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

June 18, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

SPECIAL WARRANTS

HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES

RENTAL HOUSING

PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LEEDS AND GRENVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE BILL

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASTRA/RE-MOR

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

HOSPITAL BEDS

PRICE OF BEEF

LICENCE PLATE SLOGAN

ASTRA/RE-MOR

SEVERANCE PAY

PUBLIC SERVANTS' SCHEDULES

WABCO DISPUTE

DRIVER TESTING HOURS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

ASTRA/RE-MOR

PETITION

UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT

LEEDS-GRENVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MARKETING BOARDS

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

MARKETING BOARDS

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

SPECIAL WARRANTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege that I deem very serious and that I would like to draw to your attention. In my judgement, it amounts to a very serious abuse of the powers of the executive of this House and is an affront to all the privileges and responsibilities of the members.

I refer to the succession of orders in council that we have had and the events subsequent to March 10, when the government, through an order in council, issued special warrants in the amount of $4,717,231,600.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the House first came back on April 21. It is my view that the government should have moved immediately to regularize those special warrants. You will also recall that on April 23 we had public knowledge when the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) filed in this House a copy of those special warrants.

As the Chairman of Management Board stated, and as you know, sir, a special warrant is an order under

section 4 of the Management Board of Cabinet Act authorizing expenditures of an urgent nature for which no appropriation exists. I stress to you, sir, that they are to be of an urgent nature for which no appropriation exists.

The minister went on in the statement to say: "Normally these payments would be made upon a motion of interim supply being adopted by the Legislature."

Subsequent to this, about the middle of June, you will recall that a motion for interim supply was tabled by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), almost two months after the House had returned. I draw your attention, sir, to

section 4 of the Management Board of Cabinet Act, which was the authorizing

section for those particular special warrants. It says:

"Where an accident happens to any public work or building when the Legislature is not in session and an expenditure for the repair or renewal thereof is urgently required, or where any other matter arises when the Legislature is not in session in respect of which an expenditure not foreseen or provided for by the Legislature is urgently required for the public good.

I will not go on and read the rest of that section, but it says again at the end that the expenditure must be "urgently required." In that legislation, which is about 100 years old, it is clearly contemplated that this would be done only in emergencies. I submit it is also clearly contemplated that this would be regularized immediately upon the return of the House.

I am not questioning the authority of the government to vote itself some money or to give itself some money by way of special warrant on March 10 when the House was not sitting. That is not the issue. But we did come back on April 22, and interim supply could have been brought forward at that time.

This matter has been a serious issue over a number of years. I want to quote some of the authorities who I think support my point of view that this has been a gross abuse of executive privilege and is becoming government by order in council when one of the most sacred rights of members of parliament is to pass upon the expenditures of the executive branch.

I quote from The Public Purse by Norman Ward, the admitted authority on these matters. He says this about public finance:

"Underlying all the others are two principles, both of which have to be supported by a number of subsidiary principles and practices:

"(

i) The executive should have no income which is not granted to it, or otherwise sanctioned, by Parliament.

"(ii) The executive should make no expenditures except those approved by Parliament, in ways approved by Parliament."

That is one of the most sacred and time- honoured functions of independent members of parliament in this House on all sides, to have all those expenditures approved by the government.

I take you, Mr. Speaker, to a discussion of this very issue in 1890 when, speaking in the debate about the Short Line Railway, which involved a similar abuse of a special warrant to finance the building of a railway, Mr. Wilfrid Laurier said:

"I charge, moreover, that the government had not had the slightest excuse whatever for advising His Excellency to sign special warrants to cover any part of that expenditure."

He said: "What is the value of Parliament sitting and expressing an opinion upon any public subject, if it is within the power of the government to discard the authority of Parliament and to do precisely what the Legislature had not sanctioned their doing?"

In the same debate Sir Richard Cartwright, speaking on that same abuse of the warrants, said:

"I cannot put the construction which the honourable gentleman does on the use of the Governor General's warrant. These warrants are only to be used for special purposes, and the act distinctly declares for what they may be used ... Then the Governor General's warrant" -- which is similar in this situation -- "may issue. I say it is a most gross abuse of that power which is granted for such emergencies in regard to matters which could not reasonably be foreseen or provided for, to ask His Excellency to issue a warrant taking a large sum of money from the public chest for a purpose such as this.

I say that the minister who advised the issue of that warrant committed a fraud on His Excellency, and made His Excellency a tool to perpetrate a gross wrong and to offer a gross affront to the authority of Parliament."

I relate to you, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of the special warrant issued earlier this year was $4.7 billion, or almost a quarter of the year's expenditure.

My point is that the money which the government passed by special warrant was not for unforeseen circumstances. It was an abuse of the system for an untold and unseemly period of time, for a three-month period.

I take you, Mr. Speaker, to a debate in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly in 1892. Mr. W. S. Fielding, the then Premier, said: "The drawing of that (special) warrant would be as much a violation of the control of Parliament as anything else can be. If the desire is to have every dollar that is expended voted by this House, I have to say that is not the system that prevails anywhere."

2:10 p.m.

The author of the book from which that quotation is taken says this: "Like the Dominion practice, the provincial special warrants are only issued when parliament is not in session. The objections of their employment are that they do away with all effective control of government expenditures and have resulted in Canadian provincial budgets affording no correct criterion, like those of other countries, of what the public expenditures will be in any given year."

I cite those authorities, Mr. Speaker, so that you will understand -- and I know that after you investigate it you will -- what a very serious abuse of the procedure this is. The Treasurer brought in an interim supply motion in the middle of June, backdated to June 1; and it is quite clear to you, sir, I am sure, that by abusing special warrants and interim supply they can effectively manipulate the expenditures of the government without any of the regularization that should go on by this parliament and through its various committees.

I quote again from The Public Purse by Norman Ward, at page 252:

"Like supplementary estimates, interim supply and Governor General's warrants (both of which are explained in preceding chapters) could if improperly used almost destroy parliamentary control.

Just as a government could evade unwelcome scrutiny by asking for supplementaries embodying important proposals at a time when Parliament was preoccupied with some other weighty matter, or during the hot humid summer days when members are anxious to get away (and both of these events have been known to occur), so a government could time its request for interim supply in such a manner that the House of Commons would have considerable practical difficulty in refusing.

Sir Robert Borden, while Prime Minister, informed the House of one revealing experience he had had: 'I should like to say that I myself tried once, in opposition, under what I thought were somewhat serious circumstances, the policy of refusing any vote on account [that is, interim supply] and before 10 days were over, I got very tired of my position, because I heard, I think, from every province and from nearly every community in Canada on the subject."

Upon investigation I think the sequence of events is a serious irregularity. I believe this government should have moved immediately for interim supply, rather than going by way of special warrant upon the return of this House on April 22.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your authority as the presiding officer of this House, to investigate this matter, to report back at your very earliest opportunity and to make sure this never happens again.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege: May I compliment my friend the member for London Centre for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. I simply want to associate ourselves with the concern expressed by the member for London Centre and to require not simply your considered decision on this matter but a prompt and immediate reply from the government with respect to this breach of the rights of the members of this assembly.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to dissociate myself completely from the last remarks, because I submit this is not a breach in the sense in which he tries to portray it, and it is not something that has suddenly come to light and to the attention of members of this House today or in the last few days.

The history of the matter must be sketched. First of all, there was an election in this province on March 19, and to the best of my knowledge I cannot recall, certainly in the time since I have been an adult, an election coming at a time when the calling of the House likely would be after the beginning of a new fiscal year.

In other words, we found ourselves at that time the government of this province, although a government in the middle of an election with the prospect that the Legislature of this province, which must vote interim supply and final supply, likely would not be meeting until after the time the old estimates would run out after March 31. So it was necessary for a perfectly legal procedure to be devised to ensure that the public servants of this province would be paid and that the municipalities and school boards and children's aid societies and so forth would receive --

Mr. Foulds: That is not the problem.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just underline to members that it was --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Don't pretend.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not pretending. I am telling members exactly what that money is for. The money in special warrants was money that would flow to municipalities, school boards, children's aid societies, welfare recipients and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Cassidy: Once we were back here we should have approved it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It would be completely unthinkable that we should allow any disruption in the flow of those funds, be they for the salaries in the public service or for any of these other public endeavours to which we transfer funds.

Mr. Peterson: That is not the point. That is not the point at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The point is that on the advice of the financial experts and lawyers of this government it was quite proper to use special warrants to be sure that money would be available. That process was fully looked into. The cabinet of this province, the executive council, was fully aware of it and took the necessary action to allow that to happen. It was decided that the best way to handle it would be to have special warrants for the first three months of the fiscal year, a period that normally would be covered by interim supply if this House were sitting.

I do not have the records here in front of me, but I can tell the honourable member that if he had talked to the member sitting on his immediate right he might have known a little more about this, because we discussed this at House leaders' meetings several times. In fact. I indicated to various House leaders, whips and so forth the uniqueness and perhaps difficulty some people would have of understanding the estimates this year, because when the estimates were printed they would have within them all the facts about the special warrant.

If the member has read any of the estimates he will see that every estimate has at the bottom of it, "less special warrant." Therefore, the amount of money to be voted by this House is the amount less the special warrant. If anybody is suggesting that this procedure was somehow to be hidden from view, it certainly can be substantiated that this is not the case, because here it is; it is in every one of the estimates. The procedure was discussed by many people at the time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: David, you are off base again.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If anyone had any problem with this particular procedure, the time to have raised it was weeks ago when these estimates were tabled, and it was made very clear what the special warrant was.

I want to also say that we discussed at various times whether a motion should be put in this House, not the usual interim supply motion, but a motion that this House take note of the fact that special warrants were providing for the first three months of the supply to all these various services in this province.

My recollection is that most of the people at our meetings felt that we did not need to put that particular motion. The special warrants procedure was a legal procedure, the money was legally being paid out, it was being noted in the estimates, and the amount of the special warrant could be debated along with the estimates although it was not really a part of the estimate amount.

I must say that my preference, and the preference of the government, would have been to put a motion, but no one seemed to be very concerned that a motion needed to be put that this House take note of the special warrants, which were passed legally and which provided for the payment of that money.

I find it a little disturbing that the member should get up here today in a rather pious way and suggest that something was being hidden from the public's eye in some procedure that is not legal. I will tell him that the procedure is legal. It has been publicly known ever since this House came back. It has allowed for the flowing of this money to the public servants of this province and all those other people who get transfer payments, and it is fully detailed in the estimates which the members will have ample opportunity to debate now and in the fall. They can also debate interim supply in the interim supply motion.

Mr. Peterson: Why is the interim supply backdated? If it is so perfect, why are you backdating it to June 1?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me tell the member that we backdated the interim supply motion to June 1 because in some instances the special warrants will not supply enough money for certain ministries throughout until June 31. In a very proper way we are suggesting that interim supply must be now voted, because those ministries will not have money at some point in time.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Yes. But have they been spending money for 18 days without authority?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, they have not. If they had, we would have told the House, and we would be debating to get that interim supply through. We had hoped that interim supply would be --

Mr. Nixon: What are you backdating it for?

Mr. Smith: Why backdate it if they have not spent it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have explained why we backdated it, and that would be a very logical thing to debate during the interim supply motion, which it was my understanding we were going to pass the other night but which was not passed, and which members will have an opportunity to consider again tonight.

I am sure that any of these procedures can be fully explained during the interim supply motion and during the estimates. I submit to the House that nothing irregular has gone on. Nothing illegal has happened. Everything concerning the special warrants has been made fully public to all the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Your concern has been noted and obviously is going to be replied to.

HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of privilege, briefly, to clarify the record.

On Monday of this week, I asked the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) a question that had to do with whether problems and solutions identified at the Toronto East General Hospital emergency department may have general application in other hospitals and other emergency departments. In his answer the Minister of Health said: Mount Sinai Hospital down the street here does not have an emergency department."

I want to point out to the minister not only that Mount Sinai Hospital does have an emergency department but also that last week there were seven patients in that emergency department for two days because there were no other beds available in the hospital. There were no other beds available because at any given time in Mount Sinai Hospital 30 to 45 patients are in active treatment beds when they should be in chronic care beds.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I am glad the honourable member raised it, because I was going to. In the course of the discussion, I was thinking of the old Mount Sinai Hospital, which is now chronic, and the emergency department has been closed.

For the member's information, I had the executive director and the chairman of Mount Sinai Hospital in this morning, and we were discussing, among other things, this very point. Their proposal for the future is not dissimilar to many other hospitals: not more beds, but an expansion of ambulatory care programs to relieve these kinds of pressures.

Mr. Speaker: That really was not a point of privilege.

RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last week, you will remember that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) promised this House he would produce and make public the number of units that were fully approved under the Ontario rental construction loan program within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Some of us on the back benches here are new members, but we would like to believe in the old system whereby when a minister of the crown promises he will deliver exact figures, as he says in Hansard, then he will do that.

You also know, Mr. Speaker, that this government has been accused by my own leader and by other people of stonewalling and covering up. I want to raise this point of privilege with the minister and ask him to please produce the figures in regard to this rental construction loan program within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. If he does not have them, he can at least stand up and be honest with the citizens of this area and of Toronto, where there is a housing crisis, and tell us --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Later]

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: Can I receive an answer from the other side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. You may ask that more properly during question period.

PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the routine proceedings, I want to read into the record the names of the visiting parliamentary interns from the University of Michigan in Dearborn, who have been with us for the past several weeks. They are leaving tomorrow, and I am sure we are all very pleased to have had them with us. I sincerely hope their visit here has been of benefit to them.

The list is as follows: Victoria Altinok, Thomas Biggs, Paul Bisaro, Nancy Burke, Nancy Conzelman, John D'Alessandro, Barbara Fratangelo, Michael Grueber, Michael Gruskin, Julia Krohta, Calvin Matle, Carol Mitri, Garry O'Leary, Linda Plopan, Beverly Rende, Lisa Schwartz, Gretchen Stallworth, Marianne Swenson and Cynthia Vella.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LEEDS AND GRENVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE BILL

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, I will introduce a bill entitled

An Act respecting the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.

Because of the nature of the bill, I wish at this time to read into the record the report of the Education Relations Commission, dated June 11, 1981, and delivered to me by the chairman, Professor Bryan Downie, on the afternoon of June 12, 1981.

The report of the commission of June 11 reads as follows:

"Dear Dr. Stephenson:

"I would like to report to you on the current status of negotiations and the secondary school teachers' strike in Leeds and Grenville.

"The Education Relations Commission met on Thursday, June 11, 1981, to examine the status of negotiations between the Leeds and Grenville Board of Education and the branch affiliate members of the OSSTF, District 37. The commission also considered the matter of whether the strike places in jeopardy the successful completion of courses of study in Leeds and Grenville secondary schools.

"In its deliberations the commission examined a report submitted to it by the third party appointed to act as mediator in the dispute. We were also aided by discussions with ERC staff and by background information related to the sanction.

"It is clear from all of the evidence we have at our disposal that there is a distinct danger the dispute will not settle before the end of the 1980-81 school year and, more importantly, the dispute very well may not end before classes are scheduled to resume in September.

"Despite this danger, there is an absence of convincing evidence that jeopardy to courses of study exists at this time. As of this date, there have been 25 school days lost due to the strike and by the end of the school year, 36 school days will have been lost if the dispute is not settled. This, of course, is serious. Some of the 36 school days, however, are noninstructional days or final examination days.

Further, in our review of the situation, we have considered the fact that students affected by the strike will receive their final marks and that universities and community colleges in Ontario apparently will accept students into their programs on this basis. For this, and other reasons, it would be inappropriate for us to declare jeopardy at this moment."

Mr. Mancini: The strike was allowed to go on for weeks and weeks and people didn't do a damned thing. You let that strike go on in Essex for weeks and weeks and didn't do a thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, Miss Stephenson.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I remind the honourable members that I am reading the communication sent by the Education Relations Commission.

Mr. Mancini: We demand action from your government. Just because a Tory back-bencher rises and complains, you are willing to change your policy. There is something very strange.

Mr. Speaker: Order! I don't want to be accused of sermonizing or lecturing, but when I stand it shall be the custom for the rest of the members to take their seats. Miss Stephenson.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: "Nevertheless, the commission has consistently followed the principle that every dispute has to be examined and treated on its own merits. In this particular case, there are some very important facts which cause us concern. The state of negotiations seems to be deteriorating; the parties are, if not frozen, exceedingly rigid in their positions; and, as noted, there is a real possibility that the dispute will not end in anything approaching a reasonable time period.

That is, our concern relates to the unique aspects of this particular sanction, viz. the possible continuation of the strike into a new school year after the loss of a considerable number of school days in the current school year and without any indication of a future settlement point.

2:30 p.m.

"With the impending adjournment of the Legislature, this situation places the commission in a serious dilemma. Since its inception, the commission has consistently held to the position that voluntary resolution by the parties in a dispute is the preferred path to finality in teacher-board collective bargaining. At the same time, we take seriously our duty under

section 61(1)(

h) of the act concerning jeopardy to students' courses of study. While in our opinion there is an absence of compelling evidence that jeopardy exists at this precise point, we feel that the government should be in a position to respond without delay should it become clear to the ERC that the continuation of the sanction will place in jeopardy the successful completion of courses of study by students affected by the strike.

"Therefore, in light of the above, the commission recommends you consider the enactment of legislation before the adjournment of the Legislature to terminate the secondary school strike in Leeds and Grenville, and that the proclamation of legislation by the Lieutenant Governor in Council be deferred at least until such time as an advisement under

section 61(1)(

h) is tendered by the commission. This will allow the parties to negotiate, while at the same time ensuring the public that action will be taken on jeopardy within a reasonable period of time. As well, the commission will continue to provide third party assistance to the parties in Leeds and Grenville and will continue to monitor the situation.

"The above takes into account the sometimes conflicting but equally legitimate concerns of the commission and of Bill 100: i.e., on the one hand, the voluntary resolution of collective bargaining disputes and, on the other, the protection of courses of study of students affected by a strike or lockout.

"It is the hope of the commission that a negotiated settlement will emerge in Leeds and Grenville which will negate the need for a proclamation. To facilitate that outcome, we recommend you consider legislation that includes final offer selection as the means of ultimate dispute resolution.

"Yours truly

"Bryan M. Downie

"Education Relations Commission."

The bill has been drafted to meet the requests of the Education Relations Commission, and I am optimistic that it will assist the parties to resolve the current dispute and to allow the educational process to resume.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as a courtesy, I sent a copy of a letter about which I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I see him returning to the House now.

I want to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning a letter, a copy of which I have sent over to him. The letter is dated July 23, 1979. It is a letter addressed to Mr. H. Roach, the chief examiner for his ministry in the office of the registrar of trust companies. The letter deals with a client by the name of Mr. Henry Ramsey, who was taken in by Astra Trust, whereupon this person put money into Astra Trust and had it shifted into a certain Re-Mor Investment Management Corporation.

This letter makes a number of very serious allegations and provides a basis for these allegations, including the very serious allegation that the client, thinking he was doing business with Astra, had his money put into a Re-Mor mortgage.

I want to quote specifically: "It would appear that Astra Trust Company has merely been using the legal and accounting service promises as a come-on to attract funds for mortgage investments. Re-Mor Investment Management was represented to the Ramseys as being Astra Trust Mortgage Company, or a division of Astra Trust Company, by John Bentz at Astra's Burlington office."

Given that this letter was sent to the ministry after an oral conversation in July 1979, and given that the company was not shut down until almost a year later, and the predecessor of this minister has stated the problem was that Astra was shifting money into Re-Mor but the government acted on Re-Mor as soon as it found out about it, how can the minister continue to tell us that kind of story when his ministry was told on July 23, 1979, that Astra Trust was being used as a front by Re-Mor, and yet Re-Mor continued to operate under its mortgage licence and was not shut down?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some confusion in the Re-Mor name here. This was under a division of the company known as Via Mare Investments. That was a mortgage brokerage company operated by Mr. Luciani from St. Catharines, I believe, and Welland, and in that particular case Via Mare had under it something called a division, Re-Mor Investment Management.

It was a long time after -- several months after this July letter -- that Re-Mor Investment Company Limited was incorporated by Montemurro and ultimately became the one that provided the vehicle through which so many of these losses occurred. I would offer that as one comment. We must not confuse the two companies. I would ask the member to go back and check and make sure that he is not talking about totally separated relationships.

Secondly, we do have this letter, and he has been very kind to send me over a letter dated July 23, 1979, from the law firm of Bowlby, Luchak, Martino, Thoman and Lofchik in Hamilton Centre, by about the tenth name on the list, one Robert F. McGlynn, who is the solicitor who identified himself, apparently, in a telephone call making a complaint about this particular streaming operation. McGlynn actually made a telephone call, and as a result of that Mr. Roach, the chief examiner, said, "Put that into writing so that we have something on which we can look into this matter to see if there is any substance to it."

Just coincident with the time that Roach received the letter in his office, at that very moment, almost on the day it arrived -- the member will be impressed to realize this -- a telephone call came from McGlynn, the very lawyer who sent the letter, I am told, saying: "Please disregard this letter. In fact, it has no substance; the whole matter has been resolved." To use his words, I gather he said: "It has all been fixed up and it has all been corrected. Do not do anything about the letter that I have sent you concerning this Astra Trust Company."

Mr. Smith: The explanation is very simple, inasmuch as after Mr. Montemurro had refused repeated attempts to obtain information on behalf of Mr. Ramsey, which are outlined in the letter by Mr. McGlynn -- since, as Mr.

McGlynn put in the letter, the Ramseys find themselves with an $80,000 investment and life savings with a lender and borrower of whom they know nothing, for security that may or may not be adequate, and supported by the guarantee of a company that may be totally inadequate to cover its obligations in the event of default -- and since it goes on and says that this company is acting as a front and that after repeatedly attempting to go to Mr.

Montemurro, who was avoiding their calls, when he was finally confronted with this letter and information that it was going forward to the Ontario government he at that point took out a cheque book and said, "All right, here is the money back -- but only on condition that you phone the ministry and say that this matter with Ramsey has been settled," it surely is not surprising to the minister that the lawyer would then say, "Since my clients finally have their money back I am no longer involved in this."

2:40 p.m.

Given that the detailed allegations in this letter certainly require somebody to look into them, ask the people involved exactly what happened and investigate the front that was being run by Astra Trust for its mortgage arm, in this instance Re-Mor Investment Management, surely the government should have acted then and there to do a proper investigation of these exceedingly serious allegations and not wait about a year, as it did? What explanation is there for the government totally disregarding the letter and not looking into the substance of the serious allegations that were made?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the Leader of the Opposition has more of an understanding of what Mr. Montemurro said than I have. I do not profess to suggest otherwise. All I can say is, on the basis of a letter that was received setting out a number of allegations, and then receiving a call from the individual who actually wrote the letter, followed up by a letter from him -- a copy of which I would be glad to provide the member if we are able to locate it -- saying, "Please disregard everything we have said," would it not be reasonable to do that?

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Shouldn't this cause even the minister to realize that there may be many investors out there who have been treated in this manner by Astra, Re-Mor and Mr. Montemurro, and that it would be wise to have a committee of this Legislature hear evidence from those investors as well as delving into the operation of the securities commission and the registrar of mortgage brokers and other registrars? Wouldn't that cause the minister to think this would be desirable if we are interested in getting to the bottom of this issue?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the question.

Mr. Smith: Given that the letter outlines in great detail the practices that took place at Astra Trust and Re-Mor Investment Management, that it outlines over four pages all the ways in which these people were taken in and all the ways in which they were abusing the trust people were putting into that company, does the minister not think it is a dereliction of duty on the part of his officers to simply throw the letter away and ignore it all on the basis of a phone call saying everything is now okay?

Is it not like somebody writing a detailed letter saying exactly how a bank robbery has taken place, detailing who did it, when they did it, the type of pistol used, how much money was taken, precisely the time of day, and then calling up later and saying: "Pay no attention to that. We got the money back," and them saying, "Oh, that's fine, we just won't bother to look into it at all"? Does the minister not realize his own officials were told about this serious matter and did not act and that only a royal commission is going to get to the bottom of how the government operated in the matter of Astra/Re-Mor?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I will be glad when Kingston is over. I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, when we get a --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not approve of that comment.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member for Kingston and the Islands says he does not approve of that comment and I can see why.

When we receive a letter saying, "Disregard the letter; everything has been resolved and everything has been fixed up in respect of the complaint that was registered," I repeat the question the member did not bother to answer -- I know it is not his duty to answer questions; he never answers questions -- does he not realize it is reasonable to assume that when we get a letter from the person who wrote the first letter saying to disregard it, we can reasonably do that? Isn't that a reasonable thing? Of course it is. I do not know how the member can come to some of the conclusions he comes to. I just cannot understand that.

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister would share with us some thoughts that follow upon this Toronto East General Hospital matter.

Given that the minister has said he is quite confident there is no other hospital in Ontario to which the same problems might apply and the same solutions be necessary as occurred in the Toronto East General, and given the fact the investigation into the Toronto East General was actually instigated at the request of that hospital following certain allegations in the public press, and given that there exists a certain accreditation process which presumably did not signal to the ministry any problem in Toronto East General before this investigation was requested, how can the minister say with any confidence there are no other hospitals in Ontario that might have the same answers to these questions asked at the Toronto East General, especially given that the Ontario Hospital Association's president, Merritt Henderson, said even his own hospital could possibly have exactly the same complaints if someone came in and asked the same questions?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr Speaker, I think the extent of the problems identified by the trio of inspectors with the assistance of auditors whom they engaged would indicate, as compared against the information we have from accreditation reports, annual reports and all the financial reports we have for all hospitals, that the problems with respect to the lack of written policies in regard to procedures in the hospital appear to be unique.

Mr. Smith: I am asking how the minister knows that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If this is what the honourable Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, I do not envisage that to be a problem, based on the information we have, as I started to recite, such as accreditation reports, monthly cash flow reports, annual reports, settlement reports and the like. Most of the problems, as the member will recall -- I am sure he has read the whole report -- relate to the lack of clearly stated, documented and available policies in a number of areas, and some practices that would not come out and have not come out in the reports to date.

Mr. Smith: I think the minister has made the point I am trying to make.

Given that the minister said the accreditation system apparently was insufficient, along with the monthly cash flow reports and the settlement reports, to draw his attention to problems at the Toronto East General, and that it was only by a kind of fluke that the matter came out in the press and he was asked to appoint people to do a more detailed study so that the matter came to light at the Toronto East General, does the minister not recognize he is saying the accreditation system, the monthly cash flow report system and so on are simply inadequate for the purposes of pointing out even the very serious problems that apparently existed at the Toronto East General?

Rather than assuring the people that everything is fine elsewhere when he cannot possibly know that, he ought to present to this House a better accreditation system and tell us how he is going to improve the system so that problems like those at Toronto East General will not be missed again. If the problems were missed last time, then surely we need a better system --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That shows total ignorance. The province does not run the accreditation system.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: I am having difficulty understanding why the Minister of Education finds this so difficult.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not find it difficult. I just find the member's ignorance difficult to accept. He is an embarrassment.

Mr. Smith: If the problems were missed by the accreditation system last time, as the Minister of Health admits happened at the Toronto East General, surely the logical thing to do is to improve the accreditation system. Just to prove the point, will the minister please table the last two accreditation reports regarding Toronto East General Hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First, the accreditation program is not run by the provincial government.

Mr. Smith: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The accreditation program is a voluntary program run by an independent body known as the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation.

Mr. Smith: But you depend on it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Only in part.

Mr. Smith: What else do you do?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be glad to tell the member if he would listen.

Mr. Smith: That is what I asked you the first time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sit back and enjoy it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is only part of the system and, as I said, it is a voluntary part of the system. The reports are provided --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, Mr. Timbrell.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In addition, we have the area teams of the ministry which regularly deal with the individual hospitals, reviewing their cash flow statements and their annual reports and the like, which would not routinely turn up those kinds of things.

2:50 p.m.

For instance, the board of the Toronto East General Hospital had apparently ignored advice from its own auditors for three years in a row. It may well be that we are going to have to examine our own reporting procedures -- not the accreditation necessarily, because that is an entirely different matter and I do not think that is the point -- to try to identify if there are ways in which they can be improved to assist us in identifying sooner if there are difficulties in a particular hospital.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the minister has appointed an inspector, or is going to appoint one, to look into matters at the McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay, does his sweeping statement indicate that he is prejudging the contents of the report of the inspectors in Thunder Bay? Would the minister tell us why he feels it necessary to take the step of appointing inspectors in that case? Obviously there have been a number of things brought to his attention that caused him to make this appointment. Further, the minister does not know exactly what is going on there.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member asked me that question in a different context a week ago, before he knew the results of the inspection panel's findings at the Toronto East General Hospital. I do not think my answer is any different this week than it was last week.

There have been expressions of concern from a variety of quarters in the Thunder Bay community: from the local MPP, from private citizens, from medical staff, the union and so forth. For at least a year there has been an ongoing series of problems there that I thought could best be assisted by asking an inspector to carry out an inspection and provide a report. The intent of the process is to assist the board to get its house in order and to resolve whatever is at the root of the problem.

Mr. Smith: Would the minister give us some indication of when he will be tightening up his general reporting procedure, given that it missed the Toronto East General Hospital totally? Would he tell us when he is going to tighten it up and, instead of telling the people of Ontario that all other hospitals are fine, undertake to talk to Dr. Henderson of the Ontario Hospital Association, who says perhaps all other hospitals have many of the same problems as Toronto East General Hospital? May we have some idea when the minister is going to tighten up these procedures rather than giving us assurances that are based on thin air?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are constantly reviewing our procedures. For instance, in order to avoid some of the difficulties identified last year, the budget forms for 1981-82 told the hospitals they were to submit two budgets: phase one, roughly within the 10.1 per cent increase, to maintain existing programs; and phase two, to identify additional needs such as growth in population, utilization, whatever, for separate consideration. They were not to budget spending on additional staff, programs, equipment or whatever, without approval. That is a result of the experience in 1979 and 1980 leading up to it.

I cannot give the member a particular date, but I can tell him that after I met with representatives of the board of the Toronto East General Hospital on Monday -- and I think I indicated to the House on Tuesday that I met with representatives of the Ontario Hospital Association, the president, the past president and the executive director -- it was agreed there were a number of things in that report with which the OHA itself could be very helpful in working with its members to improve on the management and supervisory skills of administrators and boards of trustees. It is an ongoing process.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health about the cutbacks in hospital beds over the last couple of years.

On March 31, 1979, there were 38,050 acute treatment hospital beds in Ontario. In the two years that followed there have been 4,276 acute treatment hospital beds shut down in Ontario. Would the minister tell us where those 4,200 beds have gone? Would he not agree that the overcrowding of hospitals, patients being forced to stay on stretchers overnight, delays on emergency wards and the postponement of operations in hospitals are a direct result of that hatchet job by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let me take the member back to February 7, 1978. It was on that date I announced what the policy of the government was: We would move to reduce, over a period of at least three years, the number of beds in the entire health care system of Ontario dedicated to acute care to 3.5 per 1,000 in southern Ontario and four per 1,000 in northern Ontario. At this time I indicated that what previously were the maxima for both chronic care beds and extended care or nursing home beds would from that point on become the minima. I would be glad to check the figures. I will not take the member's figures as gospel. I have learned --

Mr. McClellan: They are your figures.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Maybe they are; I do not recognize them. If they are my figures, the member is not telling the whole story, with respect. He is not talking about the many hospitals in the province where beds were converted from a designation of acute care to one of chronic care. In the process, proper chronic programs were established in a great many communities, and I would point to Wingham or Brockville a few days ago.

In many communities -- and he may have some recollection of this in his own part of the province, and the former Liberal critic I think remembers this -- chronic care programs previously existed only in name. They were little more than custodial care in many communities. They were not geared to providing chronic rehabilitative care for the patient.

As a result of this process, the total number of beds dedicated to health care has gone up. There have been additions of chronic care beds; there have been additions of nursing home beds. There is no question we have fewer beds nominally dedicated to acute care, but to cite that one figure is not giving the whole picture. It is not talking about the conversions to chronic care, nor the additions of chronic care beds and of nursing home beds that are already in place and already committed to.

Mr. Cassidy: I am not sure what the minister thinks is the whole picture. Again and again we have brought evidence before the Legislature about hospitals where the acute treatment beds are filled to capacity, hospitals where patients sometimes have to stay for two or three nights in a row on stretchers because they cannot get in. We have evidence of that being found not only at the Toronto East General but in hospitals all across the province.

Would the minister explain why the people of the province are required to pay 15 per cent extra in their OHIP premiums with this year's budget when the Ministry of Health and the government are letting the quality of health care in the province go down the drain by cutting the equivalent of 10 general hospitals in the last three years?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First, the member says he has brought forth evidence; he has not. He has brought allegations but never evidence. He has never done that. The facts do not support his allegations. They never have.

The member is insisting on what I think is not -- I will not use the word dishonest, because I may be called to order. It is a questionable, misleading argument in that he is zeroing in on only one part of the statistics. He will not acknowledge that the policy is very clearly laid out. He has not acknowledged that in the course of that period the total number of beds in the system has gone up, nor that there are more ambulatory care programs, that there is more surgery being done on a day surgery basis so that people who do not need it are not hospitalized.

Mr. Cassidy: They are stacked up in the corridors. That is what is happening.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I indicated the other day that in the five fiscal years I have been Minister of Health, spending on health care in this province has gone up approximately 64 per cent. That is an awful lot more than either the rate of inflation or the amount by which OHIP premiums have gone up.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: At times the minister seems to delight in pointing out we lack knowledge or information while he does have a lot of information in these reports from his area ministry teams he referred to. Would the minister table the last two reports of those area ministry teams on the Toronto East General Hospital so that we might share some of that knowledge?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that is not supplementary, but there would not be --

Mr. Roy: Let the Speaker decide that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I submit it is not supplementary. Still, I am delighted to let the member use up all the time of question period with interjections.

Mr. Bradley: That is very condescending of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Condescending? The member is telling me about being condescending? The members are the experts on arrogance, condescension, the whole bit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister address his remarks to the question, please?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to examine it and discuss it with staff. I do not believe there are any all-embracing reports on the whole operation. They would be on individual complaints or on individual matters raised by them, but I would be glad to share whatever information we have.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want to tell the minister that I recall perfectly well the policy of February 7. I want to ask the minister, if it was the policy of the government to decrease acute care beds in order to expand chronic care beds, how can he possibly explain the fact that between March 1979 and March 1981 there has been a decline of 961 chronic care beds in Ontario? They were decreased from 10,820 on March 31, 1979, according to his figures tabled in this House last December, to 9,859 according to his figures tabled in this House on June 8.

While he is at it, why does he not explain to us what happened to the 3,218 chronic care beds which he said would be opened during 1980? He told us that on December 12, 1980, in an answer tabled in this Legislature. Maybe those beds evaporated after March 19, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at each of the individual answers. If there is any inconsistency I will straighten it out, but the member cannot deny that the new chronic care beds in the last couple of years are on University Avenue at the old Mount Sinai. He cannot deny that they are at the old Grace Hospital. He cannot deny that the new beds --

Mr. McClellan: Tell us where the 961 beds are.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I sat here and listened to the member's question. Why is it he will not afford people even a modicum of good manners and respect to listen? If the member does not want to hear it, that is fine.

PRICE OF BEEF

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the tripling of retail markups for beef which has occurred over the course of the last five years according to the Ontario Cattlemen's Action Group.

In view of the refusal of the supermarkets to respond to the charges made by the cattlemen about the very substantial increase in retail markups on beef over the course of the last four or five years, will the minister investigate it? What action will the government take to protect consumers and ensure a decent return for cattlemen and stop excessive markups on beef?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister proceed?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Am I interrupting the members?

Mr. Roy: What is the minister's beef?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I have no beef. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the leader of the New Democratic Party's question about the matter of beef and the complaint of the Ontario Cattlemen's Action Group, I think there are some things that should be brought up front and mentioned before we attach ourselves to any one particular side.

All of us, of course, want those producing the beef to receive the largest amount of payment that possibly can be made, and similarly, we want a proper profit to be made by any of those people who are wholesaling or retailing the beef.

One of the problems in the Ontario Cattlemen's Action Group complaints is that the retailers actually dispute the manner in which they are calculating their markups. The member mentioned the fact that the markup has risen by three times over the last four years, I believe. We have been monitoring the price of beef. Our monitors only go back for some 25 months but I can say that in the past year, from May 1980 until May 1981, our food prices monitoring report shows that beef has risen by only 5.2 per cent.

I suspect the member has a copy of that food prices monitoring report in his own library. It will show that in the last year there has been only a 5.2 per cent increase. Indeed, it might even be considered that is a bit marginal in terms of the rate of inflation in the last period of time.

The second aspect is that the Retail Council of Canada claims that between 1979 and 1980 -- because the 1981 figures are not available I have to give the member the 1979-80 figures -- the markups rose from 16 to 18 per cent, hardly the figure they are talking about in terms of triple over that period of four years. So there are some problems.

In addition to that, I am told one of the problems is the manner in which the cattlemen put together these prices. If one is talking about the price of a new Ford motor car, one does not add up the price of the new muffler, the new tailpipe, the new back end, the new trunk and the new seats. Apparently, the cattlemen put together their prices in a strange way. I am told they put them together by attempting to reconstitute the carcass, piece by piece: so much for the hoof, so much for the horns and so much for the hip.

Mr. Foulds: You are on the hook end of the horns.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Given all that, and while there may appear to be some connection between the two parts, the beef animal and the automobile, the fact of the matter is that one just cannot take a reconstitution approach to it. It has to be looked at from the whole, as the whole produced as opposed to the single parts pieced together.

I think the member should go back and take a look at the cattlemen's attempt to put these figures together. I think he will find the facts may not be what they seem to be saying. There is no doubt there is a lot of dispute to it. Our figures do not bear that out, and we have been monitoring it for 25 months.

Mr. Cassidy: I asked the minister two specific questions: Will he investigate? He obviously is saying no. Is he be prepared to take action and what action would he take if he investigated? He is not prepared to take any action either to protect the consumers or to ensure decent returns for the cattlemen.

Since there were some specials in May, perhaps I can take the minister back just a month to April 1981, when the spread between the farm-gate price and the retail price for beef was $1.02 a pound, up from an average of 57 cents a pound in 1979. That is, the spread had risen by 80 per cent in just about a year and a half.

Is the minister saying he thinks that is a tolerable increase in the retail markup for beef? If he does not think it is reasonable, is he prepared to investigate? Is he prepared as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to come to the defence of the consumers? What action will the government take to roll back the price increase and make sure that we get charged fair prices for beef at the supermarket?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I suppose what the member is asking is, will we have an Ontario-sponsored beef price control agency? I do not think this ministry is prepared to set that up. I have to tell him our prices do not tell us the same thing he is trying to tell us. We have been monitoring it for the last 25 months, and we cannot come up with those figures. Over the last year, from May to May, the rise was 5.2 per cent for beef.

I remind the member that, when the cattlemen put together their package, one of the real complaints is they fail to take into consideration some of the specials that exist. I might tell him that, if he were to go to a Dominion store, for the next week he would be able to buy three pounds of rib steaks for a saving of $3.66 this week, down from $11.64 to $7.98. Yesterday we checked the newspapers, and the Safeway stores in Toronto actually have reduced the price of three pounds of round steak from $10.74 to $7.74. There is a $3 reduction right there, a substantial 27 per cent saving. That is the thing.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does it not indicate to the minister that there is something wrong in the pricing of the chain stores when they can give reductions of $1 a pound when they put on specials? At what time does the ministry do its monitoring? Do they do it when there is $1 a pound off or when the stores are running it at full price?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, our food price monitoring program report number 25 came out May 1981. In that process we investigate 36 communities, including Toronto, and check these out at various times. For instance, we measured from April 3, 1980, to April 2, 1981, and from May 8, 1980, to May 7, 1981.

We choose a particular day that is a constant day, whereby we check all these matters. We hope our review process is very accurate and done on the basis of certain days, picked differently at different times, so that people cannot have specials on at just the day we are checking it out.

We cover 72 food items monitored throughout the province; so we can pretty much give an assessment of it on a day-by-day basis. Does the member get this report? I think he should have a chance to look over this report.

He asked me initially the question, how could these companies bring on a $1 reduction on beef? For one thing, that is free enterprise, and I think the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) can tell him that. Secondly, I am told these companies use beef as a loss leader. They can do anything they want with a loss leader. The beauty of free enterprise, I think, is that one can lower the price from time to time too.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I get that report, but is it not true that all the report does is monitor the retail price and that it has nothing to do with the markup? Does the minister not know that the increase he spoke about -- which he said was only 5.2 per cent -- occurred as the farm-gate price of beef went down substantially, while the supermarkets were increasing that?

Does he not realize that constitutionally he has responsibility for retail prices in this province, as pointed out by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in a letter of December 8, 1979, where he states it would be within the competence of the Legislative Assembly to authorize the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to regulate, control or roll back prices in Ontario?

With all the evidence of increased prices in this province and of collusion with regard to the increase of prices, will he not at least investigate this and report back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the honourable member speaking. Actually, I was overburdened with the volume of it.

Yes, I know that we only monitor. It is not as if we are telling any secret. We actually call the report the food price monitoring program. I think anyone who has an understanding of this realizes that all we are doing is monitoring.

If the member is asking us if we are setting the prices, I tell him we are not setting the prices. If he asks us whether we are prepared to support his private bill that wants us to set the prices of food, I say no.

LICENCE PLATE SLOGAN

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about our proposed new slogan for Ontario licence plates.

Since it appears that the government's failure to keep our environment clean has resulted in the abandonment of the "Keep It Beautiful" slogan and changing it to "Ontario -- Yours To Discover!" --

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, look across the river, for God's sake.

Mr. Smith: If he wants to see pollution, he can look across the House in your direction.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely the members will extend the courtesy to another member to ask a question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we are not contemplating that.

Mr. Boudria: Since "Ontario -- Yours To Discover!" is really a tourism theme, bilingual licence plates would not be at all inconsistent with the major thrust placed on French-language tourism promotion by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. I want to quote from Hansard what the minister said:

"We are establishing a year-round advertising presence... for the first time under the translated theme 'L'Ontario à découvrir.'"

That is at page R-882 of Hansard for October 7, 1980.

Was the minister aware of the major thrust in tourism promotion in the French language? That would be quite compatible with the offering of the same bilingual message on the licence plates.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The simple answer is that there is no room on the plates for anything else. I think our friends from Quebec found that out when they went for unilingual plates. This has nothing to do with the fantastic thrust that my colleague is carrying on to attract people to this province from all over and particularly from Quebec. But I think it is very important that the name "Ontario" appear on the licence plates, completely and fully, on top.

My friend suggested to me privately that to make the plates bilingual we could take "Ontario" and put it over on the side in some little wee corner. We would not want to do that. I think it is very important for tourism that, when our drivers are driving all over the other provinces and the United States, people see where they are coming from.

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have just been handed a copy, which was dictated over the phone, of the letter that was sent to Mr. H. Roach of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, July 31, 1979, by Mr. Robert McGlynn, a letter to which the minister made reference earlier. The letter says:

"Further to my letter of July 23, 1979, in connection with investments made by Sheila and Henry Ramsey with Astra Trust, I would confirm that the Ramseys' investment with Astra has been returned to them in full with interest to July 27, 1979."

There is nothing there suggesting that the previous letter should be disregarded or that the charges and the litany of complaints should be withdrawn. Therefore, the minister either has been seriously misinformed by his staff on this very vital matter of when the government had knowledge of these problems or has taken it upon himself to misinform us, which I am sure he would not do intentionally.

I suggest that the privileges of the members of this House have been taken somewhat lightly by either the minister or his staff. It does not do to tell us that charges were withdrawn when all that happened was that a report was made saying the Montemurro people gave back the money when threatened that the matter was going to go to the government.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to -- what was that, a point of privilege? I do not mind the Leader of the Opposition coming in here and being confused, but when he sits there, hears what I have to say and then takes what I said and changes it around to fit his own thought process, that disturbs me.

The fact of the matter is, I answered and said a telephone call was received from Mr. McGlynn, and the telephone call said: "Do not worry about it. You can ignore it; we have the matter entirely resolved."

Mr. Smith: Confirmed by letter, you said.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Roach asked that that be sent in writing. Then, yes, I said a letter had been received which indicated the matter had been resolved in my mind. Those are the words I used, that the matter had been resolved. I said when I get a copy of the letter I would see to it that he got a copy of the letter.

Mr. Smith: Instant Hansard will show what you said.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The Leader of the Opposition can get a copy of Hansard if he pleases. That is what I had to say, and I resent that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest I changed my story. I did not change my story. Perhaps if he can get a copy of Hansard, and after he has read that he will have some view of my presentation.

Mr. Smith: You left the impression that it was withdrawn.

Hon. Mr. Walker: He should not come in here and say I said things which I did not say, especially when he heard it only 20 minutes ago.

Mr. Smith: You said it only 20 minutes ago, and you have forgotten. Hansard will show it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Cooke, proceed please.

3:20 p.m.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

The minister will be aware of a strike that began on June 12 at the Windsor Bumper division of Gulf and Western (Canada) Limited and that, as of yesterday, the owners of that company indicated to the 150 workers that the plant would be closing.

The minister also will be aware that the plant now is being occupied by 17 workers in an effort to get justification for the plant closure, something this government does not have the guts to do in legislation in this province.

Will the minister kindly explain to the members of this Legislature, the 17 workers and the other thousands of unemployed workers why they must occupy plants to get a half-assed severance pay and now to get justification for plant closure? Will he explain that to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on behalf of the House I want to apologize to the children sitting in the galleries for that kind of language. I think it is disgusting.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Apologize to the workers, Elgie.

Mr. Martel: At least it is not the ethnic slurs that come continuously from the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, conciliation and mediation have been going on for some time at Windsor Bumper and, as the honourable member knows full well, the mediation revolves solely around monetary matters, with the company having one position and the union another. As a result of that disagreement, a strike commenced on June 12.

It is true that, as of yesterday, the company did advise employees the plant would be closing. But it is also true that same company and that same trade union are meeting tomorrow in the company of a mediator with the director of that division to see if they still cannot resolve the dispute.

With regard to the sit-in and the reasons for it -- and I say this very sadly and frankly; I speak quite frankly -- I think that what has happened with regard to that sit-in is sad. I think it does a disservice to the members who are involved in it, a disservice to the trade union and a disservice to society.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are the minister of corporations -- the minister of management.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am quite serious about that. In a society built on the basic foundations of peace, order and good government, in a society where trade unions have a legitimate role to play, they should not bring discredit upon themselves by this kind of illegal behaviour.

Mr. Cooke: As the member representing the workers in that riding, I have no hesitation in saying that I support that sit-in. The Minister of Labour will not act on the workers' behalf; so they have to take action into their own hands.

Maybe the minister could come up with some kind of justification and explain the shutdown when it is a fact that work at that plant has increased, demand for the bumpers has increased. In fact, the number of employees has gone from 50 last year to 150.

The termination notice that went out to the workers yesterday said the plant would be closing as soon as the work that has to be done in that plant is transferred to the American plant so that customers can be satisfied.

Can the minister not see some injustice in that and why the people who are occupying that plant and losing their jobs have lost faith in this government and in the philosophy of peace, order and good government?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hope the member is not saying he does not believe in the collective bargaining process where one party can have one position and another party have another and, if there is an impasse, each have certain options. I say to him that illegal activity should not be one of those options and it brings discredit on everybody.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to peace, order and good government --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I don't. The opposition said that.

Mr. Mancini: -- and I say to him, two out of three isn't bad.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister is that some six months ago he felt the problem of plant closures was so severe that he suggested and had created through the Ontario government a select committee to study plant closures. As these plant closures continue without abatement, will the minister now finally ask the cabinet to reappoint the select committee so we can finish the work that he felt was necessary six months ago?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the whole issue of the select committee on plant closures and employee adjustment received extensive consideration in an open debate in this House some two weeks ago. He well knows that this government has introduced a series of measures related to pension benefits, that a plant closure division has been established and that there has been proposed legislation, which received second reading yesterday and which we think is progressive, practical and realistic.

PUBLIC SERVANTS' SCHEDULES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health relating to the discussions in the public accounts committee in regard to the Ministry of Health.

At the meeting that the minister attended as an observer on Thursday, June 4, his deputy minister, Mr. Campbell, gave as a response to my question about the reason for his not telling people his schedule: "People who work at senior levels of the health system unfortunately get death threats periodically; so the staff is not usually very forthcoming about schedules. But that is another problem."

I thought in the first instance that excuse given by Mr. Campbell was a facetious one, but presumably Mr. Campbell was serious about it.

Can the minister explain to the House whether he is aware of any death threats to senior health officials? Has the minister had any? What protection is there for these people? Can the minister explain why his

schedule is very publicly promulgated to each and every person across the province who might be a delegate to the Tory leadership convention, if and when that happens, but his officials will not tell the public what their schedules are?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do not make a habit of publishing my schedule.

Mr. Breithaupt: I certainly know where you have been.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Certainly when I travel, even when it is with the member for Rainy River on government aircraft, it is known in the community that I am coming. I cannot deny that. I guess that is part of the risk that he and I take in deciding to be involved in public life.

I am aware that from time to time there have been and there are threats made against my own person. I do not particularly care to discuss it in great detail here, because it seems to me that sort of thing unfortunately only encourages more of the same, but suffice it to say that we have taken security precautions in various offices, particularly in the office of the minister and the deputy minister.

Mr. Speaker: New question, Mr. Mackenzie.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You were rather slow on your feet. Final supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: As always, I am trying to digest the minister's comments.

Given the fact that this is a problem, and even though probably all of us at one time have had these threats in one way or the other for different reasons, does the minister not think that public servants' schedules should be available to people so that we know where people are and what they are doing so that they can be accountable to the members of the Legislature and through us to the people?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not sure who phoned whom that morning or how they identified themselves.

I do know, as I said, we have had problems from time to time. I would be glad to discuss them with the member privately. I do not intend to do it in this kind of forum or any public forum that is going to just in a way contribute to the problem in the longer term. We have taken particular precautions where we are.

3:30 p.m.

WABCO DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Will the minister inform the House what additional steps he may be taking to deal with the strike involving Wabco Limited and Local 558 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America in Hamilton which is now more than 30 days old?

Is the minister fully aware of all the ramifications of that strike, including the fact that the head office of Wabco has been trying to supply its Canadian customers from its American plants? That undermines the position of the workers and is somewhat akin to the deliberate blackmail we see by the company in the Windsor case.

Also, is the minister aware that the lack of supplies from Wabco means we are going to have 700 additional National Steel Car workers laid off in Hamilton tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I apologize to the member but I am not briefed on that particular strike, Mr. Speaker. I will gather information and report to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Mackenzie: Inasmuch as the layoffs at National Steel Car take place tomorrow as a result of lack of supplies, and inasmuch as this strike now has gone on for better than 30 days, will the minister take some additional steps other than the usual mediator situation to see what can be done to bring this dispute to an end?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will give serious consideration to the recommendations of the member.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In a letter to the editor of the Ontario March of Dimes newsletter, The Advocate, last month, the minister made three statements regarding the Ontario Building Code that are inaccurate. He stated: (1) that the code provided access to every suite of all newly constructed apartment buildings in Ontario exceeding 6,000 square feet that were equipped with elevators; (2) that access was required to places of employment, and (3) that recent amendments require washroom facilities on each floor of office buildings.

In fact, the above statements are not accurate, and I ask the minister whether he was aware of the inaccuracies when he signed the letter or whether he just rubber-stamped someone else's work?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I will look at the letter, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Copps: In the same letter, the minister claims the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Building Code and programs like Wintario may or may not relate to or complement each other. If the ministry's actions or inactions do not relate to one another, how can the minister develop the kind of comprehensive policy vis-à-vis the disabled that this province so desperately needs?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I will look at the entire matter. There is an internal relationship there.

Ms. Copps: In other words, the minister is saying he does not know what he signed or why he signed it.

DRIVER TESTING HOURS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

An hon. member: After 18 days.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, after 18 days.

Has the minister had a chance to examine the petition introduced in the House early in June by some residents of Downsview who were complaining about the extension of hours of driver testing? Has he made any decision in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, yes and no.

Mr. Di Santo: Since the hours have been expanded from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and testing also takes place on Saturdays as a result of the closing of the Hallam Street driving test centre, does the minister not think it is a bit unfair to dump all the testing on Downsview when it would make more sense to decentralize so the residents of a particular area would not suffer the consequences?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have extended the hours in an attempt to give better service to the public and provide better opportunities to those people who may be working at steady jobs every day and who would have to take off a half a day or a day from work to take a driving test. This has not only happened at the Downsview depot, it has happened in a number of municipalities in the busier areas of the province. I hope we are going to be able to do it in more areas across the province in the near future.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to correct the record. In the last several weeks, as we have raised questions with respect to plant shutdowns and layoffs, continual reference has been made to a "report" by the select committee. Mr. Speaker, you were a member of that select committee. I think the House should know that what the Minister of Labour said today and what some of his colleagues are making reference to is not a report by the select committee; it is merely a working document that the select committee did not have an opportunity even to discuss so that a final report could be presented to the Legislature.

This constant reference to that supposed report is merely a lot of nonsense. The members had no input at all. It was merely a working document prepared by a member of the research staff. To try to imply from that document that something can be enacted by the government with some assurance that members had input into that document is simply nonsense. I do not think ministers should try to make a link between the two, because it is not valid.

If the government wants to reappoint the select committee so that we can make final recommendations, I can assure it that both parties on this side of the House would be absolutely delighted to go along with that select committee.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, the member will recall that yesterday when the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) referred to the report I concurred that it was not a report of that select committee, so nobody is trying to mislead the House about that. What I said was that there was a full and complete debate on that document -- if I said report I was in error -- in which everyone had a clear opportunity to explain his position on the issues that were in that document and those that were not.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Martel.

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On the question of the serious allegations made about the use of Astra Trust as a front for Re-Mor and about the serious misuse of the licence of a company that was licensed provincially, and on the matter of whether the lawyer did in fact withdraw those allegations, I want to tell this House that the lawyer is prepared to state that he never did withdraw the allegations.

Secondly, the letter I have read into the record said only that the clients got their money back -- nothing about disregarding the previous letter, nothing at all. When the minister answered my previous point of privilege he said all he had said was that the phone call -- not the letter, only the phone call -- had said, "Withdraw my previous letter and ignore it." In fact neither the phone call nor the letter did that.

More to the point, I want to quote from the Instant Hansard, which is in my hand at the moment, what the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said earlier today. He said, on page 1440-1, "All I can say is, on the basis of the letter that was received setting out a number of allegations, and then receiving a call from the individual who actually wrote the letter, followed up by a letter from him -- a copy of which I would be glad to provide the member if we are able to locate it -- saying 'Please disregard everything we have said,' wouldn't it be reasonable to do that?" The letter said no such thing.

Further, the minister said later on in the question period: "I know it is not your duty to answer questions. You never answer questions. But do you not realize that it is reasonable to assume, when the person who wrote the letter sends another letter saying to disregard it, that you can reasonably do that?"

The minister, when he denies having said he received a second letter saying "Disregard the first," clearly has a faulty memory of what he said 20 minutes earlier, which is recorded in Hansard. Further, this extremely serious and grave matter, which demonstrates that a list of serious allegations, all of which proved to be entirely correct, was sent to the ministry and never withdrawn, and that the ministry was merely informed that, under the pressure of being told this letter had gone forward, Mr. Montemurro coughed up the money -- and that is all the ministry was informed about -- is further evidence of the negligence and the dereliction of duty in the ministry.

Further to that, the minister has been misinformed today by his staff on this very matter. If this does not point out the need for an independent inquiry into this whole affair, I do not know what in heaven's name ever will point out that need. The minister knew about it a year before he had to.

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Oh, boy. Mr. Speaker, here we go again.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, you can tell it is Thursday.

Mr. Roy: You misled the House and you know that.

Ms. Copps: You misled the House.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Do not ever say that again. Please do not ever say that.

Ms. Copps: Is that what you are going to say to the investors?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Smith: Are you prepared to withdraw the statement you made earlier?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to the members that all interjections are out of order. Proceed, Mr. Walker.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point of privilege that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I have a copy of the Instant Hansard. What he is saying is that I interpreted the letter and said what the letter had said. Here is what I said. It is on page 1435-1. Look at that. Just refer back another page there. The member is so busy rehearsing --

Mr. Smith: It is page 1440-1.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. You made your point very clearly, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith: I just quoted from 1440-1.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister proceed?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was so busy rehearsing his next answer that he did not have a chance to read page 1435-1, which said --

Mr. Smith: God, you are making a fool of yourself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the minister a chance to respond.

Hon. Mr. Walker: -- "There was a telephone call that came from McGlynn, the very lawyer who sent the letter, saying: 'Please disregard this letter. In fact, it has not substance. In fact, the whole matter has been resolved.' To use his words, I gather he said: 'It has all been fixed up and it has all been corrected. Don't do anything about the letter that I sent you concerning this Astra Trust Company.'"

Mr. Speaker, I am merely relaying the information that has been relayed to me by my superintendent of insurance. That was apparently written on the file as a memo to file immediately after the telephone call came in. Later on at 1440-1, where the Leader of the Opposition chose again to quote me, depending on the emphasis he happens to put on the word "saying" -- he comes up with it relating to the letter -- I would say "saying" relates to a telephone call. It seems to me that in relation to a telephone call the word "say" is in proper context. In relation to a letter, the word "state" is the proper context.

But here is what I said in my reply at 1440-1: "All I can say is, on the basis of the letter that was received setting out a number of allegations, and then receiving a call" -- underline the words "a call" -- from the individual who actually wrote the letter, followed up by a letter from him -- a copy of which I would be glad to provide the member if we were able to locate it -- saying" -- -and the "saying" relates to the call -- "'Please disregard everything we have said,' wouldn't it be reasonable to do that?"

Mr. Smith: Would you read 1440-2 please?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It seems to me I was pointing out as clearly as possible what I could. I said I did not have a copy of the letter. I said if we can locate the letter -- I have not read a copy of the letter, but I was giving the impression I had of the memo to file. As well as that, I was giving the general impression I had of the letter. We all have a copy of the letter now to show exactly what it says. The fact of the matter is that the lawyer who was involved basically withdrew his objections. That is all I was merely trying to communicate to the member. I do not think it is anything more than that.

I want the member to remember that he is getting confused in the companies. He should not get these two confused.

Mr. Smith: I am not getting confused.

Hon. Mr. Walker: There is Re-Mor Investment -- and the member calls it a company -- which is connected with Via Mare, and there is Re-Mor Investment Company Limited. Do not get the two confused. All I am saying is it behooves this member to give us all the details here, not just a few. If he has a letter, it is interesting that he had that letter.

Mr. Smith: I have to continue this point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, because he did not read the entire Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your point of privilege has been made.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the man purported to quote to you what he said, only he did not do so. Because on page 1440-2 of Instant Hansard, there is a sentence that says "Don't you realize it is reasonable to assume when the person who wrote you the letter sends another letter saying to disregard it..."

I ask you please to consider that I stood up earlier in the question period and said that the letter which had been sent did not ask anybody to disregard the previous allegations. You understand that the nub of the whole matter is if the ministry knew back then, it had no business saying it has not been told. This is the nub. This is the key issue in this whole Re-Mor matter.

If they were given a list of allegations and did not look into them on the notion that they were sent another letter saying ignore the first letter, you might or might not understand it, but since the letter they were sent did not say ignore the first letter but merely said Montemurro has now paid up -- and in fact he paid up under threat of that letter having gone in -- and since when I raised that matter earlier, the minister's defence was he had never said that the letter had asked him to disregard the previous letter when on page 1440-2 the words of the minister are, "You never answer questions, but don't you realize it is reasonable to assume when the person who wrote the letter sends another letter saying to disregard it, that you can reasonably do that.

Isn't that a reasonable thing?"

That is what the minister said, but the second letter did not say disregard the first letter. It merely said, "My clients have recovered their money from Montemurro." In no way did it say disregard the serious list of allegations which they made in the first letter. That was probably one of the first, if not the first time that the government was given a detailed list of allegations which it should have investigated. Apparently it did not do so, which is another sign of negligence.

PETITION

UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 20 members to present to you in view of the Minister of Health's indifference to the health problem of the urea-formaldehyde foam insulation in homes, to the extent where he will not even locate the homes or have them tested or even issue instructions about what the people should do. I table a petition pursuant to standing order 33(

b) of the Legislative Assembly: The undersigned members of the Assembly hereby petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, be referred to the standing committee on social development for such consideration of the report as the committee may determine.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Ontario Mental Health Foundation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing two amendments to the Ontario Mental Health Foundation Act, which was first passed 21 years ago.

The first of these amendments is designed to revise the criteria for appointment to the advisory board of the foundation, which proposes to permit representation from fields such as psychology and epidemiology to the board, whose members to date have come from medicine only.

This change in board composition will offer a multidisciplinary approach consistent with developments in mental health care over the past 20 years. This approach promises a greater scope to the knowledge upon which decisions affecting mental health research are based.

3:50 p.m.

The new board will necessitate striking the word "medical" from the existing title of advisory medical board wherever it appears in the act.

The second amendment will put McMaster University on the list of health sciences centres now recommending people for membership to the board. The reason for this is that McMaster did not have a faculty of medicine when the act was passed in 1960.

Honourable members will recall the Ontario Mental Health Foundation was created to produce a program of mental health research, diagnosis and treatment. It is my hope the amendments to the OMHF Act can be passed at the earliest opportunity.

LEEDS-GRENVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 124,

an Act respecting the Leeds-Grenville County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Members are supposed to receive a compendium of information which would indicate the issue at stake. I have the compendium of information before me and the statement prepared by the minister. Surely if we are being asked to vote on a bill that in my estimation is going to destroy collective bargaining in this dispute we should at least have the courtesy of receiving what is at dispute.

There is a strike. My understanding is the strike is over class size enrolment. But there is nothing in the compendium of information which even indicates what issues are at stake. We are being asked to vote on a bill which will see any side prepared to stonewall from here on until the government is prepared to intervene. We are expected to vote on that without any information concerning what is at issue. I am just not prepared to support that sort of bill.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the issues at stake and a review of the activities carried out by the very able mediator could be provided for the honourable member. I did not expect him to support it anyway.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I find the attitude of the minister disturbing: it matters not whether the opposition supports government legislation, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) has reminded us so often about the realities of March 19.

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is he speaking to a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I am speaking on a point of order.

Similarly, the essence of the rule in the standing orders about a compendium is that the compendium by its definition should be complete. As my colleague from Sudbury East points out, it is not complete.

Also, we do not have at hand the number of meetings that have taken place between the parties involved, the issues that have been settled and so on. One sheet and a one-letter compendium of information in this very serious matter, in my humble view, is incomplete. As a member of this Legislative Assembly, I feel my privileges have not been adhered to in this case.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly try to provide the information the members find essential.

Mr. Speaker: Is that acceptable? Shall the motion carry?

Those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MARKETING BOARDS

Mr. G. W. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. J. M. Johnson, resolution 10:

That this House reaffirm its support for producer operated provincial and national marketing boards, which provide an effective means of marketing many farm products in this country, and which give farmers much needed bargaining power in the marketplace and have been an effective mechanism to provide consumers with a stable supply of wholesome food products at reasonable prices, and which are supportive of the family farm, small business, and the promotion and development of food resources throughout this province and country.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the honourable member that you have up to 20 minutes for your presentation. You may reserve any portion of this time for windup, if you so desire.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will be reserving some time for a windup.

After having read the motion, which I believe is very topical today, I do not pretend to know all about marketing boards, their functions and their mechanisms, but agriculture is a very important topic to the people we represent. Indeed, there are many people in this Legislature, new people, who have a great deal of knowledge about this, such as the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), the member for Durham York (Mr. Stevenson), the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) and the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean).

These new members bring to this Legislature a great deal of information on agriculture and agricultural products.

I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that my Premier (Mr. Davis) has said on this particular matter and quote a speech that he made on February 5, 1981, where he said:

"The government I lead is aware that this province was founded by farmers. We believe the farmers of this province are among the most enterprising, innovative and productive groups in our society. Over the years, we have tried to develop a partnership between government and the farm community, a partnership which has produced policies and programs designed to help farmers help themselves.

"Overall we have sought to develop an approach to agriculture which is designed to help farmers help themselves, and to keep the state out of those activities which no government could ever perform as well as the enterprising farmer can on his own.

"We recognize your right to do so, if you wish. Many of you have chosen to do that. Many of you have chosen to go it alone. Either option has its advantages. My government will maintain your right to choose freely as long as we have the opportunity of representing the interests of this province."

That is the farm marketing process and position made by the Premier of this province.

I would like to expand on this motion on how 24 separate marketing boards operating in Ontario succeed to present agriculture in its best light. These boards have developed over a 45-year period in response to a number of difficult marketing situations. Some of the boards for poultry and milk are affiliated with the equivalent national marketing agencies which operate to share markets between the provinces on the basis of equity to farmers wherever they are found.

4 p.m.

To resolve their annual negotiations, they use this selection method. The actual crops are grown under contract with the processors in keeping with their share of the domestic and export market. Sweet corn for processing is an ideal example. Pricing arrangements are made available to stimulate exports, particularly from central and eastern Ontario.

While I readily admit all procedures will not apply equally to all boards or all commodities, experimentation, innovation and change should be welcomed. There was a 1979 study produced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at their request which resulted in many changes in agriculture in Ontario.

Other kinds of marketing boards establish the price on the basis of consultation with the buyers and in the face of market demand. For example, the fresh peach crop is marketed by the Ontario Tender Fruit Producers' Marketing Board which does a good job with the retailers and wholesalers to distribute a perishable crop in a way consumers appreciate.

Some boards, such as the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, take charge of the product when it is delivered from the producers and sell it on a worldwide basis.

Finally, there are the well-known marketing boards in poultry and dairy products which exercise supply management in addition to establishing prices for their commodities. Some of these are referred to as quotas, and although I am not satisfied with the quotas received by Ontario from some of the federal marketing boards, I think this is being negotiated and should be more forcefully negotiated with the federal boards to see that Ontario farmers receive a more adequate share of quotas.

As indicated in my motion, the boards give farmers much needed bargaining power. This bargaining power is needed in the marketplace where it is sometimes dog eat dog. We want our farmers farming and not negotiating at the processing stands when they bring their produce to market.

After all, we are talking about 70,000 family farm businesses of every conceivable size and type, and a relatively concentrated buying, wholesaling and retailing market that has great power to manipulate those prices. These buyers recognize the value to them of a stable marketplace which allows for development of high quality and good service to their customers.

The farmers are growers, experts on the land. This needs their most constant attention and the product is a perishable one that has to be sold at a particular time of the year when it comes to market. They cannot be pushed around by the large retailers who must consider these items more precisely in their marketing procedures. The farmers cannot be both at the marketing stand and at the farm, and we need them more on the farming end of it.

They are trying to provide the consumer with a low cost, high quality product. The time, energy and knowledge provided by boards allow the farmers to provide for the growing of produce. The boards provide the marketing and assistance in that marketing.

The consumers of Ontario are blessed with a reliable supply of wholesome food products at reasonable prices well within the means of Ontario citizens. Our consumers have a bewildering array of choices in the market. Rarely does one find a true shortage of any class of food in the marketplace. I wonder sometimes if many of the consumers realize the extent of what our farmers do in getting that food to market and the great effort that is put forward to provide that fine quality food. Those of us who have urban backgrounds just go into our supermarkets and receive that fine, fresh produce.

When I pass through the Holland Marsh, back and forth from my riding, I watch the hard work that goes into the growth of the farm products that are feeding most of the Metro region and markets all over North America. A great deal of hard work, energy and innovation are needed to get those products to market.

The family farm is an efficient method of agricultural production. A farm manager, blessed with a hard working family as many of them are, can provide the highest quality crops in competition with anyone provided that when he brings that crop to market he gets a fair price for it in keeping with the cost of production. The marketing boards often guarantee that fair price.

We know the cost of production is rising in relation to oil, fertilizer, equipment, labour, feed and interest rates, to name just a few. The running of a farm, family or otherwise, is no longer simple. Boards assist in supply, price, delivery and promotion. They remove some of those vagaries of the market that in earlier systems made a hotchpotch of the marketing of our farm products. These ingredients are now co-ordinated so the farmer can receive the best price for his product.

The agribusiness is able to operate profitably as both a supplier to and a buyer from the marketing boards in Ontario. As buyers, they can be assured that their substantial investments in plants will have a steady supply year after year in a market climate that will allow them to develop their full sales potential in keeping with their own quality standards and skills.

I welcome this opportunity to commend the efforts of marketing boards in the service of Ontario agriculture. Marketing boards suggested by producers were legislated into existence usually to deal with severe economic problems. They have successfully raised the standard of living of thousands of farm families who have been in a position to develop their businesses and take an active and equal role in society.

The consumer spends approximately 17.7 per cent of disposable income on food. That includes both home and restaurant business. In the 1950s, the figure was 25 per cent of disposable income spent on food.

Marketing boards account for one half of the gross farm income in Ontario, which is now close to $4 billion annually. Although we have been concerned about marketing board issues, including appropriate price levels and quota allotments, these concerns have to do with the fine tuning of the system. Some of the producers who are currently facing difficulties as a result of the free market price of their commodities and the high cost of financing and purchasing inputs look to the marketing board systems with some justifiable envy.

However, marketing boards will not automatically solve every problem unless we are very careful in considering applications for this type of legislation on new commodities in the future. I quote from Reforming Regulation, a recent document by the Economic Council of Canada. This document has received a great deal of notoriety in our media lately, and some of it I wish to emphasize.

On page 65 of that document it says, under the heading "Conclusions and Recommendations": "Our examination of selected agricultural marketing boards suggests that those principally aimed at establishing countervailing power for farmers, such as the hog boards, the fruit and vegetable boards and the Canadian Wheat Board, have generally been operating successfully and to the benefit of society. These boards have worked to the advantage of producers, who are now able to secure the fair return formerly denied them because of their insufficient bargaining power.

To the extent that markets function better, that additional detailed information is provided and that quality is controlled, both the consumer and the producer benefit. No doubt, as in the case of other institutions, the operation of the boards could be improved. Nevertheless, the council endorses their activities and sees no need for radical changes in their mandates."

I emphasize that last part. That is why I spoke of fine tuning. We cannot just disregard the marketing boards. Even the Economic Council of Canada does not say that. It says, naturally, that their activities have to be monitored, that there is no need for radical changes, but that they have to have some changes. That is where the fine tuning comes in. That is what this debate is about and what the marketing boards have to secure for themselves in the future.

I also quote from page 67, where it says: "None the less, we have decided not to recommend altering the existing mandate or composition of individual commodity boards. Farmers have fought hard to obtain a degree of control over the effects of economic conditions, and a radical change might undermine their confidence in such boards. Rather, increased accountability might be obtained by changing the composition and procedures of the supervisory boards. In this connection we believe that a number of minor changes" -- and I emphasize "minor" -- "should be introduced so that all regional and national supply management schemes are subject to the same accountability and supervisory provisions."

There again it is not saying to do away with these boards; it is saying to make them more accountable.

The boards also should not unduly restrict the individual farmer from expanding or from entering the field of farming. We should be more and ever vigilant that initiative is not stifled, that ambition is not retarded, that farmers and their capacity to buy is not regulated to the point where they are reluctant to continue in a most positive and inspirational way.

4:10 p.m.

Other purposes, such as research and development of foreign markets, are part of the marketing board tradition. Marketing boards are leaders in sales development. The pork board, the milk board and the poultry boards have made the consumer aware of their products and their nutritional values for the family. In particular, we commend the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, which tells teenagers as well as others to enjoy milk. There again, they are being positive about the product they sell.

I believe the wording of my resolution expresses very well the function that marketing boards perform. They are an effective means of marketing many farm products in Canada and they give farmers very necessary bargaining power in the marketplace. In addition, they serve the interests of the consumers by ensuring a stable supply of wholesome food products at reasonable prices. Marketing boards help make possible the preservation of the family farm and the agricultural traditions we value in this province while at the same time promoting the development of our food resources.

I am sure a number of my colleagues in this Legislature will wish to draw attention to this important subject, and I welcome their comments. Indeed, the farming community is supplying to their producer-operated marketing boards some very fine assistance to provide consumers with an excellent product.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the author of this resolution, the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor), knows full well he will get support from the Liberal Party. Not only did the federal Liberal government pave the way for supply management boards in the first place, but also it has been the Liberal Party in Ontario that has continued to champion the cause of farmers ever since there was a need for government involvement in the agricultural industry.

The member for Simcoe Centre needs to look to his own colleagues for support, considering the ill-conceived comments that the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) made just recently to the Ontario

chapter of the Consumers' Association of Canada about marketing boards.

Such bashing of marketing boards by individuals and concerns such as those of the minister, the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada, gives me great concern about the future of marketing boards in this country.

We read articles that indicate Canadian consumers are paying hundreds of millions of dollars every year in higher food prices because some government marketing boards are controlling food production to keep the prices artificially high.

Consumers are led to believe that supply management used by provincial marketing boards to regulate the production and price of farm commodities costs Canadians billions of dollars.

Many economists and consumer groups say Canadians are paying substantially more for such basic items as eggs, chickens and turkeys because producers of these food items have organized themselves into virtual domestic OPECs whose monopoly powers dictate production levels and fix prices.

Obviously consumers do not know the facts, and perhaps marketing boards will have to accept part of the blame for the misconceptions.

The era of supply management began in Canada in 1972, when the federal government passed the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, which paved the way for federal supply management boards. Since then, producers of eggs, turkeys and broiler chickens have come under a national supply management program.

At the time the legislation for the boards was enacted, the federal government felt that farmers were in need of income stabilization. The idea was to protect them from the often wide income swings associated with the gluts and shortages that characterize most agricultural products.

There is no question in my mind that marketing boards and national supply management programs are needed in this country to give our farmers an opportunity to compete with the American producers, who have lower capital and labour costs and a much superior climate for growing a wide variety of agricultural products. I am convinced that, in the broiler chicken industry, the low cost of American imports would wipe out our producers if they did not have a marketing board.

However, it is alleged that marketing boards have been costly to the consumer. Using eggs as an example, it is alleged that Ontario consumers are paying as much as seven cents a dozen more for eggs than they would if the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency did not exist. This information is being widely publicized to consumers, yet I have not seen the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) defending marketing boards other than by way of speeches he gives to groups who are already convinced that marketing boards in the long run are a benefit to the consumer.

I personally do not believe that marketing boards contribute to higher prices if one compares the price of the product under a supply management program with the price of products that are sold on a free market. That is not to say I do not think there are problems with marketing boards.

Let us look at some of the marketing boards that operate under a supply management program to indicate the reason consumers have become so concerned.

The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency is an excellent example of how supply management works. CEMA sets production quotas for each producer. It is believed that by restricting supplies the price of eggs can be kept artificially high, but this is not the case. CEMA fixes prices according to a complex pricing formula that takes into consideration the average cost of production within the industry plus a fair return to the farmer on his capital investment in farm machinery. The number of eggs produced has very little bearing on the price.

Consumers understandably become suspicious of marketing board motives when they learn of such programs as the one implemented recently by CEMA to pay farmers to kill 1.5 million laying hens, but they fail to realize there is no sense in producing eggs that cannot be marketed.

Overproduction of eggs, even if it means reduced prices, does not mean people will buy more eggs. Egg consumption has declined in Canada over the past few years, but it has fallen even more in the United States, and they do not have a supply management program.

Because CEMA takes the average production cost across the nation weighted according to province and transportation costs, the efficient producer is allegedly prevented from passing on the benefits of his low-cost operation to the consumer in lower prices.

Consumers are led to believe that Canadian egg buyers pay higher prices to help the less efficient producers stay in business. The production quota as given to egg producers becomes, in effect, an additional cost of production that is passed on to consumers. The farmer can sell his quota of eggs at a fixed guaranteed price to CEMA; so a quota value is set up that reflects the guaranteed income.

These are matters that marketing boards should attempt to explain to consumers to have them understand that some of these items I have mentioned are misconceptions.

There have been many studies of marketing boards throughout Canada, and it does become a concern when one reads such statements as, "A quota is something like a corporate or government bond; the more income guaranteed, the higher its price"; or, "A quota is like a licence to steal money; so new farmers and old expansion-minded farmers are prepared to pay a price for that licence."

Unfortunately, our future generation of farmers, if they are to buy a chicken farm, for example, will have to pay the going rate plus sometimes as much as $20 extra per bird because of the quota system. I do not envy anyone making a profit, but I do have a soft feeling in my heart for those young people who would dearly love to get into that part of farming which is controlled by supply management.

Let us look at the milk business in Ontario. A study by the Ontario Economic Council of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board stated that an Ontario milk producer pays as much for his milk quota as he does for his cows. That is allegedly passed on to Ontario consumers, who pay an estimated 1.3 cents a quart more for their milk than they would without the board. In terms of this province's consumption, according to the economic council, that adds up to $11 billion a year in extra milk costs.

The economic council forgets about the federal subsidy on powdered skim milk, which was really a subsidy to the consumer. The Consumers' Association of Canada vehemently objected to the curtailment of this subsidy, but they seem to be opposed to any kind of assistance to the farmers. Let me tell the consumers, if they want an abundance and variety of high-quality food at reasonable prices, then they had better support the programs that will help the farmers produce this food.

Like CEMA and the provincial milk boards, turkey producers across Canada are given production quotas by the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, which was set up in 1974. My concern about turkey production in this province is that most of the production has fallen into the hands of very few producers, and it is very difficult for new producers to get into the business.

4:20 p.m.

I reiterate that marketing boards are not without their problems, but let us not forget that the primary aim of marketing boards is to give the producers a fair return on their investment. I believe the national supply agencies have done this. The main benefactor, of course, is the consumer, who can purchase the highest quality food at the lowest prices anywhere in the world.

As I indicated previously, producer costs are higher in Canada than in the United States. If we hope to compete in the food industry, then I am sure we will have to rely on marketing boards. As I said before, the chicken producers needed the supply management program if they were to stay in business. Without the board, I am convinced there would not be a broiler industry in Ontario. We simply could not compete with the United States producers.

I do not feel that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has taken a strong enough stand in defending marketing boards. As a matter of fact, I think the minister did a disservice to marketing boards by making some of the statements he did about the dairy industry in Ontario.

Admittedly, the system is not perfect, but I do not think the question is whether marketing boards are serving a purpose but whether something should be done about escalating quota values. I do not think anyone objects to producers getting together to promote and protect their interests but, with legislation delegating the authority to govern to marketing boards, the Ontario government has some responsibility to monitor and control the authority of such delegated governing powers.

We have experimented with supply management for some years now, and perhaps the time has come to ask whether it is doing the job it was intended to do. I have always been a proponent of marketing boards but, on the other hand, I am concerned about quota values and the way they are handled at present. The restricted entry into production governed by marketing boards also causes me some concern.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the latter words of the honourable member who has just taken his seat. They had an echo of the statement that trade unions used to be a good thing but they have outlived their usefulness and maybe we should take a second look at them. Supply management used to be a good thing, but maybe it has outlived its usefulness and maybe we should take a look at it. That is how the member. as a Liberal, can get on both sides of the issue at the same time.

However, let me say this: This is a motherhood resolution. In the context of this Legislature, and the stated policies of all the parties, nobody is going to be opposed to it unless he is going to break with stated party policy. It is about as innovative and unexpected a resolution as if the Premier (Mr. Davis) were to introduce a resolution calling upon the Legislature to reaffirm our allegiance to the monarchy.

I suppose the obvious question is why it was introduced at this particular time. The answer, of course, is obvious.