Hansard Transcripts 1982-Mar-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House of the steps we plan to take as a result of our review of an outbreak of salmonella at the Peterborough Civic Hospital which had such heartbreaking consequences for the Burrows family.

In doing so, I would like to assure residents of the Peterborough area that the outbreak within the hospital has been brought under control. None the less, there were delays involving discharged patients, and I believe the steps we are taking will help Peterborough Civic and other hospitals to improve their infection control procedures.

As members will be aware, salmonella are bacteria. They cause infections that occur from time to time in a number of different strains, some of which produce a mild upset while others can have some very serious consequences. It is a special problem for institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes and homes for the aged, because the disease can be particularly serious for infants and the elderly. As a result, such institutions must be constantly aware of it and have systems in place to identify, control and treat outbreaks quickly and effectively.

Late in December, an infant in Peterborough Civic Hospital was found to be infected with salmonella muenster, a virulent strain, and steps were undertaken to deal with it within the hospital's infection control system. As soon as the ministry was notified of the outbreak, Dr. Evelyn Wallace, the federal field epidemiologist seconded to Ontario, was sent to Peterborough Civic Hospital to review the steps they had taken to deal with it.

She also discussed the situation with the medical officer of health, who asked for the assistance of an epidemiologist because of widespread concern among residents of Peterborough. I might remind members of the House that this concern was brought to me by the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) as well. This concern is especially serious because the obstetrical facilities for all of Peterborough are at the Civic.

Dr. Jacqueline Carlson, a senior medical consultant on epidemiology, was sent to Peterborough. Her complete report has been given to me and sent to the medical officer of health and the administrator of the hospital. A copy of the report, with clinical details which could lead to identification of individual patients removed, is being tabled today.

I have discussed it with Dr. Carlson and my senior medical advisers, and they have assured me that they are satisfied the staff of the hospital succeeded in controlling the outbreak within the hospital.

Members will see, however, that the report, which is signed by Dr. Carlson and Dr. Richard Andreychuk, manager of disease control and epidemiology in the ministry, has raised a number of important questions about the management of the outbreak.

As well, I am very concerned about the apparent delay in notifying the patients or the parents of infants who may have been infected.

As a result, I have decided to appoint an outside team of inspectors to Peterborough Civic to pursue the questions raised by Dr. Carlson and Dr. Andreychuk and to advise the hospital on steps needed to deal with infection within the institution.

The team will comprise Dr. Ian Duncan, professor of medical microbiology at the University of Toronto, who is also the infection control officer at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, and John Carter, president and chief executive officer of Greater Niagara General Hospital, Niagara Falls.

I am giving them each appointments as inspectors under both the Public Hospitals Act and the Public Health Act so that they will be free to pursue any investigation or gather any material which they believe will be useful in carrying out their assignment.

Like other members of this House, I am deeply concerned about this sad event. It is important that infection control procedures be swift, accurate and precise and that information flow quickly to all those who need it.

Consequently, the report of the inspectors will be made available to the hospital and the health unit and will be shared with members of both the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association.

I want that report to be reviewed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which is responsible for overseeing medical practice in the province.

Finally, I note that the administration and staff of the hospital and the health unit have been most co-operative and that they have told me they welcome the appointment of the inspectors as a positive step towards preventing a recurrence of this terrible tragedy.

2:10 p.m.

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, since becoming Minister of Agriculture and Food a few weeks ago, I have spent most of my time familiarizing myself with my new portfolio.

I am the first to acknowledge I have a great deal to learn, and as part of that learning process it is my intention to continue meeting with farmers, food processors and food manufacturers, packers, equipment manufacturers and consumers to seek their views on how my ministry can best carry out its mandate.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I have referred to a variety of groups from whom I am seeking input. I want to stress that I look at agriculture and food as an integrated industry encompassing the spectrum of activities from production through to the consumer. I intend to place increasing emphasis on all aspects of this continuum.

Even in my initial considerations of the task ahead I have been conscious of the need to ensure my ministry is organized in such a way as to best serve Ontario's agriculture and food sector.

As the members know, today's agricultural and food industry represents some $10 billion worth of business to the provincial economy. This is a sophisticated and complex industry that faces particularly significant challenges in the current economic climate.

To respond to these needs and challenges, we need an organizational structure in the ministry with a mandate for action. To carry this out, I propose a major restructuring of the organization to give emphasis to certain policies and programs which I believe will help chart a sound course for the future of the industry in Ontario.

The reorganization, the details of which are appended to my statement -- and copies of which I believe have been given to my critics and will be put into the boxes of all other honourable members -- will first and foremost strengthen the planning and decision-making capacities of the ministry.

I view it as critical for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to have more resources to devote to long-range considerations. And I believe it is critical to articulate coherent strategies for the industry so that competitive opportunities can be maximized and emerging competition can be met. The benefit of this capability, for example, to beef or grain farmers, or fruit and vegetable growers, to packers or cereal or flour manufacturers or to a grocery store is clear.

If Ontario is to achieve self-sufficiency in food production and is to compete effectively in the world market, we must have co-ordinated, well-thought-out, forward-thinking provincial strategies encompassing the chain of efforts from producer on through.

To complement this activity, I propose to expand and enrich the research and development activity in the ministry and to stimulate further research and development in the private sector through dollar-matching projects.

In addition, much greater emphasis will be placed on financial planning. Agriculture and food is a capital-intensive, high-risk industry, making it imperative that financial decisions are as soundly based as production decisions. In this regard, as outlined in the throne speech, I intend to address such broad concerns as income stabilization and such specific concerns as improved delivery of financial management counselling to individual farmers by county agricultural representatives.

Of equal importance will be our ability to encourage private sector capital investment in the food industry by creating both a receptive climate and, as I have mentioned, the strategies to give sound direction.

Being an urban member of the assembly in the agricultural portfolio, albeit with rural eastern Ontario roots, I am especially sensitive to what some would perceive to be the dichotomy between urban and rural societies.

In my new portfolio, I am particularly concerned to ensure that the common interests of both rural and urban communities are emphasized. In this context, I am anxious to promote the shared interests of the rural producer and the urban consumer. So, as part of the reorganization of the ministry, I will be pursuing an even more aggressive marketing program.

The Foodland Ontario program will be expanded to continue to ensure Ontario products are first and foremost in the minds of Ontario consumers. The development of more products to displace imports and the encouragement of exports will both receive priority attention. Our aim is to reduce Ontario's $1-billion trade deficit in food products.

As well, a food processing branch will be established to promote expanded investment and increased value added to the products that leave the farm gate through processing. The members will be aware that food and beverage processing is Ontario's second largest manufacturing industry, employing some 85,000 people and responsible for some 56 per cent of Canada's total food processing activity. This being so, it is clear that these marketing initiatives will benefit the whole of Ontario.

In addition to these measures, the quality assurance programs of the ministry -- livestock, dairy and fruit and vegetable inspection -- will be linked and enhanced. Such services are of obvious benefit to producer and consumer and merit the shared attention of both communities.

Also, food land preservation and improvement will receive special attention. Ontario has some 11 million acres in crops and pastures, and we must ensure that this vital resource is kept intact for succeeding generations. I will be making a policy statement on this vital issue in the coming months. However, I signal its importance now by indicating that a distinct division will be established within the ministry to monitor the situation and to carry out supportive programs and policies.

The measures I have mentioned will benefit the whole of the agriculture and food industry but, to enhance support to farmers in particular, the technical advisory services in such fields as soil management, pest management and animal health will be expanded, including the necessary backup laboratory testing and analysis services.

Concurrently, the ministry activities related to agricultural and horticultural societies, women's institutes, junior farmers and 4-H will be improved and closely co-ordinated in an effort to give greater support to these educational programs whose common element is the betterment of life in the rural community.

The initiatives I have outlined will bring my ministry's programs and services into close alignment with the needs of today's agricultural and food industry in Ontario. I hope this new mandate, taken as a total package, will ensure that the ministry remains vital and progressive.

I must add that in the short time I have been in the ministry, I have been very impressed by the dedicated professionals who staff it. They bring a wealth of diverse talent and experience to its programs and, through the reorganization, I want to make sure that the industry receives the maximum benefit of those talents.

I know that all members will acknowledge that agriculture historically is the very foundation upon which the social and economic development of this province has been built. I believe members will also acknowledge that agriculture is of the same fundamental importance today.

As the new minister, I want to advise the members that I am determined to ensure that the concerns of the agriculture and food sector receive the attention of government and, further, that my ministry is structured to best respond to the current and future needs of that industry.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have some information to share with members on issues raised yesterday concerning the safety of office equipment used by employees of my ministry in the offices of the provincial court, criminal division, at the old city hall.

I understand further that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) will also be making a statement following mine, in some greater detail, in relation to this issue.

A representative of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has attempted to draw some conclusions that pregnant women using photocopiers and computer terminals at this office risk miscarriages because of the equipment. I regret that the union raised these matters publicly in an irresponsible way that can only cause unnecessary concern among our employees.

Yesterday was the first time that these concerns were brought to my attention or to the attention of the Minister of Labour. It would be improper to reveal details of the health conditions of individual employees, but I can say that my officials are familiar with the personnel records of the staff working in the locations in question and that my officials can establish no apparent connection at this time between the miscarriages cited and the copying machines and the video display terminals.

For example, we know that some of the miscarriages occurred before either existing copying machines or the terminals were installed.

Further, I can advise that none of the employees who had miscarriages has expressed to her supervisor any fear about the equipment. Nor to date have any requests from them been made for transfers for reasons related to concerns about their health.

Despite this, I want to assure members and my ministry's employees that we will continue to pursue all legitimate concerns our employees raise in regard to safety in the work place.

First, my officials yesterday requested, on an urgent basis, a study of the equipment in question by the special studies and services branch of the Ministry of Labour. That request was made to Dr. A. M. Muc, supervisor of that branch.

2:20 p.m.

Second, the union has requested a safety investigation of the photocopiers by the Ministry of Labour. The Deputy Attorney General has been informed today by the Deputy Minister of Labour that this investigation is proceeding. My ministry will, of course, make available all relative material.

Finally, I am appointing a doctor experienced in such matters to thoroughly review medical aspects of the complaints to explore each of the incidents listed by the union to determine whether any link exists between the equipment and miscarriages and related health matters.

I trust that the union will co-operate in all these efforts.

In conclusion, I want to stress that my ministry is concerned about the conditions in the offices used by our employees. We will take all action necessary to determine the facts and will respond to any remedial action that is called for.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) raised a question yesterday concerning allegations of health hazards at one of the offices of the Ministry of the Attorney General at the old city hall in Toronto. I told him I would investigate the Ministry of Labour's involvement in the matter and report to this House.

I am advised that the matter first came to the attention of the industrial health and safety branch of the ministry by way of a telephone call on March 1. The caller did not identify herself but stated that people had become ill in the old city hall, allegedly as a result of exposure to chemicals used to treat the paper used in the photocopy machines.

As a result of this complaint, an industrial safety officer visited the premises on March 2 and made contact with both management and the union. Particulars of the complaint were reported, mainly ozone and chemical fumes in the copying room, and the inspector determined that there was a need for air sampling to be done by the ministry's occupational health branch technicians. Arrangements were made for these tests to be made, and I understand they are now under way.

Subsequently, on March 10, the director of the industrial health and safety branch received a formal complaint from Local 526 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union relating to the same matter. The letter was acknowledged the following day, and the union was advised that the matter would be investigated with the assistance of the occupational health branch. The director, Mr. McNair, also spoke to Mr. DeMatteo of the union on the same day, confirming that the investigation would proceed.

In a supplementary question, the member for Port Arthur suggested that the ministry's industrial health and safety branch has indicated that my ministry would not prosecute employees of the Attorney General's ministry if an offence is found to have occurred under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I am advised by my officials that no such statement was made or implied. Moreover, I want to assure the House that the matter will be thoroughly investigated and that if remedial action is warranted it will be taken without delay.

I may add that neither the oral complaint of March 2 nor the written complaint received on March 10 raised the question of possible hazards from video display terminals. To my knowledge, this matter was first raised by the member for Port Arthur in his question to me yesterday.

The supervisor of the ministry's special studies and services branch received a letter this morning from the personnel management branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General requesting that the branch assess, on an urgent basis, the operation of the photocopiers and the video display terminals at the old city hall with respect to any possible health hazards. As a result, we are prepared to expand our assessment of the situation to include an assessment of the operation of the video display terminals.

I might add that officials of my ministry have conducted a number of tests on VDT units. People who work at these devices, particularly where infrequent breaks are taken, complain of physical and visual discomfort. There has also been concern expressed that radiation could be emitted by VDTs and that, if emitted, health might be affected.

Staff of my ministry, as a result of their own extensive testing of VDTs, have reached the same conclusion as other regulatory agencies, including both the Canadian and US federal health departments. that no radiation hazard exists. We are aware, however, of the need to ensure operator comfort by the provision of suitably adjustable equipment (chairs, screen angle and height, etc.) and optimum lighting conditions.

There appears no foundation for public anxiety about the possible adverse effects to health on VDT operators from radiation emitted by the units. Nevertheless, I have asked my staff to consider and to advise me as to whether a study would be helpful in assessing the matter further.

In addition, at the request of my predecessor, the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety set up a task force last June with a mandate to evaluate the available information on the use of visual display units. The task force expects to report to the council this spring, and I look forward to receiving the council's advice.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter of privilege dealing with the response to questions asked yesterday on the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications endeavoured to leave us with the impression that the UTDC had a contract with the Toronto Transit Commission for facilities in the borough of Scarborough, and I am quoting from Hansard. I believe that not to be consistent with fact and a very serious inaccuracy, and I would ask the minister to correct the misconception he has left with us and with the public.

Mr. Speaker: I think that perhaps could be handled better during the question period.

Mr. Cunningham: With respect, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to belabour the point, the minister has left us with a very serious misconception, and I believe it to be in keeping with the rules to rise using this method to ensure that he clarify this at the first possible opportunity. The TTC has issued a release, dated today, saying this impression was inaccurate and misleading.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. The article in today's Globe and Mail says that I say a contract exists and that the TTC says it does not exist, and I would like to clarify that matter.

First of all, I would like to table copies of the press release issued by the TTC today which clarifies the matter to a great degree.

I would also like to table three copies of an agreement for advisory engineering services between the TTC and UTDC, signed on October 28, 1981, by Mr. Foley on behalf of UTDC and by the chairman and the general secretary of the TTC. Three copies of the agreement will be tabled.

I would also like to table another agreement entered into by the TTC and UTDC, again dated October 28, 1981. It is a memorandum of agreement for UTDC to proceed with procurement of long-term delivery items, and it is the normal method of entering into such a contract, where the contract is very detailed. The final contract document for the detailed construction of the vehicles is currently being finalized by the TTC, but to say that this memorandum of understanding and authorization to proceed is not a contract, I think is stretching the wording of the matter a long way.

So that the honourable member understands how this type of contract is normally arranged and negotiated, going back to the British Columbia contract, a similar memorandum of understanding was entered into between the BC authorities and the UTDC. Following that memorandum by a few weeks or a few months, the formal and very detailed contract documents were signed.

2:30 p.m.

As far as I am concerned, I did not mislead the House in any way. The contract documents and memorandum of agreement were signed last October by the UTDC and by the TTC. I think the press release issued by the TTC this morning makes that very clear.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Treasurer. He will know that the Quebec provincial government has just announced a $200 million emergency fund to assist small and medium-size businesses in that province over the next 12 months. That program enjoys the stated support of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce and of the banking establishment.

I want to know what the Treasurer intends to do about the problems of the manufacturing sector in this province. In the last month there was a loss of 6,000 jobs in this sector. What can this province and this Legislature expect from the Treasurer by way of a similar program to deal with the very serious problems of our recession-ridden economy as they affect that critical sector, namely, small and medium-size businesses?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, one of the constants in our economy in Canada has been the relative desirability of this province compared with some of our neighbours. The economic and political unrest that has occurred in our neighbouring province in the last few years has compounded the problems of small business. I can understand Quebec's taking some measures to try to keep it alive.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not say that. I am simply saying the problems in that province are very grave indeed compared with our own. One only needs to look at their deficit to see what heights it has already reached and what drastic measures are being considered in that province simply to get funding to keep up with their deficits.

On the weekend, members will realize, there was a special meeting of the Parti Québecois to discuss those very things and the ways and means by which Mr. Parizeau might meet the burgeoning costs of his government.

Obviously they have destroyed the confidence of all investors down there and they have to try to do something about it; but we have done quite a few things and we intend to do more. Members are quite aware of the Small Business Development Corporations Act we brought out almost three years ago, much to the ridicule of the leader of the member's party. At that time he said they would not work, but a year later he said they do work. And they do work.

There were 204 active small business development corporations in our province as of March 11, 1982.

Two years ago in my budget I brought out a 20 per cent investment tax credit for small businesses in this province. That gives them back 20 per cent of all depreciable assets against their corporate tax payable. It is flowing back about $35 million to $40 million -- maybe $50 million -- to small businesses this year. We will not know until we see their final corporate income tax forms.

Those are just two of a number of measures that have been taken. We have an attractive tax rate and an attractive climate, and I can assure the members when I bring my budget out there will be more measures.

Mr. Conway: I hope I do not take from the Treasurer's response that he does not imagine or feel that this serious matter is in fact not just that -- serious -- in communities from Hawkesbury to Hanover, which are being ravaged by these statistics. I want to know from this Treasurer when we can expect from him on behalf of his government a commitment that will give specific reality to the kind of pious prayer that is offered on page 28 of the throne speech to the effect that we will continue to pursue a pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-Canadian participation in our economic development.

Surely he is not standing in his place in this assembly today and saying that this provincial government is bankrupt of both commitment and capacity to deal with the fact that in this past month this province, the manufacturing heartland of this country, saw a loss of 6,000 jobs that people depend upon in this part of the country.

How and when is the Treasurer going to act to give the kind of specific reality to the sorts of pious prayers that were read here last Tuesday?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As the member knows, we provided to our colleagues in all provinces, and to the federal government too, a blueprint for economic recovery. The pious and pompous rhetoric that flows readily from him -- logic does not but rhetoric does -- is something that is basically one of our problems. He is trying to transfer the blame to me when he knows darn well that the crisis in confidence in this country was caused by his friends in Ottawa.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer will be aware that from 1979 until now business bankruptcies are up 70 per cent in Ontario. I would like the Treasurer to tell me and to tell a Mrs. Peggy Murphy, who runs the Rex Motel in Niagara Falls and who is renegotiating her mortgage this year -- it comes up on May I -- what he is doing. Her payments will go from $19,440 in interest to $28,744. Her gross income is $37,000.

Would the Treasurer tell us what he is prepared to do to keep this business in operation and the jobs that it provides, along with the other small and medium-size businesses in Ontario, and to keep or start this economy going? He rejects our proposals. What is he prepared to do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable critic and the New Democratic Party can bring up specific examples for a long time. They and I both know that we cannot tell without an examination of any given one whether that particular industry or business can or cannot survive in the present economic climate or whether it is simply a question of high interest rates alone.

Mr. Cooke: Interest rates are putting her out of business.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I know a lot more about the motel business than the member will ever learn because I happen to own two or three of them. He can talk from the point of view of a Socialist who believes the state should own everything.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the Treasurer please just address himself to the main question.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, apropos of the minister's last answer to me, is he aware from the announcement the Quebec government made this week that the program they have undertaken is a program that they put on the table to the federal government some many weeks ago and that they have decided to go it alone and accept their share of responsibility?

Finally, is he saying to this House that the only response of the Ontario government to this critical economic dilemma is to pursue a hateful, mean-spirited, anti-federal government position and policy?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am glad the honourable member is back on his feet. We have missed him for a whole year. It is nice to have all his anger and venom directed at me. Perhaps it will be a healthy catharsis. Maybe next week he will be back to the land of --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Of reality.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- all those things he adds.

Am I aware? Yes, I am aware. I am aware that this province, Quebec and other provinces made very constructive suggestions in Ottawa at the first ministers' meeting, only to have every one of them ignored.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Hon. Mr. Snow: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not want to interrupt the deputy leader's first question, so I waited until he had finished. Unfortunately, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) has left the House. I believe the member inadvertently misled this House when he stated that the Toronto Transit Commission press release referred to my answer in the House as "inaccurate and misleading." The TTC press release very plainly refers to the article in the March 16, 1982, Globe and Mail as being "inaccurate and misleading." I am sure the honourable member would want the record to be correct.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I would only say I think the Globe and Mail article was based on the statement which was quoted as follows:

"They have a contract with the TTC for facilities in the borough of Scarborough." That is from Hansard. I cannot help what the minister said, especially when the press release says the statement correctly reflects the current status of the vehicle procurement contract. That is exactly what the minister said, and I think the TTC is absolutely correct.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The TTC is correct. The honourable member does not know what he is talking about.

DAY CARE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the advice of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and take my interest in pious prayer, keeping the promise, to my Hibernian friend the Minister of Community and Social Services. He will no doubt be aware that in September 1980 the Metropolitan Toronto day care planning task force called for Metro to receive a minimum of 680 new subsidized day care spaces in 1982. Furthermore, the minister will be aware that very recently, at the behest of his department, the Metropolitan Toronto authorities were asked to update those needs for this year, and he will know the new needs study indicated not 680 new subsidized requirements, but 1,000.

How then can the minister tell this community that a net number of 300 new places will be available in 1982? He shakes his head in defiance. I invite him to tell us how it is that the client groups that are to receive this have indicated there are only 300 net new places and to tell us why and how Paul Godfrey is so wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, let me thank my Celtic friend for that little bit of eloquence. I really welcome that question. I have been waiting for it all day and I would have got a Tory to ask it if he had not plunged in.

First of all, there is not a net increase of 300 in Metropolitan Toronto; there is a net increase of 600. Let me set the record straight. That is a total of 1,400 new subsidized spaces since April 1, 1981.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Toronto Star was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, the Star was not wrong. The Star listened to somebody who tried double accounting. If the member will listen to me for just a moment, he will see what that double accounting is.

Last April there were 500 new subsidized day care spaces allocated to Metropolitan Toronto at a cost of $1.2 million annually. At that same time, back in April, Metro asked for a contingency fund of $1,344,000. They were supposed to use that to correct imbalances that may have developed between municipally operated day care and privately operated day care. In September they told us they had used part of that money for 300 new day care spaces. That brings us up to a total of 800 for last year. In April of this year we will allocate 600 new spaces at a total cost of $1,602,000.

There are 21,000 licensed day care spaces in Metro, and the total cost of the ministry's share, which is 80 per cent, for 8,600, including those 1,400 since April 1981, is $25,281,000. That is just in Metro.

To make it abundantly clear, Metro made their own decisions to spend the $1,344,000 contingency fund. They indicated they spent $420,000 on salary enrichments for the purchase of day care. They spent another $220,000 for other salaries. They used the rest of it for day care. There was $1,344,000 put into their contingency fund last year. This year, with an 11 per cent raise, it will come to $1,491,000. In truth, between April 1981 and April 1982 there will be 1,400 new subsidized spaces that this ministry is paying for at 80 per cent.

Mr. Conway: All that aside, does not the minister find it strange that the people to whom he is delivering this generous assistance disagree with his figures and state categorically and universally that their calculation indicates 300 net new subsidized day care places, a decrease of 200 over the 500 created last year? Does he not find that strange too?

Will he undertake to meet immediately with these people, including the Metro chairman, who has said some very worrisome things, to set him straight, lest he, like the rest of the world on this subject, be wrong and the minister right?

Third, since new data indicate that 7,000 subsidized day care spaces are going to be required by 1987, will the minister undertake to give us a commitment that his department will significantly enrich its commitment this year and in the coming years to bring about that kind of assistance to this part of our social policy field?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In terms of the third point first, there were 500 spaces allocated last year before they added the other 300. There were 600 for the start of this year. That is a 20 per cent increase. I think that is quite an enrichment.

Second, I am not the kind of man who gives something one year and does not give it the next. That extra $1,344,000 went out last year and it is going out again this year, plus 11 per cent. That is what you call enrichment.

I would think that when my friend the Metro chairman -- he is basing it all on what the Metro finance chairman says --

Mr. McClellan: He is your friend.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. You are darn right. He is my friend, a great friend. We have dinner together quite often.

When he finds out what has happened, I am sure he is going to raise some questions with his finance chairman. Perhaps the honourable member would like to have a meeting with the finance chairman because last fall he tried to divert day care money into welfare and we told him no. Why does the member not ask him about that?

Mr. Breithaupt: The government has been doing that in education for years.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question or two about his generosity in this matter. The minister said he pays 80 per cent of the cost. Is it not true that we, the government of Ontario and those of us in the Legislature who try to have some effect, pay 30 per cent, the feds pay 50 per cent and 20 per cent comes from Metro?

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is more to the minister's generosity. How much of the $11 million for day care special initiatives promised in December 1980 for expenditure this year has now actually been spent?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is the second great one today. I must thank the member.

When I say the province pays 80 per cent, the taxpayer is paying 80 per cent. Whether or not it comes from Ottawa, it comes out of the same pocket. In fairness to the federal minister, she is not like the federal Finance minister; Mme Begin has kept her end of the bargain at 50 per cent. But it is paid out of the same pocket as the income tax. The member knows that. He performed at his convention with much better aplomb than that first silly question.

The second question he asked is a very significant one. Last year my predecessor, now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), announced a number of day care initiatives. In December 1980 the annual cost for initiatives was $10 million, not $11 million as the member said. Is that fair? The member is just a little off.

Mr. R.F. Johnston: What's a million between friends?

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Like the difference between 30 and 80 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister reply now, please?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see a Socialist -- but never mind. I do not want to tag him with the label of C. D. Howe on a day like this.

Of the $10 million, $3.2 million went to regions for subsidized spaces; $1.4 million to regions for new initiatives; $222,000 to public education; $100,000 for needs testing, $1,400,000 for salary catchups in Metro; and $80,000 for consulting services in Ottawa and Toronto, for a total of $6.34 million.

The question was, why did we not spend all the rest of it? The guidelines for informal day care, as the House will recall -- and I am sure the honourable member will because he brought it up a couple of times -- did not go out as speedily as was anticipated. Therefore, as I explained in the House last year, we were funding proposals that were viable as soon as those proposals came in. We are funding those and continuing to fund those. I have a great list here.

The member will know about this letter because the request came from his riding, although it is in the area of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch). It reads:

"Dear Mr. Drea:

"Thank you for your interest in reading the proposal of the Mornelle Court Day Care Centre. This is to inform you the provincial government has granted $16,000 for startup and $4,500 for ongoing costs."

This sort of thing is going on and will continue to go on.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the recent throne speech the government claimed it had demonstrated a major commitment to meeting the need for day care services. They state further in the same throne speech that they would encourage employers and private enterprise to provide day care facilities. Can the minister tell us whether his government intends to set an example in day care by providing day care facilities here at Queen's Park for the employees?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member is asking the wrong minister.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Thanks. I appreciate that. You have made my day. In this instance, I am not the employer of the civil servants who would use it.

Mr. Boudria: I didn't say the Legislature; I said all of Queen's Park.

Hon. Mr. Drea: All of Queen's Park? What the honourable member is referring to -- and we do intend to do a considerable amount of work in this regard -- is to encourage unions, employers, and others in the private sector to become involved in day care. What he is specifically asking me is about a day care centre here. That decision is out of my hands. I am not the minister responsible. If there is one here, it will be funded.

Mr. Samis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Can I just call to your attention that we have spent 27 minutes of this question period on the opening questions by the deputy Liberal leader with the result that we have less than half an hour for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes, I am keeping track.

I was going to draw the honourable members' attention to that fact. That comes directly from asking multiple choice questions. The member for Port Arthur with a new question.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Right, exactly -- and I might say multiple choice answers as well.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a tragedy that when asked multiple choice questions, which could be answered with a simple checkmark yes or no, the ministry makes essay-type answers to respond.

I have a question for the Attorney General, arising out of his so-called statement this afternoon. How is it that the Attorney General could be so uninformed and misinformed about what is happening in his ministry that outside the House yesterday he could say, "Some of the employees have sat around a table, compared notes and have come up with a sort of rough guess as to how many miscarriages have occurred. Obviously this matter will have to be explored very fully"?

How could he not be aware that his own ministry on February 4 had done a survey and a study that actually showed figures much higher than the ones I quoted in this House yesterday? If the minister has not seen that study, I will be glad to send him a copy via one of the pages. Here, this is for the Attorney General; he is the fellow there with his hand over his mouth, where it should be more often.

How is it those figures which the ministry showed at 70 per cent were not acted on until the union did its study? How is it that for three years the Attorney General and his ministry have resisted health and safety committees in that work place? Why is it that he comes into this House today trailing his coat, saying it is the first he has heard of it and he is going to do something? Why did they just get the request yesterday?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my information is obviously somewhat different from that of the acting leader of the New Democratic Party. The information I have at this moment is that the facts, or purported facts, that have been released by the union simply do not bear any sort of close scrutiny.

Indeed, I am advised by my ministry officials, for example, that, contrary to what the member had to say yesterday, the ministry suggested the establishment of a joint committee with the union to explore the employee concerns, but this was rejected. This is not the information that I think was given to the honourable member opposite.

We are going to pursue this matter very fully and very vigorously. I just want to assure the honourable member opposite that when it comes to being concerned about the health and welfare of our employees, we are not going to take a back seat to anybody.

3 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Let us get down to basic principles. Will the minister not agree that, whatever the causes, the rate of miscarriages in that work place is unusually and incredibly high? Will he not agree that his ministry was derelict in refusing the measly expenditure of $450 to conduct an independent investigation into the causes of the unduly high number of miscarriages in that work place? When the supervisor told the union he did indeed have the authority to authorize payment of expenditures less than $500, why the obstruction, why the delay in the independent study?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, there was no obstruction whatsoever. As I say, the facts in my possession are so different from those the union have supplied the House leader of the New Democratic Party that we can spend the next hour debating the differences between the facts I have been given and those the union have released.

For example, as I said in my statement earlier, according to records we have, miscarriages purported to be related to these photocopiers or the video display terminals occurred before these units were installed. That is but one example of the very different basis of information the member and I are responding to.

I gave an undertaking to the Legislature a few minutes ago that we would be appointing a medical expert in this field who is unconnected with government. Within the next day or two we hope to be able to announce the name of this individual who is going to explore this matter fully, exhaustively and comprehensively.

I think we should give this individual an opportunity and, as I have indicated, and I say this to the union through the members opposite, I hope it will co-operate with this position because its attitude towards this matter has been somewhat less than constructive.

Certainly all the members of this House have a very real concern for the safety and welfare of any of their employees. Sometimes we on this side of the House get a little tired of listening to some of the sanctimonious nonsense that comes from the New Democratic Party, suggesting that members of that party have some sort of a monopoly on this concern. I can tell them they do not.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is talking about having some kind of exhaustive investigation, will he also look into the possibility of having studies or tests done on people before they use these video display terminals so that there is some indication of any deterioration in the cornea after they use these terminals? As I indicated yesterday, at least one ophthalmologist has indicated there is a connection between a deterioration of the cornea and the use of these machines.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people who are exploring these issues and who will be exploring these issues. I thought I heard the Minister of Labour state that there was a task force looking into this matter at present, and I assume that this will all be part of this mandate.

The former Minister of Labour, now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), just advised me that the ophthalmologist's views to which the honourable member just referred are not generally accepted by the ophthalmologists in this province. Obviously, considering the number of these units that are in common use in business, industry and virtually every segment of society, this is an issue that is going to be debated.

All of these issues will have to be very carefully explored, but it is very important while we continue to explore these issues and satisfy ourselves that we are doing everything possible to protect workers in the work place, that we do not engage in scare tactics that are going to cause unnecessary concern to many tens of thousands of people who are working with these units on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Martel: Give us the news. We already heard that from your government about Elliot Lake and the sintering plants.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Sudbury East please contain himself?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, you might understand the member's frustration, but to deal with this obfuscation, does the minister not recognize that the figures we were talking about yesterday were for the period 1981, when the video display terminals and copying machines were there? He should not mix them up with his facts.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The question will be about his facts then. When did he receive this memo of February 4 for an F. Saponara from an M. Kiddie about maternity leaves and miscarriages within his own ministry which shows that of 20 employees listed there were 14 miscarriages? When did he receive that? When did he receive knowledge of it?

If he did not learn about this until yesterday, then why not? Is this not important enough for his people to inform him early when this kind of inordinate cluster shows up?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite has mentioned, I did not learn about this until yesterday. I am referring to the statement by the Ministry of Labour, and I quote that apparently the complaints received by that ministry early this month did not raise the question of possible hazards from video display terminals whatsoever. Apparently, the matter was not considered serious enough by the union for them to even attempt in any way to communicate with me directly.

I have not seen the report to which the honourable member has referred. I reiterate what I have already stated, which is that the matter will be fully explored.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the extraordinary unemployment figures in Windsor, where there are 20,000 people unemployed, and in view of the 44 per cent increase in welfare cases, from 2,900 to 4,189 between February 1981 and February 1982, is the minister aware of the disastrous rise of 70 per cent between September 1981 and January 1982 in the number of people losing their homes through power of sale in Windsor and Essex county?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have seen press reports to that effect, and I believe I have a letter from one of the member's colleagues to that effect.

Mr. Foulds: Since the minister will do nothing to save these people's jobs, will he take some specific action at least to save their homes? Specifically, as the Ontario government did during the last Depression, and the kind of statistics we are getting in the Windsor area are equivalent to a depression, will he institute a moratorium relief act, as occurred then?

Now that he has presumably had time to read the New Democratic Party's interest rate relief program, which he flaunted in the Legislature last week, will he now implement that interest rate relief program?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We talked about this in the previous session, the question of entering the marketplace and freezing foreclosures. I recall some comments made by, I think, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) in the campaign when his own leader espoused somewhat --

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second. That was appropriate, because he was talking in a legal sense about --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It had to be an answer to the member's question. Now calm down.

Somewhere in his notes he said: "David, if you had ever practised law for a day, you would have known that a three-line response by a mortgagor would have protected, etc. Actions can be taken to allow protection of people in the process of losing their homes." That was the part I was referring to, and I believe it is a part of the law that can be used.

But one goes back to the federal budget, where we had some actions proposed, actions that I think we have been waiting for as members, as constituency workers -- and I certainly have a number of people in my riding waiting for them -- saying there would be some kind of assistance to protect Canadians whose homes were costing more than 30-odd per cent of their family income.

More than three months have passed, and we have not seen anything definitive from the federal Liberal government saying what it is going to do. That kind of promise is on the horizon. I believe it is long overdue and the federal government, instead of taking the kind of business it has before the House so far, could easily have brought in those actions to protect home owners if it thought they had the priority it said they had.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer must realize what a tragedy it is for a family to have to leave its home, and surely he must now come to the conclusion that he has some responsibility to the people of Ontario and to the people of Windsor and Essex county.

There are at least three other provinces in Canada assisting their people over these difficult economic times. In view of the fact that his government is on record in the past as making some proposals to assist people with their home owners' interest rates, after all this time, why does the minister refuse to lift a finger to help the people of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is one of those interesting things to me that the government to which the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) attaches himself did not even have the good grace to carry on the interest rate deduction clauses that Joe Clark brought in, because I think they would have helped a lot of Canadians.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer sits over there and jokes around like Johnny Carson in this place every day. The Treasurer must know that the provincial government has the responsibility and the ability through legislation to protect property for the people of this province. Is he or is he not prepared to protect the people of this province and the 600 more people who have lost their homes in the city of Windsor in the past month?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I told the member's acting leader, there is a federal program under way and we are waiting for it.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the new Minister of Industry and Trade Development. The minister said in his statement of February 18, "There is a great deal more government can do to make it less difficult for business to demonstrate its productive mandate for responsible economic growth."

Given that statement by the minister, has he now been made aware of the way in which the Ontario Development Corporation handled the application of a small Canadian publisher, namely, Virgo Press, a small business employing 15 people?

Has he also been made aware of the fact that the ODC dragged its feet on this application for almost eight months and ended up by imposing such onerous conditions that Virgo Press was forced out of business and 15 people lost their jobs?

Is that what the minister means when he says the Ontario government should make it less difficult for business to operate in this jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sweeney: I gather the minister's answer means he is not aware of the situation. Could I then ask --

Mr. Speaker: I think the question I heard was, "Is this what the minister means?" to which the answer was "no."

Mr. Sweeney: There were two other parts to the question. First of all, is the minister aware of what happened in this situation? Was his answer "no" to that as well?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I do not have all the details in respect of the Virgo matter, but I will be pleased to get them and report to the honourable member.

Mr. Sweeney: Given that response, will the minister in reviewing this situation also review the general type of practice of the ODC to assure himself and this House that small Canadian businesses, which are the base of the productive growth of this province, will not be treated this way by the ODC, particularly when jobs are at stake?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I can assure the honourable member that the ODC and indeed the entire range of development corporations over the last 14 years have helped in something like 1,400 applications, and I am sure they have saved literally hundreds and hundreds of companies from disaster. That is their mandate, to avoid that kind of thing happening and to become a catalyst by which something can develop in respect of a firm's products.

SALMONELLA OUTBREAK

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health arising out of his statement today, which I may say we welcome.

I want to deal with the heart of the report on page 9, section (b), No. 3: "The medical officer of health should be notified and involved in all aspects of the investigation and management of an outbreak of a communicable disease."

In view of the fact that the medical officer of health was notified on December 29 and the problem was that neither she nor the public health department was involved, can the minister assure us that the inspectors appointed today will, as part of their investigation, come to a determination as to why the medical officer of health and the public health department failed to ensure that the families of babies who had been exposed to salmon sis in the hospital were not informed of the exposure and why they were not advised of proper health procedures by either the medical officer of health or his officials in that public health department, and why in effect the public health function with respect to a communicable disease did not take place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you. Will the minister undertake to table the report of his inspectors in the House, and will he review the Public Health Act and its regulations to ensure that there are no gaps and loopholes in the act and regulations? If there are, will the minister bring forward amendments, particularly to the regulations, so that this kind of breakdown in public health administration and responsibility does not occur again in this community or in any other community?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to the first supplementary is yes. In answer to the second, I remind the honourable member that it is the intention of the government to introduce, it is hoped during this session, a new Health Protection Act which will deal with many of the problems and procedures surrounding the local health units.

I only add this caution. We have taken some great care in having Dr. Carlson's report tabled and made available, as we will have the inspector's report made available, and I think we have moved fairly expeditiously to appoint two very good inspectors with wide powers.

3:20 p.m.

The member suggests in his final supplementary that there was a breakdown. I think that may be, and I went through this with his acting leader the other day. I do not want to raise unnecessary fears nor understate the problem. I think the use of a word such as "breakdown" in the circumstances may be a little extreme. I think if the honourable member would stick to the terms used and the facts as reported by Dr. Carlson, or at least as alleged, the good citizens of Peterborough would be rather well served.

IMPUTED RENT TAX

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I have followed with great concern the comments of the Minister of Finance, who recently suggested that the federal government is considering a plan to tax home owners on the imputed rent they earn from living in their own residences.

Interjections.

Mr. Kolyn: As this House may be aware, imputed rent is the net return a home owner would make if he rented his home to another person. Although a landlord who rents space in his house pays tax on --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you please resume your seat? I serve notice on the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) that I have entertained just about enough of his interventions and free advice. I ask him to remain silent unless he has a question. The members on the government side have as much right to ask questions as the members on that side.

Mr. Kolyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although a landlord who rents space in his house pays tax on the net return he earns, a home owner who in effect rents his home to himself pays no such tax. Despite the denials of Mr. MacEachen that he would institute such an abominably unfair and unjust tax measure, I would like to ask the Treasurer what his response would be if such a policy were enacted by Ottawa.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was reading an article in the Toronto Sun, dated today, March 16 --

Mr. Kerrio: Is this a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker: Will you address the question, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They get so upset when one of our members takes part, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, that gentleman did not speak to me before question period, and the member should know that; nor did he imply that he was going to ask a question. That is his right and it is proper.

I am very concerned. When one reads an article such as this in the Toronto Sun of March 16 that says the home equity tax scare really is nothing to scoff at, one has to recognize the philosophy that has permeated the latest budget. That latest budget really said to tax everything that creates any incentive to invest in Canada.

Mr. Kerrio: That was Crosbie.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Niagara Falls please be quiet.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That was not. It was the November budget, which was seen by all sectors and segments of this society as the most destructive around. I am really concerned about the kind of reaction this letter from the Dominion Life Assurance Company got out of Ottawa. Instead of allaying my fears, it increases my fears that they are thinking of something like that.

If they tried to impute the value of rent in someone's homes, then all of us should arise in a very angry way and say it is improper and destroying one of the fundamental parts of our society: the values that come from owning a home.

I also point out that if they do not then allow total interest deductibility and all the other costs a normal landlord would be allowed to have, then they would have a skewed system.

CARLETON ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD AND TEACHERS DISPUTE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. I want to join with my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) in welcoming the minister back from the Middle East. Many of us here are grateful that there has been no outbreak of hostilities as a result of her visit.

Mr. Speaker: Now do you have a question?

Mr. Roy: Yes. There is a school strike in Carleton involving more than 900 teachers and 1,800 students. Over the weekend the provincial mediator indicated that as far as the English-speaking teachers are concerned, there are no plans to meet until after the school break.

Will the minister advise us how long she is prepared to wait, or what type of public pressure is required, before she or the government intervenes to see to it that the children of the parents in Carleton receive adequate and proper education?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have had the warm, solicitous welcome home from the best standup comic we have in the House but who appears only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, however, because he is busy being a standup comic in Ottawa the rest of the time.

I can allay the honourable member's fears: No hostilities arose; everything was milk and honey in the land of milk and honey. The only thing that did happen was that in Beirut, probably as a result of the member's intervention there, a car was blown up in front of the French embassy this morning. It had some pretty disastrous results, unfortunately.

The unfortunate strike that is occurring in Carleton is of grave concern to anyone who has any interest in the education program for children. However, in that situation a very capable and vigorous mediator has been appointed, and he has been working diligently to attempt to bring the parties together. Over the weekend he had meetings with representatives of l'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens in an attempt to find a mechanism for a solution to that portion of the strike -- because I would remind the member that there are two teachers' organizations on strike in that situation -- and, unfortunately, he was unable to find a resolution at that time.

The member is totally aware that it is the responsibility of the Education Relations Commission to monitor this. I can assure him they have been doing it with great diligence and vigour, and they have been keeping the ministry informed of developments on a regular basis.

The concern that the member expresses is shared equally on this side of the House, and of course we will be doing our best to try to solve the problems as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Nixon: If the strike isn't in Toronto, it doesn't exist.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I remind the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that this is what he said when there was a strike in his area.

Mr. Nixon: It went on for months and months before you finally did anything.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It did not go on for months, and it was resolved as a result of the direct intervention of the minister.

Mr. Roy: I appreciate what the minister says about intervention, and that is what I am asking about: If she intervened in the other situation, what is she waiting for here? Some of these children have been out of school since February 22.

Does the minister realize that part of the problem is that the separate school teachers are attempting to get parity with their colleagues in the public school system? Given that situation and the fact that both parties are at loggerheads in this case, does the minister not realize that part of the problem is the inadequate funding by her ministry of that school board and many other school boards in the province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is the most ludicrous statement that has been made in this House, aside from the deputy leader's question earlier today. The problem there is parity unrelated to wages, because it is my understanding that teachers' wages are on a par in that system at present. Some concerns are being expressed by both board and teachers in that situation, and I remind the House that those concerns are expressed in almost all disputes between teachers and boards.

One of the things that both parties to any such dispute must remember is that they have a personal responsibility for the provision of education programs for the children in their jurisdiction. I assume those individuals are as concerned about that responsibility as anyone else, and it is my sincere hope that, with or without the help of a mediator, they will be back at the bargaining table to find a solution to get those children back to school.

3:30 p.m.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will know that yesterday a study was released which indicated the Inco workers have a higher rate of cancer than those in most areas. The Globe and Mail says, "The study also found elevated cancer levels among Inco's nonsintering plant workers, but the higher rates could not be conclusively linked to any particular cause or work place."

Does that study attempt to pinpoint where there are extremely high areas of cancer, such as Creighton Mine, where we know as of 1980 there are 27 cases of cancer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the fact that the McMaster study on cancer death rates at Inco Ltd. had been released when I read about it in this morning's Globe and Mail. Neither I nor my officials were notified in advance that the study had been completed or that it would be released yesterday. As a result of this article, we have, of course, requested that it be supplied to the ministry and to the Workmen's Compensation Board for review and analysis.

I would have hoped that a copy would have been provided to us at the same time it was publicly released since considerable financial support was provided from the Ministry of Labour's share of provincial lottery funds, a total of $160,000 over the last three years. As members may know, the study was undertaken under the auspices of the joint union-management occupational health committee at Inco.

Until ministry officials and officials of the Workmen's Compensation Board have a chance to analyse this study and report to me on it, I think it would be premature to make any comments on its substance. However, I have asked that this evaluation be made without any delay whatsoever.

WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to withdraw my notice under standing order 28(a) with respect to an adjournment debate for this evening.

Mr. Roy: You can't be here?

Mr. McClellan: No, I am satisfied with the answer of the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in that regard it would be negligent of me not to acknowledge the questioning and the role the members of the third party played in reminding us of this issue. I say that in the context of the fact that the Ministry of Health, as was indicated in the statement, was working on this matter for some time immediately commencing with the outbreak. But I did think it fair to acknowledge their interest in this matter.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am wondering if we could ask the Minister of Labour when he will respond to the serious concerns about the Galtaco employees who have been refused their severance pay since the closure of the plant some months ago. That is a question I asked last week.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a question that would be better dealt with in the next question period. The time for oral questions has now expired. Maybe he could speak to you privately.

ARTICLE IN GLOBE AND MAIL

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have what I believe is a point of personal privilege relating to three articles published in the Globe and Mail and written by Mr. Paul Palango over the past three issues of that paper, Saturday, Monday and today. We dealt partly with one of those items earlier in the day in my response to the matter which was brought up by the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham), but there are a number of other inaccuracies in these articles which I would like to deal with.

First, before leaving the matter of the Toronto Transit Commission contract and the point of privilege raised by the member for Wentworth North, I would like to further clarify the TTC press release by reading the first three paragraphs, if I may:

"An article in the March 16, 1982, Globe and Mail gives the impression that the Urban Transportation Development Corp. is proceeding with the development of technology for the Scarborough rapid transit system without the agreement of the TTC. This is an inaccurate and misleading assessment of the situation, and the following information is provided for clarification purposes:

"On October 28, 1981, the Toronto Transit Commission and Urban Transportation Development Corp. did, in fact, sign a memorandum of agreement outlining the operating policies and the vehicle requirements for the Scarborough rapid transit line. This agreement represented a commitment by the Toronto Transit Commission to the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to authorize the purchase of long-lead items required for manufacture of the new cars to be used on the line. It also represented an agreement by TTC and UTDC to negotiate a vehicle procurement contract to cover the technical specifications to meet necessary operating policies and vehicle requirements."

It goes on in further detail, but that is the main part I wanted to clarify on that point.

The article -- I guess it was today's; I have so many here -- also related to a question which the member for Wentworth North apparently felt had not been properly answered as to the difference in technology between the UTDC systems and those of other manufacturers in Canada.

First of all, the UTDC system is the only one that has a linear induction motor, which is a completely new concept. It is the only vehicle that offers steerable trucks, noise reduction and non-wearing capabilities. It is the only system that provides fully automated control. It is the only system with the completely new lightweight car bodies. It is the only system using the low profile guideway. It has the lowest noise levels of any system of this type we know of. UTDC is a company with the capability to provide a turnkey system to a municipality.

There were also comments in the article by both Mr. Palango and the member for Wentworth North about some secret program of UTDC to develop rotary motors for steerable trucks. I will tell the House how secret that is. During my estimates last December, I believe it was, when we were discussing UTDC, we tabled a presentation to the estimates committee, the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.

On page 23 of that report the rotary-powered steerable truck program was outlined, giving the background that UTDC has a contract with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to design, build and test two sets of rotary-powered steerable trucks for use in urban transit. UTDC's initial work was done with linear motors. This work extends the trucks for use with conventional rotary motors.

The reason for developing the rotary motor steerable truck was that, through contact with TTC and other transit authorities in North America and abroad, there would appear to be a major market for retrofitting existing vehicles with steerable trucks to cut down on wheel and rail wear and also on noise. It is with that in mind that we have gone ahead and developed the steerable truck with the rotary motor. It was so secret that last year during my estimates we tabled a report which the honourable member obviously has not read.

It was also stated that there was an $80 million cost for the development of the intermediate capacity transit system. I will not quote exact figures, but I will point out that I believe development costs, right up to the complete development and testing of the ICTS system, was something more in the line of $60 million. A further $26 million was injected into UTDC by the government to deal with working capital requirements when the corporation went forward, entered into major contracts and had to implement systems.

I believe I was also badly misquoted yesterday after question period in a conversation I had with Mr. Palango in the hallway. He quoted me as saying, "'We have always intended to go into manufacturing,' Mr. Snow said in defending the UTDC's involvement in a joint venture."

What I said was we had always intended to build an assembly plant at the Kingston research and development centre. From the time the decision was made to proceed with development of this system, or to proceed with the implementation of the supply of systems, it was our firm conclusion we had to have the assembly plant on site at Kingston both to assemble there, and to test and work with the further development. The decision to go into the manufacturing part was made at a later date when we agreed to go into a joint venture arrangement with a private sector company.

I wish the member for Wentworth North and some of his colleagues had been with me in Vancouver two weeks ago yesterday when some of his federal colleagues, Senators Austin and Perrault, were there on the --

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have some very important --

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that you have, but I think you rose on a point of personal privilege to correct the record.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am still doing that.

Mr. Speaker: That does not really refer to the record.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Okay, I will withdraw the part regarding Senators --

Mr. Cassidy: The next thing you can do is read the telephone book.

Mr. Speaker: That was rather elementary.

Thank you very much. Now will you proceed to correct the record.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remarks regarding Senators Perrault and Austin and the $60 million cheque they presented and the praise they heaped.

The next item was in the Saturday article where it referred to a $50 million guarantee to re-equip the cars for the Vancouver system with rotary motors. I can say there is nothing in the contract -- even the article says the reporter could not find anything in the contract after reading it -- about a $50 million guarantee or about re-equipping with rotary motors. It is not so. It is not in the contract and it is not in the performance bond in any way.

If we were purchasing foreign-manufactured imported systems and technology, I would expect the anger and criticism of my colleagues across the House. I am proud of the accomplishments we have made in UTDC and this government is very proud of these accomplishments. I just wish that those members who are trying to be so critical would get behind the very dedicated people and the federal government in implementing this system worldwide.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, which is very brief.

Mr. Speaker: A point of personal privilege?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes. I want to correct the record, but very briefly of course.

Mr. Speaker: What record are you referring to?

Mr. Cunningham: This broken record we just heard.

Mr. Speaker: No. This is deteriorating into a debate.

Mr. Cunningham: It has not started, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The minister rose on --

Mr. Cunningham: I am sorry, but to be fair.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The minister rose on a point of privilege which he identified as correcting the record of a newspaper article.

Mr. Cunningham: I will do the same. In fact, I will even talk about the article.

Mr. Speaker: No, just a minute. With all respect, this is deteriorating into a debate. It is not for me to judge who is right and who is wrong. That is the whole point.

Mr. Cunningham: I am just correcting the record and I rise on --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, you rose earlier on a point of privilege.

Mr. Cunningham: I waited very politely. The rules allow me to do this, sir.

Mr. Speaker: They allow you to do it on a legitimate point of privilege, yes.

Mr. Cunningham: You have not heard it yet.

Mr. Speaker: I will.

Mr. Cunningham: Thank you. Very briefly, sir, and I will indeed be brief, the minister neglected to finish off reading the press release, and to correct the record, which I think we can do very briefly by reading page 2 from the Toronto Transit Commission news release, which he conveniently chose not to read. It continues: "In the March 16 Globe and Mail article, Mr. S. T. Lawrence, the commission's general manager of engineering and construction, is quoted as saying, 'We have not yet signed a contract but we are working towards it.' That statement correctly reflects the current status of the detailed vehicle procurement contract." That is all I said.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) concerning residential gas rates. This matter will be debated this evening at 10:30 p.m.

I do not want to be accused of delivering a sermon but I would respectfully refer the attention of all honourable members of this House to standing order 27 in its entirety from clauses (a) to (i). I think I can make an observation that I have been extremely patient, extremely tolerant, and I would ask the cooperation of all members in respecting this standing order. Thank you.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, that membership on the standing committees for this session be as follows:

Social development committee: Messrs. Boudria, Cooke, Ms. Copps, Messrs. Gillies, R. F. Johnston, Kells, McGuigan, Pollock, Robinson, Sheppard, Shymko and Watson;

Public accounts committee: Messrs. Bradley, Cunningham, Havrot, Kennedy, Kolyn, Philip, T. P. Reid, Sargent, Mrs. Scrivener, Messrs. J. A. Taylor, Wildman and Yakabuski;

Resources development committee: Mr. Andrewes, Ms. Fish, Messrs. Harris, Kolyn, Laughren, McNeil, J. A. Reed, Riddell, Stokes, Sweeney, Villeneuve and Williams;

Regulations committee: Mr. Barlow, Ms. Bryden, Messrs. Di Santo, Eves, Gordon, Hennessy, Hodgson, Jones, Kerrio, McEwen, Runciman and Van Horne;

General government committee: Messrs. Barlow, Dean, Eakins, Gordon, Haggerty, Hennessy, J. M. Johnson, Lane, MacDonald, McKessock, Samis and J. A. Taylor;

Procedural affairs committee: Messrs. Breaugh, Charlton, Edighoffer, Epp, Kerr, J. M. Johnson, Lane, Mancini, Piché, Rotenberg, Treleaven and Watson;

Administration of justice committee: Messrs. Brandt, Breithaupt, Elston, Eves, MacQuarrie, McLean, Mitchell, Renwick, Spensieri, Stevenson, Swart and Treleaven;

Members' services committee: Messrs. Grande, Havrot, Hodgson, Jones, Mackenzie, G. I. Miller, Piché, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruprecht and Wrye.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, moved that when the House adjourns on Friday next, March 19, it will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, March 29.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this motion. We have reflected on this and it is our view that the problems in this province are so serious at the present time that we do not have a right to adjourn this House next week.

We have asked for a budget immediately. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) responded by saying there were certain procedural niceties in place so that he could not bring forth a budget. Then he failed to give us a commitment as to when he would introduce a budget.

3:50 p.m.

I will be speaking more this afternoon about some of the problems in this province at this time perhaps, if we have time. But I want to say that all my colleagues from my party are extremely impressed with the gravity of the situation here now. We have been off for some three or four months. We have just come back. We have been here for about a week and a half, most of that time dealing with the niceties of the occasion. We do not feel in our party we have in any meaningful way wrestled with the real problems in this province today. There has been a lot of fed-bashing and there has been a lot of trying to escape responsibility. We have not seen one meaningful attempt to grapple with the problems in a way we consider legitimate.

We in this party are prepared to be here next week to deal with these problems. We would like the government to come forward with some meaningful responses. We do not honestly see how we can legitimately not be here, given the gravity of the situation in the province at this time. Recognizing, sir, that this is not most convenient for some members, including some members of my own party and some members of the other parties, it is our view at this time that we would not be fulfilling our responsibilities if we were not here dealing with those problems. That is why we have to disagree with the motion at this point. We will vote against it and we hope we can persuade each member this is the best course in the interests of the people of this province.

Let me say to members it may not appeal to their partisan instincts, but I am convinced that each individual in his or her capacity as a constituency politician will recognize that what we are saying is correct and right in the circumstances. I say to you, sir, we disagree with the motion. We would ask the House and we would ask the government to sit next week so we can meaningfully deal with the problems at hand in this province.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter whether we come back or not, but I ask my friends what they want to do next week. We do not have a budget. The Treasurer will not have a budget. Aside from a little grandstanding, what order of business does the opposition party want to do next week? Perhaps its House leader can sit down with us and work out some order of business without a budget, without legislation, without estimates, although there are some supplementary estimates, all of which is scheduled to be done before the budget is introduced.

Are they going to talk for hours every day about wanting a budget? Are they going to talk every day about supplementary estimates? If they can arrange a program that is meaningful until we get a budget introduced, I have no objection to coming back. But the members are going to have to put, beside grandstanding, an order of business that is going to achieve something. If the government wants to introduce a budget, we will be delighted to be here, but grandstanding without an order of business is not worth commenting upon.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I find this procedure somewhat unusual.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to try to make a major debate out of the matter being discussed because my leader has put the position of our party succinctly, properly and clearly. But when the question comes from the House leader of the New Democratic Party as to what business can be conducted, I simply draw to his attention that we have had supplementary estimates presented up to $236 million that deal with 11 different ministries, which would give us a vehicle to describe to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and others the concerns we have about the inadequacies of government policies. We can, of course, continue with the throne debate if that is the wish of the government House leader. It might, in fact, keep the Treasurer with his nose to the grindstone so that we can have a budget without the elapse of another month, which is the way it now appears.

It seems preposterous to me that the acting leader of the NDP, who was always calling for this House to sit longer hours and for more weeks and for more months and indicating to the House on every possible occasion that we should be spending more reasonable time on the business of the public, when we have an Order Paper with bills and we have a --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk puts on the record something that is inaccurate, if he goes back and listens to what I said, I said, "If you can put an order of business, we will be here." So let him not come here with his claptrap and try to distort what I said.

Mr. Nixon: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not.

Mr. Nixon: The Speaker does not consider it a point of order and he very properly does not, but since the arguments of our leader and myself have convinced the rather sensitive House leader of the NDP that business can be conducted next week, then it may be that his party will join us in voting against the government motion. As for indicating the intention, our leader has done that very clearly, and in the interim supply debate last week I clearly stated on page 73 of Hansard my own concern that it does not seem proper for us to adjourn with only a few days' work after being away from the House close to three months. I strongly support the contention put forward by my leader and I am very glad that the rather agitated House leader of the NDP now agrees that there is sufficient business to occupy the House during that week.

Mr. Foulds: If I am not mistaken -- it is a little time since I have read the rules and the precedents on this matter -- I believe the motion is a confidence motion. That being the case, we have very severe reservations about confidence in these turkeys across the way and the way they have been handling the economy. However, I want to say very clearly that will become apparent when we speak on the debate on the speech from the throne on Thursday.

I believe this motion is a debatable motion. I believe I am engaged in speaking to the motion and I would appreciate that privilege. That will become apparent when we both speak and make our own motion on the speech from the throne and on the budget. Let me just say very openly in this Legislature that while the people on our right shout and scream and grandstand, this motion has come to us as a bit of a surprise as it had not been previously brought out in House leaders' meetings where most of these things usually are discussed when we discuss the ordering of the business.

I want to say very clearly that if the Liberals vote against this motion and cause a division, our caucus will be caucusing during the division and we will be making a decision about whether or not we will support the motion.

I believe it is important, if I may say so, on an important matter of confidence that the whole caucus of the party should be consulted as it is a serious parliamentary matter. We intend to do that and we intend to take our time about caucusing on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to make any comment? If not, the acting government House leader.

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Liberal Party for preventing this day, my first day as acting House leader, from being uneventful. It is very much appreciated.

I would like to point out that since long before I was here it has been traditional to be absent from the House for the school break to accommodate the families of those members who were not able to get away at a time when their children were going to school.

Mr. Riddell: The economy hasn't been as bad as it is now.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Do you mind? I have listened very patiently --

Mr. T. P. Reid: The 375,000 unemployed can't take holidays.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The members on that side tend to pursue the argument that when their argument is weak they yell like hell, and that is what they are doing. Why do the members opposite not listen for a while?

All I am pointing out, if the new member in the middle row there would care to listen, is that this has been traditional. I do not have to tell members such as the opposition House leader that this has been traditional. As a matter of fact, as short a time ago as last Thursday at the House leaders' meeting when this whole matter of the school break was discussed, I did not hear any concern at that point.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I must be hitting the mark.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The acting House leader listened to you. The acting House leader has the floor, please.

Mr. Riddell: Yes, but we had something worth while to say.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: So have I, but you haven't been in here long enough to know whether I have or not.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We know you well enough to know you haven't.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I would repeat something the member for Rainy River said. He said a moment ago that this side of the House sets the business of the House, and I guess with the advice of the House leaders that is exactly what we are doing. Which way does the member want it?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am talking about the member saying that we set the business of the House. That is what we are doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I think it is a fact that we determined the order of business. It was determined that the throne speech debate would take place and that the windup would not be until April 13. I fail to see how it is going to change the situation drastically if we do not go away next week. Are we going to have another week of throne speech debate? Perhaps that is the intention. Perhaps I will be very much surprised after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) begins his speech. Maybe he has some new things to say.

I tend to agree that the opposite side of the House is being a little hypocritical to take this action at this time. I really think they are making an issue out of something for which they really have no basis. The Treasurer (Hon. F. S. Miller) has traditionally brought in the budget on a date set by him, and it is his intention to do that. I do not see how the opposition's motion to delay this action is going to improve the situation in any way.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we will vote on the motion.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: That terminated the discussion.

Mr. McClellan: This is not a second reading debate. There is nothing that requires --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is not any further discussion.

Some hon. members: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Because I called for anybody else who wanted to make comments to please rise.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The mover of the motion terminated the debate quite obviously.

Mr. McClellan: There is no rule that closes off debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called for that quite clearly. There was no reason for anybody not to understand it. I am not going to engage in debate.

Mr. McClellan: You don't have to close the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing out of order at this point.

An hon. member: You are out of order.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not, with all respect.

Does everybody understand the motion? The member for Sudbury East on a point of order.

Mr. Martel: Would the Speaker be kind enough to tell me under which rule he is cutting off the debate so I could just read it for myself?

Mr. Roy: He already called for --

Mr. Martel: Never mind what he called for. I want to know under which rule he is making his order. Maybe you can help, but if you cannot then shut up. I am not challenging; I am asking the Speaker for some guidance as to under what rule he is terminating this debate. It is a motion and --

Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly when the debate was going on, I called for any other member wishing to make a comment to do so.

Mr. McClellan: And did he not get up?

Mr. Speaker: No he did not, with all respect.

Nobody got up when I asked for it.

5:04 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Gregory's motion which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, G. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wiseman.

Nays

Boudria, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I.;

Newman, Nixon, Peterson, Philip, Reed, I. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 59; nays 48.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARBOUR DAY ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill 24, An Act to proclaim Arbour Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: The bill is self explanatory, Mr. Speaker.

5:10 p.m.

PUBLIC SERVANTS POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, first reading of Bill 25, An Act to provide Political Rights for Public Servants.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been before the House previously, but it is timely now in view of the objections of the federal Conservatives to the firing of Neil Fraser, the Revenue Canada employee who wrote letters to the editor about federal government metric conversion policies.

The present legislation in Ontario states that except when somebody is a candidate a civil servant shall not at any time speak in public or express views in writing for distribution to the public on any matter that forms part of the platform of a provincial or federal political party. In other words, a civil servant in Ontario could be fired for saying publicly that he should have political rights. That civil servants should have political rights happens to be part of the platform of the New Democratic Party.

The bill would give public servants that right. It would ensure they had the right to participate in political activity, to speak out on public issues and to work for a political party, while being protected from punitive action. The bill would also protect public servants from being forced to be involved in politics by a superior.

VISITOR

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure all honourable members will want to join me in welcoming a very distinguished guest to the gallery beneath the Speaker's gallery in the person of M. Yves St-Dénis, president of l'Association canadienne-francaise de l'Ontario.

M. le Président, je vous demanderai et à tous les deputés de vous joindre à moi en souhaitant la bienvenue à M. Yves St-Dénis, le président de l'Association canadienne-francaise de l'Ontario.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the honourable members, particularly from my party; I am very grateful personally for the amount of support and assistance I have had from them in my two or three weeks as leader of this party. I am enjoying it very much. I am enjoying the challenge and I am delighted with the way our party is pulling together and working for the good of the people of this great province.

It is very much in the House as it is in the province today. We here want to work and the Tories are preventing us. The people of the province want to work and the government is preventing them. What this province needs is some leadership. I want the deputy Premier, if he will, to express condolences on behalf of my party to the honourable Premier (Mr. Davis), who I gather is still somewhat indisposed. Even we, I gather, underestimated the extent of the decay. I hope he will express our best to him. If any chaps over there would like to sneak out in the dark, they should feel free to do that. Feel free to leave.

During our great convention there was a great deal of comparison of the various candidates, and we were compared particularly to the leaders of other parties, Mr. Rae from the NDP and the Premier from the Conservative Party. A lot of people in his own party are upset with the Premier and are saying that he really is a Liberal but is just trying to look like a Tory. Even though he wears the vest of a Tory he has made all these moves that are causing a considerable amount of consternation in his own ranks and they are saying that he is really a Liberal and not a Tory.

Of course, the accusation has been made about Mr. Rae that he is not really a Socialist and that the party has a head today but does not have a heart any more, and he is really a Liberal masked in Socialist clothing.

One can see this convergence on the centre. All these people are running into the so-called middle ground, the ground that traditionally the Liberal Party has always occupied.

I would like members to know that when it comes time for the next election the people of this province are going to vote for the real thing and not a pale imitation thereof. I am not sure, but my guess is that the Premier is sick of being called a clone of me, so if he wants to retreat then he is quite welcome to so do.

About 2,000 years ago a question was asked. The question was, "Which man among you when asked for bread would give a stone and when asked for a fish would give a serpent?" Today, we have such a man and we have such a government in this House.

The people of this province are asking for economic relief and he says, "Blame the feds." The workers of Ontario are asking for employment opportunities. He says, "Look to Ottawa." The families of Ontario are asking for help in coping with high inflation. "It is not my fault," he says. The farmers of Ontario are struggling for survival and calling for assistance. He gives them a few dollars and the pride of Don Mills.

It is interesting that our party is the only party with a farmer, someone with a real feeling for that community, as our official spokesman in that very important sector.

The youth of Ontario are calling for jobs and he gives them Experience '82, with some 1,200 fewer jobs than a year ago; the universities of Ontario are starving for funds and are seeking his help. His response was to close a law school and an educational faculty.

The manufacturers of Ontario are seeking skilled workers. He says, "Advertise abroad." The citizens of Ontario are seeking protection against acid rain. He says, "GPU to you." The patients of Ontario are seeking universally accessible health care. His response, "Let the sick pay."

Home owners, farmers and businessmen are clamouring for relief from the high interest rates. The response, "Wait for an economic upturn."

Instead of bread, a stone; instead of fish, a serpent. There was a time, a decade ago, when Ontario was known as the province of opportunity. Today in the 12th year of the Davis regime, Ontario is increasingly becoming known as the province of lost opportunity.

Members will recall how, a year or so ago, the Premier and his friends delighted in taunting us with the realities of March 19, 1981. The people of this province have had a full year to learn, from bitter experience, that the Premier's realities are harsh, cold and unremitting, making no concession to the anxieties and concerns of the people of this province, and taking little account of the responsibility to act urgently on some of these problems.

The Premier and the government, in my judgement and in the judgement of our party, have forgotten that they are supposed to represent the people, that government is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is with no delight whatsoever that I want to put to you some of the realities of March 19 -- March 16 as it is today, but I assume that they will be the same some three days from now. I want to give you some of the realities of today.

In the 1960s, Ontario ranked first among the provinces in almost every indicator of economic performance. Today, at the risk of being called "Mr. Negative," let me say that in most of those indicators we are last. The Ontario Economic Council predicts that if present trends continue we will lose 44,000 permanent manufacturing jobs by the year 1990. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 80,000 small businesses in this province are at risk today.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) suggests that about 6,500 farmers are in serious financial difficulty at this time. Up to 10,000 families in this province are in danger of losing their homes with mortgage renewals in the 18 per cent range. There are 373,000 people unemployed in this province, 65,000 more than at this time a year ago, and you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that 7,000 fewer people are working now than were a year ago. Also, 21,565 Ontario workers were permanently or indefinitely laid off in 1981, and more than 4,700 workers were laid off in just the last three weeks. Some 68,000 citizens of Ontario migrated out of this province to other areas of this country to seek their fortune, to build their stake in other communities. These are some of the realities.

What is the government's response to this set of circumstances? The response was the throne speech of March 9. It begins with a diatribe against the federal government. There is a serious diatribe. It moves through vague and nebulous promises. There is no funding indicated, no programs, and what is probably worse, no sense of urgency for the present and no sense of vision for the future. It ends with the claim that the government of Ontario will continue to pursue a pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-Canadian economic program, whatever that means. The throne speech, in the words of T. S. Eliot, was "shape without form, shade without colour, paralysed force, gesture without motion."

I came across an interesting quote the other day. It was from Gandhi, the famous statesman, who said that the most deadly sins in the world are "wealth without work, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principle." Wealth without work is ad valorem; knowledge without character, government opinion polls; commerce without morality, Suncor; science without humanity, General Public Utilities; worship without sacrifice, obsession with power; and politics without principle, the Tory party.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will at least agree with me in a personal way if not in a partisan way, that our province is at the present time in serious trouble. The statistics I have recounted to this House are cold, and they mask a number of intimate, personal and shattering realities. I suspect there is not a member in this House who in personal terms, from a constituency point of view, does not agree with the urgency of the problem. There are certain partisan bounds in what we can all do, I guess. From a partisan point of view some of us are obliged to put a good face on certain problems even though we know in our hearts that this is not reality.

I could recount individual after individual I have met in the last five months who is facing problems absolutely beyond his or her or the family's control. There is nothing they can do; there is no institution in society to whom they can turn because they have all turned there and been turned away. The only resort, the last refuge they have, is some sort of government action. It is up to us. There are 125 people in this House. We have the power to do things. I will discuss later how certain other provinces have done things.

I do not believe it is good enough just to say it is someone else's responsibility. There is a time in every politician's life when partisan concerns have to be less important than the concerns of the people he or she represents. I would suggest this is one of those times.

What we are experiencing today has been described in various terms by various people -- some members over there as well as members from my own party. It is the worst crisis since the Depression; it is a calamity, and the list of words goes on and on. I am personally struck with the reality of that crisis. Even though I am one who does not believe government can solve all problems, and even though I believe there are limits to the capacity of government to function, I believe in my soul and in my heart that this is the time when we have to act.

Lest the government thinks our moving to sit next week was a joke, it was not a joke; it was in deadly earnest. It is our way of responding as best we can. One of the frustrations of opposition is that we do not have many arrows in the quiver of possibilities. Oh yes, we can make speeches and we can use rhetoric, and there are certain procedural devices we can use on certain occasions and it is our responsibility to use those for the people of this province. I make no apology for that because we are all convinced.

If you were listening in on our caucus, Mr. Speaker, if you had been listening in on our party's meetings in the past two or three weeks -- and maybe you were, I do not know -- you would know every member in this caucus agrees with what I am saying. Every member believes we have a responsibility.

It is the worst since the Depression. In the Depression governments acted, and they did not have the knowledge that we have today, they did not have the tools, they did not have the lever. But even then there were responses, some of them of a nature we would not want to use today particularly. Government is so much bigger today, it has so many more weapons in its arsenal, and surely we have to use those in a creative way now to help people in the province. We are the largest province. We have a $20 billion budget, roughly 40 per cent of the wealth in this country still. If we cannot use that to help people we are all going to be called to task for that in the very near future.

This government's response was paltry. It did not address with a sense of urgency what I and our party consider are the real problems, and we want action. We want short-term job-creation action. I can give a list of ideas as long as my arm. I am sure those hundreds of bureaucrats in Treasury or in Industry or in a variety of other ministries can come up with lots of ideas too. There are lots of ideas around throughout the province about what we can do now -- in forestry, in the renewable energy field, in the high technology field, and the list goes on and on.

What we are lacking is only the political will, and that starts here. It is our responsibility to impress that upon the government so that we have the will, and it is our job to force the government, as best we can, into doing something immediately.

We can blame the high interest rate scene on Ottawa if we want to. We can blame it on the Federal Reserve Board, on Paul Volker, on President Reagan or a variety of other international demons. But other provinces have taken it upon themselves to respond in their own ways. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have responded. Quebec did just this week, as my colleague brought out today in the House. They recognize those problems and are doing something about them without federal help. We could do the same.

5:30 p.m.

The government cannot tell me it does not have the money. When it is in a position to squander money the way it does on a long list of things even its own members are embarrassed about, such as oil companies and jets, then I tell the government it can find the money to meet the most urgent human needs in this province right now.

I have said before we need an emergency, targeted, budgeted interest rate relief program; not a universal one, because we cannot afford it, but we can afford it in specific cases where people are in the most need. That can be targeted and programmed. That is not hard to do. Treasury probably has a program sitting around somewhere that could be brought into being in a couple of days.

As Liberals, we are not prepared to fight these economic problems on the backs of social services. The government is always saying we are the kissing cousins of the federal Liberals. Even though we disagree with them on a number of policies, we share a lot of principles and values in common with them.

They were the ones who dragged this government kicking and screaming into health care. It is still one of the great programs in this country and we are not going to see it mishandled. There were no proposals in the throne speech to deal with that question which, in our judgement, is a crisis. I am delighted my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) is undertaking a fact-finding mission across this province to deal with some of those problems.

I am sure when she comes back from her deliberations and her fact-finding mission she will add something very constructive to the debate in this House. We know there is evidence, some of it prima facie and some of it perhaps not accurate at this point, of story after story about cutbacks and lack of accessibility to the basic services that we, as Liberals, believe in.

There is something else that bothers us a great deal. I am not going to go into everything the government missed today, but I want to talk about some of the things that concern us deeply. There are no plans in the throne speech for the mental health patients who have been thrust into our communities without adequate housing. The House knows about the story of the indigent people walking around this province and, in particular, around this city.

My colleague the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) has spoken eloquently about this problem, particularly during the last session. There are thousands of people walking around with no housing assistance of any type in this city. They are a danger to themselves as well as to the community. They have been abandoned after being discharged from the various institutions under the government's policy of deinstitutionalization. I have no idea why the government is unwilling to respond to that kind of problem.

My colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has spoken eloquently about the farming problems in the province at this time. I am one of those who is convinced that the farming and food processing industry is close to a crisis state. If I had to make up a list from my personal, human experience of travelling about this province during the last five or six months of what I consider the most important problems, it would a difficult list of priorities to draw up, but I would have to say the agricultural sector is the single most important problem today. That is the one that concerns me most for the long term.

If we do not rectify that problem today, it has the capacity to change the shape of this province economically as well as sociologically. We must have policies in place that keep families on their farms. I do not care how one cuts it, one cannot make money in the livestock business today. If one has any sort of operating loan, that is a reality. There is a conspiracy of forces beyond their control that renders farmers incapable of dealing with higher input prices and low commodity prices. It just does not work.

As a society, we have the choice of seeing them move off the farms, ending up as tenant farmers and having the banks own those farms or going to the city to join the ranks of the unemployed; or we can help now on a crisis intervention basis to keep them there and to build towards a policy of food production self-sufficiency in this province.

This sector has been deteriorating in a shameful way over the past few years, and it is going to take more than the reorganization of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that has just been announced today. That does not impress me. It is programs and results that impress me. We need so many programs in the capital area, programs that will attract new and young farmers. They are the ones who are being particularly hard hit by the present problems of marketing programs and a variety of other things.

My colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the new critic for Community and Social Services, has had some suggestions on day care, things I personally subscribe to very strongly. We have to recognize that this is not just a social issue, but an economic issue as well. I could give figures on how many children in this province, in this city, require day care so that their parents can break the cycle of welfare dependency or go on to meaningful work in the marketplace.

There are so many ways we could set the example, as my colleague said. Why do we not have a day care centre here in Queen's Park? Let us show the way to employer-sponsored day care, a responsible thing employers are prepared to do under certain circumstances if we show the leadership. Let us show the leadership in that area. We might have to kick a couple of bureaucrats, or maybe even politicians, out of their offices. As a matter of fact, I will make a suggestion. I think the office of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) would be an excellent place for a day care centre.

Other things, such as amending the Assessment Act to remove the spectre of property tax from nonprofit day care centres, are things we can do here, but because of the intransigence of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) he is not prepared to look at them. We have to encourage those programs and encourage self-sufficiency. I do not believe we have to pay for every single day care space in this province, but we certainly have an obligation to assist those people who cannot assist themselves.

I want to talk about an area that received no attention in the throne speech and that troubles me because, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the whole pension question for Ontario. We have the report of the select committee, particularly in the private field with the changes to the Pension Benefits Act. When an economic downturn is faced, it is the people on fixed incomes who are hit worst by this high inflation. We could have moved to protect some of those people, for example, by legislating a form of indexing through excess interest, through increasing the portability of pensions, through earlier vesting. There is a variety of things we believe in, particularly now when people need that help, we could be responding.

We do not need any more studies. Good God, we have had a royal commission, albeit it was a good one. We have had a select committee that has deliberated for a long time. But in spite of its leadership in some ways, Ontario has been the hold-out in so many other ways. Let us take the lead nationally and move immediately on the child-rearing dropout provision, for example, so we will not be a dog in the manger for women who need that help right across this country, let alone in Ontario. We can do those things; yet there was no mention of them in the throne speech. We should be moving on that immediately.

I want to talk very briefly about some of the environmental questions I take very seriously. We will never be able to fight the war abroad on acid rain if we do not fight it here in our own country on our own turf. We have had some discussions with the honourable minister on this question. I am one of those people who would hope the minister would get on his white charger and fight a little harder for the people of this province. He is our official spokesman. I was most disappointed with his response to the National Energy Board on the General Public Utilities cable question. That has become an important symbolic issue as well as a substantive issue in this province. I know his response, that there are a number of legal hurdles he has to get over, but he could have been fighting on that issue.

If the government wants to give us credit for what the federal government is doing, at least there was a brilliant report produced by Ron Irwin's committee. The Still Waters report was an excellent report, and the federal minister is fighting against these questions far more effectively than the provincial minister is. I think he has a major responsibility to work a lot harder. If we are going to show leadership, let us show it with Ontario Hydro, a crown corporation we do own.

The cost of not cleaning up is going to be far more significant than the cost of cleaning up. It is going to look like pennies today compared to dollars tomorrow. Apart from the morality of this situation, I want the minister to know I see this question in moral as well as economic terms. There is a tremendous economic argument that can be made that this has to be cleaned up today and we have to pay the price. I have no hesitation about saying to any voter in this province, "That is our responsibility. Our generation has to pay for it and I am willing to charge this generation to pay for it."

5:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We are. You don't know what you are talking about.

Mr. Peterson: This government is not. The government is not doing anything. Two scrubbers, and we scrub 11 per cent of the coal. The minister has turned out to be most ignorant on the whole question. Two scrubbers out of 20 is not adequate in my judgement. The minister has been a real disappointment. When the Premier (Mr. Davis) has given the minister an opportunity to show his stuff to his party and to this House, he has let him down so far.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All you are doing is showing your ignorance. Get your facts straight.

Mr. Peterson: I've got my facts straight.

Another glaring omission from the throne speech was the absence of freedom of information legislation. That has been promised in how many elections now, in how many reports? How many ministers have gone to their death over that question? I guess there is someone in charge now; I am not sure who that is.

Mr. Conway: The member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling).

Mr. Peterson: Is the member for Carleton-Grenville still in charge? How is he? I have not seen him. He may have an impacted wisdom tooth, I'm not sure, but we would very much like to see him here, fighting again for an issue of importance which all of us agree with in principle.

The government cannot get off the rails and get moving into legislation. We could move on that and it would go some way at least to restoring a little bit of faith and credibility in the governmental process, which has diminished a lot lately with some help from those people opposite.

There are so many other areas that could have been handled. I want to make one other point. I will not talk about assistance for the elderly, transit problems, nor the secondary education review project because time is running short, but there is one point I do want to make.

This government has the capacity to proclaim the human rights legislation immediately; yet they have deferred that for another two or three months. That opens itself to some abuse. Certain things can be done by certain people that might be caught under that act over the next two or three months. Why doesn't the government move now to proclaim it?

The only lame excuse given was that there are not enough human rights officers to enforce it. First, the government could hire them and help to solve some of the unemployment problem at the same time. Second, perhaps we could deal with some of those problems a little bit later. Let us show our good faith and proclaim that piece of legislation right now.

We searched the document for what we felt would be a sense of urgency or a sense of vision dealing with what we consider the real problems. We did not see them and we were disappointed.

I believe history will judge the 32nd Parliament very harshly for its inability or lack of desire to address some of these very major problems. When history is written, they will look back on this session and say, "There were real problems and they did not respond." Because they do not respond, the world we will be living in two, three and five years from now will be affected. Some of the harm we are doing today will not easily be repaired. That worries me more than anything.

When people ask if we were expedient or accountable, they will say we were expedient. If they ask if we were unfeeling or sensitive, they will say we were unfeeling. If they ask if we were efficient or inept, they will probably say we were inept. If they ask if we were arbitrary or just, they will say we were arbitrary. If they ask if we were cowardly or courageous, they will say we were cowardly.

If I could do anything today, it would be to impress the urgency of the situation on the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the government.

I was walking down the hall the other day, kitty-corner from the Tory caucus room on the second floor, and my eye caught a painting that unfortunately I had never seen before. Members may have seen it, and I recommend it to them. It is called The Foreclosure of the Mortgage. It is a lovely tableau painted by George Agnew Reid of Wingham, Ontario. I understand that it was painted in 1892 or 1893. It was destroyed in a fire and repainted by Mr. Reid from photographs in 1935.

He subsequently donated his collection to the Ministry of Education, and it is a piece we should be very proud to have. It is a picture of an invalid father, members may recall, hopelessly facing a sheriff or a bondsman or perhaps a lawyer, maybe even a banker -- who knows? -- who has come to take possession of his home. In the picture is a tearful wife, an aged grandmother in the corner and two or three frightened children looking across at this very poignant scene.

I asked to look into this because it had interested me very much and I was very attracted to it. I am told that when the Premier was Minister of Education he requested that this painting go to his office -- so the press reports say -- but at that point it had been crated and was in an attic or a nook or a cranny at Queen's Park and could not be found. Today I am asking that we prevail upon the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) to deliver that painting to the Premier to hang in his office as a very real reminder of what is happening in this province today.

Members all know that I am not one given to extreme solutions. I never have been because I know my responsibility to this generation as well as to the next generation, but I can tell them that we have a responsibility.

I want to say at the end of my speech that we are most dissatisfied with the throne speech, most dissatisfied with the government's agenda for action, for trying to exculpate itself from any responsibility for the problems we have in this province, and I am forced to move an amendment.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Peterson moves, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session be amended by adding the following thereto:

"This House, however, regrets that the speech from the throne fails to recognize the most serious and fundamental problems facing Ontario today, and condemns the government for:

"Failing to develop programs to ensure adequate job creation and to protect Ontario workers from the continued decline in employment prospects;

"Making no new or increased support towards the preservation of Ontario's health, social and education sectors, specifically towards hospitals, day care, services for the elderly and post-secondary institutions;

"Presenting no specific programs to help small businesses, farmers and home owners to deal with the record high interest rates;

"Refusing to recognize Ontario's need for massive retraining programs for Ontario's workers."

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

The House recessed at 5:49 p.m.