The House met at 10:04 am.
Prayers.
VISITORS
Mr. Speaker: Before commencing with the routine proceedings, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to a group of distinguished visitors in the Speaker's gallery. They are a group of senior personnel from many countries on a year's sabbatical at the Centre for International Affairs at Harvard University and are currently travelling throughout Ontario and Canada as guests of the government.
I ask you to join with me in extending a warm welcome to all of them.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations I recently received the report on automobile insurance rating criteria prepared by the all-industry special committee of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. As many honourable members are no doubt aware, the report was initiated in 1979 at the request of the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), who was then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Specifically, the government was concerned that in Ontario certain aspects of the current system of rating drivers in groups for insurance purposes were unfairly discriminatory. We felt it was no longer acceptable to group drivers together simply on the basis of their age, sex and marital status. It is also our view that in the light of our revised Ontario Human Rights Code and the new Canadian charter of rights, other and less discriminatory methods of classifying drivers have to be explored, developed and eventually put in place.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada responded to our request by producing a thorough and thoughtful document that explores in some detail the problems and views of the insurance industry which must be considered if changes are to be made. Therefore, it was with great interest that I read the findings and conclusions offered by the Insurance Bureau of Canada in their report.
The position taken by the insurance industry and enunciated clearly in this document can be characterized as one of uncertainty and resistance to change. A number of legitimate concerns are voiced regarding matters of a technical nature. Let me say here today that I appreciate the reasons for their reluctance. Nevertheless, I must emphasize that the time for change has come. Changes must be made and with a minimum of disruption to the industry and its clients.
My intention is not to engage in confrontation tactics or to impose unnecessary regulations upon a private, profit-making industry. What I am committed to is a system of rating drivers that more accurately reflects the personal driving record of each individual. For me, it boils down to a simple question of fairness.
For example, is it right that a young driver under 25 should be charged premiums based strictly on age, sex and marital status without sufficient regard for the individual's driving habits? Would it not be a far better system to have each driver rated according to driving ability and past experience? The fact that the Ontario insurance industry has already dropped age, sex and marital status criteria for drivers over 25 strongly indicates that this is the direction in which we should be going.
One of the complaints heard most often in connection with this matter of changing insurance rating criteria is that it will automatically lead to an increase in premiums paid by all drivers, including those over 25. This does not necessarily follow. We believe a new system can be devised under which no older driver with a good record will be required to pay more, and neither will a younger driver with a clean record be required to pay more.
Mr. Nixon: What about a middle-aged driver?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: We are not talking about you today; it's all right.
Such a system would seek to redistribute costs according to individual competence and experience. In other words, accident-free operators would be rewarded with lower premiums; bad ones would be required to pay more.
What we are suggesting is a list of criteria that might include the following:
1. The principal operator's use of the vehicle, whether it is business or recreational;
2. A more detailed accounting of the operator's anticipated routine weekly mileage and total annual mileage;
3. The operator's traffic offence conviction record;
4. A greater emphasis on the principal operator's driving experience;
5. A closer look at the number of "at-fault" claims during a five-year period;
6. The use of a vehicle by occasional drivers; and
7. The type of vehicle being insured, whether it is large or small, its engine size and body weight.
Of course, before any changes could be implemented the necessary data base would have to be made available. Therefore, under section 80 of the Insurance Act, I have ordered the provincial superintendent of insurance to arrange for the establishment of a statistical plan that will gather the figures needed for possible alternatives. Work on a new statistical model is now under way.
10:10 a.m.
I would like to point out that since the report was commissioned two years ago, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in co-operation with the insurance industry, has introduced two significant improvements to current rating methods. I am referring, of course, to the elimination of the surcharge applied to unmarried male drivers between the ages of 25 and 29 and of the fee hike levied against senior citizens who showed no impairment of their driving skills. Both groups can now expect and receive fair and reasonable treatment from insurance companies in Ontario; our goals will have been met when this is true for all Ontarians.
The changes will not be made overnight. I expect two to three years may pass before a new system will be fully operational. In the meantime, we have taken the first crucial step. There will be people who will balk at the prospect of change -- there always are. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that when this overhaul has been completed, residents of Ontario will enjoy one of the most progressive and equitable automobile insurance systems anywhere in the world.
PARK PLANNING
Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the report of the Task Force on Parks System Planning to the Legislature this morning. I am also tabling draft forest management agreements for the Black River forest and the Nipigon forest; several approved and draft provincial park master plans; background documents for the West Patricia land-use plan; background documents for 10 district land-use plans; and a summary of public responses for the southern Ontario co-ordinated program strategy.
The completion of these studies and plans represents a significant step forward in Ontario's strategic land-use planning process.
We are now entering the final phase of Ontario's major land-use planning program. The completion of the studies and plans that I am tabling today represents a milestone in the planning program. All the components are now consolidated and are moving in phase with each other. These components include parks planning as well as forest, minerals, wildlife, fish and water management planning. This consolidation ensures that all components will get balanced consideration as land-use decisions are reached in accordance with our overall philosophy of multiple-use resource management.
As the honourable members are aware, our basic commitment is to derive the greatest possible benefits for all Ontarians from our natural resources.
The tabling of the report of the Task Force on Parks System Planning marks a significant step forward for our provincial parks. Parks planning is now on stream with Ontario strategic land-use planning. This integration guarantees that park options will receive full consideration in the strategic land-use planning process, and it ensures that parks system planning will be balanced with other considerations such as forest management.
The report identifies some 240 proposed candidate parks, which is a major accomplishment. The identification of these areas will eventually mean significant expansion of our parks system. It will help us fulfil our parks policy goal of providing a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities and protecting provincially significant natural, cultural and historical environments.
The Task Force on Parks System Planning began its work last spring, after I requested that parks system planning be given priority over master planning for individual parks. This was necessary to get planning for the parks system as a whole in phase with strategic land-use planning.
Master planning for individual parks will come back on stream this fall, once the proposals identified by the task force have been integrated into strategic land-use planning at the district level. Master plans that have not yet been approved will be made available for public review at upcoming open houses. We will then proceed with implementation of those master plans that have been approved, and we will continue working on the others until master planning is completed for all parks.
Public consultation is a vital element of my ministry's planning process. The task force report will be widely available so that individuals and groups can review it and then contribute their views at district open houses.
The task force report has suggested that we should consider some modifications to the guidelines in my ministry's Provincial Parks Planning and Management Manual. Therefore, I am ensuring that it will also be available at the district open houses. Once we have completed this stage, it is my intention to bring a significant number of the proposed parks under regulation in 1983.
Many of the proposed areas would make outstanding contributions to our parks system. For example, Woodland Caribou, Whitewater Lake and Lady Evelyn/Smoothwater are wilderness candidates. Natural environment candidates include Teggau-Winnange and Lake of the Woods. There are several waterway candidates in northern and southern Ontario. Some 80 nature reserves are among the proposed areas, as well as various historical and recreational areas.
The majority of the proposed park candidates are in areas where there is likely to be minimal pressure from resource development activities such as forestry or mining. Some of the proposed candidate parks will require more urgent attention than others to preserve park values. A few contain resources that are needed to fulfil existing resource production commitments. If we were to order immediate exemption of those areas from resource development, the economies of local communities would suffer. The terms under which the ministry will continue to honour existing commitments in candidate parks have been outlined in the Policy and Implementation Guidelines for Interim Uses in Candidate Parks.
The interim-uses policy will be applied to the management of candidate parks once they have been accepted in approved district land-use plans and until they are established as parks under the Provincial Parks Act or the Wilderness Areas Act. Interim-use guidelines will be available for review in all ministry offices.
Essentially, it is my intention to permit, under strict controls, uses which will have no significant long-term impact on park values. Uses which conflict with park values will be prohibited.
As I mentioned a moment ago, parks system planning now joins other components of our comprehensive, strategic land-use planning program.
Other milestones are either occurring or due to be reached this year. Two new forest management agreements are currently in the final stages of negotiation for the Black River forest and the Nipigon forest and have already undergone extensive public review. Copies of the draft forest management agreements will be available for further public review and comment at upcoming district open houses. I expect these forest management agreements to be signed by the end of March.
Also, we are just about to complete the third and final phase of our overall land-use planning program. Strategic land-use plans for northeastern and northwestern Ontario and the co-ordinated program strategy for southern Ontario will be published this spring.
Furthermore, phase 1 of district land-use planning is well under way. Many open house meetings have been held to give everyone an opportunity to offer information and comment and more are scheduled. Open houses are upcoming in various centres in northwestern Ontario later this month at which the two draft forest management agreements will be a major item on the agenda. The final round of district open houses will be held throughout Ontario in midsummer, and I anticipate completion of final district land-use plans by the end of this year.
ORAL QUESTIONS
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I am sure the Treasurer is aware of the unemployment figures released this morning which show that unemployment is up 8,000 this month over last month, seasonally adjusted, and that there are some 56,000 more unemployed than there were a year ago at this time. Is the Treasurer prepared to consider his intransigence of yesterday and do something about it in the very near future?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, actual unemployment is down 2,000 this month; seasonally adjusted unemployment is up. I do not know whether it is because of yesterday's function, but in the city of Windsor the unemployment rate dropped from about 10.1 per cent to 7.6 per cent.
Mr. Peterson: Following his own admonition that liars figure and figures lie, I can understand his wanting to use his figures to serve his own purpose. Is the Treasurer aware that there are 7,000 fewer people working in this province today than there were a year ago? The job force is actually diminishing. He said in the throne speech that he was going to create jobs. When is he going to create them?
Hon. F. S. Miller: As the honourable member knows, we have done better than any other jurisdiction around us in terms of job creation. We know we are going through a trough right now, but we will have a positive growth in job creation during 1982. It is my opinion that we are at the very bottom at the moment and that, from here on, the total growth will be quite commendable throughout the year.
10:20 a.m.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a Treasurer live in such a world of illusion. How can he make the statement that Windsor has 7.6 per cent unemployment, when it is a fact that 20,000 people are registered with Canada Manpower? Does he not understand how Statistics Canada collects the statistics and warns that they are not accurate for community figures? He should not use the 7.6 per cent figure.
That is borne out by the province-wide statistic that Statscan has produced which includes hidden employment. Is the minister aware that the real unemployment in this province is 544,000 people? Since unemployment is now well over half a million in this province, is it not time for the Treasurer to show a little leadership and get serious about job creation?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is intriguing to watch the opposition use Statscan figures when it suits them and ignore them when it does not.
Mr. Peterson: If the Treasurer would like to use unadjusted figures, unemployment has increased by 65,000 in one year rather than 56 ,000, so it is much worse using his figures than he would have us believe, in the past month, we have lost 9,000 jobs in the agricultural sector, 6,000 in the manufacturing sector, 3,000 in the construction sector and 6,000 in the transportation sector -- all vital sectors -- in Ontario. The Treasurer says he is going to have more employment this year. When and how is he going to do it?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I was listening last evening to the always-eloquent comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) when he was talking at great length about his riding during the interim supply debate. He was discussing the question of employment in that area, and it was very interesting.
It is my understanding, for example, that there is one very specific factor. The opposition members read off all the troubles, but they never read back any of the gains. They count them every time they go down as if those on temporary layoff never come back to work. It is my understanding that there are currently 5,200 people at work in the Massey-Ferguson plant in the area near the member's riding, but it was only 2,000 a while back.
The point I am trying to make is that there have been major problems in the world --
Mr. Nixon: The federal government moved in with the industry and labour adjustment program and that's the only good thing that has happened to us.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Now the member is quite willing to agree with the federal government. That is the kind of thing I need out in public more often. As the Hamilton member said, a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. We do lay the blame right on the Liberals in Ottawa and in fact it is their fault.
U OF T EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Treasurer but, rather than listen to another grade B Johnny Carson routine, I think I will put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is in charge of the Discriminatory Business Practices Act in Ontario.
The minister is aware that the University of Toronto has just signed a five-year contract with the Saudi Arabian government to bring hundreds of Saudi students to the engineering faculty at the University of Toronto. Under the agreement, the U of T engineering staff will also teach and advise in Saudi Arabia.
The minister knows it is Saudi Arabia's avowed policy to restrict Jews from working in that country. The agreement reportedly lacks an antidiscrimination clause, so it opens the U of T to complicity in discrimination against Jews and possibly against women. I want to know how the minister feels about this prospect of Ontario supporting Saudi Arabia's discriminatory practices against Jewish professors here in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let us get a couple of things on the record. This province is in the forefront in general in this country in terms of human rights and human rights legislation. He should not play pussy-in-the-well about that. We should also understand that this province is in the forefront in this country with respect to antidiscrimination legislation for countries outside this nation.
I have not received any official documentation or any official notice about the matters that took place in the Middle East recently. When I do, I will be pleased to comment on them. In the meantime, let us not try to pretend that there has never been any evidence of concern by this government about human rights issues.
Mr. Peterson: First of all, no one said that. I have read the minister's pious speeches on this subject before, as well as those of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), but we have a specific case in front of us for which the minister is responsible. I want to know what formal assurances he has and what ministrations he is prepared to make to ensure there is no discrimination under that contract. That is the question.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me just reaffirm that there is no doubt about this government's position with respect to human rights issues. That member from that party, which is also associated with another party in Ottawa we are not supposed to talk about, knows that. He knows I will review whatever documentation is presented to me.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Settle down. This is not a campaign. We don't want to hear your yacking.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Everyone will have an opportunity to ask questions. The minister will proceed, please.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member knows I have said I will review the documentation when it is provided to me.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that even though this matter became public three days ago he has not yet contacted the University of Toronto to find out why it is that, unlike American universities, they do not have in the contract a nondiscrimination clause?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Certainly our staff are getting in touch with the parties, Mr. Speaker, and the member would know that.
Mr. Peterson: I would like a commitment from this minister, who is responsible for this act, that he will direct his law officers or the law officers of the crown to investigate this agreement and that he will report back immediately to the House on the state of that clause, which potentially discriminates against our people here in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already indicated I will be reviewing the issue.
AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer will recall that the throne speech admits "the greatest single impediment to the revitalization of the economy of this province is the current state of the North American automotive industry."
That being the case, instead of the Treasurer talking inconsequential nonsense about increased advertising and blaming the federal government, why does he not take some immediate steps to create a crown corporation? He could establish a joint venture with Chrysler and Massey-Ferguson to produce the Perkins diesel engine in Chrysler's empty engine plant in Windsor, thereby creating in Windsor, and in Ontario, 4,000 jobs and stimulating $84 million in wages.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am keenly aware of the discussions going on. I probably would differ with the honourable member in terms of one basic part and that is whether crown corporations are the best way to do anything; that would always be his solution.
We have not done trite things. We have accompanied the United Auto Workers, the parts manufacturers and the vehicle manufacturers to Ottawa and demanded that the government in Ottawa use its power to do what every other trading nation in the world has done, almost without exception; that is, protect our own workers.
If Australia can have a tariff of, I think, 58 per cent on imported Japanese cars if they do not have sufficient Australian content; if France can limit them to three per cent; if Italy can limit them to 2,000 total cars a year; if Britain can limit them to 11 per cent, then I say we have the right to demand of the federal government that they protect Canadian jobs in Canada by demanding Canadian content.
Mr. Foulds: Those sentiments are all very fine, but what initiative is the Ontario government going to take? In particular, as they have the precedent through Suncor of setting up a sidecar company, why do they not do that in the auto industry? Why not take the initiative where for $200 million -- a lot less than the $650 million that is out there for Suncor -- they could create 4,000 jobs here in Ontario and create a new industry with the diesel engine, which has an increasing potential in Canada and the North American market?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not say we were not.
10:30 a.m.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the Treasurer's remarks that he views the problem with the Ontario economy as being unjust competition from abroad? Is it now the position of Ontario that to protect jobs in Ontario we will revert to the protectionist barriers we used to have in Canada? Is that his solution for all the economic ills of Ontario -- to put up trade barriers?
Hon. F. S. Miller: It makes me wonder then if the Liberal-Labour member for Rainy River is against protecting jobs in Canada.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I just want to know what the philosophy is.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Is the member against protecting jobs in Canada? I am for protecting jobs in Canada -- unashamedly so. But I want to tell the member something. The things we --
Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer does not have a policy. That is his problem. If he cannot blame Ottawa, he will blame the Japanese. He is going to run out of countries.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Rainy River please contain himself? He has asked a question. Will he please give the Treasurer a chance to respond?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, what I am for is fair trade; and fair trade involves countries able to do so, buying Canadian products in a finished state that are world competitive, and allowing them entry. That is what I am for. I am not for being so naive as to have their products come in when ours are cut off. We should fight with the same set of rules.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, since he was so interested in investing $650 million in Alberta, which created no jobs in Ontario --
Mr. Wrye: The member supported that.
Mr. Cooke: No, I did not.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Oh, yes, the member did. He wanted them to buy another quarter.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside has the floor. Proceed, please.
Mr. Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know where the Liberals stand on fair trade. We just heard that from the member for Rainy River.
The minister will realize many jobs in the auto industry have been lost. Here is an example of an opportunity for this government to invest directly in a separate corporation that would eliminate, or reduce, the deficit we now have with the United States in the North American automobile industry. It would create enough jobs to eliminate 25 per cent of the unemployment in Windsor. Is the minister prepared to show leadership and get those jobs on stream, instead of waiting in order to place more blame on the federal government?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if this government has done anything over its 38 years it has been to show the kind of leadership the people of the province understand, accept, support and return. We are going to keep on doing that.
I understand the honourable member has a resolution on the books -- ballot item 2 -- which probably will be debated at length when its time comes up. We are fighting for the very jobs he talked about. I said that we were there, accompanying the proponents of some degree of protection. We are going to see that it happens. Look at Volkswagen --
Mr. Cooke: He can go to all the meetings he wants. Why does the minister not put his money where his mouth is?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot talk when you talk.
Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Windsor-Riverside please be quiet and allow the Treasurer to respond to his question?
Hon. F. S. Miller: In the case of the recent Volkswagen deal we managed to get a very high Canadian-content rule in force. We were very pleased we were able to drag the feds, kicking and screaming, into it. We had to drag them so hard we almost lost the deal. That is now a fact of history.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Ignore the interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: What we are for and will continue to be for is for jobs and job security for people who are out of work.
SALMONELLA VICTIM
Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm the very simple fact that salmonella was detected and confirmed in the nursery at the Peterborough Civic Hospital on December 29? If so, has he yet determined why the Burrows babies, who were discharged on that day, were discharged without anyone suggesting that they be tested before they be discharged?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can only report much of what I reported yesterday, except I can add one piece of information which relates directly to the question the member asked yesterday. He quite understood then we would not happen to have that information at hand here in the House.
The question yesterday specifically related to why it took a week to notify those patients who might have been in contact with the first outbreak. That was a pretty important and serious allegation -- one which disturbed me quite a bit. I have now ascertained that the outbreak was, in fact, identified on December 29. On that date each and every physician who had a patient in contact with the patient who had been identified as having salmonella was notified. So the contact was made that very same day.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why, if that is the case, none of the families of the 18 children, including the Burrows, was notified? The families were left out there on their own, the Burrows family in particular, until January 6 when they got their baby into the hospital. Why was there such a complete breakdown of the public health protection function?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me make this absolutely clear. The medical officer of health does not work for the Minister of Health. The way the system works is that the MOH is responsible for protection against outbreak of disease in a municipality. The MOH moved in immediately upon identification of that problem on December 29 and appropriate steps were taken. I am sure the member would agree the appropriate step in this case and similar cases is to notify immediately the doctors whose patients were in contact with the carrier. That was done. There was no failure to communicate; there was no breakdown of that system to that point. I was relieved to learn today each and every doctor was contacted that day.
If the member alleges the physicians involved failed to contact their patients after they had been notified by the MOH in Peterborough, that is indeed a very serious allegation and it is one which troubles me a great deal. If it turns out to be accurate, certain actions will have to be taken because it does involve things that go far beyond the responsibility of the Minister or Ministry of Health. It involves the professional activities of the physicians involved and that is where the allegation properly belongs. But the allegation certainly does not at this stage properly belong at this ministry and certainly does not belong with the medical officer of health.
The MOH notified the physicians. If the member says the families were not notified, the physicians failed to notify them. I am not saying they failed to notify them. All I can say is that the doctors were notified the same day. If the member's allegation is correct that the families were not, then the breakdown in the link was between the doctors and the families.
I do not want anyone to leave this assembly this morning thinking I am accusing the doctors of failing to make that connection, because I am not competent to report on that. All I am saying is if the member's allegation that the families were not notified is accurate, that is not the fault of the medical officer of health.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made it clear he does not pay the medical officer of health and twice on two days has indicated his confidence in him. He has the responsibility and considerable powers, however, with reference to the hospital. He indicated yesterday he was not contemplating any trusteeship. Is he satisfied with the administration, however, and can he inform the House if he is, as well as with the medical practices that are carried on in the hospital?
10:40 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To date I am. The epidemiologist sent by our ministry to aid the medical officer of health, Dr. Carlson, as indicated yesterday, will make a report today. If there is anything at all contained in that report and her information with regard to the processes followed with regard to the allegations made by the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, I can assure the House I will seriously consider the option of having an inspector sent in there in order to satisfy all members of the public as to the procedures and the processes being carried on there.
I have already made some contacts with regard to the people I might ask to serve as inspectors, if it is deemed that is necessary. If I deduce that is necessary I will not hesitate to implement that process as soon as later today or over the weekend.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is fair to say the minister is not aware, but would he not be interested to determine for himself by phoning the Burrows family, as we did, that they have said to us on three occasions, and they would say it to him, that nobody advised the Burrows family that their daughter, Stephanie, had been exposed to salmonella until after she had been returned to the hospital on January 6?
Would the minister stop trying to pass the buck here and there and everywhere and address himself to the questions that have now been raised on three occasions here? Why did the hospital not inform the Burrows family and the other families that their babies had been exposed to salmonella in the nursery of that hospital? And why did the medical officer of health not undertake to notify the families of the babies who had been exposed to salmonella that their babies were at risk?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me correct something. I notice the member indicated that the medical officer of health notified the physicians or said that is what I said. If I indicated the MOH notified the physicians -- and I do not think I did -- but if I did, I am sorry, because it was the hospital. After being notified by the MOH, the hospital is responsible for notifying the physicians, and the hospital notified the physicians that same day.
If it is the position of the member for Bellwoods that the hospital should notify the parents, as opposed to notifying the physicians --
Mr. Foulds: Somebody should notify them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why does the member not wait? If his position is that the hospital ought to notify the parents, instead of the hospital notifying the physicians, then that is something of which I am certainly aware and I asked that question myself. I must say there is a fair answer to that in that when the hospital contacts the physician --
Mr. McClellan: Why do you not try to find out and stop trying to pass the buck?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why does the member not just sit there quietly?
It is fair to say the person who is responsible for the care of that patient is the physician. The person most able to interpret the actions that ought to be taken is the physician. I am not persuaded, but there is a fair argument to be put, that the hospital contacting the parents and saying their child has been in contact with salmonella will, quite obviously, leave a parent in a severe state of upset. The next thing the parent will do is ask the hospital whether the child should be readmitted and certainly call the family physician. It seems to me fair to put the onus upon the family physician immediately to take the appropriate steps to protect the care of his or her patient.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: What were they told to do?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hospital's responsibility is to notify the physician in charge of the health of his patient as to the problem and then the physician takes the appropriate steps. I certainly will take the step of calling the Burrows family and finding out if there was a seven-day lapse between the point at which the physician was informed of the problem and when the physician called the family.
If that is the case, the member ought to be fair to the hospital and to the MOH in indicating that the breakdown there was one which should properly be reported, if he is right, to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. It would indicate that the physician failed to notify his patient of a danger.
I would say to the member for Bellwoods, who is busy talking to the finance critic instead of listening to the answer to his question --
Mr. McClellan: Never mind your cheap shots.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McClellan: I was discussing the inadequacy of the minister's answer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member stood up and made an accusation yesterday with regard to his conversation with my staff. I then responded and indicated that his information was not accurate. He reported the information and the discussion with my staff inaccurately.
Mr. McClellan: I reported what your staff told me and you know it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then the member left this assembly. His acting leader was responsible enough to indicate in this House that this was a serious matter that had to be handled very delicately and responsibly in order not to raise unnecessary fears. He also indicated appropriate steps should be taken to make sure the problem was adequately handled. He handled himself very responsibly.
The member for Bellwoods left this House yesterday, went out in the corridor and, in order to make sure he got his name in the paper, accused the Ministry of Health of being involved in a coverup.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are ducking your responsibilities.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just sit down and let me finish. That sort of thing --
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, you heard the minister imputing motive.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you rising on a point of privilege?
Mr. McClellan: Yes. You heard the minister imputing motive. That is my point of privilege and I ask you to instruct him to withdraw --
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Minister of Health please confine himself to answering the question that was asked? Do not try and respond to the interjections, which may or may not be valid, but just confine yourself to the main question, please.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Did he impute or not?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think we need that sort of thing in this House. I would ask you to withdraw the statement that was made with regard to the member for Bellwoods.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not having any competence in psychiatry, I should not have tried to speculate as to why the member for Bellwoods decided to go out in the hall and in front of the media make an accusation he did not make in the assembly. So I withdraw the allegation that in order to get his name in the newspaper he went out in the hall and said that.
Mr. Speaker: Now would you answer the question?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would address this to you, both in your position as Speaker and in your position as the elected member for the area of Peterborough. I have answered the allegations raised and I have also indicated that, if I am not satisfied with the procedure, I will take steps immediately to appoint inspectors in order to assure the good people of Peterborough that the situation is under control.
I did take some exception to the remarks of the member for Bellwoods, yesterday in particular, because I know the people in the city of Peterborough would want at least to be sure that the process was in place. They would want to know that competent people, including the thousands of people who work in my ministry, were hard at work on this situation and that the medical officer of health, who is competent and who the member for Bellwoods has not got the courage to say is incompetent, is in control of the situation.
The concern expressed by the acting leader for the third party -- that unnecessary fears not be raised -- is very important for the people in your riding, Mr. Speaker. Allegations that my ministry or the medical officer of health or whoever is involved in something relating to a coverup, when we are talking about communicable diseases, are so unfair and wrong -- unfair, particularly, to the people of Peterborough -- that I am not prepared to let those remarks of the member for Bellwoods go unanswered in this House under any circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I do not think I have heard in this chamber any allegations made about the competence of the minister, the ministry or the ministry staff.
10:50 a.m.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was not in this chamber, but the point I was making was that the member told the media the Ministry of Health was involved in a coverup. I take objection to that.
Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Just so the minister does not accuse me of saying something outside the House that I will not say inside the House, let me remind the minister that surely it is his function ultimately to ensure the enforcement of the health legislation in this province.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please resume his seat?
Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:
For the second day in a row we have heard ministerial statements as opposed to answers to questions. I would ask that you add five minutes to the question period as a result of a ministerial statement in response to questions outside the House.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that is not a point of order. I think the matter raised is of extreme importance. If the minister had not responded to the interjections there would not have been as lengthy a discussion. We will have a new question from the member for Huron--Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order --
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.
Ms. Copps: With respect, Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: There is not. You are out of order.
ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. First, let me congratulate the minister on his appointment to the agriculture portfolio and let me say that we in the farm community hope his appointment is an indication this government has finally come to realize the importance of the agricultural industry to the economy of this province.
According to many farm economic analysts, agriculture is going through its worst crisis since the dirty '30s. Fortunately or unfortunately, the minister does not recall those years. Farmers are having a tough time securing short-term credit for spring planting. It is estimated as many as 25 per cent of Ontario's commercial farmers may go out of business this year because they just cannot get affordable credit.
If the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program is working as well as the minister stated yesterday, what reason can there possibly be for only 40 application approvals, considering there are some 6,000 farmers who are facing serious financial difficulties today? Why are there not numerous applications in the pipeline? Are the farmers being told by the bankers they do not qualify?
With the planting season just one month away and very little short-term credit available, what immediate assistance can the farmers expect from this government so they can purchase their seed, fertilizer, fuel, insecticides, herbicides and everything else needed for food production?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his welcoming remarks. I only say that I do not think there has ever been a time in my experience in the Legislature, in almost 11 years of observing the actions of three other Ministers of Agriculture and Food, when agriculture has not been a priority with my party and with my government.
Mr. Riddell: Let the farmers decide that.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am always willing to let the people decide, as they did a year ago next Friday.
Mr. Riddell: How many of the farmers' votes did you get?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member should look over here. I would say we got a lot more than that party did, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Ruston: Not in the front row though.
Mr. Riddell: Not one of them was considered for Agriculture and Food.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Huron- Middlesex asked four questions and then he interjected with another. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to confine himself to the main question, which was the fourth one.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am almost tempted to ask that they be repeated, Mr. Speaker, but I will not.
One of the prime requirements of the agriculture assistance program which has been put in place is that the applicants provide a year-end report of what actually happened in 1981 on their farms and also provide a plan for 1982. It is true at this point that the plan was officially launched on January 4. The number of applications actually in hand is small, although the number picked up by individual farmers is in excess of 800 as of the first of this week.
Frankly I think what is holding up getting these applications in larger numbers is the fact that they have not yet received their actual 1981 results from their auditors, their accountants or whomever they use. These are the reports I am getting from the agricultural representatives who have been giving me regular reports. I anticipate we will have quite a significant increase in the inflow of applications and we will process them as quickly as possible.
I would not want to say anything today that would change the intent of this program but it was never that the program would be the be-all and end-all for every farmer in the province. At this time there is something in the order of $4 billion of outstanding credit in the farm sector of the province. There is no way the provincial government is going to presume to put itself in the position of displacing all other creditors and take over that entire field.
We were pleased the federal government saw fit in 1981 to make additional assistance available through the Farm Credit Corp. and through the initiatives with respect to small business bonds, particularly making available to unincorporated farmers those financial instruments. As I indicated the other day --
Mr. Eakins: Turn the mattress over; put on the electric blanket.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I have written to Mr. Whelan asking that his actions with respect to the Farm Credit Corp. for what he refers to as the dire-straits category be extended. I would expect that with what we are doing with the $60-million farm assistance program, plus the actions of the federal government, we should be able to help those farmers who have a viable plan for 1982.
I would remind the honourable member of a point that was made the other day when we met with some representatives of the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association. We noted that the combined effect of this program and the programs in 1981 for livestock producers put into the farm economy of this province commitments of $120 million, which far exceeds the amount committed in 1981-82 by the Farm Credit Corp. of Canada for this province.
Mr. Riddell: To prevent a further decline of the agricultural industry in this province then, does the minister intend to implement a strategy for agriculture that would provide some long-term, rather than ad hoc, solutions to the financial problems facing agriculture? I would just remind him, if he would take a minute to read the OFA task force report --
Mr. MacDonald: What is the question?
Mr. Riddell: This is part of the question. A statement was made in that report by a former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Ev Biggs, and I quote: "Band-Aid approaches are no longer acceptable. There must be a dedication and a commitment on the part of government not only to solving the problems of the moment but ensuring a sense of security for the future."
What specific programs does the minister intend to introduce that would go beyond merely allowing our farmers to survive but rather will allow them to become viable and competitive with the farmers in other provinces?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have not met a farmer yet who would expect, after almost four weeks in the ministry, that I would have found the answers to all those problems. I do agree with the honourable member in the strongest possible terms that we have to develop strategies and policies for the longer term. In that regard I will likely have more to say next week.
Mr. T. P. Reid: After 39 years in government --
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am keenly aware of the views expressed by the federation, individual farmers, associations, marketing boards and a whole multitude of individuals and organizations to the emergency task force, and many have been very good about sending me additional information. As well, I have been meeting with as many of the boards and organizations as time will permit, and I am going to meet with a lot more.
11 a.m.
The member will recall that on Tuesday there were a number of items in the throne speech which would indicate some of the priorities that I have been able to put in place in a very short time in the ministry, and I intend to do more based on full consultation with the farm community.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall that after the House adjourned in December, the government finally released its proposal of a $60-million farm assistance program to the farmers. Is the minister aware of the fact that a detailed assessment of that program by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture indicated that, in the original guidelines for eligibility, no more than $30 million, or one half, of the $60 million would go out?
Will the minister not concede that the original program, as presented, was a failure and that he has already moved to compensate to some extent by the alleged broadening of it in the throne speech, which he detailed somewhat yesterday? Was his original program not a failure, and does he not concede that?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the program is brand new. It is impossible to make that kind of an assessment.
Mr. MacDonald: Why did the minister broaden it then?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have seen no indication of this $30-million figure in the correspondence I have received, nor was it indicated to me in the meeting I had with Mr. Barrie very soon after coming to this portfolio. I have never heard that. But I have heard from MPPs on both sides of the House, and particularly from members on this side such as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) -- from those two in particular, but there are many others -- who have expressed concern that perhaps there was a need to broaden those criteria to include certain types of operations, particularly the small ones.
My attitude was that it is better to err on the side of caution if I am going to err at all, therefore I recommended the broadening of two of the three criteria.
SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the new Minister of Labour.
In view of the government's expressed commitment to human rights and sexual equality, and in view of the fact that the Block Drug Co. of East York requires its female employees to punch a time clock when entering and leaving the washroom, will the minister make a personal appeal to the management of the Block Drug Co. to end this outrageously discriminatory practice by removing the clock-punching routine for washroom visits and to treat its female employees in the same way it treats its male employees?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of my colleague across the floor and I will be happy to take the matter under advisement and see what I can do.
Ms. Bryden: I understand the women have registered a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission but have been told that because of the backlog and shortage of staff, which is something the government should be correcting, the case will not be dealt with in less than a year. Therefore, it is extremely urgent that the minister deal with this case immediately so that this sexual discrimination in the work place does not continue. Perhaps he could ask for voluntary compliance with the prohibition against sex discrimination which is in the code.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was not aware they had been advised that it would be at least a year before the case would be heard. I would like to look into that matter, and certainly I will consider the matter of voluntary compliance.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to intervene and do something to help these women?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was what I said in my earlier response.
ONTARIO STOCKYARDS
Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding a ministry decision which was announced on January 11 --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shymko: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is regarding a ministry decision which was announced on January 11, 1982, which stated that the Ontario Stockyards will be retained in their existing location.
Since the decision was reached on the basis of a consultant's report which took into consideration only the views of those parties in whose interests it was to retain the stockyards at their present location, while in my opinion totally disregarding the commitment in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document to solicit the views of all interested groups, which include local residents, ratepayers' associations, union representatives of employees of the stockyards and the packers, the Junction business association and others, I would like to ask if the minister is prepared to make the so-called Kelljair Consultants Ltd. report public so that the process of full public consultation will be followed, as clearly expressed in the BILD statement?
Mr. R. F. Johnston: This question was planted by the Larry for Leader group.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member is a cynic.
Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to release the report to whomsoever wishes it. As the honourable member may know, when the decision was announced in January there were a number of communications to the ministry, some of which I have seen, indicating support for the position; they included a fairly strong letter from his worship the mayor of the city of Toronto. But certainly I will pleased to release the report so that its contents and the information on which the ministry's and the government's decision was based will be known.
Mr. Shymko: I appreciate the minister's reply. I do have a supplementary, though. The January 11 press release states there is no significant overall benefit in moving the yards at this time and the BILD document itself speaks of developing a long-range plan for the stockyards.
The former minister, I believe, was prepared on October 22 to make a statement in the House inviting submissions and briefs from all peoples and groups with a serious interest in the future of the stockyards.
There are suggestions for some immediate improvements such as an overpass or an underpass for cattle crossing St. Clair Avenue. Will such improvements be taken into consideration immediately?
At the same time, according to these statements, do I understand the decision to be that relocation is not feasible except as a long-range proposition which would allow for further public consultation, including perhaps a long-range feasibility study?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I visited the stockyards on February 17 and then had a meeting with the board of the stockyards a week or 10 days later, at which time we discussed the plans they have developed to improve the yards and to address some of the problems which the honourable member and some of his constituents have raised from time to time.
The members will understand that if at any point we are to talk about moving the Ontario Stockyards, realistically we also have to talk in terms of moving all the packing houses as well. It is not just a matter of simply moving the stockyards.
Mr. Riddell: That is one thing you have grasped in your short period of time as minister.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member was very kind to observe that. That aside, the decision announced by my predecessor was fairly clear that, based on the report -- which as I said I will be happy to provide to the member, and for that matter to anybody, with the caveat that it may take a few days to get copies printed since there may not be sufficient copies available -- the ministry could see no reason to talk in terms of moving the yards and the packing houses at this time.
I suppose that can vary, but at the moment I cannot foresee contemplating moving them in the foreseeable future, particularly because since our decision was announced on January 11 we have had the indications of the federal government with respect to the Crow's Nest Pass rates. The concern has been expressed that one of the effects of that would be to make it more attractive for some of our packing houses to move west. I do not think we want to do anything to make that industry less viable or to make Ontario less attractive to it at this time.
11:10a.m.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the government was considering moving the stockyards, why did it not do the study before using it as a vote-getting gimmick in the BILD program and in the election? When they did do the study after the election, why did the person doing the study visit everybody except the union that represents the 5,000 workers involved? Why did he have the colossal effrontery to go to the union afterwards and ask them to write a letter commending his conclusion when they had not even been approached during the course of the study?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the conduct of the study --
Mr. MacDonald: You double-crossed the member for High Park-Swansea, that is your problem. He is scalding at the moment, and rightly so.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me say this: The member has every right, as a private member of this assembly, to place before us on that table a resolution calling for the removal of the stockyards and the packing houses.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not in favour of that. You are playing games with it for political purposes.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is the about the first time I can find anywhere on the record the member giving an opinion one way or the other. Mostly he has danced around all over the place.
Mr. MacDonald: I have been on the record.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Fine, now you are on the record.
I will be glad to release that report. If the member wants to present a resolution that suggests we should go further, he should feel free to do so.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the state of the economy, with a question to the Treasurer as chairman of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.
In its speech from the throne the government went on at incredible lengths about its desire to put Ontario on a more positive economic track and it hailed the BILD program once again as an economic messiah that will take us all back to the promised land of full employment. In Windsor, that promised land has become a faded memory.
I want to return to the statistics the Treasurer used this morning and to report to him so that he can be aware of the actual numbers. According to the public relations officer at the Canada Employment Centre, Monroe Schooley, there were 20,793 people registered for work in the city of Windsor in February. Of that 20,793, 12,332 were men and 8,461 were women, an unemployment level of 16.8 per cent. Six thousand plus are on welfare, and thousands more are leaving the city.
Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the question.
Mr. Wrye: My question is this: What specific BILD initiatives does this government intend to offer Canada's fifth largest manufacturing centre to help get unemployed people back to work?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot say whether the figures the honourable member has just read into the record are more accurate than the ones the government of Canada has given me. Most months he is very quick to jump up every time it suits him and wave around this sheet that comes from the federal government, and he will tell me it suits him.
Mr. Wrye: Why do you treat the unemployed so frivolously?
Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjection.
Hon. F. S. Miller: The statistics in front of me show that the actual rate, not the adjusted rate, of unemployment in Windsor in February 1981 was 16.1 per cent and in February 1982 was 7.6 per cent.
Mr. Wrye: It is more than seven per cent in my riding.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am only saying that is the information sent at 7 a.m. this morning from Ottawa to Toronto, based upon the figures that come from Canada Manpower. I do not say they are accurate, but we have always assumed they were in the past, and I do not recall anyone challenging that kind of information before.
As for what we are doing, I documented yesterday that the projects where commitments have been made are already well over the $750 million of its own or provincial money that BILD said it would put up.
Mr. Wrye: How many in Windsor?
Hon. F. S. Miller: We are looking into the Windsor area. Just this week I announced the auto parts technology centre; it is not in Windsor --
Mr. Wrye: Nor is the product centre.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Fine, but the jobs in the auto parts technology centre, wherever it may be located, were not the key jobs we were hoping to create. Surely the major task facing small, Canadian independent parts manufacturer to access up-to-date technology to bring their unit costs down and to be competitive with foreign jurisdictions.
One of the major actions taken in the BILD document was to see that kind of facility would be in place for small, independent parts manufacturers to keep them going. That is one of a number of things.
Second, I hope the member will accept that transportation is a necessary component of any good industrial base. Again, we are looking at the whole corridor from Windsor right through to Quebec city for that matter, but only the parts that lay in Ontario can be dealt with by us to improve it. That is part of the BILD document.
The member throws his eyes up at the sky. I understand there is a major hotel of several million dollars' value being built in Windsor right now. Is that correct, or does the member not know what is happening in Windsor?
Interjection.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh, he doesn't know what is happening in Windsor.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Treasurer just address himself to the question?
Interjections.
Mr. Boudria: Have you ever been to Windsor?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been to Windsor quite often.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the honourable members that if they will just cease their interjections, the member for Windsor-Sandwich may have the opportunity of asking a supplementary.
Hon. F. S. Miller: In any case, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other issues and I only suggest to the member that once in a while he not only take the BILD document but also look at BILD one year later.
Mr. Wrye: Perhaps the Treasurer will begin to understand the problem of unemployment if he gets a list of the almost 21,000 people who are unemployed. It is not 7.6 per cent.
I want to return to the matter of the automotive industry, because that is one of the reasons we have almost 21,000 people unemployed in the automotive centre of Canada. The government told us on Tuesday that the current state of the North American auto industry is "the greatest single impediment to the revitalization of Ontario's economy." The government promised that it would not stand idly by and let events continue to take their course, saying the matter was too important and the consequences too serious.
Mr. Speaker: Question.
Mr. Wrye: Other than convening meetings with federal ministers and other people and other than continuing to bash the feds, as the Treasurer has done again and again this morning, since this matter is so important, what specific initiatives does this province have to help the ailing North American auto industry? What money is the Treasurer prepared to spend?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I sense that was not quite a supplementary to the first question, Mr. Speaker. However, that does not matter. The fact remains that we have spent money in the member's area. He tends to forget that. Some of it preceded his time as a member. Certainly the $68 million that went into Ford was ridiculed --
Interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I sometimes wish the people the member represents could see him when someone is trying to answer his question.
Ms. Copps: If you gave us television, they could.
Hon. F. S. Miller: That is why you lost; they finally could see you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help asking, if we cannot have free speech in this place, where can we expect it?
PLANT SHUTDOWNS
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. First, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome him to his position and hope that we can get some cooperation on some of the labour matters that will concern us.
Can the minister give this House an assurance that the 93 employees of the Galtaco foundry in Cambridge who were laid off on December 14 will receive severance pay?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I understand that matter is currently under consideration by the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour. I did meet with the representatives of the union and of the parent union two weeks ago to discuss this matter.
NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), I wish to give notice of my dissatisfaction with the answer of the Minister of Health and that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest possible adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. You will notify the table in the regular way.
11:20 a.m.
MOTION
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on pensions be authorized to sit on Monday, March 15, 1982.
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 1:
That the following standing committees be established for this session, with power to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, with power to send for persons, papers and things, as provided in section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act:
Standing committee on general government; 12 members, with seven from the government party. three from the official opposition and two from the third party.
Standing committee on resources development; 12 members as above.
Standing committee on the administration of justice; 12 members as above.
Standing committee on social development; 12 members as above.
Standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments; 12 members as above, appointed for this session to be the committee provided for by section 12 of the Regulations Act and having the terms of reference as set out in that section, namely: to examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes, but in so doing regard shall be had to the following guidelines:
(a) Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute.
(b) Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties.
(c) Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language.
(d) Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute.
(e) Regulations should not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts.
(f) Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty.
(g) Regulations should not shift the onus of proof of innocence to a person accused of an offence.
(h) Regulations should not impose anything in the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the amount of a licence fee or the like).
(i) General powers should not be used to establish a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal.
And the committee shall from time to time report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations as required by subsection 12(3) of the Regulations Act, but before drawing the attention of the House to a regulation or other statutory instrument the committee shall afford the ministry or agency concerned an opportunity to furnish orally or in writing to the committee such explanation as the ministry or agency thinks fit.
And the committee shall have power to employ counsel and such other staff as it considers necessary.
Standing committee on members' services; 12 members as above, to examine the services to members from time to time and, without interfering with the statutory responsibility of the Board of Internal Economy in such matters, be empowered to recommend to the consideration of the House matters it wishes to draw to the special attention of the board; and be empowered to act as an advisory committee to Mr. Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to members, and to draw the special attention of the House to such matters as the committee believes require it.
Standing committee on public accounts; 12 members, with six from the government party, four from the official opposition and two from the third party. The report of the Provincial Auditor for 1981-82 and the public accounts for 1981-82 are referred to the public accounts committee.
And that, unless otherwise ordered, substitution be permitted on all standing committees provided that written notice of substitution is given to the chairman of the committee before or early in the meeting.
Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. F. S. Miller, that resolution 1 be amended by deleting the words "Standing committee on public accounts: 12 members, with six from the government party, four from the official opposition and two from the third party. The report of the Provincial Auditor for 1981-82 and the public accounts for 1982-82 are referred to the public accounts committee," and substituting therefor the following:
"Standing committee on public accounts; 12 members, with six from the government party, four from the official opposition and two from the third party to be appointed for this Parliament in accordance with standing order 91, and the report of the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts are referred to the said committee as they become available."
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record the fact that in the last session a similar resolution appeared on the Order Paper as appearing now without the amendment read by the House leader. I think it was probably an oversight on all our parts that the public accounts committee was not struck at that time for the life of the Parliament. As a matter of fact, if we go back and look at the original motion when the Legislature first reconvened, we would find that was what was supposed to have been done.
The reason this is in the standing orders is to ensure continuity in the public accounts committee which I, perhaps not obviously, would believe is the most important standing committee of the Legislature. It is unfortunate that there was the original oversight and we hope this will rectify the situation.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a couple of points briefly. You are aware that the procedural affairs committee has spent a number of its meetings reviewing the committee system and has made substantial recommendations to the House for some reforms in that system.
I personally believe the present lineup of committees is working reasonably well, probably as well as it ever has in my time, particularly in conjunction with the second resolution in the name of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), which indicates a specific time for the meetings so that there is no uncertainty about that.
People are pretty well accustomed to the committee system as it is, but I do believe the work done by the procedural affairs committee was extremely valuable and indicated another approach to the committee system which I am sorry the House has not had an opportunity to examine more carefully. Frankly, I had hoped a new approach to the committee system might have been established for use during this session.
I say again that the present system is working quite smoothly, particularly in conjunction with the time slots which work as conveniently as they possibly can. My own desires in committee work actually go towards specific committees covering specific subjects such as education and agriculture.
There is one question I would like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the government House leader might respond. What is going to be the disposition of the recommendation from the standing committee on procedural affairs? Is it the government House leader's thought that over the next months we might come up with a new approach to committees which we could use in the fall, perhaps, or at a session a year from now?
Mr. Speaker: Just before the government House leader responds, I would ask all honourable members to please be quiet and allow the minister to reply to the questions asked.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond to that suggestion. I also read with interest the report of the procedural affairs committee on another committee structure and system. We had a few meetings in regard to that report and a number of questions were raised. We did not conclude our study, which was interrupted by the election. I am perfectly agreeable to sitting down again and looking at the committee structure.
I would like to review the committee structure of this House in conjunction with a general review of all the rules of the House. I think this probably could be undertaken by various bodies. I know the procedural affairs committee is looking at that at present. House leaders and others, I am sure, will be studying that over the next few months. But, as far as committees are concerned, I would be happy to give my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk the undertaking he has asked for.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
COMMITTEE SCHEDULE
Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 2:
That this House endorses the following schedule for committee meetings during this session:
The standing committee on social development may meet on the afternoons of Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
The standing committee on resources development may meet on the evenings of Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The standing committee on general government may meet on Wednesday afternoons.
The standing committee on administration of justice may meet on Thursday afternoons and Friday mornings.
On Wednesday mornings no more than two of the following committees may meet without leave of the House: general government, resources development, administration of justice.
The following committees may meet on Thursday mornings: public accounts, procedural affairs, regulations and other statutory instruments.
The following committee may meet on Thursday afternoons: members' services.
Motion agreed to.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 4:
That Mr. Cousens, member for York Centre, be appointed Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole House for this session.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of supply.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to thank the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), the acting leader of the third party, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), and all fellow honourable members of this House for the honour you have given me in appointing me Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House. I will seek to do my very best to be fair to all parties and to all persons according to the rules of the House, and I ask for your support.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period April 1, 1982, to June 30, 1982.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate because I am deeply concerned about the way this government has squandered the opportunities of this province. In particular, as housing critic, I think no area is more obvious to illustrate the failure of this government than the way in which they have not provided those opportunities for the most essential commodity in a civilized society.
11:30 a.m.
As critic for our party, I have become acutely aware of the poor track record of those two ministries most directly concerned with housing, namely, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The record of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) is bad because of the abominable manner in which he has handled the rent review program and the condominium legislation. That of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) suffers because he too is directly connected with that area.
The tragic fact is that many of the dreams of the people in my riding and across this province -- dreams of owning their own home, of providing a place of security and a place of investment for their old age -- have been tragically dropped as the result of the inaction of this government. The fact is that many of the people in my riding simply cannot afford to own a home now.
According to the Toronto Real Estate Board the average price of a home sold by the multiple listing service in Metropolitan Toronto and district during January 1982 was $97,235. Although this represents a decline of $1,319 or 1.3 per cent from the average of December 1981, and the average price of a home has fallen in four of the last six months, the number of monthly sales remains far below the levels posted in early 1981.
It is not as though there are not people out there who want to own homes. The fact is that high mortgage interest rates, with 19.5 per cent being charged for five-year money now by most lenders still in the field, continues to depress the demand for homes. Yet the affordability problem that we stressed last year remains very severe for most of the population.
The average price for the first month in 1982 in Metropolitan Toronto was $19,947, or 25.8 per cent higher than the first month of 1981. In other words the financial obstacle to home ownership which was thrown up in the 1981 boom is still substantially in place despite the slight declines in recent months.
Had the increase in home prices corresponded with the rate of inflation a buyer would be faced with a January 1982 cost of some $9,200 ahead of that in January 1981. But the speculation and panic buying, which this government did nothing to discourage last year, added more than $10,000 to the average price of a home on top of that inflationary increase.
Inflated prices and continuing high interest rates produced the high carrying costs. Using our standard assumption of 10 per cent down payment, mortgage amortized over 25 years, a five-year term, and property taxes of about $1,000, the cost of carrying a $97,235 house at 19.5 per cent would be $1,533.57 a month, or $18,402.84 per year. Since the gross debt service ratio of home owners is generally not permitted to exceed 30 per cent, shelter costs for this average home would supposedly require a gross family income of $61,342.80 a year, which is ludicrously above average.
January's average home would be within the means of an Ontario cabinet minister. We figure it would be $63,000 a year, made up of the $30,000 salary of a member of the provincial Parliament, plus the tax-free allowance of $10,000, plus his ministerial stipend of $23,000. But the income of a back-bencher would not be sufficient to carry a home in Metropolitan Toronto at these prices.
If a new MPP, with his or her salary, cannot afford to own a home in this city, what about the average wage-earner? The Ontario average family income is estimated by Statistics Canada as $28,086 in 1980. If we inflate this by 12 per cent, which probably overstates the gain actually registered in 1981, it would now stand at $31,456. Applying the 30 per cent guideline, and assuming annual property taxes to be $1,000, this would allow the average family to meet mortgage and tax payments of $8,437 a year, or $703 a month, which would carry a mortgage of just below $45,000 at current rates.
Thus, if a family with the average income bought last month, it would be able to afford some 83 homes in Metropolitan Toronto. By that, I mean about 5.5 per cent of the market. These figures are roughly 51 out of 199 condominium apartments sold, 14 out of 202 condominium town houses and only 18 out of the 1,107 single-family homes that were sold.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is fond of telling us we are alarmists, that we always talk about Metropolitan Toronto, but that we should understand some people have to realize they simply cannot afford to live in this city and, therefore, they have to lower their expectations and live elsewhere. Although I disagree with that argument I would like to examine what happens in another municipality.
I was recently speaking in the city of Cambridge. Before I went there I calculated the figures as they would apply to that municipality. According to Mr. Russ Donnelly, president of the real estate board of Cambridge, there have been 100 homes sold to date this year via the multiple listing service, for a gross value of $5,378,500. That produces an average sale price of $53,785.
However, Donnelly cautions that this figure is increased somewhat by the continuing strong sales at the top end of the market. He therefore offered his professional guesstimate that a true average would be somewhere around $49,600. If we take that figure, it probably would be wise to see what exactly that does to the average family in that community.
Using the standard assumptions that we used in averaging in Metropolitan Toronto -- namely, 10 per cent down on the mortgage at 19.5 per cent over a five-year term, amortized over 25 years, and with $1,000 property tax -- a $49,000 house would require the purchaser to pay $679.40 a month, or $8,152.88 a year for the mortgage. Taxes would bring the minimum monthly outgoings for shelter to $762.73 and the annual cost would be $9,152.76. To meet these costs at 30 per cent of income would require a gross income of $30,509.
The latest income data for that area is Statistics Canada's average industrial composite weekly wage for the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo region. The latest figures I have are for August 1981 and the average works out to $314 per week. That produces a gross income of $16,332.10, which translates into a shelter cost, using the 30 per cent guideline, of $4,899.60. In other words, the average family living in that smaller community many miles from Metropolitan Toronto, could only afford about three per cent more than half the cost of carrying the home.
11:40 a.m.
Last year, we in the New Democratic Party warned that the government must distinguish between speculating and investment, investment being a positive thing and speculating being a negative factor on the housing market. We tabled a resolution that read as follows: "Resolved: That in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario should take immediate steps to develop programs and introduce legislation designed to alleviate the current housing crisis evidenced by the rapidly increasing price of houses and diminishing stock of decent affordable housing in Ontario, and that in particular, the government should introduce a housing speculation tax in the assembly to tax away speculative profits made by persons who buy and sell housing and land for the purpose of making easy profits in a speculative market" -- but that includes a special exemption for home owners selling residences they occupy and for long-term investors who provide affordable rental accommodation.
It is amazing, but there are now companies in Metropolitan Toronto that are not content to speculate in individual family houses and condominium units. We see a constant pattern now by certain companies that are based in western Canada, and Lord only knows where their original money comes from, that are in the apartment speculation business. We can see that by the rate at which they are turning over apartment buildings.
Second, we advocated that the government sponsor the establishment of a select committee of the assembly to inquire into and assess the impact of the flow of foreign speculative capital on the province's housing market.
Real estate agents in this city tell me there are certain condominium buildings for which they have an open order from Vancouver-based speculators and speculating companies to buy whenever a unit becomes available. Likewise money is coming in from outside the province, even from foreign countries, to speculate in our housing market. This, of course, has nothing more than an inflationary effect on our market, not just on home ownership but also on rental accommodation.
Third, we asked that we establish effective housing programs to produce and upgrade the stock of decent affordable housing in Ontario. I will deal later with that one item at greater length, looking at some of the minister's so-called programs.
My colleague, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), our deputy leader, has dealt at some length with some of the very specific proposals that we in this party have been advocating and I would like to address myself to a couple of them which he did not go into in great detail.
First of all, our proposal to stimulate the housing sector would involve a $150-million commitment to increase co-op housing starts and conversions. The program would provide a $10,000 interest-free loan for every unit constructed. It would stimulate 15,000 new units and increase Ontario's housing starts by up to one third for the year 1982.
In terms of employment, these 15,000 units would generate about 18,000 construction and directly related jobs. In addition, a further 14,000 jobs would be needed in indirectly related industries, such as furniture manufacturing, carpets, drapery and other industries. It would provide about $8 million in provincial sales tax, more than $500 million in wages, more than $20 million in provincial income tax, and $50 million in federal income tax. It would also provide housing at a time when housing is so desperately needed in this province. The program would cost the government, but the effect of that expenditure would be immeasurably greater than that of the recent cheque for $650 million to create jobs in another province.
We also talked about the need for the government of this province to follow the lead of other governments, not necessarily NDP governments but even Conservative governments such as the government of Alberta, and get into the banking business in a provincial way. This Conservative government has succeeded in trying to convince everyone, or has tried to convince the many residents of Ontario anyway, that the high-interest problem is purely a federal matter. That, of course, was the thrust of the throne speech. The Ontario government has a number of vehicles available to it and it is not good enough to simply cry that the Liberal government is the only villain.
The fact is that one of the vehicles for providing lower-interest loans and mortgages is not a new one. It has existed in this province since 1919. The United Farmers government started the Province of Ontario Savings Office and the primary purpose of the establishment for the Province of Ontario Savings Office was to borrow money by accepting deposits from the public and to make low-cost improvement loans available to farmers. It is interesting that with the return of the Conservatives to power in 1923, with the defeat of the last progressive government in this province, the farm loan program was suspended and the Province of Ontario Savings Office became a vehicle to encourage and promote thrift among Ontarians.
Mr. Nixon: When was that?
Mr. Philip: That was 1923. As I say, it was the defeat of the last progressive government. Certainly the governments that followed were not terribly progressive.
At present the primary function of the savings office is to take savings deposits from the public. At this time the deposits total somewhere just over $600 million. There are only 21 branches now in existence and none of them is in northern Ontario. In contrast to the $640-odd million on deposit in this province, Alberta has $2.3 billion in its treasury branches and a loan portfolio in excess of $1.9 billion. If Ontario were to provide branches equivalent to that of Alberta there would be 865 branches instead of the 21 that now exist.
We in Ontario already have in existence a vehicle by which we could provide competition to the banking system that is already making exorbitant profits. We should look at the west. We should look at the proposals that have been made by Dave Barrett in British Columbia and even look at the proposals already put in action by the Alberta Conservative government.
Just as this government has failed home owners and would-be home owners, so too it has failed tenants. The person who, until a few days ago, held the post responsible for rent review has floated one trial balloon after another as to how he can weaken that rent review system, or perhaps in his view strengthen it on behalf of landlords and corporate interests. First, he wanted to reduce the ceiling above which apartments were exempt. When we asked him what he thought a luxury apartment cost, he said, "Five hundred dollars a month." Of course, $500 a month in Metropolitan Toronto does not buy one very much. Then he changed his mind about that. We found out he was going to centralize all the rent review offices to make it harder for small landlords and, indeed, harder for tenant groups to appear and present their views.
11:50 a.m.
I have introduced in this Legislature some 15, 16 or 17 private member's bills -- I have not counted them lately -- dealing with concrete ways in which rent review and landlord and tenant legislation could be improved. We have disagreed with the positions of the Liberal and Conservative parties who have refused to extend rent review to buildings occupied after January 1, 1976. We have disagreed with that kind of discrimination which affects certain areas such as my riding and the various ridings in Scarborough and Mississauga where a large part of the rental accommodation is new accommodation. That was where the land was available to build the new apartments.
We would also put an end to the disgraceful practice tolerated by the Residential Tenancy Commission of allowing landlords to raise new equity by floating a new mortgage on a building so that he can invest in some other business venture and pass on these costs, which are unrelated directly to the building, to the tenant.
That was the most recent glaring example of how the rent review system is not working. If we check the interpretation guidelines turned out by the Residential Tenancy Commission it says, and I quote from the October 22, 1979, rent review guidelines on financing costs, under item 2: "Rents should not be increased because of the financing costs incurred by mortgaging a residential tenancy complex to obtain funds for use elsewhere." Yet we have had at least two recent cases where that has been done by rent review officers in apparent disregard for their own guidelines.
One has to say to the new minister that we would hope he would take a closer look at the rent review process. We would hope he would look at the bills I have introduced and which have been endorsed by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations as being greatly needed to improve and facilitate the way in which the rent review process works.
This government has also failed to enact conflict of interest legislation. I asked the previous minister about the concern of many tenant groups that residential tenancy officers, people who were making decisions on rent review acting in a quasi-judicial manner, were then going out within days and appearing before those same bodies on behalf of landlords. When I brought that to his attention, he said it seemed like a very good job and maybe he would look into it himself. Much as we would enjoy having him go and look for another job, since he did not do a very good job of the one he had undertaken as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, that kind of flippant remark and insensitivity to the role of quasi-judicial bodies I would think would certainly shock the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I hope the present minister does not share that attitude.
Only a few weeks ago I brought a delegation of representatives of tenant groups before the Residential Tenancy Commission. We met with the chairman and were treated quite hospitably. They sat down with us and we expressed our concerns about the need for conflict of interest guidelines.
I think it is the role of the minister, not the Residential Tenancy Commission, to come down with guidelines. It is the role of this minister that we are now talking to as a member of cabinet to see that conflict of interest guidelines come down, not just for the Residential Tenancy Commission but for the government. It is inappropriate for a minister, a deputy minister, or anyone who has served in a quasi-judicial capacity, to appear either by writing or the telephone or physically in an advocacy capacity with that body for which he was responsible.
I do not know how many scandals we need in this government to show that point. A few years ago we had the scandal of the Ontario Highway Transport Board. Then we had the Re-Mor thing in which an ex-cabinet minister was running back and forth as a messenger boy for Mr. Montemurro and his gang.
Now, of course, we have the examples of the careless way in which the Residential Tenancy Commission actually has people who had been acting as rent review officers appearing within days before that very body. I do not know whether or not they get favours. I would not suggest they do. In fact, it may work in the reverse. If I were a rent review officer and saw a colleague appearing before me, I would probably bend over backwards to make sure I was fair. It might be a disadvantage in that I could subconsciously create a disadvantage for his client.
But whether an injustice is committed or not, not only must justice be done but it also must appear to be done. The federal government responded to the problem of conflict of interest. The federal government, on which this minister likes to put all the blame, certainly brought in conflict of interest guidelines and legislation. The federal government was able to deal with it.
When we look at other jurisdictions, when we look at the Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States, we see they are sensitive to the way in which quasi-judicial bodies operate. But they are sensitive to the fact that people appearing before those bodies must feel justice is going to be done and that impartiality will be exercised. I wonder then why this government has been so reluctant to act.
I can accept the flippancy of the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I realize he probably is not sensitive to this issue, let alone to other issues. But I would expect that at least the Attorney General, the chief law officer, the chief justice officer in this province, would be sensitive to it.
I can only say that it is not just a tenants' issue. It is an issue of this government. It is an issue that was understood by a colleague of mine from the Conservative Party who brought in a bill quite similar to mine. He arrived at it independently, without any consultation with me. We did not conspire and sit down together and come up with a bill.
The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) saw there was an obvious injustice and the injustice appeared to him to be so blatant that he introduced a bill, I think two or three days after mine, that was fairly close in substance. The difference was that he would have a one-year period before a former tribunal officer or high level civil servant or minister could appear; I would advocate two years. But the principle was essentially the same. So this is not a partisan issue.
Surely it is a matter of common sense that if you are going to have quasi-judicial bodies they have to be independent and they have to appear to be independent. I ask why this government has been so reluctant to follow the lead of other jurisdictions, or to at least follow the lead in some of the good things the federal government does since it is so critical of everything else the federal government is doing.
Just as this government has failed tenants living in private enterprise housing, so it has failed tenants living in geared-to-income housing. The justice committee, which I chaired for a number of years during the minority government, undertook an extensive study of Ontario housing. We visited projects; we acted, I think, in a very nonpartisan way and we dealt with some of the gut issues of not only the tenants but also of the employees of that body and of the people in the community. We did so whether they were elected representatives or community leaders or people living in the neighbourhoods in the areas of various kinds of geared-to- income housing.
There were 119 specific recommendations in the report. That report was completed before the election of March 19 but was not tabled in this House until after it. The Conservatives showed how they felt about the report by defeating the motion to adopt it. That is a kind of arrogance. Instead of saying here are some good, common-sense business recommendations, they are recommendations that will not only make Ontario housing and other forms of geared-to-income housing more liveable and more acceptable to the community at large, but they will also save the taxpayers money.
12 noon
Instead of saying, "Yes, we agree with them," or even, "We agree with items 1,5,7 and 8," and list them and say, "We will implement those but we will not implement the others," the government sat on it, defeated the adoption of the report in its entirety, voted against that report and we can see the mess we are in now as a result of it.
The government is now boasting that it is encouraging the construction of rental accommodation. As my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has pointed out, there are people in this city who are sleeping in the corridors or the stairwells of city hall because they are out on the street. There are people in this city who are not fortunate enough to have a family, who are not old enough to fall into geared-to-income seniors' housing and who are not disabled enough to fall into geared-to-income housing for the disabled.
I had one case of a young man who, in a state of depression, managed to jump off a building. The building he jumped off was not high enough to kill him, so he was crippled. However, even though he has a degenerating condition, even though he has no major source of income and even though he is unemployed, because he is mobile he cannot be accommodated in geared-to-income housing so he has to find accommodation in some rooming house or other place.
In the city of Toronto, we have seen that rooming houses and other forms of inexpensive accommodation which used to exist are now disappearing. This government does nothing about the speculators and whitewashers who are going into the downtown core of the city and completely eliminating any kind of facilities for that type of person.
This fellow called me one night and said, "I want to thank you for what you have done for me but I just want to tell you that I may not have picked a high enough building last time, but I am going to pick one this time." It is tragic. What do I do as an MPP in dealing with this? I am not a professional counsellor. I was able to connect him with a religious group that at least would talk to him. The fact that someone is so desperate for housing that he intends to commit suicide as a result is a desperate situation and an inhumane one in a civilized society.
The minister, with the usual line of this government, blames it all on the federal government. He says, "The federal government has not entered into agreements with us for those people who are not classified as families under our formula." On no occasion has he suggested that he has gone to the federal government and asked for that kind of negotiation. He has never asked for them to be included, so it is a cop-out. It is "blame the feds but we really do not want it either and if the feds ever suggested it, we probably would not go along with it."
If we look at the Ontario rental construction loan program which is spending $90 million and is creating 5,230 units in Metro, none of it will necessarily be committed to rent supplement programs or to deal with housing for the poor. There is no binding agreement that guarantees this. There is no binding agreement in the contract which requires that up to 25 per cent of the units in the complex must be offered.
Furthermore, the ORCL program has been most generous in Bramalea which got the lion's share of the units -- 1,245 in Brampton. I am not suggesting the units went into that riding because the Premier (Mr. Davis) happens to live there. We know where the land is available, and land is available for construction in that area. However, most people work in the downtown and other areas of Toronto, and creating units in the Brampton area does not solve the housing problem for these people.
The turnover rate in Ontario housing in Metro has declined steadily over the past three years -- 12 per cent in 1979, 11 per cent in 1980 and 10 per cent in 1981. What does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Treasurer intend to do about this critical shortage of assisted housing in this city? It is getting to the point where it is easier to get somebody a job with the liquor control board than it is to get them a unit in OHC.
There is no guarantee indicated in the ORCL program. Will the minister guarantee that some maximum number of units, such as 25 per cent, be taken up under the rent supplement program? I am getting signals that some other members want to speak so I will be brief. Will the minister provide a program to complement the existing federal nonprofit and co-operative programs, to increase significantly the number of directly assisted housing units in this province?
This problem is not one of government will -- I am sure this government wants to do what is right; it knows that there are people looking for housing and unable to get it -- the problem is one of ideology. The problem is that this government refuses to accept the fact that the private enterprise system cannot supply all, or even a majority, of the housing needs in certain metropolitan areas.
Since this government does not seem to accept any of the facts we have given them, I must conclude that they do not understand. Perhaps I can read them a poem which I think expresses what is happening in the housing industry. Maybe it will help them to understand. It was written by J. D. Ketchum and reads as follows:
Free Enterprise does not, of course, mean actual competition,
And cutting prices -- God forbid! That's treason and sedition.
A "Gentlemen's Agreement" is the best of all devices
To stabilize our dividends, our markets, and our prices.
For taking risks we've little love; we set our whole affection
On something like monopoly, with adequate protection.
That is the kind of thing then that this government is sponsoring. That is the kind of thing they are dealing with when they talk about housing, and that is why this government is not acting on the housing problems in this province.
Mr. Riddell: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. This interim supply motion will authorize the expenditure of $5 billion between now and the end of June. I believe that much of this expenditure will be used to pay the salaries of civil servants. None of us minds the civil servants being paid their very attractive salaries -- except for those civil servants at the top levels, whose salaries, I might say, are most attractive, far in excess of salaries paid elected members, with the exception, perhaps, of ministers of the crown.
It is my firm belief that part of the reason Ontario is in its present very serious economic decline is these top-level civil servants, who have been shaping policy for this government. I really have to ask whether they can justify their $60,000, $70,000 and $80,000 salaries, when there are between 350,000 and 400,000 people in Ontario now unemployed.
They are unemployed partly because of the faulty government policies which reflect such priorities as the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor -- for whatever reason we do not know; it did not create one job in this province -- and the purchase of a $10-million jet for no other reason than to give the Premier (Mr. Davis) a chance to go on his ego missions. The Premier was not going to stand to have Lougheed travelling around in jets when he was having to lease a plane or travel by some other mode of transportation in order to get to his destination.
12:10 p.m.
I just cannot believe the priorities that are established by this government. Let me just refer to a one-page story in the London Free Press showing the recently appointed Minister without Portfolio standing beside his chauffeur-driven car, a great big picture: "As a cabinet minister, Bob Eaton gets a chauffeur-driven car. Here he is picked up by driver Frank Anderson of Toronto." At Sutton Place the limousines are lined up to pick up the ministers to take them one block and drop them off at the Legislature. This obviously appears to be the priority of this government, when there are so many unemployed people in the province.
I can imagine a painting hanging in the art gallery some day, and I am not being facetious about this; I have given this a lot of thought. As I was driving home the other day, I could just imagine a painting hanging in the art gallery, dated perhaps 1982 or 1983 or 1984, and in the painting we have internment camps. We have been reading a little bit about internment camps. I do not know what they are all about. I do not know whether they are being established or whether the government intends to establish them, but a farmer who has been travelling this country came into my office and he not only showed me, but showed some of my colleagues pictures that he had taken of an internment camp that allegedly is being constructed somewhere in this country.
If this is the case, what is the government expecting? Is the government expecting that the one million-plus people who are unemployed in this country are going to riot, that they are no longer going to take the present situation that they are some day going to have to go begging for the next loaf of bread on the table? Is this the purpose of these internment camps we are reading about? I hope not. Can't you imagine --
Hon. F. S. Miller: They are federal camps.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Riddell: All right, but this government is partly responsible, too, for the unemployment in this province.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the Treasurer.
Hon. F. S. Miller: It is a point of privilege because the member is implanting by a very Machiavellian route the idea that somehow these are related to this government. He knows they are in Alberta -- I have talked to the same farmer -- and they are federal. Let us make that clear.
Mr. Riddell: I did not say they were not federal, but I am also saying that we have unemployed people in this province who are no longer going to put up with the inadequate policies of this government.
Let me get back to the painting. Here we have the internment camp with all these people inside and we have farmers standing guard over their property, just defying anyone to come in to take that property away from them. We have ghost towns showing vacant stores, showing vacant houses, but coming out of the horizon is a little speck. If one takes a closer look one will see it is an airplane, the $10-million jet that the Premier is riding in, looking down over this internment camp and saying to himself: "I wonder how that ever happened. I am sure glad -- "
Mr. Breaugh: You have got to stop toking in the morning.
Mr. McClellan: It is good. You're flying. Keep going.
Mr. Riddell: "I am sure glad that I am not confined in the same quarters."
Hon. F. S. Miller: What does he smoke?
Mr. Nixon: Withdraw.
Mr. Breaugh: I think he is mainlining.
Mr. Riddell: The minister may think it is funny, but he should just thank his lucky stars that he is not one of the unemployed.
I am going to tell this government, it is guilty for the jobless in this country to a large extent. Why do I say that? I can recall, when I was first elected, this government let the sugar beet industry in Ontario slip right away. There was no reason for that. We should have a sugar beet industry in this province. Alberta has one. But because this government failed to come to the aid of an industry that was somewhat struggling -- but, as far as I was concerned, the struggle was only of a temporary nature -- we could have had an industry and we could have had many people working in that industry.
The government let the sugar beet industry go and instead of replacing it with something else, it simply turned a blind eye and said, "Well, let nature take its course." What could it have done? It could have immediately looked into the establishment of a tomato paste plant. If those people in that part of Ontario could not continue to grow sugar beet, they certainly could grow tomatoes. But no, the only talk we hear now about a tomato paste processing plant is at this particular time.
I can recall when our dairy industry was allowed to slip away from us, when we lost a lot of our quota to Quebec, simply because we, as a provincial government, were sitting on our backsides and failed to realize what was really taking place. Therefore, we did not get our farmers to gear up in dairy production and Quebec did. That province could see the writing on the wall. It could see the quota system coming and, therefore, it ended up with a larger percentage of the quota than it actually should have received based on population.
Our government acted after the horse had escaped and the minister introduced the industrial milk production incentive program loan, but it was too late. That is just another indication of where this government has faltered as far as job retention and job creation are concerned. We have also allowed a lot of our cheese factories to slip away from us and look at the number of people that has put out of work.
I could go on and talk about the ways this government has erred in its policies in trying to keep Ontario as one of the top agricultural provinces in Canada. We have lost that status. We have become a have-not province, partly because of the decline in the agricultural industry, along with the decline in the manufacturing sector. But the minister and the Premier are too proud to stand up and say: "Yes, we have become a have-not province. Yes, we would like to get that equalization payment from the federal government." No, they are too proud.
I can tell the government, had it asked for the something like the $1.8 billion we were entitled to, had it swallowed its pride and asked for it and applied it to the agricultural industry, we might not be in the situation we are in today.
I can think of many ways of getting jobs created again through government policy and I could talk about those measures in the agricultural industry. It may seem a small item, but we could create jobs by getting people to tear down some of the old barns that are marring our landscape. Members can all recall when the government introduced a policy to take down the dead elm trees that had been affected by Dutch elm disease. Why not give jobs to those people to go around and tear down some of the old barns that are practically falling down and really marring the landscape? That is just one example of how we could create jobs.
Another example may well be to have some kind of co-operation between the government and the farm machinery industry, whereby farmers could lease their equipment rather than have to buy $100,000 tractors and $100,000 to $200,000 combines. We could enter into that co-operation and have people going out with machinery and actually putting in the crops for the farmers. That is another indication of how we could create jobs.
We should be getting a tomato paste processing plant established to allow those farmers in southwestern Ontario and elsewhere to produce the tomatoes for a product that we are largely importing at the present time.
12:20 p.m.
There are many ways, in my estimation, that we could create jobs, solely in the agricultural industry. I will not take any more time, because I know there are some other members who want to speak.
I am just saying we have had our priorities all mixed up. We have simply ignored the agricultural industry to the point now where we are no longer considered to be the breadbasket of Canada. Quebec is fast picking up that status, as are the western provinces, and there is absolutely no reason for it. We have the soils in this country, we have the ideal climate and we have the people and the expertise to farm our land.
It is time that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), who I am glad to see is sitting here and listening, shaped and implemented an agricultural policy such as his deputy minister has been calling for ever since he was appointed to that position. The deputy minister is a man whom I consider to be a very high-profile person in the services of the government, Duncan Allan. One of the first statements he made was that Ontario has been lacking an agricultural policy.
I would like to see the minister take hold of that and read the Ontario Federation of Agriculture task report again, where it states that ad hoc programs are no longer acceptable and that we have to have some long-term strategy. I am sure if the minister were to implement that program he would probably satisfy not only the concerns of the agricultural community but also likely his own personal interest. I do not want to get into that. We know he has some higher goals established and, if he can do a good job in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, he is well on his way to accomplishing those goals. There is a twofold reason for him to do a good job in the agricultural industry of this province and we are really looking forward to seeing some tremendous improvements within that industry.
I should also mention the tender fruit industry and indicate how it has been allowed to slip away from us, considering the number of canning plants we had at one time. Now we are down to something like two.
Mr. Haggerty: American-owned.
Mr. Riddell: And they are American-owned. Yet we can produce the fruit in this country. Another thing we should be looking at is re-establishing some of these canning factories, because we are importing so much of that produce now while we should be producing it and processing it right in this country.
Let us get our priorities straight. If we are going to pay these high salaries to civil servants, and that is why we are dealing with this motion right now, let us make darned sure the civil servants are doing the job they were hired to do, particularly those at the top level: to assist the ministers to shape the kind of policies we need to get Ontario moving again.
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I am not anxious to prolong this debate, but I would like to get a few things on the record before this matter is dealt with.
I do not think there is a member of this Legislature, through the constituency offices, who has not been impressed with the very severe hardship that people in Ontario are facing, perhaps now more than at any point in modern time. Whether it is a citizen coming in to the help centre of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) or to the advisory centre of the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), every one of us must be painfully aware of what a severe problem we have in our economy today.
In this Legislature we deal with statistics that are seasonally adjusted, and sometimes we are just seasonally adjusting misery. The harsh facts of reality are that, notwithstanding their sincere efforts to find employment or to develop commerce, many of our people can neither find business nor work; many have given up and they do not even find themselves on seasonally adjusted statistical analyses of unemployment. Thousands are laid off.
In my own community, we had a terrible strike at Stelco Inc. The strike concluded and then people were laid off. The grief and hardship so many people in that community have faced after that incident is absolutely inconceivable. We have layoffs at National Steel Car, even layoffs at small businesses that heretofore have done very well in our economy. We have people who are working half time or who are working even at marginal rates at half time. The problem is growing.
In the 1978 budget I believe the Treasurer at the time, Mr. McKeough, indicated we would have somewhere in the area of 316,000 people out of work. I suggest that if our statistics actually calculated the number of people who are unemployed in Ontario, that figure now would be well over 400,000. That is something no one should be proud of. I believe, sadly, that unless we take some meaningful action now, that is going to get worse.
We continue to seek workers from Europe and elsewhere. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) made reference to this last night. We advertise in England, Scotland and Europe for skilled tradespeople and yet thousands of our own youth remain unemployed.
We have been warned about this in the past. In the early 1900s we had in this province a royal commission on job apprenticeship and job training. In the middle 1960s, then Premier Robarts spoke very clearly and succinctly of the potential difficulty that was going to exist in finding skilled workers for the new trades and the technical trades that were going to be developed in Ontario.
More recently, the then Minister of Industry and Tourism, who is now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), indicated we may be three or four years away from creating the skilled workers and employees to work in our high- technology industry. I say to you, Mr. Speaker -- you were not there then -- where have these people been and what have they been doing while these problems developed?
I think of the difficulty for people who have jobs in what they would categorize as commission sales, whether it is the real estate business or the insurance business. I had a lady in my office the other day who broke down; she was in tears. Her husband had become ill off the job. It was not a workmen's compensation situation. There are no benefits available for this man. He may not be able to be trained or to go back to work again. He is seriously ill.
In his place, she went out to find work. She entered the life insurance business. With the economy the way it is, which is right down, if people are finding things tight, and they are, they certainly are not buying life insurance. They are paying their mortgages if they are lucky, they are buying food if they are lucky or they are putting gas in their gas tanks, much of which goes to an ad valorem gas tax which I might deal with a little later.
The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) indicated earlier today that about 25 per cent of our farmers may go out of business this year. This must be a major concern for each and every one of us in this House, regardless of our political persuasions.
I think of a young man in my constituency who is slightly older than me who gave up a small construction business to go into the farming business. He was raised on a farm and wanted to raise his children in that healthy environment. He gave up a good construction job to do it.
He spent six years of his life working the soil, redeveloping a farm that had not been used for 20 or 30 years. He put money into equipment, implement sheds and the development of that business, only to find after a couple of years of unfortunate bad crop failures and high interest rates that he may not have the credit this year to start that farm up again one month from now. That is a major concern.
I suggest to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) that is going to be a crisis we are going to have to deal with in the next six weeks. I do not think the programs that have been announced are going to deal with that adequately. I suggest we should be putting a fair amount of our dough into job creation, especially in the private sector, and we should provide incentive programs for apprenticeship people to train these people.
In my own community, there are some industries that do a marvellous job in the context of job creation and job training. I look at the apprenticeship and training program that goes on at Dofasco, but unfortunately they are one of the few involved in that. Often they find that after they have invested two or three years in a young man or a young woman, some other employer comes along and scoops up that employee after they have put the time, effort and money into training that person.
12:30 p.m.
I think we are on the verge of a very serious depression -- not a recession -- in Ontario. Much of it has to do with the way we spend our money and the way we collect our tax money. In the last election campaign, as the Premier was announcing this election and just as we were being wound down in the justice committee while we were getting into the guts of the Astra/Re-Mor fiasco, the Premier indicated he wanted a mandate to keep taxes down. That is what he asked for. He got his promise; he got his wish.
On March 19 he got his majority and two months to the day we had our first budget in this new mandate. What did we get? Higher personal income taxes, an ad valorem gas tax, the biggest tax grab this province has seen in a very long time. That was two months to the day after he got a mandate and part of that mandate was to keep taxes down. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to people, but I honestly think that when this next budget comes it is going to be even worse.
I look at the priorities we have had here in Ontario over the past 10 years. Last week, the Treasurer's number one civil servant, Mr. Campbell, appeared before the public accounts committee and he berated the federal government for its interventionist politics and interventionism in the economy, as if Ontario were lily white in that regard.
Talk to private land developers who have put their money up at risk in South Cayuga or Townsend, in the small towns in the riding of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller). Ask them what effect the Townsend development has had on their community. We pumped $38 million into that operation and what do we have? The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk certainly knows. We have, what, 43 or 45 homes? That certainly is a disgrace.
I look at the government advertising that is going on, exhorting us to "preserve it and conserve it," at the same time that we have a hydro rate structure that certainly does nothing to encourage conservation in Ontario. That advertising budget, I think, doubled in the last three years. The government spends with reckless abandon to curry public favour at the taxpayers' expense.
It is just inconceivable, in these difficult economic times, that we could not get away from some radio jingle every 10 or 15 minutes on our popular radio stations. That in itself is probably one reason to listen to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is absolutely inconceivable that we would be spending that kind of money and pumping all that dough into the Tories' favourite advertising agencies.
Not only do we have Minaki Lodge, as was brought up in the last Parliament, but we also have a road to Minaki and it is absolutely inconceivable that we would put probably $38 million in total into that development.
The mandate this government got on March 19 did not include, in my view, the purchase or acquisition of a large share of Suncor. I would think any government with honourable intentions would have put that squarely before the public and made that a vital and integral part of its platform, so that the public might judge it on that. I have people in my constituency who have supported the Conservative Party but who feel the government was elected last March on a false perspective.
We see the purchase of a jet, while at the same time in Ontario people over the age of 18 have to buy their own orthotic or prosthetic devices and that is absolutely disgusting. We come out with some magnanimous program that is going to allow us to have 75 per cent funding for those under the age of 18 who need those devices. I say to members that certainly is magnanimous. It was not long ago in this House that an issue was raised concerning a man in Ottawa who stayed in a hospital waiting for his $1,500 prosthetic knee and leg device and worked up a bill of $6,000 in that hospital waiting for that device. I think that is absolutely silly.
As to our debts, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk quite correctly mentioned yesterday, I believe, that we spend in the area of million a day to service our deficit. That includes Ontario Hydro's deficit, for which we are responsible. We spend money on the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and that really is rich. Mr. Campbell, the chief financial officer in Ontario, or Deputy Treasurer as he is called, berated the federal government, maybe even with some sort of appropriateness, about the extent to which it intervenes in the economy and then had the unmitigated gall to want to forget or set aside the example of the UTDC which, simply put, is one of the worst examples of government intervention in our economy.
We are spending $40 million to $50 million to assist Toronto Iron Works Co. in a partnership arrangement to build a manufacturing plant, which we never said we would do when this company started off originally, while 950 employees are unemployed in Thunder Bay at Hawker Siddeley, one of Canada's foremost and best-regarded manufacturers of transit equipment.
A headline in the Hamilton Spectator last Saturday night indicated that Westinghouse is on the verge of participating with Bombardier of Boucherville, Quebec, in a $1-billion transit deal with New York city. This will provide jobs, through the private sector, for employees of Westinghouse and of various small businesses throughout Canada -- certainly for Bombardier -- without any government involvement, to my knowledge, while the Urban Transportation Development Corp. is tearing across Asia, South America and Europe. I think one could be very well off if he just got the commissions on Kirk Foley's travelling expenses.
We have a difficult time providing the financial resources for prosthetic and orthotic devices, or for conventional transit for our municipalities, but we were prepared to blow $150 million in the city of Hamilton to run a system which the mayor of Hamilton quite correctly referred to as going "from nowhere to nowhere." Fortunately, the elected representatives voted 18 to eight to say no to that particular gift horse.
It is inconceivable that we would be putting upwards of $80 million to $90 million into a system that, in my view, will not work, while we have 950 people at Hawker Siddeley out of work, or $40 million to $50 million into Kingston to develop a government-operated transit manufacturing business. That was never in their original mandate. Their original mandate -- if the minister checks Hansard, he will see that it records it very clearly -- was to serve as a catalyst with the private sector in Canada. The people at Hawker Siddeley -- the union stewards, the people who are out of work, senior management -- and the people at Bombardier will say that UTDC is not a catalyst but a menace.
Rather than wasting our money on those particular areas we might take on an aggressive alternative energy plan that would pay us back very quickly and save hundreds of millions of dollars in money that is now committed to oil, fuel and waste -- a massive energy conservation program. But this will not be accomplished through some mindless advertising on CFRB and other radio stations that lean somewhat towards the Conservative Party.
We should put large amounts of money into low-interest and low-cost housing. I think the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) spoke quite sincerely about the difficulties people are having in finding decent housing in Ontario and in trying to find accommodation for senior citizens or for people who need nursing home accommodation.
Many of us in our constituency offices find a terrible waiting list. It is very grim in some areas in my community. I visited a nursing home in Hamilton which has a waiting list. The day after the obituary of a nursing home resident is published in Hamilton area newspapers, there is a flood of phone calls from people anxious to find a spot for a friend or relative.
We should be putting more money into community colleges and job training. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) took great pleasure in talking about how successful Mohawk College was, at least in a minor way, in his community, and I believe it. But we are facing a layoff of 35 people at Mohawk College this year through budget cuts or through not keeping up with inflation. Those are the harsh facts of reality.
We have a waiting list for our high-technology program, which has a 100 per cent graduate employment rate. We have a lengthy waiting list for that program in our community. We should not need to advertise in Europe to get people to fill high-tech jobs.
We could be getting into a substantial program to assist companies in pollution abatement. The payoff of such a program for our tourist industry -- even in the riding of Muskoka -- would be very great indeed. In the long term it might cost us a little bit of money, but certainly the payoff would be there.
My friend, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, suggested we should get a budget before us as soon as possible. I am becoming a little cynical about what a budget may hold for the people of Ontario. I think any taxicab driver in the city of Toronto could tell us what to expect from a budget from the government: increased cigarette costs, increased beer taxes, increased liquor taxes, probably increased provincial income taxes and maybe even another way or a more creative way to gouge us on our gas or farm taxes. Anyone could predict what is in store for us.
I will not go on much longer -- someone else might want to comment; the Treasurer might want to comment -- but I want to say that it is time in this province to re-evaluate our priorities, to look at each and every board, agency and commission that exists in this province and determine whether we really need it, to determine whether we need 29 people in the cabinet and whether somebody should be paid to pick up the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) at the driveway of his farm to drive him at public expense in an expensive limousine to Queen's Park.
Maybe we need to re-evaluate whether we need to have a myriad of government agencies and whether we should be putting money into Minaki Lodge or the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and what else we might do with that money, if only to freeze taxes or to keep taxes down or to give people a tax break.
If we are on the verge of another massive tax increase in Ontario, I want to be the first to say we are on the verge of a property tax revolt because the people in this province do not believe them any more. They certainly do not believe the government. They listened to the Premier talk about a mandate to keep taxes down and then saw their taxes increased in a greater way, in a greater manner than we have ever seen in modern times through the last budget.
I simply hope it does not happen again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate? I call upon the Treasurer.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have no comments.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 12:42 p.m.