role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 5, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L100 - Mon 5 Nov 1979 / Lun 5 nov 1979

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PQ WHITE PAPER

ORAL QUESTIONS

PQ WHITE PAPER

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

WATER POLLUTION

LABOUR RELATIONS

SUICIDE AT GUELPH JAIL

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

ARENA OPERATING COSTS

HEALTH TRAVEL COSTS

ODC LOAN RATES

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

WCB REPORTS

JAILING OF MOTORIST

ESL PROGRAM

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

VISIT OF U.S. PRESIDENT

REPORT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

SITTING OF THE HOUSE

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PQ WHITE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with all members of the House and the people of our province the initial reactions of the government of Ontario to the white paper published by the government of Quebec proposing “a new partnership between equals: sovereignty association.”

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) will have a more detailed response later on this week related to some of the specifics raised in that paper.

Let me say at the outset this government sees the referendum in Quebec as part of a process which has been going on in this country, in one way or another, since two great empires, those of Great Britain and France, positioned themselves in North America several centuries ago.

Throughout the years, the issues have not always been the same, but the central concerns have largely been the same -- the preservation of a unique national community across the northern half of this continent, a community with basic values of nationhood and particular cultural sensitivities responsive to the kind of people we are. That process has not been one without significant setback or frustration.

Where the Quebec white paper errs in its fundamental analysis of our history is in its failure to record the legitimate and significant steps forward which have significantly enhanced the quality of life and the real economic and social opportunity of the people of Quebec, the people of this province and the other regions and provinces of Canada.

Sovereignty-association is put forward as a new departure for Quebec. It is anything but. It really is the oldest departure, the most facile response. It is what some might call the ultimate “cop-out” -- a self-imposed ghetto mentality, surely beneath the dignity of the French-Canadian people. It is a program which would limit the opportunities for French-Canadian culture and civilization. It is, and I view this as particularly sad, an admission of defeat by one government at a time when the opportunities for French-Canadian survival and for the broadening and deepening of French-Canadian civilization have, in my view, never been better throughout many parts of this country.

The centralization of legislative and fiscal power in the National Assembly of Quebec and the establishment of separate Quebec citizenship would appropriate to Quebec a status which would imply a massive withdrawal from the Canadian reality, a withdrawal which would seriously prejudice the economic, social and political rights of every man, woman and child in Quebec to the tremendous opportunity which the future holds for all Canadians and for which Quebeckers have made as great an investment in personal terms as all other Canadians.

The game, Mr. Speaker, of moving fiscal policy and legislative policy to one place with monetary policy remaining in another is a particularly deceptive proposition because it appears to imply more real independence in one sense while obscuring potential foreign domination in economic terms,

We can all see, Mr. Speaker, how critical monetary policy is to our day-to-day wellbeing. The monetary linkage envisioned by the white paper would make Quebeckers not “masters in their own house” or “maître chez nous,” but in economic terms Quebeckers would be second-class citizens in their own house with no real clout in real terms on the macro-economic issues that would determine their future in the Parliament of Canada, which cannot, in any respect, share or dilute its jurisdiction in monetary matters.

The white paper says: “Though federalism is not necessarily synonymous with poverty and political domination, neither is it a guarantee of freedom or a high standard of living.”

Though sovereignty-association is not necessarily synonymous with poverty and political domination, neither will it guarantee freedom for a high standard of living. I would argue that it would seriously disadvantage Quebeckers, economically and politically, without even marginally contributing to greater cultural security. Indeed, assuming a Quebec without broad economic or political protection under the Canadian national umbrella, the influence of our southern neighbours would likely exert profound cultural pressures on French-Canadian civilization and their cultural opportunity.

The government of Ontario very simply continues, of course, to oppose sovereignty-association. Our absolute commitment, that we would not negotiate with Quebec in this context, remains complete and undiminished.

What is more important perhaps at this point is what we are prepared to do. Our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is prepared to pursue any and all discussions -- discussions aimed at broadening and making more sensitive our constitution to achieve a new national sovereignty for all of Canada. Our position is based on a supple and humane nationhood, one in which all Quebeckers can pursue, along with Canadians everywhere, personal culture, economic and political development.

To the people of Quebec, all Ontarians can speak with one voice, a voice which is not limited by partisan or linguistic division. Our message need be honest, it need be frank and direct. We must affirm to Quebeckers our belief that the proposals of the white paper, the “oui” position in the referendum campaign, constitute the greatest possible threat to their ultimate freedom, their opportunity and wellbeing. We must assert that sovereignty-association constitutes the closing of doors, the limiting of hopes and the diminishing of their future.

Sovereignty-association and a referendum vote by Quebeckers endorsing a negotiated path to whatever precarious political status it suggests, would mean a closed door on the future for every Quebecker. It would be the ultimate denial of the inner strength, the cultural depth and vigour of a civilization that has withstood many threats to its ultimate survival through strength of character and conviction.

We will not be part of this denial of the future, this constraint upon potential for French Canada. We will be part of working with Quebeckers to change Confederation, to enhance its uniqueness as an adaptable political framework through which every legitimate social, cultural and economic goal is attainable for all Canadians. Previous federal rigidities serve today only to point to the real opportunity which now exists.

Soon there will probably be other proposals the Quebeckers will be asked to consider in the present debate. The government and the people of our province await those proposals with interest arid with hope -- interest because we expect there will be new federalist options formally put on the table; hope, because we are all looking for a way to ensure the continued partnership of the people of all provinces in the common cause of a new national definition for the nation we share with eight of our sister provinces.

Ontario will not sit quietly while others advance suppositions about where we stand on various proposals. Our position on the fundamental one to date, on sovereignty-association, is abundantly clear. Our position on other options as they emerge will be equally clear. Quebeckers have the right to know, as they assess their choices, where Ontario stands. Ontarians have the right to be assured that Quebeckers will labour under no false illusions about what is politically and realistically possible from Ontario’s point of view.

The next seven months must see no vacuums develop in the cause for Canada. While the law governing the referendum limits specific campaigning activities to registered participants, those of us who care deeply must not allow geography or reticence to make our commitment remote from the people of Quebec.

[2:15]

I will speak for Canada in the strongest and most direct terms that I can. I urge all Ontarians to make the same commitment in their own hearts and in their own way. I’m hopeful that the federal government in its own way, albeit different from its predecessor, will make the same commitment.

While I speak always as an optimist -- as a matter of conviction and, some will say, of temperament -- one cannot assess the white paper without a sense of how fragile this nation of ours can be, if we are not prepared to ensure the strength and the determination her survival demands.

We have something very special here in Canada. Canada, with all of our difficulties, is a nation with the privilege of fighting over wealth rather than fighting over poverty and of debating regional interests rather than deep socio-economic divisions of class. For our young people, that relative prosperity and the freedom which comes with it secures unlimited opportunity.

There may be a government in Quebec today committed to throwing away that opportunity for its own people and for the rest of us. We are not. We are certain that the people of Quebec are not. This nation, very simply, shall prevail.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PQ WHITE PAPER

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a question to the Premier, but I want to preface it by saying that we can endorse this statement in the strongest terms. I’m very pleased to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Premier on behalf of Ontario.

Since the Premier recognizes that it is necessary for Ontario to speak with one voice, once the proposals of Mr. Ryan and the forces supporting a “non” in the referendum are made known, would the Premier then feel, as I do, that it would be a good thing to have a discussion and a debate in the assembly of Ontario on both these proposals -- the so-called sovereignty-association and the proposals to come forward from the forces in favour of federalism? Would he agree with the suggestion made by the member for Riverdale (Mr.

Renwick) at an earlier date that we might have a committee before which could appear various experts to assist us in defining what the technicalities in the various proposals might mean for Ontario?

Mr. Ryan’s proposal, of course, is not yet before us, although we have seen the white paper. Would these ideas meet with the Premier’s approval, as I think they would give an opportunity for the House to give a clear and united message at this very important time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has been the intent of the government, as I am sure the members will recall, to have -- I like the word “discussions,” quite honestly, on this issue rather than a debate -- it was our thought, quite frankly, to have had this discussion prior to this time, but that was predicated upon the feeling, I guess, because there was nothing definitive from the government of Quebec, that the referendum might have been held this past June or even perhaps at this time.

My view was then, and still is, that the discussion in this House related to this should not be two or three weeks before the referendum but should be closer to the date of the referendum, not only to give us an opportunity to assess where things stand at that moment but, I would hope, to have some greater impact somewhat closer to the date of the vote itself.

I can’t give a commitment in terms of a select committee at this moment, but certainly from my perspective I would hope that we could develop in discussion in this House some real degree of unanimity with respect to our feelings on this issue and that we could discuss this -- my guess is -- early in the spring, if June is roughly to be the date of the referendum, and perhaps take into account the proposals that may be emanating from the federalist group in the province of Quebec.

I would want to reserve to myself for further discussion the concept of having select committee hearings, et cetera. Certainly the opportunity for a discussion, for an expression of the will of this Legislature on something as fundamental as this to the future of Canada, is something we would like to see. But I ask the understanding of the members opposite. I really think there is merit in doing this somewhat closer to the date of the referendum than, say, this week or next.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, and accepting that there is a certain degree of merit in what the Premier suggests in terms of impact, would the Premier not agree the proposals that are likely to come forward from Mr. Ryan’s group in Quebec will probably contain some suggestions, perhaps with regard to social welfare or economic matters? We don’t know yet, but presumably they will be somewhat technical.

Would the Premier not agree that all of us in the House, particularly the opposition parties who do not have access to the civil service in this regard, would be better able to judge, comment and to unite upon various principles that may be put forward by Mr. Ryan if we have some opportunity to understand the technicalities by a thorough discussion of the kind which can occur in a committee, and which is unlikely to occur just catch-as-catch-can in the corridors and in one’s office and so on?

Would he consider that possibility and, therefore, that the committee might sit before the actual debate or discussion -- as the Premier prefers, and I do too -- which he suggests might have a larger impact at another time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The first point I would like to make is I have no indication as to when, as I assume, there will be proposals from Mr. Ryan or the federalists in Quebec.

My concern with respect to the select committee route is that not only the government but all of us would want an understanding of some of the financial, or potential financial implications, and so on. My experience has led me to believe, though, that this really helps a limited number of members. What I would like to do is to give some thought to finding a way for all of us to become more informed with respect to some of the practical implications of what may emerge.

While it is only a suggestion, we might find some avenue right here in this House -- and we haven’t done this before -- perhaps having some technical people available and setting aside special times for a more detailed evaluation, rather than just having a discussion on the general principles.

I am not precluding the other suggestion that came from the member for Riverdale, because I know it was well intentioned. My problem is that I can’t get to all select committees; I don’t get to any. I guess I am not really welcome to go to any. But I sense it gets down, really, to eight or 10 members who become quite knowledgeable. Then the rest of us sort of second-guess, agree or disagree with what is being suggested.

I would like to think on something like this, and I haven’t thought it through carefully, we might find a vehicle where all of the members could participate and become more knowledgeable, if in fact there is a fair amount of technical or financial information that would be important to us.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to begin by stating that the Quebec government’s white paper has made even clearer what we understood previously, which is that the sovereignty-association being proposed by Quebec is, in fact, a form of independence and is not acceptable to this party or to the vast majority, I believe, of the citizens of Ontario.

I would like to ask the Premier, however -- bearing in mind that had we had the debate on the question of sovereignty-association in the spring, as the government originally intended, the committee this House would have then set up would have reported back to the House on November 1, the same date as the Quebec white paper -- can he explain why he feels it should be himself who makes the decision as to what kind of scrutiny of these very important constitutional questions should be undertaken by the House?

In view of the fact the select committee route has never previously been found to have the shortcomings the Premier now finds in it, why is he not prepared to leave it up to the judgement of members of the Legislature whether or not a select committee could look at these matters with a view to reporting back to the Legislature, or perhaps some possible further larger study at the beginning of March, when we resume after the winter break?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think if the leader of the New Democratic Party assessed it -- if, in fact, there had been a select committee dealing with sovereignty-association -- my expectation would be, I would hope, the select committee would have come back with a very simple statement that would have represented what has been said on that particular issue.

I think what may be emerging over the next few weeks or months is the viable alternatives in terms of this province and of our sister provinces. The basic alternative from my standpoint has always been a restructured -- whatever terminology you may wish to use -- constitution. I guess at this point I would say a select committee might not do this the most effectively, or perhaps it would be premature, because while we could prepare a paper saying, “Here are some things we would like to see considered,” the committee would be operating in something of a vacuum.

Obviously, there aren’t going to be any alternatives from the government of Quebec with respect to constitutional change. For the time being, at least, they have rejected that and we really haven’t had forthcoming from Quebec the possible alternatives, as they see them, from the federalist standpoint.

I’m not rejecting the concept of a select committee. Really, I am looking for a way where there will be a real measure of understanding by all members of the House at the appropriate time. I can’t honestly say to the leader of the New Democratic Party when that particular time has arrived. I don’t know, because we don’t know when these proposals may be forthcoming.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: We’ve spent 11 minutes on the first question. The questions themselves were rather long and the answers were even longer. It was a very important exchange, but I don’t think it will profit us to regurgitate what has been said.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question to the Minister of Energy. Could the minister give us his latest view with regard to the possibility of heating oil shortages this winter, in as much as the minister said on October 30 the principal source of his information is the National Energy Board, and the National Energy Board last week expressed a certain concern over this winter’s fuel oil supply? Has the minister any more recent information? Has he received the latest statement from the energy board? Can he tell this House so, we can tell our constituents, what he perceives to be the present situation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, certainly, I have seen nothing, nor have I received any indication from any other source, that would change the assessment which I shared with the House earlier. Indeed, if one were to go through the press release issued by the National Energy Board following meetings in Ottawa late last week, they have agreed that although the situation for this upcoming season is tight, it’s manageable.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, we all hope it will be manageable, but may I ask the minister what contingency plans he has in the event there is a shortage? What discussions has he had with the federal authorities on the matter? Is he urging the federal government to proclaim the energy supplies emergency act, Bill C-42, which would give them emergency power to allocate oil within Canada under certain circumstances?

What is the latest state of his negotiations with the federal government and what contingency plans does he have so that if we’re hit by a shortage, we don’t just suddenly get into a mad scramble but we know exactly what we’re doing?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very important in responding to a question like this that one has to rely on the information one is getting from responsible sources. Indeed, we had our people in Ottawa last week discussing this matter, and we don’t want to be contributing to the problem by speculating with respect to events which, at the moment, there is reason to believe will not in fact occur.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there is federal legislation in place. I have written to the federal minister suggesting the technical advisory committee, which is a very important advisory committee to the National Energy Board, representing the industry, be consulted with respect to this matter as well.

[2:30]

The figures we’re getting from the National Energy Board are countrywide, and don’t have all the regional emphasis that perhaps they require. Certainly, on the information I have, I’m satisfied we in Ontario, in this part of the region, are going to have a situation which will be, under usual circumstances, manageable for this coming season.

The Leader of the Opposition is going to ask, “What if some unusual circumstance develops, be it an international event, or be it a mechanical breakdown in the system?” That would require the implementation of the provisions of the federal emergencies allocation legislation. Our ministry people have been consulted from time to time with respect to that. Indeed, we had meetings a week or so ago with our municipalities sharing the outcome of those discussions. I have no reason to believe but that the federal minister, and his officials, would be able to respond to that situation if we should be faced with a shortage or, indeed, the need for some redistribution of supplies.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is telling us he is still not concerned, despite the unprecedented step by the National Energy Board in making a formal statement to indicate there will be, or may well be, problems with the oil supply situation during the winter. Given some heating oil suppliers are refusing to tender new business, does the government have any plans to guarantee supplies to institutions such as hospitals or school boards, short of the federal government invoking its energy supplies allocation act?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very important. I don’t know whether the honourable member, in all fairness, has seen a copy of the press release from the National Energy Board. If he has not, I’ll be glad to send him one over. It then becomes a matter of

interpretation, depending on what he might want to emphasize. I’ve gone over this matter and, in balance, there is nothing in the release; there is nothing as a result of the meetings that would lead me to change my opinion with respect to the assessment I’ve shared with the House.

The honourable member makes some reference to the bulk tendering for wholesale supplies. There is no question that the situation this year is different from a year ago with respect to matters such as discounts and the number of new customers which some oil companies were prepared to take on. They’re not looking for new customers this year. This doesn’t mean they’re not going to be able, under usual circumstances, to service those customers they now have.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us what role his ministry plays in the playing out of this contingency? What action is his ministry now taking to offset, as much as possible, such an event occurring? Is his ministry, at last, becoming active in the areas of conservation and those necessary acts that have to take place in order eventually to get to the point of petroleum self-sufficiency in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member does contribute very positively to this exchange this afternoon when he places emphasis on the long-term programs such as conservation and alternate energy supplies. Indeed, I’ll make a copy of the statement available to him, too, if he hasn’t seen it.

There is emphasis in the press release of the National Energy Board for the need to manage the resources we have cautiously, in order to ensure there are no unusual circumstances here.

Mr. Wildman: It’s nice to be well briefed. What about the north shore?

Hon. Mr. Welch: In so far as our ministry is concerned, there is full discussion going on. Our ministry officials have been involved in consultation with the federal officials in working out some details with respect to the federal legislation.

Mr. Wildman: Is it hard to get the press release?

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the honourable member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Could the minister now report to us on the specific problem which my leader raised initially, and which brought this matter before the House, and that is the refusal to tender along the north shore? The minister, I believe, indicated he was going to try to get specific information on that area and report to the House. Can he do so now?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there must be some lack of communication. This matter was first raised by the honourable member himself, and on checking, in fact, we called the school board that afternoon. They indicated to us they were having no trouble in getting their supplies. They had signed their contract and, in fact, had their requirements for the upcoming season established by contract.

WATER POLLUTION

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Health with reference to a report on the impact of past mining activities on the Moira River basin in Hastings county which has been prepared by the National Water Research Institute in Burlington.

In view of the fact that the people in Hastings county living downstream from the Deloro minesite near Madoc may have been exposed for decades to potentially hazardous concentrations of arsenic, could the minister say what long-term health studies have been carried out on residents in the area and what steps have been taken to warn them of the risk that they may be experiencing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That particular study has not been drawn to my attention. I will look into it and report back to the member. I will take the question as notice.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister explain why, in fact, there has been no action taken by his ministry to safeguard the health of people in this area since the problem of arsenic contamination has been known to the government for at least a decade? Since ministry tests of the Moira River in the mid-1970s showed levels of arsenic contamination up to 50 times the settled standard for drinking water, and since two years ago the Minister of the Environment slapped a tough control order on the Deloro mines, why has the Ministry of Health neither been informed of the problem nor taken action to safeguard the health of residents in the area?

Mr. MacDonald: Morty Shulman raised this years ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I said, I will take the question as notice. It may well be that certain actions have been taken at the local level or by other ministries, for that matter, that are involved with health matters, but I will take the question as notice and report back.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Premier.

In view of the discussions that the Premier had with representatives from the Ontario Federation of Labour last week, in particular, with reference to the need for laws to guarantee union security and laws to give workers the right to a first contract through first contract arbitration, and in view of the particularly acute problems at plants such as Radio Shack, Butcher Engineering, Blue Cross, Canadian Gypsum Co.

Ltd. in Hagersville, and elsewhere across the province because of a lack of these essential changes in the law, is the government now prepared to undertake to bring these reforms into Ontario’s Labour Relations Act in order to create the climate of labour management harmony to which the government is formally committed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will tell the leader of the New Democratic Party what I said to representatives from the Ontario Federation of Labour who presented this brief to us last week. I think we discussed it for an hour and a half to two hours. It was fairly detailed and really dealt with two or three basic points which have been mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I made it quite clear to the members of the delegation that we shared a concern about these particular situations.

Mr. McClellan: The omnibus concern bill, again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You see, Mr. Speaker, I’m being provoked again.

Mr. Martel: Ignore the interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I’m trying to ignore him, so maybe the Premier can, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you trying to ignore him? I’d love to ignore him.

I said to them that we shared the concern. We were interested in getting their analysis of why the problems were being created. I said to them very simply that as a government we would assess their recommendations about them and beyond that, I gave no commitment.

Mr. Martel: See if you can get an opportunity to look at it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the Premier not aware that the concern expressed by himself, by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) or by any other member of the government, is of no concrete help at all to the women and men on the Radio Shack picket line and to their brothers and sisters on other picket lines across the province who are seeking first contracts or who are seeking a guarantee of union security so that their anti-union management cannot simply bust the union in the first year or so of the contract?

If the Premier is aware that that concern doesn’t really work, then can we not have a commitment from the government to bring in legislation and have it adopted before Christmas to get those people back to work with a decent contract and the right to have a union, rather than have them forced to knuckle under by anti-union management with the support of the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party, which is unusual, that concern does not always solve specific problems. I take that without any debate. I am not in a position to give a commitment to the second part of his two-part question.

SUICIDE AT GUELPH JAIL

Mr. Worton: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. Recently there was an inquest into the hanging of an inmate at the Guelph provincial jail. The jury made certain recommendations as to what measures should be taken to protect against another such incident happening.

I notice in the report that one of the officials of the ministry indicated the ministry was negotiating with the federal ministry in regard to reducing the time limit of 30 days in what I suspect would be admittance to the federal penitentiary. Would the minister have any comment on that particular report?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes. We were very disturbed by the fact there was a suicide in the Guelph jail, not to be confused with the Guelph correctional centre. An individual by the name of Anderson had been sentenced to 15 years in a federal prison for attempted murder. While awaiting transfer after the trial and after conviction to a federal prison, he committed suicide.

Many people realized beforehand that this person was a suicide risk and, indeed, he was under awfully heavy review and supervision by guards within the jail. As the psychiatrist and the psychologist and everyone there indicated, it was absolutely impossible to prevent this individual from suicide. He was bent on it and it was just going to happen. He had tried three times prior to the charges under the Criminal Code of Canada involving his wife.

I would say with respect to the general suicide rate within jails it is far less than what it is within the general population at large. In fact, last year we had two suicides and a further two suicides this year, and that is far less than in the general public.

The 30-day provision is something which is very difficult to work with. We are required to maintain an inmate following a sentence for 30 days, which is the appeal period. We are attempting to negotiate a reduction in that time with the federal government so that an inmate can be dispatched as quickly as possible to the final prison where he might then receive proper treatment. This was a very unfortunate incident.

Mr. Worton: Naturally the number of suicides in jail is less than the number outside, because there are far fewer people in jail than are outside of jail. A ministry employee has indicated here that the minister is negotiating with the federal people. Is that not so?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes. As I indicated, we are attempting to have that 30-day mandatory waiting period reduced as much as possible so that inmates can be moved as quickly as possible after the trial to the final receiving prison.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the fact Windsor Metropolitan Hospital has been unable to close 25 beds the ministry no longer funds, and in view of the fact the hospital put an appeal for $500,000 to the minister on September 27 to fund those beds, as well as $200,000 for the obstetrical ward, is the minister prepared, because it has adequately demonstrated to him the need for this money, to announce today that he will be funding the Metropolitan Hospital with this extra $700,000?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker.

[2:45]

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Will the minister make a commitment that he will close no more beds in Metropolitan Hospital or in Windsor, period, until alternatives are put in place, as recommended by the social development committee? The alternatives I am referring to are chronic home care, adequate numbers of nursing-home beds and adequate rest-home beds that are supervised and regulated by this minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the honourable member knows, the Ministry of Health has no role nor should it have a role in the question of rest homes involving anyone who is not under care.

Secondly, with regard to Windsor and Essex county, the rationalization of services --

Mr. Cooke: Yes, you just close beds. It should be called irrationalization.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- in that area, involving four of the five hospitals in the county, is going extremely well, with the closing of obstetrics at Grace Hospital, the closing of paediatrics at Hotel Dieu, the movement of services between those two hospitals, the ordering for installation in less than a year now of a CAT scanner for Hotel Dieu and the beginnings of a development of a peri-natal unit at Grace, as well as the opening of chronic beds at Grace, Hotel Dieu and at the hospital in Leamington, which is also putting in air conditioning and a fair bit of renovation.

The health council in Essex county is engaged in a review of its long-term needs, including chronic beds and extended care. I would anticipate having a report from them sometime in the next few months.

Mr. Cooke: What’s going to happen this winter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Depending upon the results of the study, once we agree on what is needed, then we will have to agree also on how it is to be done.

I would point out that with the rationalization of services that has been effected in Essex county there has been a very marginal restriction in the total number of beds. There is, in fact, a much better use of the facilities which are there and of the considerable amount of money which is spent every year in operating the hospitals in that county.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Why does the Minister of Health persist in his hard-line attitude concerning the 25 beds at Metropolitan Hospital, when he knows darn well that they have made proper representation to him and that they are incapable of reducing beds any further? Why doesn’t he provide the money and stop playing games with them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can assure the honourable member that for my part as minister the easiest thing would be to tap the taxpayer for some more money.

Mr. Swart: The most humane thing, the most sensible thing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The more difficult thing, but the thing that needs to be done -- in that community, as in most communities, is to effect co-ordinated planning and co-ordination of existing services. For its own reason, that hospital has repeatedly resisted working with the other hospitals in the county. It’s not a question of trying to penalize the Metropolitan because I would remind the member that the very day I announced the rationalization agreement, I also announced additional funding for Metropolitan Hospital in excess of $500,000 a year for an expanded cancer clinic.

It is not a case of penalizing them, but it is the case that they are going to have to work with the other hospitals in the county. They cannot and they will not plan in isolation from the others in Essex county.

Mr. Cooke: What about chronic home care?

ARENA OPERATING COSTS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. In view of the fact that Ontario has been asked to pick up the proposed deficit of $250,000 a year for the proposed new $72-million convention centre in Toronto, would the minister at the same time consider picking up the yearly deficit that has been emerging from the many new arenas throughout rural Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I think the first part of that question should be directed to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). But I would like to assure the House that in so far as the provincial government’s picking up any operating deficits of any arenas that have been built largely through Wintario funds in the course of the last four or five years, the answer is a definite no.

Every single municipality and every voluntary agency that have applied for Wintario funding for capital support to build their facilities have been warned and have been told time and time again, both orally and in writing, that we will not take responsibility for meeting any operating deficits that might occur. That is very clearly understood throughout Ontario.

I want to reiterate that policy here today. I think it is a wise one, and that is why we are once again taking a look at the need for more arena facilities throughout the province. We are prepared to help only when there is a real need indicated, and also when they can convince everybody that they can support the operations of their arena.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the fact arena recreation boards, in order to meet these expenses, have to increase fees to the children who play hockey and figure skate, wouldn’t the minister consider paying a portion of each child’s fee to allow the rate charged to a child to remain about the same so these facilities will be available to everyone regardless of income?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think so. We have not considered that as a possibility. That certainly would be an indirect form of subsidization of the operating deficits and for the reasons just mentioned, I don’t think we should feel our ministry, any ministry, should be responsible for that. Again, I think we have an elected body at the municipal level that should be looking at these things and working out ways and means to meet these ongoing costs and try to make costs for the users of the arenas reasonable and equitable.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Isn’t there a report being prepared by the Ministry of Culture and Recreation with respect to the cost of electrification of these facilities, which in fact, is the single biggest cost factor facing these small municipalities across Ontario? When can we expect that report to be tabled and if it’s prepared, does the minister have any plans to assist the arenas to meet those hydro costs?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is quite correct that the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, in co-operation with the Ministry of Energy, did develop this kind of a report and, as the member opposite has quite correctly pointed out, the energy costs are the very high item in the operational costs. In this particular report, and I have seen the draft form of it, there are suggestions whereby arenas can cut back on their costs. I would imagine both the Ministry of Energy and our ministry certainly are going to be spending a good deal of time with arenas across the province, trying to help them to cut back on those very high energy costs, which are continuing to escalate.

HEALTH TRAVEL COSTS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Health with regard to the need for universal access to health care in the province. Why won’t OHIP pay the return fare to northern Ontario, as well as the fare from northern hospitals to Toronto hospitals, for acutely-ill patients once they have recovered sufficiently to return to their home? Also, why won’t OHIP pay the travel costs to and from Toronto for follow-up checkups with specialists here in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A short answer, Mr. Speaker: It very simply is we are limited. This is a question about which I have corresponded, I know, with the member for Sudbury East and others on a number of occasions. We are limited under our legislation to paying for medically necessary services, and the movement of patients, once they are recovered or for follow-up, is not, in fact, medically necessary.

It is something we are following, and as a matter of fact I will be discussing it with representatives of the health councils tomorrow.

I would say in the long run, the more we can attract specialists to settle in northern centres that --

Mr. Martel: We would love that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, I think this is important. As the member knows, I wrote to the health councils in the north about three months ago, asking each of the five to do an analysis of their specialist requirements because I am prepared to use the under-serviced area program financial incentives in a creative way to attract needed specialists to various parts of the north. In the long run I think that is a more effective answer than looking at subsidizing bus or plane fares or gasoline or whatever.

But as I say, the short answer unfortunately is we are limited by law to paying for medically necessary services.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: While I certainly sympathize with the minister’s desire to attract more specialists to the north, in the interim wouldn’t the minister agree that families in the north, where there is now a shortage of medical specialists -- like the family of the teen-ager Leslie Voznek, in Timmins, who suffers from systematic lupas erythematosus or SLE for which he was hospitalized in Toronto from April to August and continues to have to travel to Toronto every four to six weeks for tests -- are financially penalized by this OHIP policy? It has cost that family over $2,500 so far.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I would suggest that could happen to a family living in Verona, in southern Ontario. If the member doesn’t know where Verona is, it is north of Kingston.

Mr. Wildman: You wouldn’t have to fly back, though.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But there is a considerable expense, of course, involved in driving and the like. My colleague, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), points out that there are facilities available in Sudbury that could probably do that.

An hon. member: Why don’t you let Dennis answer the question?

Mr. Conway: Is she the real minister?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that is the point. We are not in a position to pay for services that are not medically necessary; it is as simple as that.

Looking to the longer term -- whether it is in the north or any part of the province -- the aim is to get a good distribution of the various specialties so that people don’t have to travel any more than is necessary. It will always be necessary for some very rare and very exotic ailments and diseases.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: Did I understand the minister to say that the reason it wasn’t being paid for now was because of the legislation in Ontario setting up OHIP? If that is the case, why don’t we change it so that some of these people who have these onerous costs should be able to recover them and make the system universal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think I answered that. I think you get into a situation then that you really would not be able to properly make the judgements, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Wildman: Isn’t it medically necessary to get home again?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A medical necessity is very simple to judge. The doctor decides you have got to get there in the ambulance, We do try, and we are trying, to make better use of our air ambulance service, to co-ordinate the use of the ambulances, so if we have a plane or planes coming in with people and we know we have people to go back, we do try to use them in that way from time to time.

Mr. Wildman: Surely it is medically necessary to go home again.

ODC LOAN RATES

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Recently, we have been given some information from the Ontario Development Corporation concerning the loans it has been providing. I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism, does he not consider it odd that some of the companies that had received loans had received these loans at no interest rate, and it was stated that they would not provide any new jobs within the five-year period?

What criteria is the minister using to give out these loans with absolutely no interest rate and which would provide no jobs at the end of five years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Since I can’t conceive of a single ODC loan which is at no interest, as the member has described it, I really can’t answer the question. Perhaps he will send over some specific instances, and I will see what I can do for him.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Is the minister saying that in the ODC book which has recently come out there are no loans at no interest to firms which are not going to produce any new employment? It seems to me that I have noticed some in the book

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, I don’t know which specific instances the member would be talking about where we have a loan at no interest.

Mr. Eakins: An Ontario Business Incentive Program loan.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, an OBIP loan. That is a different story.

The incentive loans, of course, have a waiver of interest for the first five years, so there is no payment of interest for the first five years which allows that firm in most instances to get a foothold in the market.

I should remind the members that the ODC decisions are to this point in time made entirely by the boards of ODC upon the recommendation -- not always accepted -- of the ODC staff.

Second, I should point out that the ODC maximums were reduced this year to $ 250,000, so that we would have more of a selective role to play in the larger loans and grants.

Third, I should point out that in very many instances incentive loans are given and other loans are given to maintain jobs that otherwise would have disappeared. I acknowledge that that doesn’t look as politically attractive as a situation where a loan is given and jobs are added, but in many instances it prevents a situation in which I stand up here explaining why a firm has gone out of business.

[3:00]

I might add that our loss ratio on the Ontario Business Incentives Program is quite healthy; in other words we’re not experiencing very many losses. The loss ratio is very low and it seems to have been a very successful program.

If the opposition members have any comments on the OBIP program I’d be pleased to receive them, perhaps when our estimates have started next week.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Housing on the subject of Ontario Home Renewal Program and the minister’s recent decision to reduce the city of Toronto entitlement by 75 per cent, to $321,224. Can he tell me: (1) why they’ve reduced the money so suddenly and capriciously; (2) is he aware that this will affect very seriously the existing old-housing stock in Toronto; and (3) is he also aware that a number of jobs will be lost?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware of the program and would inform this House the conditions and procedures have not altered one iota from last year.

We have tried to deal with every municipality requesting a grant through the Ontario Home Renewal Program on an equitable basis. The city of Toronto and the other communities in this region -- indeed, the smallest communities in the province -- have been handled on this similar basis.

The city of Toronto got a percentage of what they might qualify for. They were told very clearly and distinctly that 100 per cent of their request was not being granted, any more to them than to the city of Ottawa or to Smiths Falls or any other small community. They got exactly what we told them they’d get -- the same percentage on the same basis as has been allocated over the last two years.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Between 1976 and 1977 the city received 100 per cent of its entitlement, which was $1.3 million. The minister now reduces it to 25 per cent of what it was, without giving an explanation. Can he tell me: (1) why he specifically singled out Toronto; (2) has he considered that this affects approximately 150 jobs in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we’ve tried to distribute the $20 million we had in the Ontario Home Renewal Program on a very fair and equal basis across this province, taking into account the smaller communities to a very large extent, to make much better use of those funds because they employ people within those communities where the small developers or small contractors have a greater risk of unemployment -- of not having their services used.

As I’ve said earlier, very clearly Toronto has been dealt with in this case on the same basis as it was a year ago, and two years prior to that.

Mr. Conway: Since I understand that roughly $106 million has been appropriated by the provincial government through this program over the past number of years, can the Minister of Housing indicate whether or not he has initiated or intends to initiate an audit from his department to ensure that the criteria for which this very good program has been established are in fact being met? Can he indicate whether or not there has been such an audit and, if so, how it is proceeding or, if it is not, if it will?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, over the period of time that we’ve had the OHRP grant there has been something in excess of $100 million distributed to better than 625 communities in the province. While the member’s remarks re auditing are ones that concern this minister and the ministry, yes, we’ve done spot audits in some of the municipalities.

I can say fairly and frankly that some of them have not been adhering to the policies and procedures that have been set down by the provincial government. Some of it stems from complete lack of understanding or ignorance. As a result, the auditors brought it to their attention that there were some infractions. If the member looks at the provincial auditor’s annual report he’ll see that they’ve noted there have been some infractions in one or two cases. The ministry, with its auditing staff, has tried to follow up the report as carefully and quickly as possible to make sure that those infractions were amended and that the policies were corrected.

I must say that in some cases, because of the procedure adopted by the municipality, if we had asked them to go back and set down the procedure according to what we had originally established it would have been a hardship on some of those to whom loans were extended. So there have been special considerations given where it would have been a real hardship to alter the policy or programs for those individuals.

WCB REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, during my absence the member for Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson) raised several questions with the Premier (Mr. Davis), concerning a story in the Hamilton Spectator, relating to remarks by a Dr. Jack Richmond at a Canadian Society of Safety Engineering conference.

Like the member, I was distressed to see this sort of comment made by a physician. I am pleased to report to the member that the executive director of the board’s medical services division and the director of the claims adjudication branch spoke with Dr. Richmond on the telephone on October 1.

In that conversation, Dr. Richmond stated it was not his intention to advise employers to take actions that would disrupt the processing of legitimate claims, but he did confirm he had stated at the meeting that employers should leave the social insurance number off form 7-S when they are completing it, in anticipation of receiving a phone call from the board which would provide the employers with an opportunity to voice their opinion about the legitimacy of the claim.

In response, board officials outlined the implications of his statement and told Dr. Richmond that if an employer wished to raise doubts about the validity of a claim he should do so by indicating it on form 7 and attach an accompanying letter outlining the reasons for challenging the case.

Dr. Richmond indicated he believed he had been misquoted and, when properly quoted, his remarks had been taken out of context. He told the board he planned to write a letter to the editor of the Hamilton Spectator to clarify the situation.

Both the board and I believe Dr. Richmond now understands that limiting the information provided to the board in the initial accident report provides no benefit to the employee, the employer or the treating physician, as the resulting delay has a negative effect on the employee and might well delay the necessary treatment that could allow him to return to work.

I regret that these comments were made, but I am hopeful this clarification will ensure such comments are not repeated by others talking about the system of reporting accidents to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: In view of the fact this Dr. Richmond has acted as the medical consultant to the BP refinery in Sarnia, as well as to Canadian General Electric and St. Lawrence Cement, I want to repeat the request I made of the minister through the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), or the Premier -- I don’t recall which -- and that is that the Minister of Health review cases which have come from those three companies in which Dr. Richmond was involved in his capacity as medical consultant and make a determination whether Dr.

Richmond practised the kind of sabotage on those cases, or on any cases in WCB files, which he was preaching at this convention and which was quoted in the Hamilton Spectator.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the intent of the member’s question, because I share almost an anger that someone would do that sort of thing. Whether or not it is feasible or possible to carry out the sort of review the member requests, I can only inquire and see.

JAILING OF MOTORIST

Mr. Eakins: I have a question for the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, when he returns to his seat. I believe he is getting ready for after the next election.

Mr. Speaker: The member can put the question. The Attorney General can hear it on his way over.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He can’t walk and listen at the same time.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, realizing that the new Judicature Act will come into effect on April 1, I believe, and following my question of a week ago, will the Ministry of the Attorney General stop this charade that is now taking place in Ontario whereby, when an individual is convicted of a driving offence and is given the alternative of a fine or, say, three days in jail, that alternative does not exist in Ontario? In fact, if such an individual wants to retain his or her driver’s licence a fine must be paid, period. Is this not simply blackmail, instead of allowing the individual the alternative the judge or justice of the peace offers?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has brought this problem to my attention and I know he is anxious to get a response. I don’t know what the problem is in relation to his constituent. I will try again to get back to him as quickly as possible. On October 29 I wrote the member a fairly lengthy letter --

Mr. Eakins: You should read what you said.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will reread it. Quite frankly, I don’t recall specifically the contents of the letter, but I did read it --

Mr. Nixon: It was your usual memorable letter.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It’s a form letter, anyway.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will pursue the matter further if the member so desires. I am not sure what that particular problem is.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, it’s simply a straightforward question. When a person in Ontario is convicted in the courts before a judge or magistrate and is given a fine of $18 or three days in jail and the person opts for the three days, why cannot one serve those three days? Why does the ministry write to these people and tell them, “If you want your driver’s licence back, pay the $18”? In effect, there’s no such thing as serving three days in jail.

Why doesn’t the Attorney General stop the charade and tell the judges and the justices of the peace to eliminate this, because one can’t serve three days in jail? That’s the effect. Can he answer that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t have anything to add to what I said in my letter, but I will review the matter.

ESL PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that according to the grant formulae no provincial money would be flowing to the school boards until January 1981 to meet this need? Would the minister make a commitment to communicate with the chairmen and with the directors of education of the boards of education in this province who are right now forcing teachers to remove children from the special programs to make room for the new arrivals, and will the minister communicate to them that this is definitely not an acceptable solution to the problems they are facing and will be facing?

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Bradley: A question to the Minister of Education: In view of the fact that the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union has requested on behalf of the academic staff of Ontario’s community colleges binding arbitration to settle all outstanding matters and disputes in their current negotiations, is the minister prepared to order that kind of binding arbitration to avoid a devastating strike at this time of year, which would have a very detrimental effect on the academic outcome of students in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that consideration of the request is being made at this point by the Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, which is the body responsible for those negotiations. I shall most certainly be interested to hear what the council has to say about it.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the employees’ association of the family and children’s services in the Niagara region requested the same thing, binding arbitration, and when it was not forthcoming a strike did occur and children in the Niagara region were adversely affected? Does she not see the same pattern developing in the community colleges across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would admit that this eventuality can indeed occur, but I would remind the participants in collective bargaining that the ultimate sanction is one which may in fact be exercised. If there is a reasonable alternative to that kind of sanction I would be most willing to look at it, but I think the fact that that sanction exists does impose a degree of responsibility on each side at the bargaining table, and I would assume that those parties to those negotiations would accept that responsibility in the light of the possible alternatives and in the light of the possible results of their actions.

[3:15]

VISIT OF U.S. PRESIDENT

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. My concern is whether or not this government has been consulted by the federal government about the proposed agenda of items to be discussed at the time of the visit of President Carter to Ottawa later on this week. In the spirit of co-operation that exists between the two governments, has a discussion taken place? If so, what are the concerns of Ontario that may be subject to discussion at Ottawa at the end of this week? What input has this ministry had to the development of that agenda?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been some informal discussions about some of the details concerning the visit, but I certainly haven’t been a party to any detailed subject matter discussions as to an agenda or anything like that. I can’t tell the member anything more than that.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, is the minister saying that there are no matters that may be on an agenda to be discussed by the President of the United States with the Prime Minister of Canada that may affect this province, such as the continuing option for the location of major industrial plants; such as the question of acid rain which has preoccupied so much of the time of this assembly; such as the continuing operation of the auto pact; and any number of other items that may be of significance to this jurisdiction?

In the short time available, will the minister try to indicate to the government at Ottawa that there are matters of sensitive concern to this province which have repercussions on any discussions which may take place at the federal level between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this is basically a visit by the President of the United States, a very short visit, to the federal government and to the capital of this country.

Mr. Renwick: It was a short one to Mexico too.

Mr. McClellan: They’ll let you know.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and our ideas on those particular subjects.

Mr. McClellan: They’ll send a press release.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’d be glad to make a fuller report a little later in the week as to what kind of matters will be discussed at that meeting and tell my friend what is happening.

REPORT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee presented the following addendum report to the report on the Pickering B generating station’s steam generators supplied to Ontario Hydro by Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited and moved its adoption.

Your committee believes that officials of Ontario Hydro, in their testimony of July 4, 1979, should have provided more detailed answers to the committee in reply to questions regarding difficulties encountered with the boilers supplied by Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited for the Bruce A generating plant.

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

MOTIONS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to travel to Park Public School in the city of Toronto on Wednesday, November 7, 1979, and that the provisions of

section 66 of the Legislative Assembly Act be not applicable.

Motion agreed to.

SITTING OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns on Friday, November 9, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, November 13, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 311 and 326 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER (CONTINUED)

On vote 201, Office of the Premier program:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I believe that when the committee adjourned the other day the Premier was in the process of answering a question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I had partially completed my answer, Mr. Chairman. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) was anxious to go about other business and indicated he wanted to be here this afternoon for these discussions. If he has a few observations to make I will reserve my further discussions until he has completed his contribution.

I am sorry, the leader of the New Democratic Party wasn’t here on Friday because of urgent public business, so I assume he wants to speak first.

Mr. Cassidy: I apologize to the Premier, actually, for not being present. I was able to hear the last few minutes of his exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith), but I had an unbreakable engagement outside, and I have broken a few to be here today.

I want to take a look at some of the key problems which will be facing this province as we enter the 1980s. We are less than two months away from that unhappy or happy date, and as the Premier knows we have already raised a number of concerns in this House. I want to reiterate a few of them, because I am concerned about the way the government is tackling major and important issues and I am concerned about the consequences of its inaction in important areas which affect virtually every resident of the province.

The first day we were back, just under a month ago, I asked the Premier about the state of medicare, and he told this House effectively that medicare in Ontario was the best system in the world. I don’t think that’s too much of a hyperbole.

Since then the Premier has stood aside and let the heat be directed at the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). I can tell the Premier that we don’t feel we have been getting the desired response from the Minister of Health. We feel he has been ignoring real problems in the health system that have been created, not just by the ministry but also by the overall policies of the government headed by the Premier.

I have talked to a lot of people this fall about what is happening in medicare and hospital insurance, and New Democrats in general have talked to many more over the course of the last six or eight weeks. I can tell the Premier that the concern about medicare is a very real one in every corner of the province and that the problems we are running into are very similar everywhere in the province as well.

Last Monday I was off in Oshawa and met 150 people there. They told me about patients going from a stretcher in the emergency ward, to which they had been admitted for the lack of a bed, up to the operating room, and then being returned to the stretcher in the emergency ward because there was no other place to put these particular patients.

The hospitals in Ajax and in Whitby have whole areas that have been shut down, thanks to the edicts of the Ministry of Health, where there are empty beds, yet people are being backed up in the emergency ward to the point where there are sometimes as many as eight or nine patients who are being held overnight in holding areas for lack of any particular room.

Not only is it a matter of the hospitals running into problems because of the arbitrary cutbacks that the government has brought in, it is a matter of the doctors being given what amounts to a free rein to undermine the health-care system because of the very substantial double billing which they have under way right now.

The Premier may be aware of the fact that the Ontario Medical Association fee

schedule averages 43 to 44 per cent higher than what people can receive under OHIP. If you have a broken arm and you get it fixed, you get paid $36.50 by OHIP but the DMA fee is $52. If you have an appendectomy you get $132 and the OMA rate is $190, a 43 per cent difference. So it goes right through the whole list.

That wouldn’t be substantially important, except for the fact the proportion of doctors opted out is heavy across the province. In some specialties it is as high as 47 per cent, as in my riding of Ottawa Centre, and effective access to medical care is being denied.

If the Premier would like, I can even send him a copy of Dr. Allan Garland’s fee schedule. He is a family physician in Weston who is in fact double billing. Dr. Garland doesn’t hold with the OMA fee schedule. Where the OMA would give him $28 he is charging $40 for general assessment, as against the OHIP fee of only $19.50.

On an ear syringe, of all things, where OHIP pays two dollars and a nickel, Dr. Garland charges a mere $5, or a 140 per cent surcharge; and so it goes right though his particular fee schedule.

I raise those particulars with the Premier because I want the Premier to understand that both in the hospitals and in the medical care provided by doctors there are now severe problems. If the government refuses to take any action we are going to get a hospital system which will increasingly be of lower quality. We are going to get doctors who will increasingly decide to take the law into their own hands and charge what they think the market will bear rather than providing universal access. In turn, that will mean a two-class system of health care in the province of Ontario.

That is not what this Legislature voted to bring in when hospital insurance was established in Ontario in the late 1950s; that is not what the Legislature voted for when medicare came in the latter part of the 1960s. We didn’t vote at that time for a hospital system which would come under the sudden and arbitrary bed cutbacks which have been imposed by the Minister of Health and his particular staff. We voted for a system that would be universal, to which everybody would have access and which wouldn’t treat anybody as a second-class citizen.

We didn’t vote for 10 years of medicare followed by a return to the welfare ward, a return to a system where people who could afford it got first-class medical care and people who couldn’t would find themselves having to wait for hours in hospital clinics or having themselves shovelled through doctors’ surgeries at an incredible rate because they couldn’t afford any more than what the government plan would pay.

We have made some impact, I think, with the campaigning we have been doing to try to get the government to change its tune. Over the course of the spring the government has come up with $65 million which it said it didn’t have in order to help hospitals, although we haven’t found out how that money is going to be spent.

The Minister of Health, who has been busily closing hospitals suddenly came up with $32 million for the coming fiscal year in order to help hospitals open new beds within their capital budgets.

The ministry which said no appeal process would be available has somehow managed to invent an appeal process. The ministry which said it would cut beds and offered no alternatives is now quite vigorously looking at the possibility of turning some of those active-treatment beds into chronic-treatment beds.

So far, so good; but the facts are, Mr. Chairman, that is only a step or two along the way to preserving the health-care system we have and making the health-care system a heck of a lot better than what we have had in the past.

When I was in Sault Ste. Marie, I was struck by the excellent community clinic which was established by steelworkers in 1963 and which has now grown to be a model of its kind across Ontario, in fact across this country. The Premier may not be aware of it, but that is a model of the kind of alternative health care which we should have created by now in every part of the province. The Premier may not know it, but that particular clinic, which treats almost half the population of Sault Ste. Marie, is using 40 per cent fewer hospital days than are required on average for patients in Sault Ste.

Marie who don’t go to that clinic but who go to their regular family doctor who practises the kind of medicine practised elsewhere across the province.

[3:30]

I am sure the Premier can recognize that at $200 or so a day, to save 40 per cent of the hospital days represents an enormous saving for the health-care system, and in turn means an enormous amount of resources which could, and we believe should, be available to provide alternate forms of health care in the community.

That is why we have been looking with frustration on the actions of the government. For 10 years we’ve had medicare in this province and we have not taken the fundamental steps needed to restructure and change health care. We’ve privatized the public health-care system. We’ve provided health insurance for doctors; we have made no changes in the way that the care is actually delivered.

Perhaps the Premier knows that the clinic in the Sault has had to fight entrenched, bitter and continuing resistance, not just from local academies of medicine but also from the Ministry of Health. Perhaps the Premier knows that the small health-service organizations, the community clinics across this province, have been held on a string and made to dance to a tune played by the Ministry of Health, which has devoted every conceivable effort to try to prove that their kind of medicine doesn’t work and that the only kind of medicine that works is the kind of medicine that doctors have traditionally provided in this province.

If we are sometimes frustrated at the way the government runs medicare, it’s because there are such opportunities on the one hand, while the way we are going, on the other hand, is such a dead end. It is a dead end because of the fact that the cutbacks now seem enshrined in this government’s policy. It is a dead end because if public medicare is brought in and designed to be universal and accessible and if the system is not changed, then one is almost inevitably going to get into problems, which could and should have been avoided had there been progressive leadership coming from the government over the last 10 years.

It is not often I spring to the Premier’s defence and I won’t do it for long, however I do want to say I have heard the Premier say quite clearly that Ontario is prepared to seek a $1-a-barrel increase in the price of oil, which has been agreed to for January, but that Ontario has taken the position there should be no further increases in the price of oil until a number of specific conditions have been fulfilled. I heard that loud and clear, even if not everybody in this House has heard that.

Mr. Conway: Some old game.

Mr. Cassidy: I do fear that the Premier’s pleas have been falling on deaf ears up in Ottawa. I think we should register the fact that the shift in political gravity towards western Canada that has occurred in this country in this past year has been even swifter and more abrupt than the shift in economic gravity which has slowly been taking place since the early 1970s.

Nevertheless, in the next election, the Premier, his party and his government will have Joe Clark’s energy policies as a cross to bear. I think the Premier understands that’s one of the difficulties he will face when it comes to the next election, no matter how much he seeks to fight Joe Clark.

Mr. Martel: He should sell Joe Clark and keep Petrocan.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now you know that that’s nonsense.

Mr. Conway: You can only sell something for which there is an established price.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does that mean you’re for sale?

Mr. Cassidy: I would say as well to the Premier if any other party, if the Liberal Party for example, expects to benefit from the Premier’s being identified with Joe Clark’s policies, then let’s put it on the record. The high-interest party of seven months ago, which was the Liberal Party of Canada, is now the Conservative Party of Canada. The party that was advocating unemployment as part of a fight against inflation seven months ago was the Liberal Party of Canada; that’s now become the Conservative Party of Canada.

The party that was trying to cut family allowances, and did so in fact a few months ago, was the Liberal Party of Canada; its members are now joined by their spiritual brothers, the members of the Conservative Party of Canada,

Mr. Martel: Surely there is not much difference, is there?

Mr. Cassidy: The party which was seeking world prices for oil in this country a few months ago was the Liberal Party of Canada. It is now joined by its spiritual brethren under the leadership of the fellow the Premier campaigned for.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re not blaming me for that.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m not blaming you, I’m just saying --

Hon. Mr. Davis: But you’re not sure of the latter part.

Mr. Cassidy: I guess there is one good thing about the May 22 election.

Mr. Conway: This can only be described as war of cordiality.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s better than cool cordiality. The one good thing that emerged from May 22 is the demonstration that if there is anything worse than a Liberal government in Ottawa it’s probably having a Conservative government in Ottawa. The two of them are just about impossible to distinguish when they trade hands and trade leadership at that particular level.

Mr. Nixon: Thank God, we’ll never find out about the third party.

Mr. Martel: Don’t be so sure; they said that in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s easy to have hindsight but I would like the Premier to imagine that Ontario, back in 1975, had joined with the province of Saskatchewan when Alan Blakeney proposed the energy security fund that he put forward at a federal-provincial ministers conference in 1975. That fund, established at that time, would have put the ownership of new energy resources squarely in the hands of the public of Canada and in the hands of the governments of the producing provinces. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how much different the situation would be today.

Now we find ourselves at the mercy of multinational oil companies; we find ourselves spending hundreds of millions of dollars on tax expenditures in order to help those foreign companies develop our resources and sell them to Canadians while keeping them under foreign ownership. It was an opportunity that was lost, Mr. Chairman.

To bring the discussion closer to home, there are other opportunities that have been lost in this province as well; that was just one of them.

The government of this province will be judged on its energy policy, not just on the basis of what was said at federal-provincial conferences but also on what is done here in the province of Ontario. That’s why when I spoke in the energy debate a couple of weeks ago I talked about a number of specific, concrete steps that could and should be taken by the government of this province, by the people of this province, to improve the productivity of our energy use; to make sure that we were less vulnerable to ransom, whether from the Alberta government or any other outside body.

I made a number of specific suggestions in the areas of building codes, insulation, transit and methanol development, and a number of other items; but we wait in vain, Mr. Chairman, we wait in vain for the Premier and the government to determine when anything is actually going to occur. We hear with interest but with concern that the government’s planning for energy over the next 15 years involves about $15 million or $16 million of public expenditure, almost all devoted to the generation of electricity.

It is a pious hope that the private sector will do what the government will not in terms of developing alternative sources of energy and in terms of conservation. Meanwhile, Hydro spends $1.8 billion on new investment, largely in the nuclear area, while the government’s total investment in the areas of conservation, renewable energy and alternate energy sources totals about $16 million. At a conservative estimate that is about one per cent of what’s going into the area of Hydro.

Mr. Nixon: Hydro plants are cheap.

Mr. Cassidy: In simple terms, Mr. Chairman, that isn’t good enough. Despite everything that’s been said and all we know about the energy needs of this province, we still haven’t got an effective energy plan coming from the government. We have ample advice being directed to the feds about what they should do, but very little is being done in terms of breaking the paths in Ontario. We have a continued, almost excessive, expenditure in one area, the area of electricity. We are already 25 per cent overbuilt, while next to nothing is done in the other areas. We have a Minister of Energy (Mr.

Welch), the latest in a line occupying that particular position, for whom I have great respect. I had great respect for his ability as House leader and so on, but that position is becoming a revolving door. The present minister perhaps indicates why that is so when he says, despite what even the National Energy Board says, that there’s no problem, our situation is manageable once again. You may as well start to change him, Mr. Premier, it is about time; you knew you were going to have to do it soon.

Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns legitimately expressed by western Canadians over the course of recent months is just what has Ontario done with the control it has had over the industrial heartland of this country for the last century, let us say for at least the last 35 or 36 years. What have we done? Yes, it’s grown; but now that we have come to the crunch, now that the good times are no longer here, what have we built to protect ourselves and this country as we move into the 1980s?

What advantages have we taken which will benefit us five years from now during this period when our energy prices have been significantly below the world energy levels that have prevailed, particularly in Europe?

Over the last two or three years there has, in fact, been a great increase in understanding and public discussion about some of the problems of Ontario’s industrial economy. Many of the things New Democrats used to be alone in talking about have now become almost common watchwords, as people talk about the costs of foreign ownership and about the risks of relying on foreign oil multinationals and other problems like that. Other people now recognize what we have said for a long time.

My colleague, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), and my former colleague, the former member for Wentworth, Mr. Deans, and a number of members even from the Premier’s party, joined together in the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism back around 1972 to develop a blueprint of what was needed to try to protect and secure the economy of this province and this country against the control of foreigners and against the problems that have been created.

Apart from insisting that the boards of directors include a few Canadians, 51 per cent, and that can be five secretaries from Canada and then the five big boys who come up from Cleveland --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no.

Mr. Martel: All this is window dressing and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will give you a list.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know; it’s still window dressing.

Mr. Cassidy: The facts are the structural problems of the economy now are exposed as never before. With 60 per cent of our industry in foreign hands, and half of that, or more than half of that, in the hands of US corporations, we are suffering an enormous drain in terms of profit, in terms of dividends, in terms of management fees and royalties -- God knows you name it and off it goes across the border. It is at a rate which is getting pressingly onerous as far as people in the province and the country are concerned.

There is the problem of the export performance of foreign-owned corporations. The Premier knows -- at least he acknowledges to me privately -- that when a foreign-owned corporation is under orders from head office not to export, particularly to the most attractive market we have abroad which is in the United States, then the fact is there is a branch plant operation such that they have nothing meaningful to sell. They don’t research, they don’t develop any products; they have nothing in particular to sell abroad, and therefore they are part of what the experts now call the truncated branch plant structure of our economy, of which this particular province is the epitome right through Canada.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) has discovered global product mandating -- I will give him some credit -- but he hasn’t yet discovered how to make it stick with foreign owners who have learned over the years they can cock their snook at the Ontario government, right from the Premier on down, because effectively there is no political will being shown to make those foreign-owned corporations act Canadian and to bring them under Canadian control.

I would like to see this government say that over the next 10 years our goal is to reduce foreign ownership in this economy from 60 per cent or more in manufacturing to 40 per cent, or to 30 per cent; and if we are not getting there by natural market forces then by God we are prepared to take direct action in order to see that kind of goal achieved.

I think that kind of thing is feasible, and I think had this government said that back in the 1960s we would not be looking with such pain on the prospects for the economy in the 1980s when so much of our economy is foreign controlled.

One of the areas where we have a particularly dismal record is in research and development. The science and technology jobs can’t be filled by Canadians if R and D isn’t being done in this country.

If I can give just one example to the Premier, his colleague was up in the House the other day to announce, with some pride, the decisions by General Motors Corporation to invest in Windsor and in St. Catharines. We welcome that particular investment, although we would prefer to see it in Canadian hands. I think the Premier knows that, but the Premier did not comment the other day on the fact that all of the technology for the new cars of the 1980s being carried out by General Motors is being carried out without so much as a nickel of effective research and development spending by GM here in Canada.

We have a cold weather station up in Kapuskasing which employs a handful of housewives and a few motel owners to house the researchers who come up from the United States and that’s all, that’s all the research and development. In the meantime, Canadians who buy cars and trucks every year are remitting to the United States the equivalent of $300 million annually for research and development by the automobile companies in the United States.

[3:45]

Mr. Martel: A disaster.

Mr. Cassidy: I could point out to the Premier the fact we have high unemployment, with the prospect that it’s going to rise again in 1980 according to what the Conference Board in Canada says, and yet we have severe shortages of skilled labour in virtually every area of need.

This government has been prepared to let companies hire their skilled workers abroad. It’s been a policy which has been devoutly followed for so many years that now we have an ageing skilled-labour force and nobody coming up in Ontario to fill those particular jobs. We get the Ministry of Industry and Tourism going off to the United Kingdom to help General Motors of Canada Limited hire skilled workers for its plants down in Windsor. We have Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada Limited trying to do the same thing until it was turned down by its union, the United Automobile Workers.

We have a manpower commission, which has been established under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) but every time we ask the minister what it does he says: “The Ministry of Education has got a bit of this action.” Similarly, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, and goodness knows who else, have various parts of that particular show.

There is still no effective manpower policy. There is still no insistence that companies have a responsibility to train or to contribute to the cost of training if they won’t do it themselves. There’s still no insistence on planning for our manpower needs and in making sure that those skilled workers are in fact going to be trained and will be available in the 1980s, and that those opportunities will in fact be opened up to the young Canadian men and women who are now coming out of our high schools, colleges and universities.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier should recognize that in Ontario right now, far from an increase in industry there are signs that in certain key sectors we are suffering from deindustrialization. I could cite an example right in my own riding where 100 jobs at Jean Pigott’s old plant, the Morrison Lamothe company, are now disappearing as a result of a corporate merger with an American-controlled company which is taking over Morrison Lamothe’s bakery operation.

Here in Metropolitan Toronto, the heart of the Golden Horseshoe, they’ve had an increase of almost 900 manufacturing jobs between 1974 and 1979 at a time when the work force has gone up by 20 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, but you have to include Brampton and Mississauga.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier says, “You have to include Brampton and Mississauga.” I’m sorry I don’t have the figures with me here, but I would say to the Premier that all that Brampton can do will not prevail over the shortfall in the creation of industrial jobs through the remainder of the Metropolitan Toronto region.

When one looks at the fact that there have been losses in jobs in the durables sector, in textiles, in clothing, in furniture, in paper, in metal fabricating, in machinery, in electrical products and in chemicals in Metropolitan Toronto over that five-year period it gives one pause. One begins to ask oneself if the government has been doing an effective job of stewardship over our economy, and if so why are these industries in actual decline in terms of the number of jobs?

Why is it that there’s been no growth at all in such key areas as primarily metals and in rubber products? Why is it that the government, which says it’s so concerned about the development of Canadian enterprise, continues to give its seal of approval to 90 per cent of the applications before the Foreign Investment Review Agency in Ottawa?

If one looks at another area, the area of buying Canadian, one asks if the action of this government in rejecting Canadian suppliers -- when it comes to light as it did in the case of Canadian Applied Technology and that equipment that was needed for Nanticoke -- isn’t just like the tip of an iceberg?

Doesn’t that really demonstrate that the slogans and the TV commercials and that lovely little red maple leaf that I see on the billboard when I drive down to the Legislature, or even when I ride on the TTC, are all very nice, but in reality the government is not prepared to put its commitment where the publicity has been as far as encouraging a science-based corporation here that comes from Canadian sources and does Canadian-based research and development, and surely the government has to be judged not just by its words but also by its deeds.

The deeds of the government have been predicated on the view that if the government pulls in its horns, if we deny essential services to the public, then in time that will begin to pay off in terms of private sector development. That fails to recognize the serious structural problems.

If the private sector is deindustrializing; if Texas Instruments Incorporated, to give an example, is taking its assembly line operations back to the US and is just simply replacing them with a warehouse operation here in this country; if that is happening in many parts of industry, and if there is no or little commitment to Canadian production and development on the part of the firms that control 60 per cent of our manufacturing industry, then that belief in private enterprise is not going to succeed.

We are not going to get the kind of returns the Premier and the government are looking for. We are not going to get the kind of growth of jobs this province actually needs. We won’t be able to resist that drift to the west. We will find ourselves in the 1980s facing increasing difficulties, on the one hand because the industrial economy in the province is weak; and on the other hand because of the fact that, given that weakness, we will have more and more difficulty in maintaining essential public services, such as a high standard of health care and of social services.

Those are the most critical issues, but I bring to the Premier’s attention the fact that everywhere you now look in this government there are problems. I am not sure how he can justify the fact that where last year three children’s aid societies felt compelled to appeal their budgets to the ministry’s review board, this year 30 of them had to do so. I am not sure how he justifies the government’s standing by while for five months a strike has been forced to continue at the Sault Ste. Marie Children’s Aid Society over a dispute which comes down to a difference of about $20,000.

I am not sure how the Premier can, on the one hand actively intervene to torpedo the bill of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) which would have given legislative status to the French language, something which has been the cry and the desire of Franco-Ontarians for so many years, and on the other hand stand idly by while the Minister of Education effectively reverses a policy the Premier himself brought in 10 years ago --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is entirely erroneous.

Mr. Cassidy: -- to guarantee that there could be a right to French-language secondary school education for everybody in the province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That’s where you’re entirely wrong.

Mr. Martel: Then deliver it.

Mr. Cassidy: I am particularly concerned because of the fact that with the referendum taking place in Quebec in six or seven months, why it is that this province, which has such a crucial role in Confederation, should quite deliberately set out to prove every allegation of the PQ and of the separatists when they say the rest of Canada doesn’t care about its francophone population --

Mr. Martel: They do, they use it every time.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and that the only place they can find a national home is in Quebec? The Premier should know that the headlines are almost six inches tall. Certainly the impact on people in Quebec every time we take a decision like the one in Penetanguishene is absolutely stupendous in terms of convincing people in Quebec that Ontario doesn’t care.

He should know that every Penetang costs 10 times as much in terms of the loss of what influence we could have on the future referendum, as does everything this province has done; and it is quite a commendable record, in many ways, in terms of providing French-language secondary education for the 80 or 85 per cent of the eligible population who now benefit from it.

We have some accomplishments in that area, and when I talk to my friends from Quebec I tell them about them, Mr. Chairman. I say that to the Premier too, but all the same I can’t go into Quebec and defend the fact that when it came to the crunch we were not prepared to continue along the route that was decided upon 10 years ago.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are going along the route that was decided upon. Just because we’re not building a building doesn’t mean we’re not going along that route.

Mr. Martel: You have to teach in the system to understand it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, nonsense.

Mr. Martel: Look, I’ve spent time in both systems; don’t you tell me.

Mr. Nixon: Oh well, that’s the end of it right there; next.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Nobody can tell you anything.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Every Franco-Ontarian group of any substance has registered its opposition to the step taken by the Minister of Education.

What I want to do, in concluding, is to express concern over the fact that whether it’s kids; whether it’s social workers who are trying to do a job in Sault Ste.

Marie; whether it’s people who just want to get access to medicare without having to pay extra; whether it’s people in the labour unions who are forced to go out on the picket lines in order to get such basic rights as union security or a first contract; whether it’s the Franco-Ontarians -- it seems there are so many minorities across this province; whether it’s women, who are still battling to get legislation in this province to get equal pay for work of equal value; this government seems to be set on a tactic of confrontation rather than one of seeking co-operation in order to gather our forces together to meet the challenges of the 1980s in areas as crucial as medicare, energy or the economy.

I say as well that if I were a Conservative -- I haven’t been and I don’t intend to be -- I would have real qualms now about the nature of the government which is being led by the Premier. It’s beginning to show the same problems as the federal Liberal government was showing in its latter years.

I give the Premier great credit for the fact he’s led this province for eight years, it’s longer than I’ve had a chance to yet do --

Interjection.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ll have to see about that. We’ll let the voters decide on that particular subject.

Increasingly, it seems as though the shots are called by the Premier. The Premier is dealing from a hand which I’m afraid is tending to be more and more empty when it comes to filling up the cabinet. That creates real problems, as I think the Premier will acknowledge happened with the federal Liberal government. It happened in Ottawa, and I’m afraid it can happen here as well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think when you say you’re afraid of it happening you really are saying you wish it would, and you know it won’t.

Mr. Martel: Verbal gymnastics at its best.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m just making an observation, the public can be the judge.

I do want to say that we are going into the 1980s, in my opinion unprepared and unarmed for the challenges we have to face. We’ve lost many opportunities over the course of the last decade, certainly in the time I’ve known this House, since October 1971.

If I can give one specific example to the Premier. It was in February 1978 that this government decided it would advance $300 million interest free to Rio Algom and to Denison Mines. That was Ontario’s Petrocan. Denison is now dutifully going out in the private sector buying up energy investments in heavy oil all over the place, thanks to the grubstake it was given by the Ontario government.

We could have taken those corporations over; brought them into the public sector; had them do in the public sector, at public profit, what they are now doing in the private sector at private profit.

Mr. Martel: At great cost to us.

Mr. Cassidy: We could thereby have helped to secure the energy future of this province. But that door has been shut because of the decisions of the former Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), and presumably of the Premier himself.

When we come to grips with the problems of the 1980s they are going to demand more than a government which is ideologically committed just to standing aside. They’re going to demand more than just simply a policy of restraint in hope that the private sector will somehow come through. They are going to demand planning. The problems of the 1980s are going to demand commitment and involvement on the part of government. They’re going to demand more than what the so-called swing to the right is delivering.

It seems to me people are looking for that kind of engagement from government, and I don’t really think it can come from this government because of the nature of the party the Premier happens to lead.

If we at times appear to be frustrated at the inaction on medicare, at the failure to create policies to start meeting our energy needs within domestic sources, and the failure to come to grips with the problems of foreign ownership and the structural problems of our economy, it’s a frustration over the fact that the party the Premier leads has been in office for so long and is not taking advantage of the opportunities that are there to turn this province into a province that could do so much for so many of its 8,500,000 residents.

I wanted to put those few remarks on the record. I know my colleague has some comments about the Legislature. I welcome the chance to make this contribution to the Premier’s estimates; I hope he emerges chastened and wiser, and that he will in fact implement a number of the suggestions we’ve been so bold as to make.

[4:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply briefly to the leader of the New Democratic Party, because he would be upset if I didn’t at least offer some observations on the points he has raised. At the outset, I would like to say that I thought it was one of his more reasoned approaches here in the House.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m always reasonable, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I’m not sure that the member is, but I thought it was one of the more reasoned ones; although wrong, at least it was delivered in a way that does not provoke an unreasoned response.

I won’t deal with medicare at any great length, Mr. Chairman, because we’ve debated that on other occasions. I expect we will continue to do so. I do thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for acknowledging that in the field of hospital services the government is moving ahead, that we have found additional funds to make very significant progress. That’s the language I would use. The member uses a different language but I’m sure we were saying the same thing.

Mr. Cassidy: We had to twist the government’s arm in order to get it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. How these things are done is something else, but it’s encouraging to have the leader of the New Democratic Party publicly acknowledge we are making significant progress in medicare. It’s certainly much better than it was six months ago --

Mr. Martel: Kick it to death.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and there are just one or two hurdles to resolve.

Mr. Martel: The government has slowed down the decline.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect to the energy policy, the member at least understands what we have been saying on energy with respect to pricing. I wish he would read, though, the second paper more carefully. Some of the suggestions he made today, in fact, are included in that.

Mr. Nixon: Is that the Welch paper?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Welch paper, that’s right. I would think that if the member read that carefully he would find not only the things he has mentioned today but others that have been suggested in terms of how, as a province or even nationally, we might do more with respect to either substitution or conservation. However, I would point out to the leader of the New Democratic Party, who along with his colleagues is concerned about the continued growth of Ontario Hydro, that obviously electricity is one of the potential substitutions and here is a resource that we can use.

To say we should substantially limit its potential, when it has in turn the ability for substitution, would I think be a contradiction of the things he has said.

Mr. J. Reed: Tell us about substitution of electric power for liquid fuel, what’s the difference?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the energy expert for the Liberal Party is interested, why doesn’t he say something?

Mr. Nixon: He just did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I read all he says on energy with a great deal of interest.

To digress a bit, Mr. Chairman, I’m not suggesting that you can substitute electricity for all other forms of energy --

Mr. J. Reed: That’s the first step in the right direction the Premier has taken in a month.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I do say, with respect, that you can substitute it for some forms of energy, that is correct. My guess is that out of the total in terms of energy supply, you could increase the electricity component by several percentage points without any major adjustment. In fact I think the member will find this has been the case in some other jurisdictions.

Who knows? Take a look, for instance, at the GO Transit service. I haven’t done any calculation of costs recently but surely one can’t ignore the potential of the electrification of that part of the system.

Mr. J. Reed: About 100 megawatts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, sure.

Mr. J. Reed: The Premier didn’t know that before, did he?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And this is available. Listen, we did a costing 10 years ago; I didn’t but it was done, somebody did it.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier used to be on Hydro, didn’t he; he used to be on the Hydro board?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. Does the member know how long ago that was? That was before he was even a member.

Mr. Nixon: That’s when some of the original mistakes were made.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact that was before he even thought about becoming a member.

Mr. Conway: I remember it well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, the member for Renfrew North does. What was he; aged two, maybe four?

Mr. Chairman remembers it well, that’s when he was on the Etobicoke Public Utilities Commission.

Mr. Conway: That’s right, when he was a Liberal.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Let’s leave Mr. Chairman out of this and get on with the debate.

Mr. Conway: If it’s good enough for the Minister of Education, it’s good enough for the Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, I urge this on the leader of the New Democratic Party: to ignore the potential of electrical substitution for other forms would be unwise, because I think it’s one of the great pluses we have available to us here.

As I mentioned in the discussions on Thursday or Friday, we think the potential of substitution of natural gas is significant, but it too has its limitations. I think we should be very cautious. Spending a lot of money doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to find other sources of energy.

I don’t close my mind to any of these potentials. I don’t close my mind to the possibilities in terms of solar energy, for example; I discussed this when I was in the United Kingdom. There were people there who were arguing that maybe by the year 2000 we could get up to three per cent of energy consumption through solar. That doesn’t sound like a large percentage to some people, but if we could that would be a very positive step. That is the kind of figure they were looking at there, and I think that is true of the European community and its assessment of other sources of energy.

I will deal briefly with the manufacturing sector, because here the leader of the New Democratic Party and I have certain philosophical differences, some of which will be shared by some members of the Liberal Party but not all members of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Nixon: Some of the members some of the time, but not all of the members all of the time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is about right. I am not getting into a lengthy debate on multinationals or control by people other than Canadians, except it is intriguing that you are so negative about how things are here when you recite all the problems we are experiencing. Yet it is interesting to me that the economy of this province is still performing better than that of most states of the union where a lot of these multinationals are headquartered.

What I can’t quite understand is how you reconcile your longer-term perspectives of the economy of this country with the fact that we are, in your view -- and I emphasize in your view -- dominated mainly by our American neighbours when most economists give us far greater credit for a potential for economic growth than the United States. I find that in itself something of a contradiction.

I share the views -- in fact I think I have expressed them more often than you have -- about research and development. I have said to the automotive industry very clearly that we don’t want to be confined to the role of hewers of wood and drawers of water, we want our share of research. I think that the companies are giving this serious consideration; I can’t establish anything as yet but I am hopeful.

Mr. Martel: It’s just lip service,

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I think the potential for this exists. I don’t want to have you be completely negative. I just happened to drop into a modest ceremony -- you can question how modest it was -- at Litton Industries the other day. Litton Industries got an order for $1.2 billion; I think I am fairly close there. This is being done partially through Canadian research, it is being done through Canadian personnel and it is being done in relation to that same firm that you like to chat about, McDonell Douglas.

It was won in competition with other people in the United States and it is related to Litton Industries in the United States, but it is functioning as a separate entity. Litton is in a position now to export in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars worth of Canadian-manufactured goods.

Tell me now that the ground rules are all wrong when that sort of thing can happen, because I will take you out to Litton Industries, if you would like to go, to chat to some of the people there. They are not going to tell you that their relationship to Litton in the US has been a total negative when you see that extent of that order, and this is not an unusual sort of example.

Take the case of McDonell Douglas. I just mention these things because they happen to be very close to my riding. The fact is that McDonell Douglas here in Canada in terms of productivity and many other things is showing a better record than that of some of its component organizations in the United States. This is recognized and they are getting increased work. This is happening even though it is part of a multinational.

I am not one to be negative about having more Canadian control and Canadian ownership, I have always been in support of it; but I have to look at the realities. You are asking me to look at realities; I am asking you to look at some.

Our responsibility as a government is to move the economy ahead and to do our best to encourage a climate where investment and job creation can take place. You can talk about some figures here in Metro. You leave out the fact that Ontario has had a better rate of job creation than that of any comparable industrial jurisdiction. You are great at figures, but check them out and show me a jurisdiction that is comparable where in the past 12 months they have had a better record of job creation, a lot of which is in the manufacturing sector.

You can always isolate or take a look at one geographic area. I haven’t got the figures and I am not going to debate them with you, but I look at the totals and I think that the totals for 1979 will be close to 140,000 jobs. That in itself indicates that the economy of this province has continued to move ahead. In fact I think it indicates more than that; it indicates that part of it, though only a modest part, is the result of policies of this government.

Mr. Cassidy: In manufacturing, you know, we have just gotten back to the number of people we had employed in manufacturing in 1974.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But you are arguing the influence of the multinationals, and I just have to tell you that sort of problem isn’t related to the multinationals. The problems we are having here in some areas of the electronics industry are the same problems a multinational or a series of multinationals are having in the United States.

When did Zenith close up their shop in Chicago, was it four or five months ago? It was really the last of the major American electronic-TV producers. I don’t know where the work has gone, I forget now whether it was Mexico or Taiwan. The fact of the matter is the same multinationals you are critical of every day in the week are experiencing the same difficulties in that area in the United States as they are here. It is something that really isn’t related to being a multinational.

Mr. Martel: They have no allegiance to anybody.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is related to the fact this economy is competing now with the Third World economy, or whatever terminology you may wish to use, which establishes a very different set of competitive ground rules. I am just saying to you don’t lay it on the backs of the multinationals, there are other problems inherent in that.

Mr. Martel: They have no allegiance to any country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say if you eliminated the philosophical debate about multinationals we would still have trouble in some areas of the electronics industry. I don’t think we can ignore that reality. It is something that has happened and something no degree of subsidization and so on is going to solve.

We have to attempt to develop some of our own technology, concentrate on those things we can do as well or better than other parts of the world, which is not an easy thing to go about.

I refer to the question of employees or skilled workers. I am always encouraged when I hear from the members opposite the concerns they register, because over the years there has been some difficulty in this area.

Mr. Kerrio: I don’t want to get in the bag with Cassidy. Don’t say, “you members over there.” I don’t want to get in the bag with him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will try not to -- I won’t say it. I have a member of the family here who doesn’t understand all these debates in the House.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: If you are going to make interjections as to whom you are going to get into bed with, you had better get into your own seat to make them.

An hon. member: Politicians make strange bedfellows.

Mr. Kerrio: No, no. I said bag.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He interrupted me. I think the minister was asked, and the other day I was asked, a question with respect to skilled workers and figures were given as to the number who come into this country. In terms of impact I used the figure five or six, and I think the figure the minister had was seven, it doesn’t matter, in terms of the multiplier effect.

Part of the problem we have had, and it is changing and I acknowledge this, has been the reluctance of other groups in our society to accept the concept of skilled training as being a valid form of educational experience. There has been a reluctance, even on the part of some segments of society, to encourage and support apprenticeship programs.

Mr. Cassidy: Like corporations.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But they are not the only ones. I used to have that very simple position, as Minister of Education. There were no problems in those days. We even issued certificates to such unlikely candidates as the member for Sudbury East and all the rest. It just shows you how broadminded we were.

Mr. Martel: He’s just a great fellow. We had to listen to your instructions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can recall the discussions, and even he may recall them, with respect to the four-year program. Do you remember the debates we had about the two-year occupational program? They still haven’t been totally resolved as to the number of hours that might or might not be included. It is something that goes back a while, and with great respect you can’t blame the government totally.

I am not going to repeat what the minister has said far better than I on so many occasions about this whole area of skilled training. That is there is still out there, that is outside the enlightened atmosphere of this legislative building, a feeling on the part of a lot of people who were rather directly involved with young people and who are in the decision-making process, who still will encourage them and say to them, “Please take your second year in law at Queen’s instead of something else”, or say to one other member of the family -- do you have any family yet, Michael?

Mr. Martel: When you were minister you had to get a profession, that’s all we ever heard then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say to the member for Sudbury East you never read my statements. I made the strongest plea, and the member for Brant-Haldimand-Oxford-Norfolk -- all of those great counties he represents -- can recall debating right here in this House the whole concept of the community colleges, and he recalls too the pressures we were under as a government --

[4:15]

Mr. Martel: You should get back to the teaching profession.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as well as the pressures I was under as a minister to establish these with a straight transfer program, like the junior college system in the great state of California with everybody going on to university, with everybody getting their BA, MA, PhD. Who was leading the crusade? The great member, he was then the member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) was leading the crusade in terms of a transfer of programs in the colleges.

I made some great speeches in those days; I made some great speeches about the relevance to society of a skilled tradesman vis-à-vis somebody in the professions. I would make the same speech again today but the honourable member wouldn’t listen to me.

All I have to say to him is that the public attitude --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the honourable member one of the toughest fellows I had to deal with on this concept for a period of years was the same Walter Pitman. I am always encouraged the way Walter has changed his approach, I am just very encouraged. The honourable member should have heard him talk. In fact I had to correct him; he used to talk about liberal education, and I told him as the NDP education critic that was a contradiction in terms too. But anyway Walter has come around and I am delighted that he has.

Mr. Cassidy: Doing a good job.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I say there is still a school of thought -- or that is the wrong way to phrase it; there are a lot of people who still are reluctant to embrace the concept of a technical training program or skill training as being what they want for their children in terms of an educational experience.

Mr. Martel: That’s your brainwashing in the school system.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, if the honourable member is taking responsibility as a member of the teaching profession for doing it --

Mr. Martel: I’m not, I didn’t create this --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well he should go out and talk to his teacher friends if he thinks they are doing that.

Mr. Martel: They never had a say in this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, they can encourage their students any way they want.

Mr. Martel: Well, go after them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t be so negative about the profession, don’t be so negative about your colleagues.

Mr. Martel: I know how they feel about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact I am told when the honourable member was teaching, whenever he did teach it was always, “Listen, be a teacher like me.” And all your students said, “Heavens above, is that the only future for us?” No, that’s not true, they didn’t say it that way.

Mr. Martel: I never taught Sunday school.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well I did, that’s where I got all my teaching experience. That’s why I can speak about teaching with such great depth and knowledge.

Mr. Conway: The best note taker the University of Toronto ever had.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who was?

Mr. Conway: You were the best note taker the U of T ever had.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never took notes, never took notes