Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, March 27, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) rose on a point of order with respect to Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra. He submitted that the committee to which the bill had been referred in the last session no longer existed and, therefore, the chairman of the last session had no authority to report the bill.

I would like to point out that this whole procedure of extending the life of standing committees into the recess between sessions for the purpose of considering bills is a very recent innovation and no very clear-cut rules have been laid down as to the procedure to be followed when the new session has opened.

However, it would seem obvious to me that if a bill has been referred to a committee for consideration in the recess, it must be reported, and surely the committee in the best position to report the bill is the committee that considered it, particularly as the new committee had not been appointed. Therefore, it would appear to me that the bill was properly reported by the committee that considered it and is properly before the House.

I come to the further point raised by the member for Oshawa on Tuesday, April 3. He stated that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) in a letter to the mayor of the city of Barrie said, "As I understand it, the schedule reflects a further refinement to the boundary in the Little Lake area." The member for Oshawa said that if this letter is correct, the bill that was dealt with in committee was altered by the minister before its presentation to the House.

I have been advised that the metes and bounds description of the boundary in question was inserted by legislative counsel on instructions from the committee at its last meeting and therefore the reprint, as it indicates, is the bill as amended by the committee. If this is not so, the minister should take whatever action is necessary to correct the description.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATH OF WILLIAM BELMONT COMMON

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House of the death of one of our most distinguished public servants, William Belmont Common, who served as Deputy Attorney General from 1957 to 1964.

He was called to the bar in 1923 and dedicated almost his entire legal career to the service of the people and province of Ontario. He exemplified the finest traditions of public service. As a prosecutor, as a long-serving bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada and latterly as Deputy Attorney General he made major contributions to the administration of justice.

Having served with four Deputy Attorneys General, I know what a difficult, demanding and at times lonely job that can be. Bill Common had a lasting impact on the ministry. His personal example of scholarship, fairness and integrity continues to inspire our crown law officers. His reputation as one of the leading crown prosecutors of this century was one of professionalism and tenacity but, above all, fairness. For him the rigours of the law had to be tempered with human sympathy. His was a life totally dedicated to the best traditions of the law and of the public service.

He served on the Ontario Board of Parole for a decade, being chairman for seven years. His work was vitally important to the development of a humane system of prison aftercare. He had a life-long interest in penal reform, serving as a consultant to the Ouimet committee, which did so much to humanize our criminal justice system.

His reform work was not restricted to the criminal law. He was one of the pioneers of law reform in Ontario and the first counsel to the Ontario Law Reform Commission. To most lawyers, Bill Common will be remembered as the founding father of the Ontario legal aid plan. The committee he chaired drew up a blueprint for the delivery of legal services for the disadvantaged which is still hailed as one of the most progressive in the world.

Bill Common's last major contribution to public life was in the assembly itself. When the Clerk of the House was ill, he acted as chief electoral officer for the 1967 election. He served as acting Assistant Clerk from 1968 to 1971. He was one of the unsung heroes who made our parliamentary system work so effectively. His children, Barbara-Lou and Arthur William, can take justifiable pride in their father's many achievements.

On behalf of the government and all members, I extend our sincere sympathies to them and to the other members of the family.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we were very sorry to hear of Bill Common's death on Tuesday. Most of us in the House did not get to meet him until his career with the Attorney General's office had come to an end and he had retired.

He came out of retirement to assist the Legislature at the table during an unfortunate illness of Roderick Lewis, our present Clerk, and he was able to perform those duties very well. Even after Mr. Lewis's return, he stayed on as an assistant for a period of time. We remember well his friendliness and high good humour as he did his duties around this House.

It should be noted he came into government service as a relatively young man in 1926, and his abilities were such that he was able to survive a variety of government changes during those many years. He maintained excellent personal relationships with his various ministers and the political people of the day over a long and productive career.

This is in great measure a credit to his great ability as an administrator and innovator. As far as we are concerned in this House, his good humour and friendship to members on all sides were appreciated and will long be remembered. We extend our sympathy to the members of his family.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, there is little I can add to what has been said by the Attorney General and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk about Bill Common. It is upwards of 50 years ago that I first had the occasion to meet Bill Common socially, when he was prosecuting in the courts and I was a student at the University of Toronto.

From that time on, I knew I had a friend of long standing in the legal profession. On a number of occasions, I attended the Court of Appeal of Ontario in the latter part of the 1930s and after the Second World War when he was single-handedly conducting on behalf of the crown all the crown criminal appeals.

2:10 p.m.

He was a model, indeed he was a paragon, of what a crown prosecutor should be in the handling of appeal matters in criminal cases because of his objectivity, fairness, knowledge and scholarship in the field of criminal law, for which I think he will be long remembered.

I had the opportunity to be here in the assembly briefly when he was Deputy Attorney General and subsequently when he served as Clerk in the assembly at the time of the illness of the present Clerk. His manner to Pat Lawlor and to me was one of kindness, unfailing courtesy and assistance in matters relating to the legal processes of the assembly and the work in which my then colleague the former member for Lakeshore was engaged.

Of course, he was a man of very advanced age. Thanks to the courtesy of the Attorney General, I had the privilege of spending a few minutes with him a few months ago at the home of the Attorney General. At that time, he was alert and continually interested in what was going on in the assembly.

He had a very full and complete life. He served in the Royal Flying Corps in the First World War and had a very distinguished career in that field.

One evening, as a fledgling law student at Osgoode Hall law school, I had the temerity to sit down at a bridge table with him, and, with the little knowledge I had of bridge, it was a disastrous evening for me. I lost a few dollars to Bill Common.

We will always remember him for the basic and fundamental framework he laid in his report respecting legal aid in the province. I hope as time goes on the legal aid plan will live up to the goals and objectives he set for that committee. They were very high goals and at that time were well advanced in the field of providing legal services to those who were not able to meet the costs.

He was a man for whom I had a deep respect. I will always remember him with affection and kindness. On various occasions in the course of my life, I appreciated the opportunity to have the associations with him that I take the trouble to mention to the House on this occasion.

On behalf of our caucus and the leader of our party, I extend the warmest sympathy to his children, in full knowledge they have a recollection of a father who was admired everywhere in the field of legal scholarship.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), I would like to table the highway construction program for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Northern Affairs for the 1984-85 fiscal year.

In all, an estimated $295 million will be spent for construction on the highway system in both northern and southern Ontario. In addition, we will be subsidizing municipal road construction for another $254 million, which generates about $508 million in total expenditures when the municipalities' shares are included. In total, about $803 million will be spent on projects considered essential to preserve the present quality of the existing highway system, a system that ensures the efficient transport of goods and people in our province.

Briefly, we are proposing new work on a total of 1,163 kilometres of the provincial system, primarily two-lane highways, including the scheduled construction of 118 bridges. As part of the government's proposed expansion program under the direction of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, $25 million is included for major highway projects in the Golden Horseshoe area.

MTC will also carry out the planning, design and construction of about 553 kilometres of provincial highways in northern Ontario, a system, I am sure all members know, funded by the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which sets the priorities for capital highway construction in the north. Again, the majority of the work is primarily on two-lane highways, although the construction of passing lanes, truck-climbing lanes and remote airports is also included.

Details of these projects for eastern Ontario and others are contained in the program I am tabling now, copies of which will go to all members via the legislative post office.

HEALING ARTS RADIATION PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing a bill entitled An Act to amend the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act.

The bill proposes to the Legislature the transfer of authority for controlling the installation and operation of computerized axial tomography scanners from the Public Health Act to the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act.

As honourable members are aware, the Public Health Act will be repealed when the Health Protection and Promotion Act, 1983, is proclaimed in force. Therefore, a transfer of authority is necessary if current regulatory practice is to continue. It is clear that the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act, which was enacted after the public health regulation took effect, is the logical statute for maintaining this control.

Computerized axial tomography scanners are sophisticated diagnostic devices. Using a narrow X-ray beam, radiation detectors, computer printouts and visual displays, they provide a cross-sectional view of bones, organs and tissues in minute detail. Invented in Britain in the early 1970s, CAT scanners have won increasing acceptance by the medical community.

Ontario's policy towards CAT scanners in the past decade has been based on two objectives. First, we are committed to ensuring that this advanced technology is available on an equitable basis to all our citizens who might benefit from it. Second, we carefully manage the placement of scanners because of the high costs involved. The purchase price of a scanner is currently about $1 million and the ministry contributes approximately $150,000 a year to the hospitals for operating expenses.

The bill will prohibit the installation and use of CAT scanners except in a hospital or health facility prescribed by regulation. The number of scanners authorized for each hospital or facility will also be set by regulation.

Current ministry guidelines provide for one scanner for every 300,000 referral population, with allowances for such factors as case loads, geographical areas and teaching requirements. Based on district health council recommendations, scanners are strategically located in major referral hospitals having properly trained staff and adequate patient loads for the effective use of the equipment. There are currently 33 CAT scanners approved for operation across the province.

The Healing Arts Radiation Protection Amendment Act, 1984, will provide legislative authority for the continued regulation of CAT scanners. The bill will preserve our current policy to ensure the equitable distribution of this high technology throughout the province and to avoid unnecessary and expensive duplication of resources.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In relation to the statement made by the minister, I understand him to say he is introducing a bill to control the installation and operation of CAT scanners. Yet there is nothing in the statement to deal with the crucial question of how it is set up; that is, the operation of CAT scanners, not installation.

YOUNG OFFENDERS IMPLEMENTATION BILL

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on April 2 the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) informed this House of the proclamation of the federal Young Offenders Act effective that day. As my honourable colleague also noted, the Ministry of Community and Social Services is proceeding with the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in this province.

2:20 p.m.

The act is in many ways compatible with the objectives that make up the ministry's mandate in regard to children and youth and with many of the programs for young people in conflict with the law that my ministry has pioneered in recent years. In terms of the mandatory requirements of the act concerning such areas as community service, probation, open custody or secure custody, for a number of years my ministry has already had a full range of programs in place.

There are, however, certain provisions that are required to clarify the ministry's legislative authority. With that purpose in mind, I am introducing an act in the House today entitled An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act. Officials of my ministry have been working on details of this bill over the last year in anticipation of the proclamation of the Young Offenders Act.

This bill has been designed to act as interim legislation until the proposed new Child and Family Services Act becomes law. At that time, the provisions of the bill will be modified, as required, and included in the Child and Family Services Act.

Let me now outline its main provisions. First, the bill gives legislative authority to the Ministry of Community and Social Services to appoint provincial directors, probation officers, program supervisors and peace officers.

Second, it gives authority to the ministry to provide services and programs, or make agreements with other persons for the provision of services, defined in terms compatible with the Young Offenders Act and the Provincial Offences Act. These include such services as temporary detention programs, open and secure custody programs, probation services and community service programs.

Third, the bill clarifies the ministry's powers to provide the temporary care and control of young people as ordered under the Young Offenders Act and the Provincial Offences Act. For example, it continues the ministry's powers under the Provincial Courts Act to apprehend young people who are absent without leave from places of temporary detention and to return them to these places.

Fourth, the bill clarifies the means for dealing with children under the age of 12 years, who will no longer be covered by federal statute. Specifically, the bill authorizes police to apprehend children under 12 years of age who are engaged in behaviour that would constitute an offence for a child over the age of 12 years.

The police will be required to return the child to his or her parents wherever possible. If the parent is not available within a reasonable time, the bill makes provisions for holding the child in a place of safety until that child can be returned to his or her parents. Children under the age of 12 years who require it will be able to receive further help and, if necessary, treatment through services provided under the Child Welfare Act.

Finally, the bill introduces certain transitional provisions to ensure the continuation of services to young people who are already in the system. For example, it provides for continued services to young people committed to the care of a children's aid society under the previous federal statute, the Juvenile Delinquents Act. It also repeals the Training Schools Act and certain sections of the Provincial Courts Act pertaining to observation and detention homes while, at the same time, providing for continuous service to children admitted to these programs prior to April 2, 1984.

In closing, the legislation I am introducing later today is essentially of a housekeeping nature. Its purpose is to confirm and clarify the role and authority of my ministry in the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in this province.

ADHERENCE TO INFLATION RESTRAINT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 27, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) raised several questions concerning the remuneration of Dr. Alan Wolfson during his tenure as chairman of the Ontario Manpower Commission. I can now report that a thorough and comprehensive investigation into those allegations has been completed.

I am tabling today two documents: first, the report of the internal and management audit branch of the ministry dated April 4, 1984, and, second, Dr. Wolfson's memorandum dated April 5. These documents address all the matters raised by the member. They constitute, in my view, a complete and satisfactory answer to the questions that were raised. I have studied them carefully and I am satisfied the honourable member's suggestions of impropriety are entirely unfounded.

The questions raised by the member contain essentially two assertions of impropriety. The first is that during the first year of his appointment Dr. Wolfson was overpaid, and when the ministry discovered the overpayment, it altered in an improper and unwarranted way the order in council authorizing Dr. Wolfson's remuneration.

Although the amount of the alleged overpayment was not referred to in the House, it would appear from press reports that the member for Rainy River suggested that overpayments for the period in question were in excess of $3,000. That assertion is utterly false.

The facts are these: Dr. Wolfson was retained in the fall of 1981 as acting chairman of the Ontario Manpower Commission at a per diem of $300. It was understood from the outset that, because of other commitments, including the valuable work he was performing as the vice- chairman of the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety, he would be available to perform services for the Ontario Manpower Commission only for up to four days a week on average. It was agreed, therefore, that while Dr. Wolfson's work week may vary in duration, his total remuneration for services as acting chairman over the one-year period of his appointment would not exceed $62,400 plus expenses -- in other words, an average of four days per week at $300 per diem.

This was precisely what was paid to him, and there was no overpayment as alleged. The honourable member's assertion that an overpayment occurred is apparently based on his construction of the wording of the original order in council, which provided, in effect, that the work performed in a calendar week would be limited to four days. This would have detracted from the type of flexibility required in this type of arrangement. In fact, if the wording in the original order in council had been strictly interpreted and applied, the government's access to Dr. Wolfson's services would have been unduly restricted. When this was realized, the order in council was rectified. The rectification took place on April 1, 1982, by order in council 794/82, not in September 1982, as assumed by the honourable member.

The legal effect of the rectification was to validate payments made to Dr. Wolfson throughout the one-year period of his appointment, quite properly bringing them into conformity with the terms under which he was engaged. Contrary to the honourable member's suggestion, there was nothing clandestine about the rectification. It was completely open. Orders in council of this type are posted as a matter of routine. The purpose of the amending order in council was, as I have indicated, to avoid any possible misunderstanding or lack of clarity about the terms of Dr. Wolfson' s engagement.

Finally, and this surely is the critical point, Dr. Wolfson was paid no more and no less than he was entitled to under the terms of his engagement as acting chairman of the Ontario Manpower Commission.

Before I leave the amending order in council, I wish to address the member's assertion that it was approved in the fall of 1982 for the purpose of circumventing the letter and the spirit of the Inflation Restraint Act. This accusation is totally without foundation. It was passed in April, fully six months before the announcement of the government's restraint program, not in the fall as apparently believed by the honourable member. In fact, Dr. Wolfson did receive an increase in his per diem remuneration in the fall of 1982, but that increase was limited to five per cent, precisely the same limitation applied to all bargaining unit employees under the Inflation Restraint Act.

It may well be that the honourable member was unaware of the existence of the amending order in council passed in April. While that document was in the public domain, I do not believe it was supplied to him by my ministry. If he did not know of the applicable order in council, that might explain his apparent misunderstanding. To the extent that this or any related misunderstanding arose by virtue of incomplete or unclear material provided by officials of the ministry, I would be happy to have my officials meet with his staff to clarify any remaining questions.

2:30 p.m.

The second principal assertion by the honourable member is that Dr. Wolfson inappropriately billed the ministry for being in two places on the same day, working simultaneously for the Ontario Manpower Commission and the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety.

If the honourable member will study the documents I have tabled, as I am sure he will, he will see his suggestion that Dr. Wolfson was billing the ministry for being in two places at the same time is inaccurate. The critical point is that there was neither billing nor payment with respect to the commission or the advisory council for services that were not performed.

It is true that on a limited number of occasions Dr. Wolfson performed services for both bodies at different times on the same day and was paid for those services. What the auditor's report deals with in the main is whether in all cases the precise amounts of the payments made were in order. This question involves a particular provision of the Manual of Administration, section 25-4.

When this matter was first raised several weeks ago, Dr. Wolfson was advised he could not receive more than one full per diem for services performed within a 24-hour period. Accordingly, Dr. Wolfson was informed he had been overpaid by $130, and he promptly repaid this amount. The full audit, which I am tabling today, indicates that Dr. Wolfson was in fact overpaid by $195 during the entire period of his dual appointment, and he has therefore now repaid the balance, namely, $65.

However, the auditor's report raises questions about the all-inclusive nature of the provisions of section 25-4 of the Manual of Administration. It may well be that the intent of this section is to preclude more than one full per diem payment from a single agency for any day rather than to limit payments from two or more bodies for separate services actually rendered to each of them on the same day.

The point is an important one for those whose range of expertise results in dual appointments. Accordingly, my ministry has asked the Management Board for an official interpretation. If the response is that such payment is permitted, the result will be that the government now owes Dr. Wolfson $325, together with reimbursement of the $195 already repaid by him, a total of $520.

The situation would therefore seem to be as follows: After days of investigation by ministry staff, the cost of which has been estimated very conservatively at $5,000, we may find that Dr. Wolfson may have been underpaid by $325.

Of one thing I can be perfectly sure. If, at the end of all this, it is found that the government owes Dr. Wolfson money, that conclusion will be small comfort for the personal anguish the allegations made in this instance have caused to him and his family.

We are dealing here with the professional reputation and integrity of a senior and valued public servant. He is a young man with a distinguished career in the academic world and, more recently, in the public service. In my view, if the member, as one of the watchdogs of the public interest, were genuinely troubled by these matters, he should have discussed them with me before publicly suggesting improper conduct.

The conduct of public servants is certainly not immune from searching investigation and, where appropriate, censure. But I suggest we are always diminished when, for whatever purpose, we play fast and loose with the reputations of our public servants.

I would hope, therefore, that my colleague would take a different view of the circumstances in the light of the information I have provided. For my part, I believe the quality of our public service is sustained by mutual respect between legislators and public servants as we perform our respective duties. In this spirit I think the member for Rainy River would want to address himself to the unfortunate impact these inaccurate allegations have had on Dr. Wolfson's reputation.

Let me conclude by saying I have also taken the trouble to investigate the way in which this matter first came to the ministry's attention. On the basis of the information provided to me, I am disturbed by the investigative procedures that appear to have been followed by representatives of the Liberal Party.

My officials inform me that the matter was first raised some weeks ago by a person employed in the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson). That person stated that the member for Rainy River, in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, was seeking information at the behest of another member of the committee.

It was indicated that the information would be supplied to the member of the committee who had raised the matter. Indeed, it was further indicated that, if there appeared to be a problem, the chairman of the committee would personally discuss the matter with the Minister of Labour. We now find that, rather than treating this as a committee matter, the honourable member has used it for the purpose of questioning the integrity of Dr. Wolfson, both in the House and with the media.

As I hope I have made clear today, we have no objection whatsoever to making full disclosure of all relevant facts. I recognize that any member of this House has a right to obtain information relevant to the conduct of public business. However, I have two concerns. First, it seems to me clear that employees of political parties ought not to purport to represent committees of the Legislature; and, second, information given for the use of a committee should be dealt with by the committee and not by individual members for partisan purposes.

I am sure that in retrospect the honourable member would have preferred that the relevant inquiries were made in a more open and appropriate manner.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, because this was a statement I presume I cannot ask any questions; so I would like to rise on a point of privilege.

There are certain allegations the minister has made in the statement. They are fairly wide- ranging, and I would hope the minister would refer to the questions I asked. I was trying to put them in the context that the government was prepared to step on other people but not on senior government people.

I might add that the information that was used -- we might quarrel or discuss how it was obtained -- was information received from the Ministry of Labour, which also did not disclose complete and accurate information. The questions were based on the information we received from the Ministry of Labour.

In view of the serious allegations the minister has raised, I would hope I would be given an opportunity next week to reply in kind.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SHELL CANADA LTD.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade with respect to the pitiful lack of knowledge resting in his ministry with respect to the Shell Canada closedown and the subsequent loss of probably 1,000 jobs in Ontario.

In his defence of doing nothing about that closedown, the minister responded that some 10,200 head office jobs came to Ontario last year. The minister was ill-informed. He took his information from a Montreal Gazette article of August which referred to the number of head office jobs that had left Quebec between 1976 and 1982, but not necessarily coming to Ontario at all but going to many places in the world.

The minister will be aware, I am sure, from computer lists everywhere, that in 1982 we closed down 108 facilities in this province and we lost 10,931 jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: In 1983 we lost 76 facilities in this province and 6,281 jobs. In January 1984 alone we closed down another six facilities.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: If he is not apprised of that, it is important that I point it out to him.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he is aware. Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question to the minister is a simple one. Why is he so pitifully ill-informed about what is going on in this province?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first, did I make an error with the statistic? Yes, I did and I did it personally; it was not my staff.

Yesterday I was asked how many jobs had come into Ontario in comparison with how many had left. I had certain information on a series of sheets in front of me in question period. I said to the press at that point that I recalled a figure of approximately 10,200 jobs moved to Ontario in one category. I also said, "However, I am not sure at this point whether that is accurate, so I will verify it."

I made the mistake of calling back and not reading the sheets. I simply asked one of my staff to tell me about the accuracy of the figure of 10,200. It was confirmed to me on the phone on the assumption that I knew the qualifications on it. I was wrong. Once in a while that happens.

The fact remains that the principle I enunciated is accurate. Over the last many years, this province has been the beneficiary of far more moves to the province from other parts of Canada than we ever have had in terms of losses, and it will continue that way.

Mr. Peterson: It seems funny that the Premier (Mr. Davis) is the last to know about it and that when the minister finds out about it and all the various attendant facts, he is wrong. No wonder public policy in this province is so fouled up.

My question with respect to Shell Canada leaving this province is this: What offer did the minister make, what negotiations has he had and what has he done to try to protect the interests of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What did you want us to do, bribe them?

Mr. Peterson: You bribe everyone else.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If that is your policy, you are a great Canadian.

Mr. Epp: It is obvious you are embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not at all embarrassed. I am proud to stand up and say Ontario has always been global enough in its Canadian approach to realize that once in a while there is another province that has certain physical or other reasons to attract industry. If it were not so, I would not be proud of winning the ones we do.

The fact remains that the resource is in the ground, and the taxation system is in place in that province to give the company certain advantages to be there. If we had that oil in this province, the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to demand that the company come here.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of head offices leaving; it is also a question of people losing their jobs without real notification. It is not only a question of what the government of Ontario does not know; it is also a question of what the workers of this province do not know because they are not told by companies when companies make these unilateral decisions which deprive them of their work.

My question to the Minister of Industry and Trade is not why he did not negotiate, but why we do not have legislation in the province which guarantees workers information with respect to company plans and which guarantees to the people of this province greater information so we can at least do some planning and provide for the people who are going to be affected by these kinds of decisions.

Why does the government not have some legislation so it can talk to the companies with some teeth, instead of just gumming them to death when they meet?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of question the leader of the third party has asked many times. He would have so much legislation in this province that there would not be any industry moving here at all. That is the big difference between our two parties.

The one thing Ontario can do, and does do well, is create an environment that makes both workers and industry want to be here. We have the tax environment, we have the labour law environment, we have the resources and, in spite of all the negatives the Leader of the Opposition just spoke about, close to 200,000 more people are at work in Ontario today than there were a year ago.

Mr. Peterson: I find this response very disturbing, not only for the lack of information, because the minister is the chief public policy-maker in his own area, but also because if he is so little informed, it is no wonder we have problems.

The reality is that he does not know; he cannot find that information. He went to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, where it was pulled out of a newspaper clipping, which was mixed up in the translation back to him; so he does not know the effects.

The Premier is bragging to me that Mobil moved to Ontario, in direct contradiction of his particular point of view that we should be happy when companies leave our province because it is good for the country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not what I said.

Mr. Peterson: That is what the Premier is saying. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question is a very specific one, which the minister did not answer. What offers did he put to Shell, what were the negotiations and what did the minister do to try to protect those jobs in Ontario? Second, what will be the ripple effect? How many jobs are we going to lose altogether as a result of this move out of our province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure the press release Shell put out yesterday will give the details, or at least the conference the company had would have given the details. My understanding is that there were between 900 and 1,000 jobs either terminated or moved out of Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: What about the ripple effect? How many thousands more?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I keep pointing out to my friend that there are 200,000 more people at work in this province; he just adds one way. The members opposite lost an election being negative; they will get the name again. They just have to realize that the people of this province have more confidence in us than they have in the members opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Are you planning an election or something?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I have written the minister on this issue, and he has chosen not to respond; but I think it is a significant enough issue to discuss in this Legislature.

As the minister knows, there is a large number of physicians in this province who have been trained in other countries, who have in fact passed the Medical Council of Canada evaluation exam and who would be entitled to qualify to intern if they could find a spot to intern.

As he also knows, there is a need in many communities in northern Ontario for physicians. I have spoken personally to many of these physicians -- Polish, Russian, East Indian and others -- who would very happily go to a designated area in northern Ontario and serve for an agreed-upon length of time in those communities, where we have a huge need.

Why would the minister not introduce special internship programs so that those people who agree to go and practise in a designated area in northern Ontario could get a guaranteed internship spot and solve the serious problem we have in northern Ontario? Why is that not a constructive use of public policy?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I trust the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the complexity of the medical manpower issues that face not only us but also every other jurisdiction in the western world at this time.

I cannot recall for sure whether I have responded to his letter; I will check to see. I do have the matter he raised under review, though, and I am looking to see whether there are any realistic options I might pursue.

But I caution the honourable member to bear a number of things in mind. First of all, there are some critical problems in other jurisdictions with respect to medical manpower issues. Italy, for example, has 50,000 unemployed doctors at the moment; in France, in the environs of Paris alone there are 1,500 unemployed doctors.

Ms. Copps: Are you writing immigration policy now?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All I am suggesting is that if he looks at the experience --

Ms. Copps: Do you accept immigrants into Canada?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member could stop that yattering beside him, he might hear my answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: I am not yattering.

Hon. Mr. Norton: She is yattering; as usual, she is yattering.

Ms. Copps: The minister is not setting immigration policy; we are talking about doctors.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This question addresses an important issue of public policy, and I request that I have an opportunity to respond to it appropriately.

Ms. Copps: Well, please do.

Interjection.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that is true, but in my position as Speaker I am here to protect the rights of the back-benchers as well as those of the front-benchers.

I am going to call on the Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: I have to ask a supplementary because you interfered with his answer. I think there is an important matter of public policy here. I will put it again simply. It is not a complex question, but a relatively simple one. The number of unemployed doctors in France has nothing to do with it. I am talking about people living here in Ontario, in Canada, now.

To the best of our knowledge, there are at least 418 of those people in the country; we do not know exactly how many are in Ontario. Many of them have passed the evaluation examinations and thereby would be entitled to intern if there were spots to intern in the province. I have spoken individually to many of them who would go anywhere in this province to practise, under almost any terms the government would want to set.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I know qualified medical practitioners on welfare and mothers' allowance who are volunteering their time to our system, and they only want spots to enter. Surely the minister could meet two needs at once and satisfy the problem of the medical deficiencies in northern Ontario. Why will he not implement that relatively simple policy? It only takes political will.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the member there is no lack of will, but there is a lack of understanding on his part in raising the question in that way. My reference to the other jurisdictions was simply to point out the critical importance of appropriate planning for the future in medical manpower.

We are doing things in northern Ontario. The member knows well we have a very successful underserviced area program which is working well. We have added in excess of 26 psychiatrists in northern Ontario in the last few months as a result of a methodical and planned approach.

There is a point I would ask the member to bear in mind as we try to find a way to address the dilemma of the 400-plus physicians he refers to. I am aware of the situation, but I am also aware that some of those physicians signed agreements with the federal government when they came to Canada that they would not practise medicine in this country.

That is not part of any agreement I am involved in, I can assure the member. However, the sudden influx of 400 physicians into our system, when we had planned responsibly for the provision of internship positions to match the number of graduates from our medical schools, potentially can seriously disrupt our system.

I am looking at alternatives. I can share the knowledge that I am looking at the northern Ontario situation in particular. I do not believe all those physicians could be absorbed in that situation, even if we wished to move in that direction or decided as a matter of public policy to do so.

I believe there is also a responsibility on the part of the federal government, which had an agreement with those physicians, to acknowledge that perhaps their appropriate placement in Canada has to be looked at on a nationwide basis, and not simply on an Ontario basis.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not know that there are dozens of communities in northern Ontario that spend tens of thousands of dollars every year making their annual pilgrimage to medical schools here, trying to convince young graduating doctors that northern Ontario is a good place to practise, to grow and to raise their children? Why do we always get the same cry from a succession of Health ministers in Ontario stating that there is no shortage of doctors in the province, only a maldistribution?

When there are communities in the north with a population of anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 or 3,000 people, as in the case of Ignace, where they are having great problems attracting a doctor, why does the minister not make it necessary for the medical profession, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, to loosen the constraints and make it possible for offshore, well-qualified medical practitioners to go there to fill that void, and cut out this nonsense of playing around with doctors who want the good life in the south while the north gets neglected?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation the honourable member describes. I know he is also aware that we have been mounting a very significant effort to try to address those problems. I suggest to the member that if he were sitting in consideration of our estimates and the physician who is heading up our program were there, he would be singing his praises.

Mr. Stokes: I work with him every day.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course the member does; he knows he is doing a very fine job.

Mr. Stokes: We are still short of doctors.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Why does the member not join with us in an effort to try to encourage more young people from northern Ontario to study medicine? That might be one way to approach it.

Mr. Stokes: I am doing it every day.

Mr. Wildman: Do not blame the students of the north.

Hon. Mr. Norton: More young francophones from northern Ontario, for example. That is also important.

The medical manpower issue is not going to be resolved overnight. It is not going to be resolved for the long term by reaching some three-year agreement with a physician who wants a licence to practise in Ontario. We must have people with long-term commitments to those communities in northern Ontario before we can really resolve the problem the member was trying to address.

Mr. Peterson: This has become a little bit more complicated than it has to be. We are not asking the minister to solve the world's problem with respect to an oversupply of medical practitioners.

Let me approach this question from the needs basis. We have an immediate need now in Ontario, and it is not complicated. In the Kenora-Rainy River district we need seven general practitioners and three psychiatrists. The Algoma district needs three family practitioners, three internists and at least one ophthalmologist. Thunder Bay reports a need for specialists, as does Timmins, where female practitioners and francophone doctors are in short supply.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: These people I have talked to individually, Polish and Russian doctors and others, would be very grateful to go anywhere in our province on almost any terms if they were allowed to qualify. They would go for two, three, four or five years if they could get a spot to intern.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Since the minister is obviously incapable of solving the long-term problem, at least he could address the short-term problem. This is an immediate way to do it. They are on welfare or family benefits now. It will not cost the government very much. Surely that is not too much to ask and would immediately solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Why can the minister not look at it from the needs basis at the very least?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Once again, the member realizes we are trying to address the immediate need. However, it is much more important that we also address the need he talks about in the northern communities on a long-term basis. The member's solution would certainly not achieve that.

I will look for any responsible, well-thought-out solution and I will indicate to the House at the appropriate time what I think that will be.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I would like to recognize a visitor in the Speaker's gallery. He is the Honourable Andy Anstett, Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader for the province of Manitoba.

M. Roy: M. le Président, je voudrais prendre l'occasion de souhaiter la bienvenue à un monsieur qui a démontré énormément de leadership dans la province de Manitoba et de le féliciter de continuer le bon travail.

HYDRO PLANNING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It concerns the prospectus the minister told us Ontario Hydro was filing with the Securities Exchange Commission with respect to bonds.

It is interesting that Hydro pointed out something in this prospectus I do not believe the minister has told the House about before. Neither do I think Hydro has made a definitive statement about it before. It is the confession that after a year-long study, which concluded that only one heavy water plant is needed to meet Ontario Hydro's present and future needs, it plans to mothball Bruce heavy water plant A by mid-1984, provided inspections confirm the reliability of Bruce heavy water plant B.

3 p.m.

Given the fact that Ontario Hydro has mothballed heavy water plant D at a cost of $419 million, mothballed heavy water plant C at a cost of $69 million, has finished heavy water plant B, costing $914 million, and heavy water plant A is costing $253 million, why has the minister not made a statement to this House about the colossal overbuilding of our heavy water capacity in the province to the tune of literally billions of dollars? Why is Ontario Hydro going to mothball a plant that is only 11 years old when the plant's life is 20 years, without the minister even having the courage to come into this House and say what a colossal mistake has been made?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the third party is on one of his witchhunts again.

All this information has always been public. He has read it in the prospectus and it has been available to him on many other occasions. The revelations he is bringing before the House today, and those he brought last Friday, are on the public record.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps the minister can explain why Ontario Hydro could make a mistake in forecasting the demand for heavy water that is costing the province more than $1 billion in construction and that has just been written off. At the same time, it cannot manage to find the money essential to protect this province from the growth of acid rain, the pollution of our lakes and the serious threat to our forests posed by acid rain.

Somehow Hydro manages to find hundreds of millions of dollars to make a colossal mistake with respect to heavy water but cannot get it right when it comes to solving the acid rain and acid gas emission problems. Can the minister explain how Hydro manages to do this, yet cannot find any money at all to solve the acid gas problem?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member knows very well the reason the heavy water plants have been mothballed is a reduction in demand. That has come about as the result of a slowdown in the marketability of Candu reactors and the insistence of the federal government that heavy water plants in Nova Scotia be kept operative in spite of a downturn in the world market situation.

I suggest to the member Hydro's record in its reduction of acid rain is eminent. It has entered into an order under the Ministry of the Environment and it will meet this order. Hydro's role in the reduction of acid rain stands out as an example for many other jurisdictions in North America.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, one of the burdens the minister is carrying on his back as the Minister of Energy is the broken promises of his predecessors.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat what I said to the minister. One of the burdens the minister carries on his back is the broken promises of his predecessors, as well as of the chairman of Hydro, with respect to their commitment to install scrubbers. They backed off from that, causing great consequences for us and the United States in lost credibility, as the minister knows.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The minister promised and he broke the promise.

Mr. Nixon: Keep the promise. Remember that, boys.

Mr. Peterson: The government broke the promise.

How could the minister so easily find $1 billion for Hydro to repair the tubes in Pickering 1 and 2 but could not find the $400 million it would cost to install scrubbers?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is asking how I found the money as minister, he knows very well I did not find the money. The cost of the undertaking to repair the tubes at Pickering, as he knows very well, will be borne by the electrical consumers of the province. It is a very modest cost of approximately a one per cent increase on the rate for next year.

I reiterate that Hydro's record in addressing the acid rain problem --

Mr. Peterson: I did not ask about the record. I asked about the scrubbers.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: -- has been an example all of us in this jurisdiction and in North America are proud of.

Mr. Rae: How can the minister justify the continued stonewalling on the basic question of the economic viability of becoming so totally dependent on nuclear power?

Why should we believe Ontario Hydro's story about what is going to happen with acid gas reductions, the changes in the 1990s and so forth, when the decisions that were made in the 1970s about heavy water were so catastrophically wrong, absolutely and completely off base, and cost us hundreds of millions of dollars and surplus capacity we do not need? In terms of public expenditure, those decisions were an enormous waste of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Why is the minister so afraid of having a basic public inquiry into the way in which this operation is running? What is it that is holding him back? It cannot be the figures, because as the figures grow it becomes clearer that there is a genuine problem, a financial problem, and it is something the province simply has to address in a public and full way.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The leader of the third party took an opportunity last Friday to draw to our attention what he saw as being the economics of nuclear power. I think it affirmed for this House, and for anyone else who was watching, that the decision to go off coal and into a nuclear component was a wise and prudent decision.

FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Last night, at a poverty forum conducted in my riding, a welfare mother of six gave a presentation that was quite disturbing. She indicated that from her knowledge of figures, she would be better off giving her children to foster parents, who would receive more money to look after them than she had, and she was almost at the point of doing that. This morning, I tried to pull together my own figures to see whether what she had said was true, because it seemed quite astonishing to me.

I wonder whether the minister could verify for this House that in Toronto, a mother with three children who is on welfare would receive the maximum shelter allowance of $699 a month, while the same mother on family benefits would receive $800 a month to look after her children, whereas foster parents with three teen-aged children would receive $1,239 in assistance to keep those children in clothing and proper maintenance.

Would it not be more appropriate if we gave money to the natural family to help them stay together rather than to the foster parents -- who admittedly are doing a good job in the province and need an incentive -- but would we not be better off investing in those families and giving them more money to look after their own children?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of very substantial differences. I would like to point out to the honourable member that the case of the particular woman who was at his meeting last night is very complex, and many of the things involved there were not told to the member or to the meeting.

In the first place, under ordinary circumstances, a sole-support mother with three children should not be with general welfare assistance.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: But some are.

Hon. Mr. Drea: For a very brief period, and the member knows that. This particular woman has remained on general welfare assistance for a number of reasons which I am not going into.

A mother with three children would receive $680 in family benefits to cover basic needs and a shelter subsidy of $140. In this case, involving a mother with six children, as was reported in the paper today, the maximum shelter subsidy would raise the total to $1,042 a month. In addition, when one takes into account the federal family allowance of $180 and the child tax credit of $172, that would produce $1,394 a month.

3:10 p.m.

In fairness, the rates mentioned in the paper today did not take into account that the woman and her family are in a very excellent Ontario Housing Corp. development in my own riding, and they are paying a relatively modest monthly rental based upon their allowance.

In answer to the question about paying them the equivalent of a person who is a foster parent, there are some very substantial differences.

First, there are standards set by the children's aid society which the foster parents must meet. It has been traditional that the children's aid society provide the funds in the allowance to meet those standards.

Second, the calculation for foster children is the same for each child. If one has two children, it is double the rate for one child. As everyone knows, in the case of social assistance in this province, whether it is general welfare assistance or family benefits, there is an amount for the first dependant and then it is a diminishing amount for the second based upon the fact we are paying a family. Quite often a person who has one or two foster children has them on a temporary basis and quite often the children require very special attention because of the circumstances that brought them to the children's aid in the first place.

Quite frankly, what was presented in that forum last night, and I think the member will agree, was the worst possible case to try to show the difference between the two. If there were fewer children in the family or if the family was in a competitive rent situation rather than an Ontario Housing subsidized and geared-to-income unit, the rate differential would not be that substantial. In fact, it would be relatively close.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I really resent the way the minister is moving the question to that individual case, which is his normal approach to dealing with cases. I was dealing with a matter which the minister did not respond to: the question about a mother with three children -- let us stick to family benefits --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is a rather important matter. The minister himself just admitted that with six children the maximum received would be $1,042. Then he went into the other additional kind of rebates. That is what he said.

The minister will admit that for foster care for three children, the family would receive $1,239, plus all the other kinds of assistance it receives, but he did not bother listing on the other side of the matter when he tried to distort it in terms of tax credits and other factors in the equation. I was talking about an $800-a-month family benefits person at maximum shelter, not in OHC. The minister cannot possibly tell me those are comparable; they are not.

Does the minister agree the discussion paper on foster care put out by the ministry says the reason the rates are put in there is to provide costs for the maintenance of those children and $413 each is for the maintenance of each one of those children? It should be to ensure that fostering remains economically viable for those with modest family incomes. If we are making it possible for people with modest family incomes to foster, why are we not making it possible for people who are poor to keep their kids at home? That is what is happening, and the minister knows it. They are leaving home and going to foster care.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would challenge the member to produce the places where people are giving up their children.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: All right.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, the member has them. I would just be delighted to see them.

The fundamental question about a child who has been placed in a foster home, either as a society ward or as a crown ward, is the fact the foster home has to meet certain standards set by the CAS.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do we not have standards for ordinary homes in terms of what they should have?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Is the member disturbed just because it is Thursday, or in his ordinary sense?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is a very fundamental difference. There is always a reason a child has been placed in foster care. That child quite often has extraordinary needs. When we are talking about the maintenance of a child in a foster situation, it is different from that of a child in his or her own home.

Mr. Cooke: That is not true, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is a great deal of difference.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We are not talking about specialized foster care.

An hon. member: You do not know what you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Drea: As a man who no longer even uses his party label, the member should not look at me and say I do not know what I am talking about. He does not use his party label.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is a fundamental difference between the two types of care. I believe what this province has done in the past few years to raise the rates in the family benefits area, and particularly the work that is being done under a number of special programs, one of them here in Metropolitan Toronto, to help get as many sole-support mothers off social assistance altogether, is work that is being copied and commended right across the country.

Once again, this is another attempt by what is left of the party of the left to try to introduce some type of computation situation in the hope that there will be some further adaptations during this year on Family Benefits Act allowances.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: One of the other presenters last night was the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto. Would the minister be as surprised as I am to know that among their clientele, the people they look after and the children taken into care, 66 per cent earn less than $8,000 a year? Sixty-six per cent of the people with whom our children's aid societies intervene, in this case in Scarborough, earn less than $8,000 a year and only 0.34 per cent earn more than $20,000 a year.

The poor, because of inadequate amounts of money, are not able to have the same kinds of options as others and, as a result, when they get into difficulty their children are taken and put into foster homes.

I plead with the minister to realize that in Family Unity Month, my fellow Conservatives over there --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We should be helping to preserve these poor families intact and not encouraging, through the government's financing system, the destruction of the family structure.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If I heard that member say "my fellow Conservatives," it is a bad day. Did I hear that?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We all want family unity.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, how the radicals have fallen. I think the writ had better come if even they want to get on our coattails.

When one looks at the income statistics of the parents or the relatives of children who for one reason or another have been placed under the wardship of a children's aid society, I would think the income figures are not in the "earned" category; in many cases, the figure represents one form or another of social assistance allowance.

I do not really think it is fair to suggest that the only people the children's aid societies are interested in and have a tendency to apprehend, take into custody or put into foster homes, are those who are from homes with relatively low incomes. The test and the question are, should the child have been removed from the home? I think, on the basis of the work of the 51 societies in this province and of the ministry, the overwhelming response in those situations is yes.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the price of gasoline in this province and on the pricing policy of this government's oil company, Suncor. As the Premier (Mr. Davis) is away, I will direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who I am sure will field it with his usual --

Mr. Nixon: Aplomb.

Mr. Bradley: -- aplomb. I like that word.

3:20 p.m.

In view of the fact that in one hour on Monday night in many parts of this province gasoline prices at the pump went up by more than 80 cents a gallon, to use the imperial terminology, and in view of the fact that in some adjacent municipalities the prices may be as different as 80 cents a gallon -- I am talking about Suncor now -- will the minister use his $650-million window on the oil industry and his 25 per cent of the shares of Suncor to attempt to persuade his company to dissociate itself from this gouging, or at least mishmash pricing policy in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity to respond to the question the member did not want to direct to me. Now that he has, I will endeavour to give him a response that I know will satisfy all the yearnings in his heart for an appropriate response.

Mr. Kerrio: I know why he did not want to ask you.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not talking about the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). Nothing satisfies him. We all understand that.

Mr. Conway: Surely the minister's chauffeur has complained about the prices?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Some guys go on and get their PhD and others do not.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Do you know whom I am talking about or not? You did understand that.

There have been, as the member points out, some drastic shifts in the price of gasoline in recent days because of price wars, but I think what the member has failed to recognize is there is now sitting a Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which is reviewing these very issues.

As he will know, because he has been a student of this subject for some time -- has he not? I thought so -- in February this year the combines division under the directorship of Mr. Lawson Hunter submitted its point of view with respect to pricing practices in the petroleum industry for the current year and current years, not just for years back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Those issues that the honourable member has raised are now issues that, to the best of my understanding, will be considered by that commission which has been set up to deal with those very matters.

Mr. Bradley: That is all very interesting and it is an interesting commission. I will be interested in the results.

What I am asking about is this government's oil company, Suncor, the one it bought $650 million of influence in, the window on the oil industry. What is the government, with its 25 per cent share, doing to persuade its oil company to dissociate itself from the obvious price-fixing going on in this province? We see several stations around with exactly the same price when they all shoot up the price.

What is the government doing to persuade its oil company to set an example for the rest of the companies in this province in terms of the retail price of gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would have thought the member was standing up to applaud Suncor for the proposed $10-billion investment it plans over the next decade in capital investments in this country. Is the member proud of that? Does he agree that this government made a sound decision when it entered into those negotiations and that agreement? If he does not think it is worth while that $10 billion is invested over 10 years, he should stand up and say it is a bad thing to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member has evidence that honestly leads him to the conclusion that Suncor is involved in some practices that are inappropriate, he should give that evidence to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.

If he does not have it, then he should not ask the question. In any event, I want to make it very clear that, in my view, oil companies, regardless of who owns them, should be dealt with in the same way by that commission.

TEMPORARY ABSENCE PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services about some rather startling revelations made by the chairman of the Ontario Board of Parole in a letter to the procedural affairs committee this morning.

Is it true it is now ministry policy to expand the use of temporary absence and not parole? Does this temporary absence program mean that prisoners can be released outright within a day, that there are no limits to the temporary absence program the minister is contemplating, and that 15-day leaves can be rolled over? If so, the net effect would be a temporary absence program with a mandate that exceeds that of the parole board itself. Is that the current status of temporary absence programs within the ministry, when we know of no public announcement to that effect?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The letter at issue was delivered to my office by hand earlier today. Neither I nor my staff have had an opportunity to review its contents. I will do so when I return to my office later. I will respond to the letter and provide this House with details.

Mr. Breaugh: This is a rather amazing proposal that is outlined by the chairman of the parole board. Does the minister not think the public of Ontario and the inmates in the correctional institutions themselves deserve a better deal than this revolving-door syndrome? I admit it solves the problem of overcrowding, but it does not provide for a fair hearing by an independent tribunal such as a parole board.

Does the minister not think, both from the point of view of inmates, who could have their freedom removed by an unnamed civil servant using unspecified criteria, and from the public's point of view, some better system has to be proposed than that currently proposed here?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: As I stated earlier, I will have an opportunity to review the contents of that letter and I will get back to the House with details.

OSAP APPLICATIONS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the always cheerful, ever helpful Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities. Can the minister confirm reports from within her department that the distribution of application forms for the Ontario student assistance program to the universities and colleges of this province, which are customarily made available to those institutions in March, will this year be delayed until early May?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the honourable member suggested I am always willing to be helpful. I should tell him, as a result of a request from a member of the third party, there will be a VHS and a television set delivered to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) for his meeting somewhere in these buildings this weekend. I always try to be helpful.

As to the member's question, no, I do not know that that is factual.

Mr. Conway: Will the minister give an undertaking to this House to investigate immediately since these reports do emanate from within the government itself. If they are accurate and the OSAP application forms, which would normally be distributed in early March to be filled out and handed back to the universities or the colleges well in advance of the students leaving for their summer break, are going to be delayed until some time in early May or mid-May, does the minister understand that will create great hardship for the tens of thousands of applicants who are looking for the forms and whose colleges and universities are this instant looking for them and wondering why they do not have them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Although one always intends to have those application forms out as early as possible in the latter part of the school year for the students who are attending colleges and universities, it has not always been possible to have them out in March.

We have attempted to have them delivered to the institutions a significant period of time before the students leave the institutions. They may not be able to complete them entirely before they leave the institutions, but the forms are usually there long before the students are finished, so that they will have an opportunity to discuss matters related to the application forms with the financial aid administrators and to complete the forms appropriately.

If there is going to be a significant delay, I shall most certainly find out why. I did not think there would be. We had one small problem that I think we solved. If there is going to be a significant delay, I shall report to the House.

3:30 p.m.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Energy, who is responsible for Ontario Hydro, outline to the House what his policy is concerning the Darlington project letting contracts to companies located in Ontario? Ontario Hydro has been transferring work out of the province to plants located in other provinces.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the member knows those are policies instituted by Ontario Hydro. I would be glad to make an inquiry on his behalf and to respond to his question.

Mr. Sands: Would the minister look into the case of Combustion Engineering, which has received $5 million worth of contracts for Darlington, and $3.5 million of those contracts are being transferred from the Cornwall plant to Sherbrooke, Quebec? I would point out that the Cornwall plant is laying off another 39 employees next week. In the last 18 months it has reduced the work force by some 80 per cent. What is the minister going to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Ontario Hydro has always made an attempt in allocating contracts to give as much work as possible to the industries of this province. The record speaks for itself in that regard. I would be glad to take the details of the member's inquiry and to pursue it.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro has now set up a social responsibility committee to look at the kinds of issues that are being raised by the member for Cornwall, issues such as the moving of Ontario Hydro's office from Orillia, will the minister make a personal undertaking to attend that committee and make presentations on behalf of the people of Cornwall and Orillia to keep the jobs in their neighbourhoods?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the social responsibility committee is a committee of the board of Ontario Hydro. It offers under these circumstances to meet with various groups, as it will in the Orillia situation. It is asking for input from municipalities affected by the proposed change. It will meet and receive this input and make a report to the board of Ontario Hydro.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment with respect to the study entitled, Economic Incentive Policy, Instruments to Implement Pollution Control Objectives in Ontario, a report that was completed by Peat Marwick in association with W. A. Sims in July 1983.

It indicates that inadequate and not well-thought-out programs and policies of the Ministry of the Environment have led to a number of large industries getting away with high emission discharges in contravention of various orders.

Some of the companies identified are Inco, Algoma Steel, the pulp and paper industry, lead refiners in Toronto, and Junction triangle industries. Specific companies include Polysar in Sarnia, Esso, Ethyl Canada of Corunna --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: -- Dupont of Corunna and Suncor of Corunna. I would like to ask the minister if he is taking the necessary steps at this time to develop programs that will prevent the continuation of those high emissions, and also if he will bring his ministry's policies in line to develop the instruments which will ensure lower emissions.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the question is an interesting one. As I am sure the honourable member is aware, in a large number of cases the emissions he is talking about would probably be more appropriately referred to as "emissions" rather than "large emissions." In a substantial number of cases there is only a marginal difference between what the company's objective and standard are supposed to be, as established by my ministry, and what it has been able to achieve.

We have a whole series of things we go through, which I would like to share with the member. First, we have voluntary compliance, which he is aware of. We move from voluntary compliance to an order when that is necessary. We also move to a fine system when that is necessary. The fines are going to be reviewed. All we establish are the maximum fines in a particular instance. It is the courts that finally make the determination of what the level of fines should be. The matter is under review.

It is somewhat misleading to suggest that some of these companies are vastly short of meeting their objectives when it is only a marginal matter in a great number of cases. As well, there are instances, for example with Ethyl in the Corunna area, which the member specifically mentioned, where the technology is, quite frankly, not available today to reduce the lead discharges from that particular plant to a level that has been established by my ministry. We are working with the company to try to control the lead discharges from the plant, and I hope we are going to be successful over a period of time.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It does show up --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Elston: The report I had been discussing indicated, "Some authorities have expressed doubts that existing policy tools, including financial assistance, will be able to respond effectively to new problems." It does not feel this is a possibility. It says further on, "Individuals, firms and even government agencies generally seek to minimize costs," and, as a result, they weigh the cost implications of compliance when making a decision whether to meet those objectives or not.

How is the minister going to ensure that in every case the value of the environment is recognized in compliance with those orders, whether they be voluntary compliance or whatever, as the rule instead of the exception in this province?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: In specific response to the member's question, as I have indicated, we are reviewing the system of fines to determine whether or not the allowable maximums in the various categories are appropriate to the situation the member is describing.

I can say only that the vast number of corporations in this great province of ours do comply voluntarily. To use another example the member provided in his comments, the Polysar corporation in my own riding has spent $22 million within the last couple of years putting in a new biological oxidation treatment plant in that particular facility in order to meet the requirements of my ministry. That is a pretty substantial investment, I am sure the member would agree.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I was not finished yet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Terrific answer.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, who I see is making his way back to his seat, regarding the answer he gave concerning the isocyanate situation at Inglis in Stoney Creek.

Can the minister assure this House that the meeting to which he referred that has been arranged with the United Auto Workers will have in attendance Dr. House and the other authors of the report? Can he confirm that the authors indicated in this report that five per cent of workers regularly exposed to isocyanates toluene diisocyanate will develop asthma during their working lifetime? In fact, at Inglis it is already at 6.6 per cent.

If he can confirm those figures, how can he justify the fact that the criteria used by the ministry itself were apparently not followed in deciding what Inglis should be doing to enclose the isocyanates function?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can confirm that the physician in question will be in attendance at the meeting. I also would like to advise the honourable member, and I am sure he is aware of this, that the union has the opportunity to appeal the orders that have been issued, and we recommended that it take this avenue. It can appeal to the director.

With respect to confirming what the member read out a few moments ago, I assume he read it directly from the report; so obviously it must be correct.

ADHERENCE TO INFLATION RESTRAINT

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not have a full statement to make on the matter raised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) in answer to my question of last week.

However --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the honourable member will resume his seat, I think he may raise this topic more legitimately in question period or during the debate on the speech from the throne. It is not a matter of privilege, with all respect.

Mr. T. P. Reid: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if I may address myself --

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister has made some very serious accusations about me that will reflect on my ability to function in this House.

Mr. Nixon: Right. No doubt it will.

Mr. Speaker: I find that very difficult to believe, really.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely under the circumstances you would hear what the honourable member has to say. I thought the comments of the minister were very serious indeed. All the members would like to hear what the member has to say in this connection.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, and that was the point I was trying to make --

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: It is a matter of privilege; his privileges have been interfered with.

Mr. Speaker: -- that the member will have all kinds of opportunities to make us all aware of this. But it is not a matter of privilege, with all respect.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I ask you to reconsider this matter. Surely, if you recall the comments made by the minister during ministerial statements, they have very far-reaching effects. As the member for Rainy River (Mr. T.P. Reid) has said, it will interfere with his duty to function as a member and as chairman of the standing committee on public accounts. I expect the House will demand to hear what his response is in this important matter, and I ask you to reconsider your decision.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly to the same point of order. I hope you will consider that the minister was permitted to make a ministerial statement which took approximately 10 minutes, during which time he criticized, for the whole period, one of the members of the opposition. It is very unfair if members of the opposition are to be subjected to criticism by way of ministerial statement if we are not permitted the right to reply by way of a statement of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the honourable member making a statement at this time.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly the point. I do not think any of us has any objection to the member speaking. All I am saying is that it does not fall within the confines of a point of privilege --

Ms. Copps: It interferes with his duty as a member.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute, please -- and there will be ample opportunity for the member to --

Mr. McClellan: No. There is no opportunity at all.

Mr. Nixon: It has to be raised at the first opportunity, and this is it.

Mr. Speaker: One moment; let me finish what I was going to say. If it is the wish of the House and we have unanimous consent, I will agree with that.

Agreed to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will not spend time quarrelling with your interpretation. I hope it is not a precedent we are setting in this regard.

I feel it incumbent as a matter of privilege to rise in my place and respond at least to some of the issues raised by the Minister of Labour. I take them very seriously. These are not comments one would generally attribute to the usually soft-spoken minister. I personally take very seriously not only his comments but also where they come from.

I refer to the question I asked last March 27, 1984. I will not read the whole question, but I did say: "Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I am sure he is aware of the cases involving the Sensenbrenner Hospital workers and the Etobicoke Public Library employees who received wage settlements that were deemed to be in excess of the restraint legislation." In another part of the question I said, "Why can the minister show no flexibility whatsoever with the workers in Sensenbrenner and in Etobicoke, but the cabinet and the minister himself can so easily change the rules...?"

First, that was the context of the question. It was not a direct attack on the integrity of the gentleman in question whatsoever.

Second, the minister indicated that somehow, someone in our offices was using my name in a way the minister did not find acceptable. He suggested Mr. Sands was using my name as chairman of the standing committee on public accounts.

I have in my hand one letter from the minister's office, of three altogether, signed by Mr. Albert H. Ganesh, manager, accounting services. The letter is addressed to Mr. G. Sands, special assistant, office of the Leader of the Opposition, Room 211, Legislative Building, Queen's Park, Toronto, and not to me as chairman of the public accounts committee.

In terms of some of the specifics, I refer the minister to the orders in council under consideration. In 1979, the order in council stated: "Dr. Alan Wolfson, Toronto, be appointed for a period from" -- I cannot make out the date -- "at a rate of $300 per day for time spent upon the affairs of the Ontario Manpower Commission provided that the number of days so spent in a calendar week shall not exceed four days."

That was subsequently changed in an order in council of June 3, 1982, to the commission to "not exceeding an average of four days a week to a maximum of 208 days, with a maximum remuneration of $62,400."

The minister's statement would indicate there had not been a substantial change except as it related to the remuneration of the five per cent from $300 to $315.

The question was based on information provided by the minister's own ministry in which it indicated -- and we are using the ministry's figure -- that there was a double payment to Dr. Wolfson on at least two days while he was on the Ontario Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety and at the same time he was pursuing his duties on the Ontario Manpower Commission.

The minister has indicated to some extent about the one hour spent at that time, but that position did not come up until it was brought to the ministry's attention. We were also told there were no billing invoices for almost seven months from Dr. Wolfson for the time he was applying for remuneration under his duties on the Ontario Manpower Commission.

The information I put in the question was based on information we received from the Ministry of Labour.

The minister has put himself in this position. I believe some of the statements he has made are blatantly untrue. I reject the attack on my personal integrity. I find that completely unacceptable. The fact remains that the people in the Ministry of Labour do not know what is going on there. I suggest a little more work be done in clarifying this issue.

In closing, I might add that I refuse to be intimidated by this kind of personal attack on me in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Before you proceed, may I have your attention, please? I ask you to withdraw the phrase that what the minister said was untrue.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we had this argument in the House a couple of days ago when another member used the word "untrue" and it was not required to be withdrawn after considerable wrangling. I do not know how you are going to deal with the House on an evenhanded basis if you require it from one and not another.

Mr. Speaker: I think the difference there was rather substantial.

Mr. Nixon: I do not think so. The same word was used.

Mr. Speaker: I would have to look it up. However, I think the allegation has been made and it is an improper use, in my own view.

Mr. Mancini: What about the minister apologizing first?

Mr. Kerrio: I think the minister made the allegation.

Ms. Copps: Yes, he did.

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of that, with all respect.

Ms. Copps: You sat here and listened to the ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Let us check the record on it.

Mr. Speaker: I think I will.

Mr. Roy: Can I get up on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: On a separate one, yes.

Mr. Roy: No, on this one.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: Are you prepared to listen to the views of the members on this?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: You just make decisions on your own?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: Who is it you are supposed to represent here?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I may refer you to page 3 of the minister's statement --

Ms. Copps: "Utterly false" is okay, eh?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Let me take a look at the record of what both parties said. I will deal with this in the fairest --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Well, why do you not call the minister to order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will please resume his seat.

Ms. Copps: The Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) should not be suggesting that a member take a Valium. It is a very bad example to the people of Ontario if he is suggesting that a member take a Valium.

Mr. Speaker: Would you two like to carry on your argument outside?

I have said I will take a look at the record because obviously I have no documents with me to refer to. I will report back to the House.

Mr. Martel: It happens when it is this side of the House. Those were the minister's words.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

It was a matter that involved the two parties, nobody else. I will take a look at it and report back.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new happening. This happens too frequently. In the first week of the House, I rose on two points of order. The ministers were making allegations about the motives of other people on this side of the House. I drew that to your attention, but they were never forced to withdraw. Either it has to be evenhanded or nothing at all.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure you it will be evenhanded. I will take a look at the record and report back, as I said earlier.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to speak to standing order 19(d)10, which I think is very relevant in the circumstances. Since I have been in this House, I keep hearing rulings from Speakers that make it very difficult for the members to know exactly what the standard is in this place.

When comments are made that members are asked to withdraw, this standing order talks about "uttering a deliberate falsehood." There must be the element of deliberateness about it. If one member makes an allegation that another member uttered an untruth, or something like that, in my respectful submission, that is not contrary to the standing orders. If he says, "You are deliberately misleading the House," that should be withdrawn. If he says, "You are misleading the House," or, "You said something that was untrue," that is not something that should be withdrawn. There has to be the element of deliberateness that this standing order talks about. That is the standard that should be applied in this place.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to diminish the robust character of debate in this House in any way, shape or form, but surely we are all governed by the simple fact that we are elected by our constituents to set an example and to protect the rights to freedom of speech and other matters, not only for our constituents but also for ourselves. I think we should conduct ourselves along those lines.

All I am saying is that your use of language in this House should be tempered to the same extent as when you carry on a conversation within the confines of your own home. I am not trying to diminish the debate.

Mr. Martel: That might be total war.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, you know -- well, I will not say it. But I will take a look at the record and I will make a ruling tomorrow. How is that?

An hon. member: That is fine.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Bearing in mind the admonition you have given to all the members of the House, you will no doubt be aware of a comment that was made in the course of our discussions by the Minister of Health, in which he suggested to me, because of my concern about the Speaker's ruling, that I should "take a Valium." As a member of the Legislature and certainly as the opposition Health critic, I find that an offensive and gratuitous remark, and I wish he would withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I find the nattering of the honourable member offensive as well, especially when she gears up at the moment someone is trying to answer a question. I do not think my remark was at all appropriate, because I am not sure one Valium would work; it probably would take two or three.

Mr. Nixon: That is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker: Surely the minister is not putting himself in a position of practising medicine. Perhaps he should confer with his colleague directly behind him.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, "nattering," "take a Valium" and all the other gratuitous remarks by the minister are unacceptable and should not be allowed in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

This is the same point to which I was addressing myself. I am certainly not going to put myself in a position of cutting down on the cut and thrust of the debate, the remarks that go back and forth.

Mr. Nixon: Cut and thrust! It is just such bad judgement that you should be assisting the minister in correcting the record.

Mr. Speaker: I will not respond to that.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of several colleagues and myself, I have the following petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition asked to be presented by the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario for those members in my riding who are concerned with this issue. I would note that there is one name on the petition.

Mr. Riddell: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by constituents of the Huron-Middlesex riding.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have the following petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned electors and residents of regional Niagara, respectfully petition for your support to redress a serious injustice in current educational policy and practice. The facts are simple.

"In the past five years, parents who send their children to the independent schools have contributed $1 billion for education in Ontario without receiving a cent for the education of their own children. In fact, they have had to bear a double burden through fees and contributions for their own independent schools.

"Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society, parents should have the right to send their children to schools of choice without a financial penalty. This is recognized partially in the case of Catholic families with minor exceptions and fully in the case of Franco-Ontarians. It should apply equally to all."

This petition is signed by 87 people. The petitioners are proud of their Christian schools and rightly so. There are problems of financing and this petition deserves serious consideration.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned electors of Haldimand-Norfolk, appeal to the Legislature to provide form, substance and law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. The present education policy provides no guarantee for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right. Parents of these schools also face a form of financial jeopardy through a lack of access to the taxes they pay in support of education. We ask you to change this situation."

It is signed by approximately 64 people.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Yakabuski for Mr. Wiseman.

Motion agreed to.

4 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALING ARTS RADIATION PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, having made a statement during ministerial statements earlier today, I have nothing to add at this time.

YOUNG OFFENDERS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Norton, first reading of Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act, Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I believe my statement earlier today covered the matter. However, in the light of a couple of comments, one at the time I made the statement and one a moment ago, I would like to emphasize that this bill covers only juveniles up to the age of 16.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved, seconded by Mr. Samis, first reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Coroners Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, this bill would require inquests into all accidental deaths in work places in Ontario. It would extend standing at those inquests to worker representatives on the joint health and safety committees of the affected work places established under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and to trade union representatives.

It would also require the Ministry of Labour to deal in its annual report with verdicts given and recommendations made in those inquests, and to advise persons who had standing at the inquests of the actions taken on the recommendations and provide reasons if no action has been taken. In 1982 and 1983, approximately only 50 per cent of all the work-place deaths resulted in inquests. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has indicated his support for this bill so I hope the government will move on it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today and give my personal contribution on the content of the speech from the throne. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) in the Legislature, because I am going to make particular reference to a subject that will be of great interest to thousands of injured workers across Ontario.

I am not sure of the minister's schedule. I am going to tackle this issue at the very beginning so that if his schedule will not permit him to stay here, at least he will have an opportunity to hear my personal comments and my contribution to the issue of reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board in Ontario.

The other reason I am rising in this Legislature today is that I think the community I represent in Dovercourt is suffering enormously the grave consequences of the economic situation Ontario faces today, and I hope I will be able to make specific suggestions to the government to ensure that the problems will be alleviated in the near future.

As a result of this urgency, and because I feel compelled to be the spokesperson for their problems in the Legislature, I hope the government will listen very carefully to the situation affecting the residents of the area I represent, the great riding of Dovercourt, and that the government will take action on the problems that exist as a result of the economic crisis that has been affecting Ontario since 1981.

I would also like to remind the members I am speaking as a result of the amendment to the motion that was amended by adding the following immediately before the last line. The New Democratic Party:

"Further condemns the government for:

"Following the example of the Liberal government in Ottawa in cutting back on funding for social housing, education and health care programs;

"The inadequacy of its efforts in affirmative action and, in particular, its failure to require affirmative action programs for all employers of 20 or more people;

"Continuing to ignore the need for strong legislation on plant closures requiring full disclosure and public justification of closure decisions and protecting fully all workers affected;

"The continued failure of the government to provide for early retirement for older workers;

"Its failure to begin the major reform of the social security system that is needed to cope with the devastating economic changes taking place in the province, and in particular, its failure to advocate a major expansion of the public pension system in Ontario and in Canada, including the Canada pension plan;

"Its total neglect of the problem of poverty and of the need for tax reform, causing extreme hardship for growing numbers of families and individuals;

"The lack of any commitment on the part of the government to community economic development and to generating new forms of social capital for investment in job creation;

"Producing a plan for the Niagara Escarpment which completely retreats from the principle of protecting this unique resource in areas like the Beaver Valley;

"Failing to follow the example of other provinces in introducing a red meat stabilization program;

"Its failure to eliminate extra billing by doctors;

"Its failure to shift resources to a not-for-profit model in the provision of nursing home care and its refusal to require any genuine accountability on the part of private nursing home operators for either the quality of care or the expenditure of public funds;

"Its refusal to provide for lifetime indexed pensions for nonoccupational losses such as pain and suffering resulting from compensable injuries under workers' compensation."

Again, besides the particular issues I am going to raise in the course of my debate, I am going to tackle the issue of the refusal to provide for lifetime indexed pensions for nonoccupational losses such as pain and suffering resulting from compensable injuries under workers' compensation.

4:10 p.m.

I want to begin with that issue because the Minister of Labour is here. As I stated previously, I am going to talk about other issues as well but I want to start off with this issue because the government should take immediate steps to introduce legislation. Thousands of injured workers demonstrated in front of Queen's Park and many appeared before the resources development committee, rejecting proposals made by Professor Weiler and the government white paper.

I was asked by some of my colleagues to give a historical perspective about the Workers' Compensation Board, but I want to limit the length of my speech. In the near future we are going to have ample opportunity to talk about this issue, the WCB and reforms which will be introduced by the government. I think at that time I will be able to give my own historical perspective of the WCB and how injured workers across Ontario will be affected.

The Minister of Labour did not have an opportunity to attend the sitting of the resources development committee about last March 6, or even before, because he was busy elsewhere. However, he wrote to each member of the committee stating he would take a close look at the comments each member made. He said some action would be taken as a result of issues that each member would raise.

With due respect to the minister, I am getting deeply frustrated in relation to the whole matter of the WCB. Each year the board has an opportunity to appear before a committee of the Legislature to give us ample illustration of the year's activities. My frustration is deeply rooted because we raise the same issues each year and though the board and the chairman promise action we do not see changes taking place.

Every year we present the same criticisms. My frustration became so great I told the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board that next year I will make photocopies of my past criticisms of the WCB and will send them to him without further comment. I think other members are confronted with the same dilemma. They raise the same criticisms over and over again and receive specific promises that things at the WCB will change. But I have seen nothing done. I am the critic of the WCB for my party and I am more involved in what is happening at the board level than many members.

In the spirit of reform, we have been confronted lately by a devastating increase in appeals coming from employers across Ontario. I use the word "devastating" because employers now are hiring solicitors to represent them before the board. On the latest one, dated October 1983, I spent five hours down there representing a constituent of mine. The same lawyer is shopping around employers and trying to give a hard time to injured workers who have been recognized by the board. These workers have been receiving permanent disability awards from the Workers' Compensation Board as a result of a compensable injury.

We were faced with this solicitor, and companies are hiring private investigators to follow injured workers on a 24-hour basis. They are introducing as exhibits photographs taken in front of the injured workers' houses and trying to gather comments or affidavits from people living close to injured workers. The same solicitor is trying to discredit the reputation of injured workers and trying to convince the board a permanent disability award is not in order because he has been using independent specialists. They have never met the injured worker and yet they come out with the specific position that the pension was not appropriate.

I won the case on which I spent the five hours. The person I represented had family problems, a marriage breakdown and a serious injury. A permanent disability award was granted by the board. The first issue raised by the employer, in co-operation with his solicitor, was that the benefits were not appropriate because no accident took place. The board recognized the accident as being compensable. When the lawyer lost that case, he picked up the other issue, which was that the permanent disability award was not appropriate.

This poor woman is suffering a nervous breakdown and now there will be another appeal. The solicitor is appealing the decision of the adjudicator. I do not know when the appeal date will be set. If the employer has a good reason to appeal without alienating and without causing devastating effects on the injured workers, I really do not mind. But when I see cases which in my opinion are frivolous, I do not think they are helpful. Injured workers have been accused in the past of using frivolous ways to get money from the Workers' Compensation Board, but I think this situation is taking place now among employers and I do not think it will help the principle of reshaping the WCB.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to remind the Minister of Labour that injured workers across the province are not happy. Two or three weeks ago he received a letter from the umbrella organization representing injured workers across the province about different comments which have been made in relation to the reshaping of the WCB. Our concern about the whole issue has been widely presented in our dissenting report, which was contained in the final report of the standing committee on resources development, December 1983.

4:20p.m.

Going back to the same principle, we are faced across the province with a large majority of injured workers rejecting the principle of reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board in the way that has been suggested by Professor Weiler and by the government white paper. There are 21 points of reform.

I notice in the speech from the throne that the government will introduce legislation in the near future to reform the WCB without taking into consideration the dissenting reports drafted by both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. We know that part of the majority report has been rejected by the majority of injured workers across Ontario.

I do not think I was witness to any statement that was eventually made -- I do not think it was ever made by the Minister of Labour -- that the injured workers' concerns would be taken into consideration to make sure their problems would be alleviated in the way they want and not in the way the government is planning to pursue this issue in the near future.

We know that injured workers would like to have pensions for life. The mandate given to Professor Weiler was a widespread study of the whole operation in regard to injured workers. Keeping in mind the sense of reforms, he came out with proposals. When the committee of the Legislature was appointed to study his report and also to study the government white paper and the 21 proposals, we were faced as a committee with even government members repudiating and rejecting proposals made by Professor Weiler.

That situation was very disturbing. It disturbed me at the time. When 2,000 injured workers appeared before the committee in front of Queen's Park to make their point, to make known to the committee their position on the 21 proposals, the government members were not moved by their presence to take their position into consideration so that the government at the time of introduction of the new law would reflect their concern about the new law.

I do not want to go back to a historical perspective, but I think it is appropriate. I do not know if the Minister of Labour will be busy later on. That is why I am tackling this issue now. Going back to the time when the Workmen's Compensation Act was first introduced in Ontario, we know that people across the province were never happy with the content of the act. They have been crying -- injured workers in particular -- for reform of the act and reform at the administrative or board level.

I think the new law will create more problems than we have witnessed in the past. I do not think it is fair to pursue it on the same line. Workers across Ontario, after giving their best economic contribution to and for the province, have been unfortunate enough to be faced with injuries that have disabled them for the rest of their lives. Some lost their lives as a result of the work they were performing.

When Professor Weiler was appointed and the white paper was printed, I thought we were supposed to talk about real reform, rather than be faced with the regressive positions that have been widely accepted by members of the Conservative Party.

I want the Minister of Labour in particular to know I am very disappointed in this respect. I hope the new law that has been announced through the contents of the speech from the throne on page 20 will reflect the needs and concerns that injured workers across Ontario expressed before the committee, before the Minister of Labour and before the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.

The speech from the throne of March 20, 1984, sets out the following on page 20:

"Following careful and extensive consultations, the government will be introducing in this session reforms to the workers' compensation system, ranging from the benefit structure to improved labour and business representation on the corporate board."

The statement is general and open to interpretation, but because I have been deeply involved in the process of the Workers' Compensation Board reform and the study of Professor Weiler and the white paper, I know what kind of law will be introduced in the Legislature. I am sure the needs of injured workers and their particular positions will not be considered at the time the government introduces the new law, unless the Minister of Labour makes a ministerial statement in the Legislature, which will give us an opportunity to find out the direction in which the government is planning to move and also to make sure that injured workers across Ontario will have an opportunity to respond to the new guidelines which will be concretized in the new act in order to make sure their problems will be taken into consideration.

Again, as I stated in the course of the resources development committee hearings, when the chairman of the board was before us and when he was first appointed chairman of the board he said he was full of goodwill and energy to make sure the board would work properly on behalf of injured workers. I had an opportunity, and I hope the minister has had an opportunity, to contribute to the remarks we made as critics, both Liberal and New Democrat.

I am sure he will find there are particular loopholes that are completely unacceptable to injured workers across the province. I think the board is not giving at the present time, as it has not given in the past, the service injured workers deserve. I hope this situation will be resolved in one way or another.

What I heard in the past was the promise every year that our concern would be heard, that action would be taken and that the criticism would be considered by officials of the compensation board. But I got the impression, especially when they appeared before us, that something grossly wrong is going on at that level, which needs the minister's intervention at this time to make sure the problems will be resolved.

4:30 p.m.

In particular, I think the rehabilitation department, as he is well aware, is in complete disarray. Injured workers are not receiving the service they deserve. A lot of injured workers with permanent disability awards of about 10 per cent are not receiving supplementary pensions. The Minister of Labour told me they are entitled to them, but from what I have seen through concrete case work, I think a lot of injured workers have been losing the benefits of the supplementary pension. In my personal interpretation, that is related to the particular factor that the 10 per cent disability award is too low and, therefore, injured workers look for a job on their own.

I will go back to the subject of the WCB in a moment, but I want to talk about injured workers and disabled people across Ontario. Having been an organizer for injured workers before being elected in 1975, and now as the New Democratic Party critic on workers' compensation, I was and am deeply aware of the immense personal tragedy that illness or injury brings to a person, especially if permanent disability is involved. On top of this, our present system heaps on the humiliation of having to grovel before mounds of red tape to get compensation that is inadequate.

While we have been able to achieve some minor victories in WCB reform, as a party we are committed to fight not only to improve the present system, but also for a just system of universal accident and sickness benefits for injured workers across Ontario. It is only a part measure. Injured workers would like to work, as would all the unemployed people in Ontario.

They want to be self-supporting members of society. So we must talk about the broader problem of unemployment when we talk about injured workers and the permanent disability pensions given to them as a result of their injuries.

With that in mind, I think the WCB and the need to create jobs across Ontario are interrelated and are an integral part of what the government should do in relation to solving the unemployment crisis in the province. Injured workers are hard hit, especially at a time when a pension is granted to them in the range of 20 to 25 or 30 per cent.

Finding a light job is a very difficult task. My constituency office has been flooded with people who have that problem. I really feel sorry for them. I have no real answer for them except to promise I will bring their concerns to the floor of the Legislature in the hope the government will do something about them.

As I said before, in talking about reform, I do not foresee such reform on behalf of injured workers. I do not see the economic environment allowing them and other unemployed people to go back to work and sustain their families properly. My area is greatly affected by this problem. The government should spell out concrete programs so people can get some assistance and help. In the final analysis, the family will receive some help as a result of the economic growth.

We have been talking about economic recovery for so many years now. We have been faced with a recession since 1981. We are talking about signs of recovery at the federal and provincial levels, but I think my constituents in the Dovercourt area are not yet seeing the signs of recovery because they are unemployed. They exhausted the savings they made when economic growth in the province was good and now their unemployment insurance benefits have run out. They cannot apply for welfare or family benefits because of their savings. I think this situation is becoming intolerable. They come to my office and ask me what is going on at the provincial level.

I wrote a letter to Ottawa in 1982 or 1983. In particular, I wrote a letter to the leader of the New Democratic Party to raise this specific question, to move the federal government to help people who had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. I asked them to do something about it because these people were without jobs and it was affecting their families, even causing psychological problems for their children.

The question was raised at the provincial level. In 1982 and 1983 the provincial government was accusing the federal government of being the cause of our economic problems, rather than taking specific steps to help people and trying to do something about it. I think the provincial government at the time, and even today, is irresponsible. The speech from the throne is really so vague. It gives us no opportunity to determine the validity of the programs that will be implemented in the near future.

I do not know what kind of benefits my constituents who have been unemployed for two or three years will receive. Now they have had the false promise that there is an economic recovery and in the near future they will have better opportunities to find employment. I find this very regrettable.

I have some union halls located in my area. When I pass by them, there is usually a long line of people. The people are there because they are searching for employment and because they belong to the union. They have their own guidelines and there is the possibility that jobs will be given to these people, but the numbers are so high.

I do not know how to express their demoralization when they come to my constituency office and talk about the fact that they have been unemployed for three years. Again they are not receiving unemployment insurance, their savings are being used up now and they have to apply for welfare or family benefits. I do not know what kind of answer I can give them beyond citing the irresponsible approach of both the federal and provincial governments to the fact that something really serious is affecting our citizens in Ontario.

4:40 p.m.

Whenever the NDP suggests new programs or ideas, they are cruelly rejected because they are not workable or because millions of dollars are required to implement them. I think this approach is becoming intolerable. I do not think citizens across the province, in particular unemployed people, can live on a sense of hope that some day things will get better and they will find jobs in the near future.

In that respect, the speech from the throne was vague. It was vague because there will be a federal election -- I do not know when; maybe some time this year -- and the provincial government is trying to keep a low profile while thousands of people across Ontario are feeling the pinch of the economic crisis that has been affecting this province for so many years.

On page 3 of the speech from the throne it says:

"In my address last year, I indicated there were signs the economy was beginning to emerge from recession. Indeed, it is now evident Ontario led the Canadian recovery in 1983. For instance, manufacturing shipments rose by 10.7 per cent compared with 7.0 per cent across the rest of Canada. Similarly, retail sales expanded by 9.6 per cent in Ontario versus 6.6 per cent in the rest of the country, and most encouraging was the 5.2 per cent increase in employment since December 1982."

I want to comment on that paragraph. What kind of assurance can I give to people in my riding who work in the construction industry and cannot find employment? Let me tell the members frankly that I am speaking with emotion on this topic. I have seen people in my area who have been unemployed since the recession started in 1981. They are still unemployed and are going around searching for jobs. They cannot find jobs and their savings are now diminishing so fast that they are concerned about having to apply for welfare and family benefits.

I do not think that statement can be implemented for people in my riding who had been employed by the construction industry and who cannot find employment even today, after three or four years of crisis. This recovery aspect can be used by politicians to assure the rest of the country and the rest of the province that things will get better. On the street, we are faced with a completely different situation. People cannot find jobs, and something must be done.

Reading from page 5 of the speech from the throne: "We should be encouraged that Ontario made a leading contribution to employment recovery last year. Furthermore, employment expansion will continue. However, while the unemployment rate has declined sharply, it remains too high and will stay too high without a fresh commitment to serve the nationwide employment goals we enjoyed in the past."

Again, there is an inference that something is going to take place, but nothing has been concretized. If the government is really serious about the people who have suffered the pinch of the recession from 1980 and 1981 to 1983, and if in 1984 it is talking about recovery, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) in the next budget will institute programs to give high priority to the people who have been unemployed for at least three or four years. They have used up their savings and do not know what to do about it now, except welfare or family benefits are options that should be explored by them. They will not see the future with full employment or employment opportunities at least for another two or three years. I do not know when the recovery stage will be over.

I hope the government and the Treasurer will take into consideration the creation of new programs just for these people so they will have high priority in any kind of job creation program enunciated in the budget speech. They should have high priority because they have not received benefits from unemployment insurance or other sources except their savings.

It is unfortunate the Treasurer is not here, but I would like to have this type of insurance for these particular people. They do not have any more money in the bank, and they will have to use the public Treasury, either welfare or family benefits.

I do not want to tackle the issue of youth. We have heard that issue raised several times in the Legislature. It appears the government is concerned about the problem, but we do not as yet have concrete guidelines. A new program will be implemented to solve the youth unemployment situation.

The government might defend its past record of creating jobs for youth. It might talk about the winter or summer Experience programs. Again, this type of short-term employment will not give any assurance to a youth living in Dovercourt when he does not have the money to pay his tuition fees or to pursue his education because his parents have been without a job for three years and are not collecting any money from unemployment insurance and whose savings are gone.

I remember in the middle of the recession I placed a question on the order paper asking about the status of students across Ontario receiving help from the summer program of 1981-82. I was writing letters to different ministries to make sure students from my area would be hired. When the summer was over, I went back to the same students and found that not one was hired by the different ministries.

I placed a question on the order paper to find out the total number of students hired by the different ministries and which ridings they represented. The reply I got was that the statistical data were not available. I have to assume, and I do not want to say it, that a lot of students who are living in areas or ridings represented by Tories have high priority in the Experience program, which is enunciated by the government on a yearly basis.

Dovercourt was supposed to be taken into consideration because the majority of people are working in the construction industry. The construction industry in 1981, 1982 and 1983 was in crisis. I do not think my people really received the kind of help from the government they were supposed to get, particularly students and youth.

4:50 p.m.

Again, I want to convey my frustration and my sense of concern to the Treasurer, who will be introducing his budget at the end of this month. Something must be done for the people in need. I hope my comments will be picked up by some ministers who will do something about it.

Mentioned on page 8 of the speech from the throne is the vague program which will "improve access for young people and women to the benefits of economic growth and challenging work."

Even today the recovery aspect of our province, and of the country as a whole, is in dispute. Some ministers have been talking about real recovery. Others have been quite reluctant to state that the recovery procedure has not taken place, apart from the use of statistics to assure the citizens of this province.

This kind of youth program leaves me in limbo. This problem affected youth for so many years, but the government did nothing about it during the recession. I do not know what kind of hope I should have now that the new program, whatever it is going to be, will be useful and will solve the problem for youth in Ontario.

Again, we have been living on promises. These promises have been around now for so many years but I think the people, until the government understands the real reasons some day, will get tired of this frustrating process.

If one wants to use numbers, the speech from the throne does that very well. It says on page 9:

"We should appreciate, however, that the economy created 49,000 new jobs for our young people during the past year and that a strong economy will make the greatest contribution to expanding genuine employment. That is our overriding responsibility. In addition, we can and will increase our direct support to help provide employment for young people."

They are nice words, nice promises, but the majority of the members of this House have been faced in their own constituency offices with the frustrating process of young people unable to support themselves because they are looking for jobs. Job opportunities have been completely reduced across Ontario.

On page 20, there is a paragraph that says the government will introduce reforms to the Workers' Compensation Board. I will get into more details on that situation. I hope the Minister of Labour will take a close look at the problems of injured workers and will take into consideration the proposals made by the Union of Injured Workers and by other organizations representing injured workers across Ontario.

If the government talks about reform, it has to talk about real reform. It has to make sure the people affected by the reform will accept its principle and its content as well. I was not happy with the content of the speech from the throne. It gives us a lot of promises and hope, but we have heard so many throne speeches in the past. In 1984, we are still faced with the sense of hope and promises that things will get better.

This government says it is fully committed to taking into consideration the problems that are raised in the House on a daily basis. The third party for the last two years has been raising, in particular, the issue of the special need to develop our manufacturing industries in Canada so that Canadian resources will be utilized for the benefit of workers in Ontario.

Many times, in 1981 and again today, we have raised the issues of tighter controls so that no plants shut down, and a shorter work week. What was the response of the government? "The New Democratic Party program cannot be implemented." When the election is called, I am sure the government will make promises to take into consideration recommendations our party has made in the past three or four years so as to defuse issues in the course of the election. I do not think this is a fair game when thousands of citizens are deeply affected by programs that must be implemented and new laws that must be introduced by this government.

We have been talking about policies that are crucial to our young workers entering the work force. There is nothing more demoralizing than being educated and trained to work, then facing a future without work or working part-time at minimum wage jobs that do not use one's potential.

Federally, we have been faced with the same reaction and the same position as has been taken by the provincial government. The Liberals' job creation program dooms 10 per cent of the work force to be unemployed for the next decade. The NDP's policies at least outline a clear job creation program that can give hope to our young and unemployed workers. That is what the government must do. I will go into the principle of this program later on in the course of my speech.

We have been talking about the importance of and stressing the need for a solution to the problems of women. Our bills in the Legislature for equal pay for work of equal value and for affirmative action are in the forefront of the fight for women's equality. What is the response of this government? "We are trying to achieve this goal. There is no need for concrete legislation. We are trying to get employers into this specific program without any compulsory action being provided by the law. It should come as a result of their own goodwill. There is no need to make sure employers across Ontario will comply with the law."

5 p.m.

We are here as politicians, and the government is here to introduce and enact legislation. Why is the government so reluctant to introduce this legislation? Talking about equalities and equal opportunities for everybody, I remember the slogan of the Conservative government in 1971 and 1974, saying this is the province of equal opportunity for everybody. Let us make sure equal opportunities will be concretized into statutes and into law. This is our role as politicians, and that is why the people elect a party to lead this province: to make sure the right law will be introduced in this Legislature.

There is widespread concern about and acceptance of the equality of women in the work force. Here again we are faced with another promise from the Conservative government that some day we are going to reach that stage but there is no need for a law to make sure this principle will be entrenched in legislation.

We as a party have been talking about a fair tax system that would raise all taxes from a progressive income tax and would rid us of regressive taxes such as property taxes. Again I would like to make particular reference to Dovercourt. Workers had been laid off because the construction industry was in crisis in 1981-82 and some of the plants were leaving Ontario and going back to the United States. Two years later, in 1983, the property taxes of a lot of people in Dovercourt were reassessed.

I found some material that is very disturbing, and I regret that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) is not here to listen to my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I know you are listening very patiently and I am sure you will convey my concern to the Minister of Revenue, to the Treasurer and to other ministers who are supposed to take action on the different issues I am going to talk about today. I am sure the issue of property taxes affects all ridings, but I think Dovercourt has been unique in relation to the principle of reassessment.

Let me tell members why. The situation in ward 3 is the same as that in ward 4 -- these two wards are located in the riding of Dovercourt -- except that Italians were a major group and Portuguese a minor one. Of 708 residential reassessments, approximately 359 were Italians, identified by name, and I have the names here. This represents more than 50 per cent of all reassessments in the ward, although according to the 1981 census it was only 28.1 per cent of the ward because the census tract boundaries do not correspond exactly.

The corresponding figures for Portuguese are 158 of 708, 22.3 per cent reassessed. Sixteen per cent of the ward is Portuguese by mother tongue.

The figures for the heaviest Italian area in the ward, north of St. Clair, are the most dramatic. More than 75 per cent of all homes reassessed were owned by Italians, although they account for fewer than half the households.

I am bringing up the issue of reassessment because at a time when we are faced with an economic crisis in Ontario and when the majority of the people in Dovercourt -- Italian, Portuguese or people belonging to other ethnic groups -- were unemployed and could not find employment, and at the time when their benefits eventually expired because their contributions had run out and they were living on their savings, here we had the great hero of this government, the Minister of Revenue, going into ward 3 and ward 4 and reassessing properties. In most cases the reassessment was double the amount it used to be. People were calling my office to complain and asking what they were supposed to do. Of course, within the limits and guidelines of the law, people can appeal.

I think the Minister of Revenue misread the economic situation people were in. Rather than moving into specific ridings and doubling property tax assessments, he should have used a humanitarian approach, at least for the time being. He should not have further penalized people who were already unemployed as a result of the recession in 1981.

I hope the minister will take note of my comments. Even today people are calling my office saying their property taxes have been doubled and they want to know why. They are looking for an explanation. We know why they doubled. The province is moving to reform property taxes, keeping in mind that market value assessment must be in place. Rather than moving into it all at once, the minister has been selecting certain areas. Dovercourt was chosen at a time when people there had lost their jobs. A year and a half later, because the recession persisted, they could not get unemployment insurance benefits any more.

I think it is unfair. We have raised this issue in the past. However, I do not think the Minister of Revenue took into consideration the concerns raised by different members when they were trying to voice the people's concern on the floor of this Legislature.

I must mention an important issue affecting injured workers across the province that has to do with a law introduced by the federal government in the 1983 budget. I am sure members know that until that time injured workers receiving injury benefits from the board were not supposed to declare these as income on their tax forms. As a result of the 1983 federal budget, workers receiving pensions from the Workers' Compensation Board must now declare these as income.

5:10 p.m.

When the board appeared before the standing committee on resources development, for a moment I thought I might be wrong. I had the clear impression the Minister of Labour and the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board would have made a presentation to the federal government to make sure injured workers would not be further penalized by having to declare their pensions in their income tax returns.

We know injured workers who are receiving injured workers' benefits are already losing 25 per cent of the benefits, again taking into consideration the ceiling, which is not the same as the one they had at the time they were working, as members are well aware.

If one considers the injured worker per se, he has been bombarded with reactionary laws and positions from the federal government and now by the provincial government, which is using the excuse that it is time for this province to reshape the Workers' Compensation Board.

The government, as a result of the recommendations of a majority of committee members, is not willing to eliminate the ceiling for injured workers. They are recommending less than Professor Weiler had recommended. They are recommending an increase to 175 per cent of the average industrial wage in 1985, and, at five per cent increments for five years, up to 200 per cent of the average industrial wage. Professor Weiler recommended 250 per cent of the average industrial wage in 1981.

We are supposed to be talking about reform, but the government is going back and penalizing more injured workers at a time when reform is needed in Ontario.

Based on the recommendations of the resources development committee, the government also wants to eliminate indexing of existing pensions. A dual award system should be instituted for permanent disability, a lump sum to be paid according to the degree of impairment and continuing periodic payments to be made only when wages are actually lost.

Then in 1983 the federal government told injured workers in the province, "Your pension must be declared in your income tax, and you have to pay taxes because it is a part of income." I will never understand that criterion.

As I stated before, under the present system, injured workers are already losing 25 per cent at the time when they are receiving full benefits from the board up to the time when they are receiving temporary total benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board.

The move enunciated by the federal government was unfair, but more unfair has been the position taken by this province and in particular by the Minister of Labour and the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, who should have gone to Ottawa to make a clear presentation pointing out that injured workers have been the losers in this province for many years. They should have tried to convince them it is not fair for injured workers to have to pay extra income tax as a result of a compensable injury.

The Minister of Labour was silent, as was the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, when I raised this issue. I invited the minister to do something about trying to convince the minister in charge at the federal level to change his mind.

Going back to the principle of our amendment to the motion and the refusal to provide lifetime indexed pensions for nonoccupational losses such as pain and suffering resulting from compensable injuries under workers' compensation, the majority report recommends we award injured workers across Ontario with a permanent disability award and that such pensions should be indexed and reviewed in relation to the principle of the clinical rating system.

The clinical rating system has been in place in Ontario since the introduction of the Workers' Compensation Act. It has been revised only a few times. I have the schedule in front of me, but I know sometimes figures do not mean much. For the amputation of a hand, the Workers' Compensation Board gives out a 50 per cent disability pension.

Interestingly enough, I had a case in which an injured worker had his fingers amputated and reattached to his hand. As a result, he has really stiff fingers and cannot move them. He launched an appeal before the board. This man was supposed to be considered 50 per cent disabled and receive a pension on the basis of a 50 per cent disability award from the board because he could not use his hand. I have not received a reply yet, nor a decision in relation to the appeal that was launched.

However, I received a memo from the adjudicator who referred the case to senior medical officials employed by the board. One of the comments was this injured worker should consider himself lucky to have had his fingers attached to his hand even though the adjudicator recognizes there is a problem. He recommends the 35 per cent pension be reaffirmed rather than the 50 per cent pension for an injured worker who had his hand amputated.

We are dealing with this kind of clinical rating system. The system must be revised immediately. There are inefficiencies and loopholes involved. The clinical rating system is not taking into consideration the nature of the work the injured worker was performing before the injury. Therefore, if a worker loses a hand, he must be compensated for the loss of a hand. If he cannot perform the same kind of work, he can be trained or rehabilitated. The clinical rating system is not taking into consideration the work the injured worker was performing previously.

This issue has been raised many times in this Legislature by myself, my colleagues, other members, and by organizations representing injured workers. We heard comments from ministry officials and the WCB that the clinical rating system will be revised on the basis and in the light of studies currently under review in the United States.

5:20 p.m.

I do not understand the logic of that. In Ontario, we have physicians and specialists who are able to revise our clinical rating system within our own system. We should not expect to follow recommendations from the United States. The need for a revised clinical rating system through such principles has been supported by injured workers, in particular when pensions are granted to them as a result of permanent disability.

The dual award system that has been suggested by the majority of the members of the standing committee on resources development does not take into consideration the request made by injured workers that permanent pensions must be given. There is no reference that pain and suffering must be considered in the permanent disability award. That principle was actually suggested by Professor Weiler. The government members ignored the suggestion.

In civil cases in the courts, if a person has a car accident or other damage to his or her body, pain and suffering is a principle incorporated in the total lump sum granted to the person, with a seven per cent discount. The board is suggesting and has been using the figure of two per cent when a lump sum is given to injured workers as a result of, for example, accident-related psychological problems. Why do we have to use two measures? Why have pain and suffering been ignored by the government members sitting on the committee when injured workers support that principle?

As a result of an accident, I lost a career opportunity. My family suffered pain and other suffering not strictly related to me as a person, but it was the cause of psychological problems for my family. Pain and suffering are something which must be recognized by the Workers' Compensation Board as being a result of compensable accidents.

Leaving aside for a moment an accident that is rated at five or two per cent, which some people through false information and impatience think is a minor accident, if we talk about serious accidents rated at about 50 per cent, or someone losing his or her life as a result of an accident, pain and suffering must be taken into consideration.

Professor Weiler referred to that factor, but the government is ignoring that reality even when a professor was appointed to study the whole concept of compensation. I hope the government in its wisdom, at the time the new law is introduced on the floor of this Legislature, will take into consideration the reports and recommendations made by umbrella organizations representing injured workers across the province and, in particular, the recent report drafted by members of my party who were in great disagreement with the government members sitting on the standing committee on resources development.

I said I would use some restraint in my speech. I can go on and talk more concretely about the programs that have been enunciated by the New Democratic Party in relation to early retirement. If I do not tackle that issue, my speech will be incomplete in some way.

Mr. Nixon: That is one hour and 25 minutes. It is all good, though.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I am being encouraged to complete my speech, but I feel it is urgent to state in the conclusion to my remarks that the early retirement plan suggested by the NDP is something that must be considered by the government if it wants to talk seriously about the unemployment crisis affecting citizens and workers across Ontario.

I would like to remind members that if a worker has been employed in the construction industry for 30 or 40 years, our proposal makes sense. He will retire earlier and give his place to somebody else who is younger, while he can get the benefit of early retirement. It makes sense to a lot of people and to a lot of workers living in the province.

I spoke about our proposal to workers in my riding and they feel it is time your colleagues in the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, raised this issue because the need is here with us. I refer, for example, to the construction worker whose spine is wrecked after 40 years of heavy work. He foresees the time when he can retire earlier. In Europe and in other countries the retirement age is 60. It is time we talked about the same thing in this province.

I want to leave some time available to other members who are eager to participate in the throne speech debate. They have good remarks to make as well, to represent their constituents properly. I will close my remarks by thanking members for paying so much attention to the contents of my speech.

Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express a few thoughts on the throne speech. The speech notes that Ontario led the Canadian economic recovery in 1983. A number of my colleagues have already detailed the specifics of our improved economic performance in 1983. Some of them have pointed to projections predicting that this country, and this province in particular, will experience strong, real economic growth in 1984.

5:30 p.m.

I tend to be a bit cautious when it comes to economic forecasts. I subscribe to the definition that an economist is an expert who can tell someone tomorrow why what he said would happen today did not happen. It has been said that if all economists were laid end to end, they would fail to reach a conclusion.

In spite of that scepticism, our current economic circumstances and position do provide grounds for optimism. This is not to say that problems do not exist which require attention both in the short and long term. No member of this House needs to be reminded once again of the social and economic costs of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. I was therefore pleased to read in the speech from the throne that the government will be expanding its youth employment program. I look for the 1984 budget to follow through on this commitment. Through that document, I am confident this government will introduce those measures necessary to address this problem effectively, and provide the young people of Ontario with the range of opportunity they expect and deserve.

I also have concern about the strength and durability of the recovery. In the post-war North American economy, cyclical recoveries such as the one we are now experiencing have lasted 34 months on the average. If this pattern holds, we could anticipate a downturn in the key economy, the American economy, in late 1985. That is not to say another recession is inevitable but simply that breaking that pattern will require forceful action on a number of fronts.

As a member of a provincial government, I find it somewhat frustrating that we are not the absolute masters of our economic destiny. The federal nature of our system of government, the constitutional division of power, the growing interdependence of international trade and monetary systems, all of these factors mean economic prospects are, to a degree, dictated and determined by policies and decisions made by actors in other jurisdictions.

For example, it is no news to any member that the economic momentum of the recovery is currently being sustained by export trade. This is true at both the national and provincial level. In the last quarter of 1983 our gross national product grew at an annual rate of 3.6 per cent, much of which was attributable to exports. In the final quarter there was a negative growth in domestic demand as final domestic demand fell by 0.2 per cent. Export growth in turn has been led by the very strong rebound of the Canadian auto industry. As we know, Ontario is the home base of 95 per cent of the Canadian industry.

In 1983 we established a record $3.7 billion surplus in our auto trade with the United States. In January of this year Canada's monthly record trade surplus of $2.1 billion was based on an 18 per cent increase in car shipments and an 11 per cent increase in auto parts.

While Canadian domestic demand for our auto products has strengthened considerably, we in this province have really benefited from a very strong American recovery and very strong American consumer demand. Any action on the part of the American administration or the Federal Reserve Bank which would reduce demand would have very serious implications for our economy. Although we cannot set the American agenda, we are none the less very vulnerable to any developments in a market which last year absorbed 75 per cent of total Canadian exports and more than 80 per cent of total Ontario exports.

The relative loss of economic sovereignty caused by an interdependent international economic system is a fact of life which we must accept. Economic autarky is simply not an option open to either this province or this nation.

As I see it, our task in this House is to devise and implement those policies which would best enable us to take full advantage of the opportunities opened by interdependence, while at the same time minimizing the vulnerability of our domestic economy to the impact of negative developments in the international system.

This is a very complex task made all the more difficult by the fact that as a provincial Legislature we do not have available to us all the fiscal and monetary tools necessary to construct a comprehensive strategy. While it is a complex and difficult task, it is none the less a crucial task in any jurisdiction such as ours in which foreign trade makes such a significant contribution to our economic wellbeing.

As members know, exports, directly and indirectly, support one million jobs in our economy and generate on the average more than 30 per cent of our gross provincial product. In the future, increasing our share of world trade, capturing new markets and carving niches for Canadian expertise and new Canadian products will play a vital part in our efforts to create new jobs and generate more wealth for our people. We must pursue those goals in an international system which is murderously competitive and which is undergoing significant structural change.

Both of these features are linked to the rise of new producers in the newly industrialized countries. These producers have moved into the old-line, mass-production industries and technologies where lower wage costs and cheaper resources give them a competitive advantage over their more developed competitors.

Nor have our resource industries been immune to the negative impact of significant changes in the international marketplace. Over the last few years our mining and forest product companies have been under a state of siege. Their corporate strategies have been designed to achieve not growth but survival. Plagued by reduced demand and low prices, our resource sector also had to contend with the emergence of new producers and competitors in such areas as Africa, the Pacific Rim and South America.

Many of these producers, who enjoy the advantage of cheap labour, for political reasons and out of a desperate need to obtain foreign currencies, were and remain quite prepared to sell their products at prices so low they bear only a passing resemblance to market value.

The solution to this problem lies not in the totally unacceptable approach of asking our miners and smelter workers to work for wages comparable to those of their Brazilian, Angolan or Korean counterparts, but in making our resource industries more competitive by making them more efficient.

5:40 p.m.

To that end, I was heartened by the announcement that four of our major mining companies -- Falconbridge, Inco, Kidd Creek and Noranda -- had joined together to form the HDRK Mining Research Co.

Partly in response to these structural changes in the international system, the developed western economies, such as Japan, France and, to a degree, Canada, have begun to concentrate on the export growth field in which they enjoy a comparative advantage, namely, knowledge-intensive industries.

If we in Ontario are to hold and expand our market share in our existing markets and exploit new export opportunities in areas such as the Pacific Rim, we must do two things.

First, we must help our industries achieve the level of productivity needed to ensure that Ontario products remain competitive in foreign markets and that the jobs and wages of Ontario workers are protected.

It must be stressed that to minimize the effect of negative international economic developments on our domestic economy, we must strive to the greatest degree possible to make our industries recession-resistant. By this I mean that even during periods of reduced demand, Ontario products, be they natural resources or manufactured goods, must be sufficiently competitive in price and quality to remain attractive to both the foreign buyer and the domestic consumer.

Second, for the purposes of exploiting new export opportunities, reducing technological dependence and technological lag, and assisting our industries to maintain their competitive position, it is imperative that we encourage the future development and growth of Ontario's high-technology sector.

I will take a few moments to discuss the ways in which the measures outlined in the speech from the throne will help us to carry out those two tasks by encouraging the development of knowledge-intensive industries in Ontario and by helping our industrial and manufacturing plant meet the challenge of economic transformation.

It has become a commonplace that Canada devotes less of its gross national product to research and development than do most other members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Preliminary estimates from Statistics Canada for 1983 indicate that last year we channelled between 1.3 and 1.4 per cent of our gross national product into research and development. This is still well below the average of more than two per cent of gross national product spent on research and development by countries such as the United States, Japan and West Germany.

There are structural reasons that at least partially account for our low level of research and development activities. We are a small economy with a small domestic market; our plant and firm size is much smaller on the average than, say, that of the United States, and it is a matter of fact that smaller plants and firms devote fewer resources to research and development.

As well, our industrial and manufacturing base is composed of a large number of branch plants of foreign corporations. These corporations concentrate their research and development activities offshore, often at their head-office locations.

Finally, we in this country do not devote as much of our resources to military-linked research as do some of our OECD partners.

These structural factors account at least in part for our research and development performance. It was to help overcome the obstacles to improved research and development effort caused by these structural factors that the national and provincial governments launched their research and development programs.

On the whole, government programs in this country have been designed, as was noted in the 1983 Ontario budget paper, R and D and Economic Development in Ontario, to achieve the complementary goals of correcting market research and development allocations, encouraging knowledge-intensive economic development and ensuring the availability of highly qualified manpower.

Ontario, which accounts for 50 per cent of Canada's research and development activity, has, through programs such as the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. and the technology centres, made a genuine effort to encourage research and development and to facilitate technology diffusion in our economy.

Mr. Haggerty: We can thank the government in Ottawa.

Mr. MacQuarrie: And the province as well.

The throne speech made it clear that this effort will be continued as this government moves to expand its training and retraining programs and to assist firms to acquire appropriate, best-available technologies.

I do not question this government's commitment to the development of an innovative economy. I fully agree with the Treasurer, who in his remarks at Tech Expo 1984 in Cambridge said, "The time has come to take a major step forward into the knowledge-intensive environment that marks the advanced industrial era." That is certainly a step we must take if we are to achieve economic growth, generate jobs and raise our standard of living in the future.

I believe the programs outlined in the throne speech and the ideas discussed in the recently released budget paper, Economic Transformation, Technological Innovation and Diffusion in Ontario, are sound. I made many similar suggestions in the throne speech debate last year. However, I feel there is more we could and should do in this area.

Last year I argued that on the grounds of economic common sense alone, this province and this nation could not afford the luxury of duplication and redundancy in programs to foster knowledge-intensive economic development, nor in its research and development efforts.

This year, faced with the proliferation of programs, policies and technological centres, the need for co-ordination is greater than ever. For example, the federal government recently announced the creation of the Canadian Microelectronics Corp. in Kingston, not too distant from our own microelectronics centre in Ottawa.

The federal government has plans under way for establishing a substantial advanced manufacturing centre in Winnipeg. We have our advanced manufacturing centre composed of two parts, the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing centre in Cambridge and the robotics centre in Peterborough.

It would be a sad waste of time, effort and resources if each of these centres were duplicating each other's efforts. Certainly opportunities exist for joint ventures and these opportunities must be explored. We are too small a country with too small an economy to afford costly duplication.

5:50 p.m.

I was encouraged to read recently that the Treasurer shares my views on the need to co-ordinate federal and provincial programs. I refer to an article written by the Treasurer and published in the winter 1983 edition of the Business Quarterly. In it, the Treasurer notes that present policies are largely unco-ordinated and as a result we run the danger in Canada of spreading our limited resources too thin. I would argue that there is not only a need to co-ordinate programs between the provincial and national governments but also a very real need to co-ordinate programs at the provincial level.

I must express my very real disappointment that the government did not move to establish a ministry of science and technology. I want to make it clear that my disappointment does not imply any criticism of those ministries and agencies that are currently severally responsible for the administration of research and development and technology programs. Rather, my disappointment reflects my belief that helping the people of this province cope with and profit from the economic and industrial transformation we are experiencing is a priority matter.

The contribution which knowledge-intensive and high-technology industries can make to assuring a prosperous future for the people of Ontario justifies a ministry with an exclusive mandate to devise, implement and administer those policies which would facilitate and expedite the economic transformation.

As I have suggested on other occasions, such a ministry could co-ordinate policies and programs at the intergovernmental and intragovernmental levels. The ministry could develop the long-term integrated, comprehensive strategies we will need to progress and prosper in the post-industrial world.

I have argued the case for the creation of a ministry of science and technology both in this House and privately with my friends and colleagues. Although I have not been successful thus far, the case is not yet closed as far as I am concerned. I will continue my efforts to convince the government to establish such a ministry.

While I was disappointed to find the government will not be establishing a ministry of science and technology at this time, I was pleased by the throne speech commitment to simplify venture capital and to help smaller companies acquire high-technology equipment.

As has often been pointed out in this House, the small-business sector is the most dynamic and innovative economic actor in our society. It is also the sector that creates the greatest number of new jobs for the people of Ontario and Canada. Small business creates jobs at twice the rate of large firms. Between the years 1975 to 1982, small companies less than two years old created no less than 18.5 per cent of all new jobs in our economy.

Assisting this sector would be a cost-effective method of stimulating employment and employment growth in our economy. Both of these measures should help eliminate some of the impediments to the transfer of the best-practice technologies to our small and medium-sized firms and reduce technological lag, which inhibits growth.

While on the topic of facilitating technological transfer, I was interested to read the suggestion that one of the best methods of achieving that goal is to provide for greater access to and use of patent information. I would hope the Ministry of Industry and Trade would pursue that idea, if it has not already done so.

I would also hope that at some time in the near future the government would see fit to establish a technology development, co-ordination and transfer centre associated with the National Research Council. As I have already pointed out, the NRC is prepared not only to make a site available for a distinctive provincial centre on its large Montreal Road campus in Ottawa but also to co-operate with such a centre in every way.

Since I presented the arguments in favour of such a centre in an earlier address to this House, I will not burden the members at this time with a review. I remain firm in my opinion that by not establishing a provincial centre linked with the National Research Council we are missing a tremendous opportunity to avail ourselves of the work, products and expertise of a world-class research organization.

The NRC has developed a network of connections with industry, universities and other research institutions, both in Canada and internationally. It has a broad and comprehensive knowledge of research and development activities around the globe.

A formal link with the council would give us a window on the international scene on high technology at very modest cost. Given the magnitude of the task before us, I am convinced this is an opportunity we cannot afford to ignore.

Finally, I believe it is essential that we take immediate measures to strengthen and broaden the research connection between our industrial and business communities and our universities. We must make business more aware of the tremendous research potential in our universities and the universities more aware of the research needs of business.

Both business and universities have expressed an interest in developing a closer working relationship. Now would appear to be an opportune moment for us to put into place a policy framework within which that relationship could develop.

The government through the throne speech gave notice that the commitment of resources to the construction and expansion of facilities in higher education would be related to those programs that best serve the interests of the province. The throne speech points to the University of Waterloo's Institute of Computer Research as being typical of the type of program the government has in mind. Using that as a guide, I urge the government to fund and support exchange and fellowship programs between business and universities and to establish special scholarship and aid programs in disciplines of special importance to the province.

The throne speech speaks of an economic and industrial transformation, of changes that present us in Ontario with a set of economic, social and technological challenges that will dominate our public policy agenda for many years to come. I have focused on how we might best meet the technological challenge facing us today. The policies and programs which would permit us to guarantee that change in this province will be change for the better.

The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if I might point out to the member that it being six of the clock, this might be an appropriate time to stop.

Mr. MacQuarrie: It will take me about three minutes to conclude after the dinner hour.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

April 5, 1984