under Ontario’s plan, all medically necessary services provided by a physician, or rendered by an employee of a hospital, are covered. In addition, services provided by other practitioners are covered as well as ambulances and other forms of care. The list of benefits is, in fact, quite comprehensive. There are no distinctions based on age, sex, financial or health status in the terms and conditions for receiving health services. There are exemption provisions where an individual cannot afford the premiums.

In January 1980, more than two million people received premium assistance either in full or in part. This represents 23 per cent of the population of Ontario. Approximately half of these people are over 65 years of age or their dependants. Welfare recipients account for another 25 per cent.

Impressive as those figures are, there is another aspect to the question of access that bears scrutiny; that is, the matter of physical access for those living in remote communities. I won’t dwell on the subject but I would like to point out that October 1, 1979, was the 10th anniversary of the under-serviced area program. The objective of that program is to attract physicians and dentists to establish practices in areas designated as underserviced.

The financial incentives are in the form of grants or income guarantees. The total grant for doctors was increased to $40,000, tax-free, over four years as of last October 1. As an alternative, physicians are guaranteed minimum net incomes after expenses before taxes of $38,000. Grants and minimum guaranteed incomes are also available to dentists under this program. In addition, we have established a bursary program to attract medical and dental students to the north on graduation. Bursaries are offered in each of the last two years of medical or dental school. In return, after completion of training, the recipient agrees to set up practice in an area designated as underserviced in northern Ontario. The funds are provided by my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), through his estimates, and the annual awards have just been increased from $3,000 to $5,000.

8:50 p.m.

As a result of the underserviced area program we currently have 275 doctors practising in 161 designated areas, and we have 75 dentists working under the same program.

In communities requiring more than one doctor, we encourage the clinic approach with, say, two doctors and a dentist sharing facilities. In smaller communities, where even one full-time doctor may not be required, we have set up nursing stations, staffed by nurse practitioners. Another key part of special services to northern Ontario is our dental coach program. My ministry maintains mobile dental clinics assigned to specific areas to serve the more remote areas of the north. They are moved from place to place by highway or by rail.

Members may be aware that in the speech from the throne the government announced a major improvement to the air ambulance service will begin this year. Two jet air ambulances will be obtained to service northern Ontario and two helicopters will be acquired to feed into this service. As well, the province will expand the use of televised medical consultation to provide specialized support to health-care workers in remote areas. I am not suggesting these initiatives will address all potential problems, but I think they are indicative of the progress we are making on this important aspect of the access question.

The issue of physician participation in OHIP has been of concern to many observers of the health-care system. Since the inception of medicare, physicians have had the right not to participate directly in the health insurance plan. I think it is important not to lose sight of some basic facts. First, 86.5 per cent of doctors were opted-in when the OHIP records began in 1972, and 83 per cent of doctors are opted-in at the present time. The highest level of opting-in ever reached was 89 per cent, which occurred during the Anti-Inflation Board period.

Since the presentation of the original Hall report, the number of doctors has risen quite remarkably and proportionally much more rapidly than the population. At present, Ontario has one physician for every 565 people, which is significantly better than the national level at the time of the report 16 years ago, when it was one for every 857. That is a most remarkable improvement in physician availability.

The total number of physicians billing OHIP has increased by 1,000 since 1975. Despite recent trends, the number of opted-in physicians has also grown modestly over the same period. Approximately 1,550 or 75 per cent of the opted-out physicians in the province are located in the six major urban areas in Ontario. Because of the generous supply of practising physicians in these areas, patients have access to services at the opted-in rate.

It is also important to realize that the number of doctors who have opted out does not give an accurate picture of access to insured services. This is because the ministry does permit opted-out doctors to establish billing groups so that they can provide services in hospitals at opted-in rates, although they have opted out for their office practices.

In addition, many opted-out doctors accept the OHIP rate as payment in full. When we compare the number of opted-out doctors with the number of OHIP claims, at the end of March we see that 17 per cent of the doctors had opted out, which is a drop from its peak last year of 18 per cent, but only slightly more than eight per cent of all the claims were paid on that basis.

The desire that Ontario residents should have free access to physicians’ services is well understood by the ministry. Since many opted-out doctors do accept OHIP rates as full payment, the number of doctors who have opted out does not accurately reflect the volume of services being rendered at opted-out rates.

There are also many doctors working in salaried positions, and that must be kept in mind. They are never included in any of the statistics that are published on the opted-in, opted-out question. There is a formal negotiation mechanism that arrives at economic revisions to the OHIP schedule of benefits; it is called the joint committee on physicians’ compensation. It is composed of three representatives of the OMA and of the government, with a neutral chairman -- at present Mr. Thomas Bell -- selected by the two parties.

Coming out of the AIB period, physicians in Ontario and across Canada expressed a growing concern about the rate of growth of their incomes in the context of the total economy. Because of this concern, Ontario worked with the Ontario Medical Association to restructure and improve the negotiation arrangements, starting with the round for 1980. The chairman now has the power, upon the request of either of the parties, to adopt the role of the fact-finder if an agreement cannot be negotiated. His findings are then presented to both sides, and negotiations may resume on the basis of his report until a settlement is reached. That report can be released if either of the parties wants to make it public.

This process produced agreement on an overall increase of 11.5 per cent for the 15 months ending March 31, 1981. An important feature of this agreement is that it provided much higher increases for some lower-paid specialties to reduce the difference between their incomes and the average. General practitioners received 14.5 per cent; psychiatrists, 19.3 per cent; paediatricians and neurosurgeons, 11.6 per cent. We expect, as those income changes become better understood, that more doctors will decide the OHIP schedule benefits offer reasonable compensation for their professional services. In fact, there has been a slight decline in the number of opted-out doctors since the peak of 1979 which I alluded to earlier.

Mr. Breaugh: How much?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: From 18 per cent down to 17 per cent. I thank the member for asking.

Mr. Breaugh: Seventeen point what?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Zero. As of the end of March it had dropped a further three tenths of a point to 17.0 even.

Mr. Breaugh: A magnificent achievement.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let the record show the member for Oshawa says, “Magnificent.”

As a consequence of these negotiations, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that the average incomes after expenses from OHIP and the Workmen’s Compensation Board will be $56,000 for general practitioners and $68,000 for specialists, ranging between $61,000 and $80,000, depending upon the specialty.

Over the years, physicians have maintained their position as the highest-paid profession across Canada. The majority of physicians are among the top one per cent of society in earnings. The issue of the proper level of remuneration for physicians in today’s society in relation to other professionals and to senior positions in the private and public sectors is a matter that has already been presented to the Hall commission in its hearings across Canada. It has been debated at length for at least the better part of a decade.

The ministry is concerned about the current level of nonparticipation in this province. It feels, however, that through continuing discussions and working with the medical profession, solutions can be found to address these current concerns.

As part of an agreement worked out with the government last March, the Ontario Medical Association has undertaken to help residents find a doctor willing to treat them at OHIP rates. Under the same agreement the OMA and the Ontario Hospital Association have undertaken to ensure that services at OHIP rates are available in all our hospitals. The province has moved to introduce twice-monthly payment systems to improve the OHIP reimbursement procedure for participating physicians. The OMA introduced a toll-free telephone system to provide information to members of the public seeking the services of participating physicians. The government has also published a list of participating physicians to complement this service and has distributed that list widely. We will update it and distribute it again in the next month or two.

Billing arrangements other than fee-for-service are available for doctors who wish to practise with a different basis for remuneration. A recent project relating to the provision of the services by an anaesthetist in Toronto has been quite successful, and we fully expect that similar arrangements will be extended to other hospitals in the near future. In fact, negotiations are under way now with anaesthetists in several hospitals.

This agreement has resulted in the development of a relatively simple approach which allows physicians to be reimbursed through a block-funding approach with payments on a monthly basis in advance. It is designed to recognize the increases resulting from OMA negotiations and changes in work-load activity. The arrangement has given this group of anaesthetists the opportunity to make significant reductions in their overhead costs, increasing the net incomes of their group correspondingly. It has also freed them from any other problems of record-keeping and administration.

We are confident that through continuing dialogue further changes can be brought about to improve current participation rates. However, I have to emphasize that there is no simple or quick answer. Our medicare program is based on mutual trust and co-operation. Any precipitate or unilateral action could undermine this basis and, I submit, could lead to a serious deterioration in the quality of health care available to the people of the province.

The evidence we have to date indicates the opting-out phenomenon has levelled off and indeed it is declining. Nevertheless, this is something we have to watch closely. In fact, the few problems that have arisen with patients and opted-out doctors have been resolved to the best of my knowledge. I think this is to be expected. Ontario’s doctors, after all, have consistently demonstrated a high degree of responsibility and sensitivity to their patients and to their communities. As a group, they have few competitors in our society in terms of the high regard in which the public holds them.

9 p.m.

It is not surprising to me that the agreement reached between the OMA and the government last March is working. It has provided the public with assurance that health services are available at OHIP rates and has given physicians an opportunity to demonstrate their professionalism through self-regulation. Another obvious benefit is that the government has not been required to act unilaterally in this matter. That is a point worth emphasizing. I believe much more can be accomplished in the public forum through discussion and co-operation than through confrontation.

I don’t want to minimize the importance of the opted-out question to our health-care system, but I think we must keep this issue in perspective. I have tried to portray our health-care system as it really is. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize one final point which should give all of us in the health-care field cause for optimism, namely, the public of Ontario is pleased with its health services. The most recent survey of attitudes conducted for the Ministry of Health was taken in January.

An hon. member: Government by Goldfarb.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is not in his seat.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I believe this will be released in the not-too-distant future. In fact, it was given to the Hall commission a number of months ago.

An hon. member: Leslie Frost would be disgusted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Gallup organization personally interviewed 3,144 randomly selected people across Canada, of whom 1,128 were Ontario residents, 18 years of age and older. In addition, Gallup undertook 600 interviews in three selected Ontario communities, Peterborough, Guelph and Sarnia, specifically to explore the impact of the opted-out situation.

The results confirmed a September 1979 study which showed that Ontarians have a satisfaction with the health-care system which is extremely high. From a national perspective, Ontarians generally rate their provincial system higher than do residents of other provincial jurisdictions. In fact, since September -- and I think this is interesting -- Ontarians have seen an improvement in the quality of hospital services available to them. They rate doctors’ services high. Fewer than 10 per cent report difficulty in getting treatment or care.

I know that the interpretation of polls is often open to debate.

An hon. member: You should resign.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not tonight. We have got other things to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hennessy: Send that young fellow home.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Which one?

There have been other quite dramatic demonstrations that I think point to the state of our health-care system. All of us will recall that much of the city of Mississauga had to be evacuated in mid-November as a result of the railway accident. Over a 1-hour period, this involved the evacuation of patients from thee large active-treatment hospitals and six nursing homes, a total of almost 2,000 institutionalized persons. It was the most massive peacetime evacuation ever undertaken here and, from a health-care perspective, involved not one single untoward event.

To me, it says a great deal about the built-in resilience and the capacity of the system and the ability of its administrators and staff to react and to adjust. While examples are illuminating and gratifying, they are not seen by us as ground for complacency. This is why we have welcomed the review by Mr. Justice Hall. By reminding us of how far we Canadians have come, we will develop a new appreciation of what we have and a renewed determination to support its continuance. Undoubtedly, he will be able to suggest some useful changes to our program. We will welcome his thoughts and the thoughts of his commission on these issues.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join tonight in the budget debate. While the members are still in a jovial mood, I would like to share with them a thought that was kindled by the Minister of Health in speaking about the late Mitch Hepburn, a leader of this party. I will be eternally grateful to that gentleman for a reason I wish to relate.

When I was 10, 11 or 12 years old or something of that order, it was my duty each night to go with the milk pail and walk through the fields about half or three quarters of a mile to a neighbouring farmer to pick up the daily supply of unpasteurized milk. It was a rather unpleasant journey, because it took me though an old gravel pit and across the fields, since the highway was not a safe way to travel. Lo and behold, Mitch Hepburn came along and outlawed the sale of that unpasteurized milk.

My neighbour didn’t like it, and a great many farmers didn’t like it. But I remind members that in that day I suppose the farm population of Ontario would be 35 per cent. Because of his courage in going against those farmers, he brought in that pasteurization law and there are I suppose hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario today who owe their lives to that single act. That is my personal reason for wanting to mention that. On one or two occasions I did have the privilege to hear Mitch Hepburn speak.

Mr. Martel: Was that a privilege?

Mr. McGuigan: It was. He was one of the great orators. The member for Sudbury East is great, but he was better. He was a great orator.

Mr. Martel: He knew how to keep the unions out of Ontario.

Mr. McGuigan: I’m not talking about the content. I’m just talking about the oratory of the man. He was outstanding.

Mr. Nixon: This man is being too honest.

Mr. McGuigan: They call me Honest Jim.

Mr. Speaker, Kent-Elgin riding, which I represent, consists of eight townships in the county of Kent and two townships in the county of Elgin. There are five towns in the eight townships of Kent and five villages, and there are three villages in Elgin township. The villages tend to be residential, and they are centres for the provision of supplies to farmers and for receiving farm products. But these small towns, the ones of 4,000 or 4,500, also have a great many parts plants in them. They are quite a centre of manufacturing.

It is quite surprising. I just discovered that during my bid for this office. I did not realize until then how much manufacturing there was in counties like Kent. Standing out in front of those plants at 6 a.m. and touring them was a great education.

At present these plants are working fairly well, but there is a great fear and apprehension hanging over them because of what is happening in the auto industry. We are thankful for the belated recognition of alternative fuels that is included in the budget. Unfortunately, it is about five years too late.

According to the articles I read about the auto industry, it will be three to five years before front-wheel-drive, lightweight, fuel-efficient cars can be turned out in quantity. During that period we face unemployment.

We welcome the money devoted to more research into methane and into the production of fuel alcohol and the sales tax exemption on cars that do not use liquid petroleum products for fuel. I am sure the producers of electric golf carts will be very enthusiastic about the fact that such vehicles now are free of sales tax. That is about the only good that is going to come out of it at present, and there are no vehicles available in Ontario to date that do not run on liquid fuel. I wonder what the Minister Of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) would have to say about people driving their golf carts on the highways.

9:10 p.m.

There has been technology for powering gas engines with natural gas, and it has been available since the turn of the century. If members look back into the history of the drilling of the gas fields in southwestern Ontario, they would find those gas fields were drilled with internal combustion engines powered by the same natural gas they were discovering.

There is a modern technology to compress or liquefy natural gas so it can be carried by moving vehicles. Union Gas at Chatham -- I am sure members opposite would be very familiar with that gas -- have had powered demonstration vehicles for several years. These vehicles have a dual fuel system -- gasoline and natural gas -- and the gasoline option is kept simply because once the vehicle has left home base, it does not have a refuelling station and so it may have to use gasoline on the return trip.

I wonder whether the Treasurer is considering these vehicles for his exemption, because they could be quite easily brought into production, especially in the commercial fleets, which would not have the problem of carrying the extra tanks. Our manufacturers, if this had been envisaged a few years ago, could now be building the kit and the component to go into this type of fuelling.

Mr. Haggerty: Sounds like the Duke of Chatham-Kent had some influence on them.

Mr. McGuigan: I hope he does, because we have a supply of natural gas that they tell us is good for at least 150 years, and it is certainly clearly surplus to our needs because we are selling large quantities to the United States.

Some of the billions of dollars that were put into the extra hydro plants which we cannot use could have been more wisely spent in such endeavours as alternative fuels. Today we find our batteries are overcharged with electricity but we have no vehicle on which to use it. The genie that may be in the bottleneck of the electric generating station cannot get out to work its magic. It seems to me that this government might have foreseen some of those eventualities, because clearly in the scientific journals it has been recognized for many years that we were going to run into a liquid petroleum shortage.

Most observers fail to appreciate another historical and sociological fact, and that history is not isolated to Ontario; that is, that every city in the world owes its beginning and its growth to the excesses of the agricultural population. Large families have always been welcome in rural communities because of the relative ease of raising a family in the spaciousness of the country environment and for the economic necessity of having a dependable labour supply. It is an industry that even today depends a great deal upon the family labour. The fact that the agricultural population today represents about five per cent of the total population means this base has been eroded and the farms are no longer supplying this excess population, so we find ourselves at a zero population growth rate.

Following the Second World War and after the Korean war, the government clearly had economic problems. There was a problem of too much production and a disproportionately low share of the national income for the agricultural population; so university professors, politicians and task force people decided the answer to that was to get rid of that extra population. Those economic objectives have been achieved because the government encouraged the enlargement and capitalization of farms.

One must now ask if the social benefits are worth the cost. Will the ageing population put such a tax burden on the few young people we have that they will refuse to bear the cost? Will we be able to attract people from other countries? I am sure we will be able to attract them from the Third World, but they will not have the skills and the education necessary to operate our industrial society.

In the face of this, one would think the government would, even at this late date, try to correct past errors by indicating in its budget its support of the industry that is the very base of our social system and the base industry of our province.

I would like to mention a segment -- admittedly a small segment -- of our agricultural industry, that is, the area of specialized crops, sometimes designated as the horticultural industry. But it is really broader than that. It includes the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, the flower industry, the honey industry, the processed fruit and vegetable industry, the nursery and plant-growing industry, and all these industries that support and depend upon this group of producers. It amounts to about 20 per cent of Ontario agriculture.

I believe this industry offers the greatest potential for expansion we have in Ontario, except for the two grain crops of corn and soybeans that are constantly moving eastward and northward as we improve the varieties and get shorter-season varieties.

Let us step back a bit and look at agriculture in Ontario from the pioneer days. The settler’s first needs were to build a home and clear a small patch to grow food for his family. Grazing livestock to utilize the grass was his first priority. Gradually, as the pioneer cleared the land and planted grain, the family had a surplus to sell. This amounted to grain and cheese because those were the only two products that could be transported safely without spoiling.

Gradually, as grain production increased and prices fell, the farm family resorted more and more to selling family labour in the form of labour-intensive crops. The opportunities in special crops are there today because of the increasingly high cost of transportation these crops encounter when they are imported into the country. The cost of trucking from Mexico, California and Florida is becoming a very large part of the cost.

If we even think of production within Canada, the cost of bringing British Columbia apples to the market here in Ontario amounts to $3 and $4 for a 40-pound case. So there are great opportunities in this regard, but we do not see support in the budget to do the necessary research and development to encourage these industries.

There are opportunities because of the new tariff rates adopted by the last two governments. These tariff rates are now coming into effect, so they are offering some protection to Ontario producers for fresh and processed fruits and vegetables.

There is an opportunity too in the realization that people today are far more conscious about their diet. The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), the previous speaker, talked about prevention and health awareness. People are aware of this and they are using more and more of these items in their diet. It has had an impact on the market.

9:20 p.m.

One occurrence in the United States has been the banning of so-called junk foods in their schools. This has had a great effect upon the sale of apple juice, a product in which I happen to have a personal interest. That effect has spilled over to the families because the children have brought home the nutritional message and increased the sale of that product. A product which a few years ago was selling at $10 to $20 a ton delivered at the juice plants -- a price hardly worth the cost of transportation -- is now selling for prices from $80 to $135 a ton.

I believe some of the price pressure on apple juice is coming from the loss of citrus-growing land in Florida, Arizona and California. Apple juice is a direct competitor of orange juice.

Mr. Nixon: There is just one measly Tory over there.

Interjection.

Mr. Ashe: One can offset a few over there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is not in his seat.

Mr. McGuigan: I appreciate the two loyal members who have stuck it out. I can’t see the people in this gallery, but the hordes of people in the far gallery are certainly being treated tonight to a very informative and inspiring speech. I thank them for attending.

Mr. Nixon: There is a big crowd of Socialists there.

Mr. McGuigan: I even appreciate the Socialists for staying.

In the United States, the supply of orange juice has been affected by the loss of those citrus-growing lands. The United States starts from a much higher base of agricultural lands and has not been so concerned about the loss of them as we should be here in Canada. We have a much smaller base. I’m speaking of the triangle of southwestern Ontario. I’m not going to speak at length on that subject. My esteemed colleague from Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has introduced a bill that calls for the registration of sales of agricultural land to foreign buyers.

We in this party are committed to the preservation of that land. When I talk to the people in my riding in the counties of Kent and Elgin, they uphold the very rigid system we have in those two counties in allowing severances of land. It is very difficult in Kent or Elgin to get a severance of land. The only occasional complaint I hear is perhaps from a retiring farm couple who wish to split off a piece of land for themselves and are often denied this privilege. They find when they would like to go to the nearest village that there is no provision in that village for sewage and they are denied septic tank permits in many cases. That is the only complaint I get from farmers about the preservation of farm land.

I would like to turn now to another subject. As co-critic for agriculture and food -- my particular side of it is food, although we often cross lines because the demarcation is not that easily drawn -- I have followed the chicken marketing dilemma for the past year. The dilemma stems from the United States. If one takes a look at a map of that great agricultural country, one will see that the middle corn belt, where so much corn and soybeans are grown, is very close to the Mississippi River. It is very cheap and easy to barge feed down the Mississippi River to states such as Georgia in particular where this is used as livestock feed, especially for chickens. They have the natural advantages of that cheap transportation. They have lower labour costs, they have better feeding efficiency because the birds don’t require so much energy to keep their own bodies active. They require a lot cheaper housing. So we face those natural advantages of the United States.

Also, in the United States, the broiler industry, I am told, has been almost totally removed from the farm family situation. It is now a captive of the integrated system largely owned by the brewing industry because, as you will appreciate, the brewing industry is probably one of the largest buyers of grains in the United States. Of course, they have the byproduct of either wet or dried brewers’ grains which are high in protein and make an excellent feed, especially for growing chickens.

In order to try to save some of the industry for Canadian producers, the federal government enacted the provisions of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. This is an act that was brought in four or five years ago and requires the agreement of the eight producing provinces that have marketing boards. This agreement took full effect on October 22, 1979.

Just to step back a bit, the agencies act is one that allocates a percentage of the Canadian market to each participating province. This allotment, or quota, is then parceled out to individual producers based on their historical production.

The act is recognized by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which is an international agreement of which Canada, the United States and most of the western nations are signatories. The GATT agreement recognizes the right of a producing country, one that has a supply management system in effect, to impose quotas against the importation of a like product from another country. Without this provision, if we arbitrarily applied a quota, we could expect, under the same tariff agreement, that the exporting country would apply a tariff against one of our products. So if we moved against chickens, they would probably move against cattle or hogs. So the gains of one producer would be the loss of another.

On October 22, the United States import quota for the balance of 1979 was set at 8.75 million pounds, or 3,970 metric tonnes, which is the proportional share of the 1979 quota of 45 million pounds. This was set by the Honourable Robert de Cotret, then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the then Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable John Wise. During 1980, imports will be limited to 48.5 million pounds, or 21,999 metric tonnes, eviscerated weight.

An hon. member: That wasn’t so “Wise” was it?

Mr. McGuigan: There are certainly differences of opinion on that.

Fifty-two million pounds or 23,587 metric tonnes has been established as the 1981 quota level. In subsequent years, the annual import quota will be set at a level equal to 6.3 per cent of the previous year’s production, as reported by Statistics Canada.

9:30 p.m.

Up to now, it sounds fairly simple. Canada gets 93.1 per cent of the market and the United States gets 6.3 per cent. Most farmers would consider that a pretty good deal. The problem comes in the processing industry. Prior to October 22, a processing firm, Maple Lodge Farms Limited, imported large quantities of United States chicken. This company has only one operation, which processes and markets chickens; it does not supply birds, feeds or financing to growers, and it is not a subversive agent, as some of its detractors would picture it.

Importing is a legitimate business; certainly this government spends a lot of money promoting exports. Ontario is, I believe, the second largest exporter of fruit products in the world, so we are hardly the ones to rail about the importation of some products into Canada. The problem is that Maple Lodge Farms became the importer of record. They hold these rights and they are not about to give them up.

There are some 17 processors in Ontario, and except for the importation of dressed birds by the Weston chain, most of the import quotas are held by Maple Lodge Farms. It is charged by those companies that do not hold permits as importers of record that Maple Lodge Farms has an advantage in the marketplace that they can never match. They say Maple Lodge Farms can import cheaper United States live birds and use them to undercut the market and also to increase its share of the market.

I should point out that the controlled price in the marketing of chicken is at the farm level, not at the wholesale or retail, so there is the opportunity for anyone with an advantage to make the most of that. One who believes in free enterprise could hardly quarrel with that premise. But Maple Lodge Farms says there is no advantage. It says that for United States birds laid into its plant, when one considers the transportation cost, the cost of brokerage and the difference in United States and Canadian money, the laid-in prices are very much the same as, or at the very best only fractionally less than, Ontario prices.

This company claims it buys most of its birds by contract, and it doesn’t buy on the open or spot market, which at times does offer very cheap chicken in the United States. They also charge there is a plot on the part of Ontario-integrated companies to deny them access to Ontario birds. One of the largest integrated firms says that is not so. The integrated company wants to hold on to its growers, supply the inputs, process the birds, and if there is not a ready fresh market, then it prefers to freeze the birds rather than divert them to Maple Lodge.

Mr. McKessock: The Minister Of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) should be here to hear this great speech, and get this straightened out.

Mr. McGuigan: That is right, he is seldom here, even in the daytime.

I should explain that most of the chicken that is sold in Ontario is sold in a fresh form. Ontario consumers prefer fresh chicken to frozen. Another factor enters the market: if Maple Lodge has exhausted its United States quota and no Ontario live birds are available, it can and does apply to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce for a supplementary quota and it is difficult for the federal minister to turn it down if Ontario birds are not available.

What does all of this have to do with the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food? Plenty. He plays the political game; he says the import quota should be cut to one per cent and he knows this can’t happen under the terms of GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Even if the federal government abrogated the rules and did take the quota down to one per cent, he knows the federal government will take the blame for whatever other section of the industry is hurt by the retaliatory action. We don’t need this political game-playing in this business. The real damage being done is that our marketing board system and especially our supply marketing system are being downgraded in the eyes of the consuming public.

In order to preserve its position, Maple Lodge Farms Limited has put full-page ads in Ontario papers advertising the fact it wants live chickens. They have gone before the city council in Mississauga and presented their case. According to Country Canada, a TV program last Sunday, they convinced the council to pass a resolution supporting their request for more imports. We don’t need more imports for the Ontario market; we have the birds here, but we do have a problem of allocation.

I submit it is a sorry day for Ontario agriculture to have a city council passing an anti-marketing-board resolution, and to have our Minister of Agriculture and Food standing by watching this situation and simply making politics out of it. We are not getting the leadership from this minister that the agricultural situation deserves.

I wish somebody over there would inform him that he is the minister for all the farmers in Ontario. He is also the minister to some extent for consumers because his portfolio is Agriculture and Food. He seems to think he is just the member for Lambton. We need a man again of Bill Stewart’s qualities. We have a member on this side of the House who sits down in the front row here and will handle the situation. He would not let a situation like this develop.

I really hope my suspicions are wrong. I have to fault myself when I have these suspicions. But I wonder if the last two Ministers of Agriculture and Food in the government over there have not downgraded the role of agriculture in this great province. They are selling it out to industry. We saw the former minister going about the province making speeches that inflamed the milk marketing situation.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Will the front bench of the official opposition allow the member for Kent-Elgin to be heard?

Mr. McGuigan: I appreciate the support, but I also appreciate the Speaker’s intentions.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, if the members want to talk about polls I can divert for just a second, maybe five minutes. Talking about polls, I took the trouble to read a speech made 200 years ago by Edmund Burke, a great Liberal. He made it to the electors of Bristol, I think it was in November 1774. His very eloquent words, which of course I could not emulate, were something like this, “A member owes his energy, he owes his devotion, he owes his total commitment to the electors; but his opinion he does not owe to them. He is not slave to their opinion.”

9:40 p.m.

I wish to amplify on that a bit. Of course, we have to listen to the opinion of our electors, but we do it in a deliberative fashion. We bring out the arguments for and against. We deliberate in these chambers; it is an exchange of ideas from one side to the other. Many times we support the government’s arguments because we say they make sense --

An hon. member: When was that?

Mr. McGuigan: We have supported them on a number of occasions, but perhaps never in the future. Because of that deliberative process, this is a parliamentary system. But when you go to a poll-taking system, when you stand there with a poll, you are going to an authoritative system. You are going to an authoritative system, because you ignore the debate, which I think is an important part of the life of this parliament. It should be pointed out that we deplore the use of polls as compared to the deliberative process on which this parliamentary system was founded. I suggest my friend opposite read that speech of Burke’s. He will find it quite interesting.

Mr. Riddell: He was speaking from a Tory platform -- a manure spreader.

Mr. Conway: As John Diefenbaker said, poles are for dogs.

Mr. McGuigan: I was talking about polls that are used as a guide in formulating government policy.

We need a strong minister, one who would knock a few heads together, one like Bill Stewart. He would not hesitate to talk turkey but I guess in this case it would be more appropriate to say “talk chicken.”

Mr. Riddell: He referred to me as being a chicken warmonger at one time.

Mr. McGuigan: I was going to mention that to my colleague, but I do not want to take that title away from him. “Chicken warmonger” is a label he earned and wears proudly.

I believe there is an answer to the dilemma, and I offer it as the broad outline for negotiations. The minister should insist that Maple Lodge have access to all the Ontario chickens they need. Maple Lodge should give up their imports of record and distribute them on a pro rata basis to the other 17 processors. If, as they say, US imports are not cheaper, then they are not giving up very much of value. Understandably, they do not wish to give up the permit, because it guarantees the birds they need. But if that guarantee were given by the Ontario Broiler Chicken Producers’ Marketing Board and backed up by the Farm Products Marketing Board and by this Minister of Agriculture and Food, then they would not have given up anything at all and all processors would be on an even footing.

Maple Lodge insists that if it gave up the importer of record permit, it should be compensated with growing rights for 10 million birds. They say that otherwise they are being discriminated against. But I ask the question, would they be discriminated against any more than the producers’ board discriminates against any other farmer who currently does not hold growing rights?

I believe the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture should call a conference of all the ministers involved, the Ontario Broiler Chicken Producers’ Marketing Board and the processors and work out a solution to this vexing problem.

Mr. Speaker, I have a note. I don’t know whether it is from my own colleagues or whether it is from you, but it says I have two minutes left. Who is the author of this?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Your note is certainly not from the Speaker.

Mr. McGuigan: I got hooked on that once before. I thank the members for listening to my soliloquy.

Mr. Nixon: Give us your views on human rights.

Mr. McGuigan: I’m giving them on chickens’ rights.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I’m sorry the speaker is not effective in regulating the heckling from your own front bench, but in any event, if you will proceed a little faster it will allow fewer opportunities for interjections.

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is another side issue. The United States birds sold in Ontario are marked “product of Canada”. If they are imported eviscerated, in other words, dressed and packaged as is practised by the Weston group, the film package does say “product of USA,” but when the birds are processed in Canada, they are considered under the Canada Agriculture Products Standards Act to be a product of Canada.

Just let me run through the import process for bulk fruits and vegetables. An importer bringing apples or carrots to Canada applies for a permit from the Canada Department of Agriculture. If market conditions warrant, the permit is granted. When the product crosses the border, the Canadian customs people notify the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. These people then visit the packing house and they make sure that the product is packaged in containers that say “product of USA.”

I am asking why the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act can’t be amended to require the same process for live chickens. They really aren’t processed in the sense that they are altered, such as would be the case if the product were cooked. Of course they are killed, eviscerated and the feathers taken off, but they are not cooked. We export food products to the United States marked “product of Canada” when the product is clearly not a product of Canada. Marmalade, for example, has been exported when clearly we do not grow oranges in Canada, not even in the riding of Kent-Elgin even though we get the name of the banana belt. The oranges are nowhere close to being in the original fresh form. The CAPS act is a federal law but the minister could at least bring pressure on the federal people to amend the act or the regulation as the case may be.

I want members to make no mistake about this point. I am not anti the broiler producers’ marketing board or any other board, but I believe that when the situation reaches a point where city councils are passing resolutions that are anti-marketing board it is time to call a halt to the bickering and resolve the problem.

I can think of only half a dozen people in Ontario who have carried as many petitions as I have in order to have a producer vote. Few have worked harder than I have to see that these votes were favourable. Members from the third party would be pleased to learn that I even took part in a strike one time when producers took that route to get a decent price.

Mr. McKessock: The NDP pricked up their ears.

Mr. McGuigan: I would do it again.

Mr. Warner: Good for you.

9:50 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: I don’t want to see that hard work of myself and others lost because of a hands-off attitude by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

We wish to say we welcome the continuance of the farm productivity grants. They are aimed in the right direction, that is towards control of wind and water erosion of the soil, but they barely touch the problem of soil loss which I believe is becoming a disgrace in this province. Like so many environmental problems, it sneaks up like a thief in the dark, but it is coming out into the broad daylight in the last few years. Just ride the train as I do from Toronto to Chatham and observe the deep gulleys and the rilling of those rolling soils from Toronto until the landscape flattens out in Kent county.

The change has come about in the last four or five years with the introduction and the use of multi-row combine harvesters which take the crop off in such record time and get it into the dryer. In many instances, the crop is all off by the end of October. Farmers with time on their hands go out with their large tractors and large ploughs and plough down all that crop refuse. We find that those soils are bare through the winter and subject to runoffs, especially in the spring. These are lands that up until a few years ago were often in hay and pasture crops or strict rotations of hay, pasture and cash crops and were seldom fall-ploughed.

It is not popular to talk about soil erosion but it is a growing problem. At one time we could partly correct the problem by applying large quantities of cheap fertilizer, but fertilizer is no longer cheap and it is not realistic to keep on reclaiming lands to maintain our production. The remaining land is almost certain to be of lower productivity and of a higher cost to clear and drain because, quite naturally, we have left the poorer land as the last to be developed.

I believe we should be looking at a soil conservation service as a separate branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The present agricultural representative service concentrates on production and marketing and should be kept in its present role.

In passing, I would like to pay tribute to a soil scientist at the Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology, Mr. Charles Baldwin, who is the only person I know actively speaking out in favour of soil conservation. Also, the crop improvement associations of Ontario have been a voice crying all too often in the wilderness.

Even in the flat lands of Kent county, we have a soil loss problem. Fields with a slope of less than one per cent can lose up to six tons of soil a year in the spring run-offs. Those floods that occur in Dover township in the riding of Chatham-Kent and in Tilbury East in the riding of Kent-Elgin are really caused by the build-up of silt at the mouth of the Thames River more than by any other factor. The build-up of silt really comes from a runoff of agricultural land.

I would like to mention that over the last number of years this government as a matter of policy has tried to reduce the number of farmers, increase the size of the operations and produce a mechanized type of agriculture. The government has been very successful at it. But today we find many of those people who followed that advice and put in big feed lots and bought big equipment now find themselves in a terrible bind trying to pay for the cost of interest. When the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) presented his resolution a couple of weeks ago we all know the reaction from the number of farmers who were down here complaining about the terrible bind they are in on interest rates.

The government must assume some of the burden because it was its policies that encouraged that type of agriculture. I want to point out that throughout the last number of years there has been no group in society that has increased its productivity at such a rate as the agricultural sector. There have been individual years when productivity gains were as high as seven per cent, at times when industrial productivity was zero or even negative or at a positive growth of only two or three per cent. So these people who are hurting today are not the causes of high interest rates; they are the victims of it.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the deficiencies I see in the budget and I would like to go on record as saying that I do not support it.

Mr. Ashe: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I was just wondering whether the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has any expectations sitting in the leader’s seat.

Mr. Acting Speaker: This requires no response. I’ll call upon the member for Riverdale, who I think is ready to make a motion to adjourn.

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

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 31, An Act to amend the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1976.

Bill 38, An Act to repeal the Railway Fire Charge Act.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, last year, in the early evening of October 17, being a Wednesday evening, a constituent of mine aged 14 years of age, Dolly Gallant, died in the Toronto East General Hospital at 8:50 p.m. She had been found on Simpson Avenue in the riding of Riverdale, in the rear lane beside one of the churches in the area, and as a result of her death a coroner’s inquest was held.

The cause of death, as determined by a verdict of the coroner’s jury, was cardiac arrhythmias. By what means the death came about is stated to be the intentional inhalation of Pam cooking spray. The coroner’s jury made the following recommendations in reporting on the death of Dolly Gallant in its report on February 27, 1980:

“1. We recommend that the government force manufacturers to accelerate the research into converting products from aerosol sprays containing volatile constituents to manual-action sprays. Recent trends have shown the benefits of pump action as opposed to sprays. This would indicate that the same direction would be advisable in the product under discussion;

10 p.m.

“2. We recommend that in areas where abuse of glue and Pam are prevalent, shopkeepers be made aware of their potential misuse and discouraged by community service groups from stocking these products.

“3. We recommend that the government commission the National Film Board, or a similar body, to produce a documentary on the hazardous effects of products containing volatile organics, with emphasis on the commonly misused products, glue and Pam. The film would be made available to community service groups and police authorities, for the purpose of educating parents and selected adolescents in areas where misuse is a problem.

“4. We recommend that the mass media use restraint in reporting methods of misuse of products related to drug abuse.”

Those were the recommendations of James J. Ball, Mary J. Cooper, June Cummings, Terrence M. Elwood and Debra Mitchell, who were the jury serving on the inquest into the death of Dolly Gallant.

I was shocked and upset, as I know each member would be, had this particular tragedy occurred in his or her riding. I thought I would spend some time doing what I could in this assembly to raise again -- as it has been raised by other members on different occasions -- the question of what, if anything, it is possible to do in a difficult situation with respect to the cause of the death of Dolly Gallant. I want to take the opportunity, with the permission of the House, to speak at some length on this particular matter before I move into other areas of concern to me as a result of the budgetary address of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Although the practice of inhaling intoxicants has a long history -- it became somewhat popularized in the early 1960s -- the current attention is focused on the inhalation of adhesives, solvents and aerosols. This last category is of particular interest, because Pam cooking spray is an aerosol. The effects obtained from sniffing both glue and aerosols are characterized by a high, which involves relaxation, giddiness, a lessening of inhibitions and other characteristics with which many of us are familiar. But the aerosols are different from the solvents because they contain fluorocarbons, which can be deadly.

Since 1975, seven children in Ontario have died from sniffing Pam cooking spray. While I do not want in any way to underestimate the danger of sniffing glue by making any unnecessary comparison, nevertheless deaths from glue sniffing are much lass common. There have been two, or possibly three, in the same period.

Briefly, the fluorocarbons, gas propellants such as Freon 2, are the gases which occupy the bulk of the volume in an aerosol container The purpose of the fluorocarbons is to enable the remaining material in the can to leave the can in a spray or highly pressurized manner. The inhaled vapours from the aerosol enter the bloodstream rapidly from the lungs and are then distributed to tissues with a large blood circulation, such as the brain or the liver. Because the fluorocarbons are fat-soluble, they are quickly absorbed into the central nervous system and produce a depression of many bodily functions, such as respiration and heart beat.

The fluorocarbons are believed to be sometimes fatal because they cause the heart to act abnormally, especially under stress, producing the condition known as cardiac arrhythmias, which was the cause of death of Dolly Gallant. It can result, as in this instance, in sudden death. The post mortem of Dolly Gallant showed marked lung collapse and the presence of Pam cooking spray. The report of the post mortem stated that “although the exact mechanism of death from the sniffing of these propellants is still not agreed upon, the majority of investigations favoured the sudden onset of cardiac arrhythmias.”

In addition to the sometimes fatal results of inhaling aerosols, there are also long-term effects which can be very damaging. Unlike the solvents, with the exception of cleaning fluid, liver and kidney damage is irreversible. Alcohol or a liver or kidney disease are factors which can compound the damage. In general, interference with brain function tends to be temporary in nature, but some researchers have reported chromosomal damage and blood abnormalities among sniffers. These effects are still under study and are not proven at this time.

Just who is in danger in these circumstances? The majority of users range in age from eight to 16. A survey conducted by the Addiction Research Foundation in 1979 found the following pattern of usage: 13 years and under, 9.3 per cent of the population sampled; 14 to 15 years, 7.9 per cent; 16 to 17 years, 3.6 per cent; 18 years and over, 2.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of the House. there are certain tables with these comments and I would ask that they might be printed with the Hansard report because they are illustrative of the points that are being made and it is, in my view, a matter of significant importance. With your permission, sir, I would ask that the tables, which I will provide to the Hansard officer, be printed in the rear of the particular Hansard report to which I am referring. There are four tables which would be so included.

Mr. Speaker: Does anybody have any disagreement with that, that the tables to which the honourable member is referring be made a part of Hansard?

Mr. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The pattern found in the above results is unlike those found for other drug abuses. The age of the sniffers is much lower. It is generally suspected that this is due to the availability of glue and aerosols to the young user as compared to alcohol, marijuana and other street drugs. There are certain subgroups of the population which are particularly prone to indulging in sniffing. In many cases, children who belong to single-parent families, or who have parents who are alcoholics or have other problems, are more likely to resort to sniffing for a variety of reasons. These children might be seeking relief from the social pressures created by the home situation. Some claim to using solvents and aerosols to reduce anxiety or depression, or to compensate for feelings of insecurity or shyness.

What are the alternatives that we can look to for curbing the use of solvents and aerosols? We could consider the elimination of the product or the hazardous substance contained in the product. Because of the particular lifestyle we have chosen to live, there is no possibility that products such as glue and aerosols will be eliminated. Any product that is judged to be safe under normal use will remain on the market. These products are not considered to be hazards, although it is now required that appropriate products be labelled to identify them as dangerous if misused. Pressure to have such warnings on these products resulted from jury recommendations which examined deaths caused on other occasions by these same products.

10:10 p.m.

There has been considerable discussion devoted to the removal of the harmful substances in such products. In the case of solvents this is impossible because it is a dangerous substance which removes the stain or whatever the particular purpose of the product may be.

With the aerosols this is not the case. As explained earlier, the harmful fluorocarbons are included to force the product out of the can. Because of a recent scare concerning the effects of fluorocarbons on the ozone layer increasing the possibility of skin cancer, the federal government in the United States has banned the use of fluorocarbons, and the manufacturers have been forced to find alternatives to fluorocarbons or repackage their products into nonaerosol form. This has had a dramatic effect on the incidence of death due to fluorocarbons. The number of deaths decreased in the United States from 104 in 1974 to some 34 in 1978.

Recently there has been considerable pressure on the manufacturers of Pam cooking spray to remove the fluorocarbons from the product. The first recommendation emanating from the inquest into the death of Dolly Gallant reflected this same direction, when the jury recommended “that the government force manufacturers to accelerate the research into converting products from aerosol sprays containing volatile constituents to manual-action sprays.

“Recent trends have shown the benefits of pump action as opposed to sprays. This would indicate that the same direction would be advisable in the product under consideration.” To force the manufacturer in this direction would appear to be the most viable alternative to the prevention of death due to the inhalation of aerosols.

A further possibility is to make it illegal to inhale solvents or aerosols. This approach is of very questionable value because it is very difficult, obviously, to enforce. It is generally agreed that determined sniffers will continue to indulge, despite the law, and others will consider it a challenge to be defied. One province in Canada, Alberta, possesses such a law. The Alberta Public Health Act makes it an offence to use an intoxicating vapour to induce intoxication, euphoria or hallucinations and to assist or cause another person to inhale or otherwise induce into his system such a vapour. Moreover, it is an offence under the act to manufacture or sell a product for this purpose.

Another alternative would be to try to control the sale of the product. Previously it was stated that a reason for the popularity of solvents and aerosols among the younger teens was the inability of this group to obtain alcohol and marijuana. From this observation it would appear that restrictions on the sale of solvents and aerosols to those under the age of 18 might curb use. As one youth worker observed, while a child who is determined to indulge in sniffing may not be deterred by restrictive legislation, it is reasonable to conclude that limiting the ease of obtaining the product in question would discourage those who are less determined. Legislation of this type exists in the city of Winnipeg in the form of a bylaw which came into effect through the urging of a parental coalition.

The recommendations arising from the recent inquest into Dolly Gallant’s death recognized the role of the retailer in attempting to control abuse. The jury recommended that in areas where abuse of glue and Pam are prevalent, shopkeepers be made aware of their potential misuse and discouraged by community service groups from stocking these products. Although this recommendation is not as stringent as the law introduced in Winnipeg, both approaches appear to hold some merit and deserve attention and action.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that standing order 19(d)(4) says: “A member shall be called to order if, in the opinion of the Speaker, he refers at length to debates of the current session or reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document.” I take that to mean it is not permitted unless the document is of your own authorship. I hope that is, in fact, the case.

Mr. Renwick: That is so, Mr. Speaker. Another way of looking at this problem is to deal with a community preventive approach. There is ample evidence which indicates that certain subgroups in the teen-age population can be considered as high risk. It was previously mentioned that these groups comprise children from broken and troubled homes. Efforts to curb the use of glue and aerosol should be directed to these particular groups.

One approach is through the community and its many different elements. It is possible by way of diagram to illustrate the way in which the various community elements can, in a free-flowing and communicative society, make certain that community pressure is brought to bear upon the availability of these particular problems. This proposal, which was put forward by the Addiction Research Foundation, suggests that a low-key, local strategy be employed. In addition, a program should undergo some evaluative research to determine if this approach could be effective in the area with which I am concerned in Riverdale, or if it could be effective in other areas.

Another approach, which we all talk about when we are dealing with such a topic as this, is through education. I would like to speak a little bit about the present levels of drug education in Ontario. The Addiction Research Foundation possesses a continuing interest in drug education. In order to assess the level of drug education in Ontario, the foundation conducted an extensive province-wide study of school children in 1977. This study was repeated in 1979, and the results have not changed significantly. In fact, some of the percentages were identical.

Both studies demonstrate that the level of drug education in Ontario schools is far from adequate. Briefly, it was found that a large proportion of students reported receiving no drug education either in their recent past or throughout their entire school year. Some 31 per cent of those forming the study group came within this category. This proportion decreases as the child progresses through the grades, ranging from 45 per cent of grade seven students who reported receiving no drug education to 17 per cent of grade 13 students who reported receiving no drug education.

The majority of those who receive any drug education report having only one or two classes a year on average. There are numerous variables associated with the reported levels of drug education, but these particular factors are, in my opinion, significant. These include age, higher grade point average, reported use and region, while many schools do not even teach any form of drug education.

The results of the surveys overwhelmingly demonstrate that the more dangerous drugs, such as glue and aerosols, which are of particular interest in this connection, are the least likely to receive attention. Alcohol was always the subject most commonly dealt with in drug education classes. Tobacco and marijuana also receive high priority. An examination of the actual process of drug education in Ontario schools today reveals why the level of education is so low and why the emphasis is on certain topics.

10:20 p.m.

It would seem that typical questions within education today are: Where does the responsibility lie for drug education? Who should be held accountable? Is it the Ministry of Education, the boards of education, the principals or the teachers? The obvious answer is that all of these institutions and individuals have a responsibility to educate, and drug education should be an important aspect of the educational process in the schools today. Each of the above institutions and individuals can be assessed for its present performance in the area of drug education.

The Ministry of Education offers very little guidance relating to drug education. This situation is often explained by claiming that the needs of drug education vary considerably among the various boards and, therefore, the ministry should leave such matters to the discretion of the individual boards. This argument stands on shaky ground, because the figures on drug abuse in the schools across the province do not vary to any great degree. The problem of drug abuse is very evenly spread throughout all of the regions. In addition, the characteristics of abuse, such as age, background and other factors, are similar. These facts would seem to indicate that the degree and type of drug education should be very similar and uniform throughout the province.

The ministry offers broad guidelines which state that alcohol, tobacco and other drugs should be discussed in the subject area of health. The guidelines also suggest which grades should receive the basic introduction or heaviest concentration. The guidelines do not break down, nor do they even suggest the characteristics other than age or grade that would identify which groups should receive drug education, let alone what sort of drug education they should receive. It is immediately obvious that the ministry guidelines are entirely inadequate in establishing the extent of drug education that should take place -- that is, who should receive it, how much should be taught and what should be taught

Another example of the low priority afforded by the Ministry of Education to the area of drug education is the fact that the ministry does not have a permanent staff person directly responsible for this area. At the present time the various boards take turns sending an individual to the ministry on loan for one year. This creates a situation which prevents the ministry from providing a consistent source of guidance to the boards.

There is a great deal of variation among the 200 boards of education in Ontario. Consequently, it is difficult to generalize about what is actually being taught in terms of content. We know from the Addiction Research Foundation survey how much is being taught. Nevertheless, an examination of the Toronto Board of Education’s section on drugs is revealing because the Toronto board is generally considered to be one of the more progressive boards in the province. The Toronto Board of Education curriculum guidelines do offer some detailed information on the type of drugs that are often abused and the consequence of such abuse, but offer no guidance in terms of how to teach the material. Not only are the curriculum guidelines scanty, there is little time allotted to drug education.

At present, the Toronto board prescribes that 25 per cent of physical education be devoted to the subject of health. This amounts to 30 periods which are 40 minutes in length. Drug education is only a small part of health, which also includes such topics as individuality, anatomy, physiology, human growth and development, dental health, nutrition, sexually transmitted disease, emotions and feelings. These subjects are to receive the heaviest concentration in grades seven and eight. Subjects which are to receive basic development in grades seven and eight include human families, sexuality, first aid, values and valuing, community health, consumer health, physical fitness, communications. Consequently, drug education might receive three to five hours of attention over an entire year. This is viewed to be a very generous estimate.

In so far as the role of teachers is concerned, the quantity and quality of drug education in Ontario schools is dependent, at this time, upon the individual teacher. Because of the failure of the ministry and the various boards, the teachers are responsible for creating their own lesson plans based on information that, for the most part, they have to acquire on their own. For these and other reasons, drug education is obviously inadequate. There is little accountability in the teaching of health.

Unlike other subjects, the level of health knowledge is not scrutinized by a teacher each year. In math, for example, it soon becomes obvious if a teacher failed to adequately prepare the class in the previous year. At present there are no standards for the appropriate amount of knowledge on the subject of health. Consequently, unlike other subjects, there are often no examinations or tests of any kind. The standard of health and drug education is left entirely to the teacher because no one else has control beyond the classroom door. It is obvious the teachers need to be given more support in the form of lesson plans, content on drug use and incentives to teach this area.

The particular subject of aerosol abuse adequately demonstrates the problem. There is every reason to believe that little or no information relating to aerosols is presently taught in the schools. The Ministry of Education does not progress beyond drugs that are used to alter mood and behaviour in indicating the topics that should be covered in drug education. The list of drugs contained in the Toronto Board of Education guidelines does not include aerosols. The teacher is provided with no information from either the ministry or the board. Furthermore, the teacher is not required to cover the topic of aerosol abuse.

It is left totally to the teacher to take the initiative to obtain the information from sources such as the Addiction Research Foundation and to create lesson plans from such materials,

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

Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 28, a motion to adjourn has been deemed to have been made. The member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) has expressed her dissatisfaction with the answer to a question asked of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). I will listen to her reasons for up to five minutes.

SPECIAL TAX ON CRUDE OIL

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if I will take five minutes of your time. The reason for my dissatisfaction is quite simple.

I asked the minister during the course of question period this afternoon about a report printed in this morning’s Globe and Mail. It is a fairly extensive analysis of a proposal which apparently has been made, although it has not been confirmed, by the federal Liberals for pricing of Canadian-produced oil in the next while. I thought it important to ask the minister about his knowledge of and reaction to this proposal, because it indicates an interesting twist in the possibilities that we face in Ontario in terms of the cost of energy.

10:30 p.m.

As you will recollect, Mr. Speaker, during the last election one of the critical concerns expressed by the minister’s government was the proposal by the federal Conservative Party that there should be an 18-cent-per-gallon excise tax placed on gasoline. The objection to that proposal by this government was strong and clear and we heard a great deal of shouting and screaming from Ontario about the concern for industrial consumers, the concern for the economic development of Ontario, concern related to unemployment that would flow from new pricing policies proposed by the Conservatives, and a concern for Ontario consumers, particularly consumers of low income.

This morning, when we looked at the Globe and Mail, we saw a new form of proposal which is not an excise tax proposal but rather a wholesale tax proposal related to the Canadian-produced barrel of oil. All I could get from the minister in terms of a comment on this was that he had not discussed this with the federal Minister of Energy in his recent meetings, during which, he has assured us many times, he had discussed a long list of items. Secondly, he commented he was not going to take this proposal seriously at all because, as we all knew, it was speculative.

Speculative though it may be, I nevertheless consider it terribly important that the minister assess such speculations. It seems to me highly likely that an article written by such an informed reporter as James Rusk, whose speculation often proves to be well grounded, bears serious consideration by this government. Had I been the Minister of Energy this morning, I would have called Ottawa immediately to find out just how speculative this proposal was, because it relates quite directly to all those concerns which this government has voiced on behalf of the Ontario economy and Ontario producers and Ontario consumers over the last few months.

It seems to me it is quite reasonable that we should ask not only that the Minister of Energy be prepared and should have got information from the federal government concerning the basis for this article, but also that he should be prepared to share with us whatever other kinds of proposals he feels would represent a reasonable oil pricing policy in conjunction with other elements of energy policy which Ontario is presenting in positive terms to the federal government. Are we about to land up in the same idiotic situation we were caught in before, in which we simply say “No, no,” to federal proposals on oil pricing?

It seems to me the time has come when Ontario has to cease being seen as the oinker of Confederation and be ready to put forward positive proposals. The minister this afternoon was willing neither to discuss what I consider is probably a soundly based speculative article, nor to suggest to us how the concerns that his government has so often expressed in the past are to be met by positive suggestions from this government.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, may I comment briefly on the suggestions made by my friend? I should point out that the Ontario position in so far as oil pricing is concerned is quite clearly enunciated. I don’t think there would be anyone in Ontario, indeed anyone in Canada, who would not understand the position taken very consistently by the government of Ontario. To suggest that it was about time we had a policy with respect to oil pricing, I think really is some indication of misinformation with respect to what we, as a government, have in fact been articulating very consistently for a number of years on this particular issue.

I would remind the honourable member that I was asked a question and a supplementary question today, the answers to which I would repeat if I were asked them now. The first was; did I have any idea as to what these proposals were and were they discussed at my first meeting with Mr. Lalonde? The simple answer is no, they were not. The second was; would I be prepared to discuss them now on the basis of a speculative newspaper story? I thought it would be improper and premature to be commenting on a speculative piece until such time as I had some concrete proposals one way or the other from the federal minister.

Certainly, following some official presentation, I would be very happy to discuss the position based on some actual proposals submitted by the federal minister. We have no details of any new tax proposal from the federal government such as that speculated on in the morning paper, which would provide compensation for the difference between the costs of domestic and imported oil. Obviously, as the member has suggested, some averaging mechanism to produce a single domestic price in the market will be required. Whether that is done by a tax or a levy, such as in the arrangements for tar sands oil, or by what has been referred to in the United States as an entitlements system, is a detail of any federal proposal on which we lack any information at this time. There will be ample time, following some suggestions and some proposals from the government of Canada, to comment on them.

I would remind the member that there is every indication that the new federal government has adopted a lot of what has already been part of the energy pricing policy of this government. We lack some of these details. No doubt, before too long we will be having them.

I think it is an unjustifiable criticism to suggest that we have not been quite complete in our answers earlier today, when the very direct answer was, “No, we did not discuss these.” I would find it difficult to believe that an honourable member with the very competent journalistic background of my friend would be surprised that a minister of the crown might want to refrain from commenting on a speculative news item until such time as he had a concrete proposal before him.

The House adjourned at 10:36 p.m.