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

April 24, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L045 - Mon 24 Apr 1978 / Lun 24 avr 1978

ORAL QUESTIONS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

BUY-CANADIAN PROGRAM

HAMILTON REDEVELOPMENT

DRUG TRAFFICKING

HYDRO BOAT TENDERS

LUNG CANCER CASES

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWS

VISITORS

PREMIUM ON U.S. FUNDS

POLICE SEIZURE OF MEDIA MATERIAL

FUND-RAISING EVENTS

SELF-SERVE GAS STATIONS

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SERVICES

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PETITIONS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

REPORTS

HUMAN RIGHTS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMIITEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HILLPORT MOTORS LIMITED ACT

TOWNSHIP OF TILBURY WEST ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Ruston: There are pretty slim pickings over there.

Mr. Wildman: Suppose they called a war and nobody came.

Mr. Stong: You’d better come up with some answers, eh, guys?

Mr. S. Smith: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I’ll withhold my questions until some of the senior ministers appear.

Mr. Peterson: The dregs on Monday morning.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate having the chance to ask questions first off, Mr. Speaker. I hope that in future I’ll have the chance to reply to them first off.

An hon. member: Don’t hold your breath.

Mr. Peterson: Who is this guy?

ORAL QUESTIONS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question I want to pose to the Minister of Industry and Tourism, with whom I shared a plane up to New Liskeard last week. It arises out of the rather surprising comments he had to make in the course of his speech to the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities.

In view of the minister’s comments that “the only way this part of Ontario will continue to grow is through the effort of local initiative” and that “government has a limited function,” can the minister say whether it is now government policy that the municipalities of the north are to be left alone to their own devices to seek industry; and, even granted the enormous capability of northerners, does the government feel that will be an effective economic policy to bring down unemployment and ensure a sound and prosperous economic future for northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, of course, has me at a disadvantage in that he did have the opportunity to hear my remarks. Fortunately, I was able to leave before he made his.

Mr. Warner: That was the minister’s poor judgement.

Mr. Deans: The minister might even have been fortunate if he could have left before he heard his own.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member knows full well that was not what was being said. He knows full well that the contents of the remarks were that, in conjunction with the activities of other levels of government, it always has been and always will be the initiative put forth by the people of northern Ontario that has helped them to prosper and to live reasonably well in that part of the province.

I don’t have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that northerners have not always run around with their hands out to different levels of government. They have worked hard for what they have got and they will continue to do that, and if the member has no more confidence in the people of northern Ontario than displayed by those remarks, then I hope they treat his party appropriately at the next election.

An hon. member: They don’t get much from you.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the House that in the past this government has at least had a commitment to effective planning in conjunction with local communities for northern development, even though that has not been carried out. Can the minister explain, in view of his response, exactly what it means when he said later in his speech that by and large our future depends more on what we do for ourselves and collectively as a community, than to stand aside hoping for the senior levels of government to show us the way or to come to our rescue? Is the government now pulling the plug and simply leaving northern Ontario to stand on its own without any partnership at all?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really asking questions to which he himself knows the obvious answers. The recent conference held in Sudbury --

Mr. Swart: The government has let the north down again.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t know where the north is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- at which time this government committed itself to substantial financial involvement in the Sudbury area, indicated the amounts of money being made available to northern Ontario municipalities through the Ministry of Northern Affairs; the government intends to continue with these programs.

What I was saying in my remarks was that in conjunction with existing programs, the people in the north, in each of these municipalities -- though widely removed from each other both geographically and in some cases in what their particular goals are -- that their local initiative in each of those communities is what has made them survive so far and made them thrive in many cases; and that, combined with the efforts of both senior levels of government, can make the north continue to be a pretty desirable place in which to live.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Given the importance of local initiative, as the minister has pointed out, does the minister think small northern communities in general have the expertise and the financial resources to be able to do the research and analysis necessary to determine what industries will be viable in the long term for their areas unless there is some kind of major co-ordinating effort by the provincial ministry?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct when he draws to everyone’s attention that the smaller communities obviously do not have the necessary resources. It is for this reason that in my remarks I suggested they perhaps should try to work closer together, in one instance for example to get an industrial development officer who might serve more than one community.

Mr. Deans: That can’t work and you know it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Of course it can work.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On top of that I would like to think that the people who are in the ministry -- in the industrial development branch, in the tourism development branch -- that this is the reason they are out there, to work with those small communities and to help them. We are quite aware of the fact they cannot do it on their own, they don’t have the financial resources.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: How does the minister think the last budget will help the northern communities in terms of research and development since there was absolutely nothing for research in general, and especially for northern communities and for the processing industry that may eventually be created in northern Ontario? Has the government any plan whatsoever to develop any special kind of technology which is suited to northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think in the provincial budget, as well as in the federal budget, there were concessions made to companies that would be involved in research and development projects. Certainly we don’t have any specific technological programs designed specifically for northern Ontario’s communities, no, we don’t have that. I suggest that if a company is going to be doing research and development, if a company is looking for a place where it can do this research and development as it involves the resource industries, then certainly northern Ontario is the place to do it.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the comments, again made by the minister, and I quote, “the nature of competition for industry is now a serious game which involves the full weight of powerful governments,” as well as other matters in the international scene which he mentioned; can the minister explain why, in Ontario alone, the powerful government of this province is simply getting out of the act completely and leaving it up to small northern municipalities to try to somehow survive and make headway on their own?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is so much hogwash and the hon. member knows it.

Mr. MacDonald: Your grandstanding is hogwash.

Mr. Eakins: You’re just a patsy, John, that’s all you are.

An hon. member: What’s hogwash?

Mr. Breaugh: You are an expert on hogwash, we’ll accept that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to tell you that is a good rural term.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ve been told a lot of things but not that.

Mr. Breaugh: Don’t get upset, John.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If you people had some farm members you would understand that.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not a good pre-election statement.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, what I was drawing to the attention of the members of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities is that Ontario, along with other jurisdictions, is suddenly faced with some very severe competition in the way of incentive grants, giveaway programs, that have been established in bordering states and in other countries.

This government has recognized that as an area at which we have to look very seriously; we have to make a value decision as to whether or not this province is going to get into that sort of bidding war that’s now going on for the sake of getting development into our jurisdiction. It may very well be we’ll have to do that --

Mr. Wildman: Are you going to do that now to attract an auto parts plant?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- but that decision has not yet been made.

BUY-CANADIAN PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: It must have been proximity to the minister on Friday that has led me to want to direct a second question to him.

In view of the minister’s comments in the Legislature on Friday that the government is tired of waiting for the federal government to act on the buy-Canadian policy which was originally proposed by this party and subsequently taken up by the Premier (Mr. Davis) at the first ministers’ conference in February; and in view of his comments to the effect that he feels it is obvious the federal government is not going to act, can the minister now give details to the House of the nature of the buy-Canadian policy which the Ontario government intends to introduce? Can he tell the House when Ontario intends to take this initiative in order to start helping to create more jobs in Canada now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I cannot give the House the details of the program, they are just being finalized.

Mr. Warner: You have been finalizing for the last two months.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am pleased to say I saw a copy of a Telex this morning from the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa which indicates the federal government is now prepared to start into a program. They’ve asked us to make contact at the civil service level to co-ordinate the program, therefore I’d like to wait and see what the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce proposes. I believe it is much better to work together rather than as 10 individual governments across the country.

Mr. Cassidy: I find it difficult to conceal my amazement that after these many decades the federal and provincial governments are now beginning to think of some action.

Could the minister say whether Ontario will insist on the inclusion of buy-Canadian directives to governments and government agencies in this province when the buy-Canadian policy is brought in? Will directives ensure that, where price and quality are comparable, government or tax-supported agencies do buy products made in this province or this country? Would they also ensure, where a large number of purchases of foreign products are involved, that governments act in order to encourage the creation of production of those products within Canada?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this government is certainly very much in support of a buy-Canadian policy. At the first ministers’ conference in Ottawa that was a policy adopted in a general way, I think rather conclusively, more so than in the past, by all governments attending.

I want to say to the hon. member we have attempted in the past, and we will continue, to buy Canadian wherever possible, where price and quality are comparable; but I don’t think this government, nor do I think any other government in Canada, is prepared to start following an isolationist policy.

Mr. M. Davidson: A supplementary question: Is the minister prepared then, following his statement, to consult with his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), and ensure that the textile products being used in the hospitals of Ontario today are manufactured and produced in Canada, and preferably in Ontario? There are in use today towels, bedspreads, et cetera, being manufactured in Taiwan, Korea and various other countries.

Mr. Deans: Especially baby clothes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we will be having discussions with other ministries, not only the Ministry of Health, as it relates to purchasing practices. Certainly I will be having discussions with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) through whose ministry most of the purchasing for government is done.

[2:15]

The points raised by the hon. member are valid and we have been looking at them; but I must hasten to point out to hon. members that as far as the acquisition of goods made offshore and their access to Canadian markets, that is a matter dealt with under trade and tariff arrangements at the federal level.

This government has made submissions to the federal government as they relate to the present negotiations that are going on regarding tariff and trade; we have said that we are concerned about the effects that any negotiations and finalized agreements may have on this province and on its industrial and manufacturing capabilities; but those policies, as far as imports are concerned, are made at the federal level.

As far as purchasing is concerned, I repeat I will certainly discuss that with my colleagues.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Premier, what have you done? There is nobody near you. Where are your colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Working.

Mr. Bradley: Have they all resigned?

Mrs. Campbell: You have it all to yourself, but you are used to that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the government prepared to ensure, as part of the buy-Canadian policy as and when it comes forward, that the difficulties the consumers now experience in finding out whether goods offered in the marketplace are in fact Canadian-made or come from abroad are overcome, so that both in the store and also in advertising in catalogues there is a clear identification of Canadian-made goods?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I completely agree with the hon. member. That is a very real part of the program we are developing in Ontario: the identification, very clear identification, of products that are made in Canada. That is part of our buy-Canadian program we are developing. I will be very pleased to present that to this House when that program has been finalized; that is a very big part of what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition ready with his first question?

Mr. S. Smith: I might as well. There are a number of questions that I am sure I can reserve to another day.

HAMILTON REDEVELOPMENT

Mr. S.

Smith: I will ask the Minister of Government Services, with regard to the very earnest desire on the part of the city of Hamilton to move ahead with the redevelopment of the centre of town and eventually build a convention centre, hotel complex and so on, that since the office tower which has been promised, lo, these many years -- I think the last 11 years at every election -- since the office tower promised by the provincial government is the keystone to the entire project, can the minister now tell us whether, as a result of his excellent conversations with the mayor of that area and his consultations with his cabinet colleagues, the government is prepared to keep its promise and put up the full price of a 14-storey office tower so that Hamilton can go ahead with its very major redevelopment?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I made our position quite clear during the estimates, that the government was prepared to proceed provided satisfactory arrangements can be worked out through the city of Hamilton. There have been two letters back and forth between the city and myself. I have had the mayor of Hamilton in to see me, along with the deputy mayor and one of the staff from city hall, and I am confident that within a few weeks or a few months -- a few weeks, I’ll leave it that way -- we will be able to work out a satisfactory agreement with all concerned and this $35 million project will get under way.

It will make work for 400 people a year for the next four years. I am very proud of the project.

Mr. S. Smith: I am very pleased to hear that. I look forward to the passage of those few weeks to which the minister refers.

Do I take it, then, that as part of that agreement the provincial government will in fact live up to its original promise to pay for the cost of the office building?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: There is no disagreement between the city of Hamilton and the government over the office building. That’s a straight responsibility of the government of Ontario.

Mr. McKessock: You didn’t answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: There’s just no disagreement between us.

Mr. Deans: There never has been, as I recall.

Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister whether or not, since there is no disagreement on the office tower and never was, he is prepared to raise the ante to 50 per cent of the total cost of the convention centre, as the government indicated it would in 1967?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ian, Brampton has had nothing.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I have never made that commitment.

Mr. Deans: But the government has.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will give you a legal opinion, Stuart.

Mr. S. Smith: I need a financial one and an educated one; can the Premier handle all those?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, sure.

DRUG TRAFFICKING

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll ask a question of the Solicitor General, if I might. Is the Solicitor General as disturbed as some others are regarding the apparent increase in the amount of drug movement that seems to be occurring in this area? Has he read articles which refer to Toronto as the “speed capital of the world”; and which refer to multi-million dollar seizures of cocaine and amphetamines in this area?

What is the Solicitor General’s view of this situation? Has there been an increase in the amount of drug material being transported and exchanged here in the Toronto area? Has this resulted, to his knowledge, in any increase in drug usage or other reported crimes related to drugs in the Toronto area? Is there any relationship to organized crime given what seems to be an increasing number of articles appearing in the public press on this subject?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, there has always been a substantial amount of drug use in this part of the province, as well as certain other parts of the country. I think one of the main reasons we’re hearing more about it today is because of some success in police efforts to make arrests and to discover the trafficking that’s going on, particularly a certain amount of international trafficking.

When you have a large airport, for example, within the area such as Metropolitan Toronto and Malton, there is bound to be a certain amount of extraordinary activity. But the fact is that there has been a great deal of success in the last two or three weeks in making some arrests. This has been the result of a number of months of surveillance and police activity; combined forces activity involving both the RCMP, our own OPP and Metro forces, as well as other international police forces. So the positive part of it is the fact that this surveillance is resulting in arrests and resulting in the seizure of large quantities of drugs.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, has the Solicitor General asked for a report from his officers regarding whether there has been an increase in the usage of these drugs, as far as can be determined; and whether there has been an increase in the number of charges brought, not merely as the result of proficient police work but as the result of an increased amount of crime? Have these apparent seizures and other matters that have been related to the public via the media been in any way related to organized crime, to the knowledge of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There has been no indication that the use of drugs has increased substantially in the past three or four months. There is no indication that arrests, for possession for example, have increased substantially over, say the latter part of last year. As I indicated, we are having some success in nailing the traffickers and making a substantial amount of drug cache seizures.

Organized crime is involved in drug trafficking, of course, and some of the arrests indicate recently that this is part of an organized criminal conspiracy.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary: Considering that drug use might very well be linked to organized crime, is the Solicitor General considering that a royal commission inquiry is appropriate at this point in time, or is he of the opinion that organized crime in the province of Ontario is under control?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Sticking to the subject of the Leader of the Opposition’s original question and the information that I have given, there have been a number of arrests and there has been some success in police investigations in recent months; and this has been done without any royal commission and the type of hearings that took place in the province of Quebec, for example. In other words, we feel that hard police investigation resulting in arrests and the picking up of large quantities of drugs is better than an open inquiry or hearing that may in fact hamper that type of police investigation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George; the final supplementary.

Mrs. Campbell: Has there been any recent report from any of the police jurisdictions -- RCMP, OPP or Metro -- as to the ongoing involvement of children in this drug trafficking? If there hasn’t, would the minister inquire as to what the status is today?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of any extraordinary activity in that area, but I will find out.

Mr. S. Smith: With your indulgence Mr. Speaker, I would ask a brief final supplementary.

The minister says there is evidence from the arrests which have been made of what he calls an organized criminal conspiracy. He said that in response to my question about organized crime. By that, did he mean to say it involved groups that have been involved or have been suspected of being involved in more than just drug trafficking as a crime, but are involved in a number of criminal activities in the usual sense of the words “organized crime” other than simple organized drug peddling?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, Mr. Speaker, the information I have, and it is as a result of some of the newspaper articles that the hon. member has been referring to, has been in relation to drug trafficking -- the whole relation of trafficking and distribution -- and possession particularly on an international basis in the area of drugs.

I haven’t attempted, for example, to go back to see the source of this operation. The police investigation really hasn’t gone that far yet. There have been some arrests made; there have been charges laid; drugs have been seized. There will be further charges, I expect, but there will also be trials of the individuals who have been charged. That may well indicate that behind the people who are directly involved, or who have been arrested and charged, is some sort of international conspiracy.

HYDRO BOAT TENDERS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It has been brought to my attention by Richardson boat works of Meaford that Ontario Hydro is sending out invitations to tender for the building of a boat. The way these documents are worded makes it impossible for companies to tender in a responsible manner.

Is the minister aware that these invitations to tender make no mention as to the size of the boat other than that it should have a back deck of 10 feet clear space and be capable of holding five people? No mention is given of the material that is to be used, or as to whether it is to be a 20- or a 40-foot boat. Is the minister aware of that? Is this another case where the contract has already been arranged and the sending of these invitations to tender to other companies is just a formality?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this particular incident. However, I do appreciate that it has been brought to my attention and I would like to assure the member opposite that I will look into this and report back to him directly or to this House.

Mr. McKessock: In view of the fact that these tenders close on May 3, would the minister have Ontario Hydro extend the closing date and provide the companies with specific drawings of the boat it wishes to have built so that every company can tender in a fair and responsible manner?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, since I don’t know the details of the case, I don’t know whether it is even within my mandate to expect that kind of requirement. But as I promised, I will look into this case and report back. Particularly because of the nature of the case, I will do so very quickly.

LUNG CANCER CASES

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour: In view of the latest shenanigans of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, would the minister inform the House as to where the buck stops in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Board? Is the minister responsible for the policies of the board, and does the minister agree with the comments of the board chairman that he doesn’t have much time for the remarks of people he considers to be prejudiced to the decisions of the board?

[2:30]

Mr. Deans: That includes most of us I think.

Mr. Mackenzie: Further, would the minister table in this House the confidential company report from Eldorado, which according to Dr. Charles Stewart of the board was the basis of the decision to reject the claim for lung cancer for Ronald Hills, who died at 49 years of age after 22 years working in the Eldorado uranium refinery?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there are no shenanigans at all at the board at this time or at any other time. They are as usual attempting to do their job responsibly.

Mr. Wildman: Nothing ever happens at the board!

Hon. B. Stephenson: The two cases of lung cancer which have been examined by the board related to Eldorado were two different diagnoses with two different lengths of exposure, and I am informed that an appeal has been launched on behalf of the widow of Mr. Hills. That appeal date I think has been set.

Mr. Warner: That is not the question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It would be, I think, inappropriate for me to say much more about that right at the moment, except to say I have not seen the confidential information from Eldorado. I have no idea why Eldorado, which I would remind members is a federal Crown corporation, has decided this information must be kept confidential.

Mr. di Santo: It doesn’t matter.

Mr. Lewis: It is not their decision. It is the board’s decision.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not the board’s usual position. And it is not the board’s decision --

Mr. Lewis: That is nonsense. That is absolutely wrong.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because this was based on information which came from Eldorado related to the time exposure of the individual worker.

Mr. MacDonald: You are misleading the House again.

Mr. Renwick: You cannot hide behind that façade.

Mr. Mackenzie: According to the press reports of this morning, “Dr. Charles Stewart, chest specialist at the WCB, said that the radiation exposure for Mr. Hills was determined by Eldorado and is contained in a confidential report with the board”.

I am asking the minister, will she not file this? On whose say-so was the report not included in his file? Was it because the union was going there to take a look at the file? Since when does this kind of deceit and denial of information become a policy to replace the recommendations of James Ham that we should have an open flow of information between government, industry and workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, an investigation is being carried on right now by the board to find out why that piece of information disappeared.

Mr. Warner: You will do nothing.

Mr. McClellan: You have already covered it up.

Mr. Warner: The board does what it pleases.

Hon. B. Stephenson: To my knowledge it was not the board’s decision that this was to be considered confidential.

Mr. MacDonald: That is what you call shenanigans.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is my understanding that Eldorado said it was to be considered confidential, not the board.

Mr. MacDonald: And now you are trying to clean up the shenanigans.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, can the minister explain to the House how a reasonable appeal can be launched on behalf of the worker who died when the crucial piece of information is kept as confidential between the board and the company? Doesn’t it offend the minister that the board should behave in that fashion, and can she not somehow introduce an element of justice in this particular case?

Mr. Mackenzie: Deceit.

Mr. MacDonald: Shenanigans.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that the board is responsible for the disappearance of that piece of paper, nor am I sure that indeed it was not the federal Crown corporation that was responsible for denying the public access to this piece of documentation.

Mr. Lewis: But it is at the board.

Mr. McClellan: It is in the board’s possession.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is what the investigation is about, Mr. Speaker, and when that is completed I shall be happy to report to this House. That information must be available to those who are appealing the case.

Mr. Warner: You will do nothing.

Mr. MacDonald: Obviously there were shenanigans.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a final supplementary? Accepting this elaborate rationale from the minister, can she explain why it would be a policy of the board to accept confidential information from a company on which the board bases its decision against the worker, and then not allow the worker’s widow or the worker’s representative to have access to the same information? Does that sound fair, or does it sound like shenanigans?

Mr. Mackenzie: Deceit and denial.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain it, and it does not sound fair, but I do not believe that the board was responsible for that statement --

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t deny that there are shenanigans then.

Mr. Warner: You offer excuses for the board.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- of confidentiality regarding that piece of information.

Mr. Lewis: But why?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was not available to anyone in the file when it was asked for.

Mr. Warner: A special assurance by the board and it was not available to anyone.

Mr. Lewis: Clearly it was available to the board.

Mr. McClellan: The board had it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It cannot be found at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: The board had it. Stop being silly.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The chairman of the board is conducting an investigation to find the piece of paper. It was information which was developed by Eldorado and not by the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Treasurer has the answer to a question asked previously.

Mr. Breaugh: Darcy’s last speech.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there have been several questions both inside and outside the House as to what the government plans are for responding to the reviews of local government that have been completed for Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton and Niagara. I can now inform the members, in response to those questions, that I will be releasing white papers and certain recommendations that would affect the arrangements in these local governments in the very near future.

I will release a white paper and recommendations for Metropolitan Toronto on May 4 at 10 a.m., and at 4 p.m. the same day I shall go to St. Catharines to release a white paper and recommendations for Niagara. Both statements will, of course, be tabled in the House that day.

Mr. Lewis: Then the Premier (Mr. Davis) is keeping the Treasurer, is he? The word is out.

Mr. Deans: He’s keeping him on, is he?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: On Monday, May 8, at 8 p.m., I will meet with the municipal leaders in Ottawa to release to them the white paper and recommendations affecting their regional municipality. The paper will be tabled in the House the following day. The Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) will be making statements on separate dates with respect to educational matters in Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton.

An hon. member: They’ll be sorry.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can also indicate that I expect to receive the report of the review commissioners for the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth on May 10 in Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you should all be there.

Mr. Deans: In what capacity will he be acting by that time?

An hon. member: Minister of Southern Affairs.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister elaborate on the statement to say whether it is now the government’s intention to bring in legislation based on the white papers which he will be releasing in early May?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: One step at a time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what they’ve been telling you these last five weeks.

Mr. Cassidy: I think I have heard that one before.

In view of the fact that municipal leaders, including the city clerks and the politicians who may be affected, will want to be making plans about whether to adapt to new arrangements or to go forward with the old arrangements, and in view of the fact that the municipal election date has been brought forward into November by action of this Legislature, can the minister say specifically whether legislation will be coming forward to be passed before we adjourn in June?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think I can add to what I have said. Obviously we will be releasing white papers; whether they proceed to legislation and whether this Legislature proceeds to enact them, I think is speculation at this moment.

I would simply point out, with respect to the problem which certain clerks seem to be having on a number of occasions in the restructuring of local government, the Legislature has passed legislation as late as the end of June and elections have been held in October, not even in November, and the clerks seem to have coped with that problem. I do not doubt that they would be able to cope with a problem of a somewhat lesser nature this year.

Mrs. Campbell: They are very efficient.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the hon. member for Niagara Falls, I would like to remind hon. members that we have three distinguished visitors in our gallery. From New Zealand, we have Mr. Barry H. Brooks, the Acting Deputy High Commissioner for New Zealand, Hon. H. R. (Harry) Lapwood, the Minister of Tourism for New Zealand, and Mr. Phillip Harland, the Consul for New Zealand. Would you welcome them to our assembly?

PREMIUM ON U.S. FUNDS

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I’ll defer it until he gets back.

Mr. Deans: Not a bad idea.

Mrs. Campbell: Here he comes.

Mr. Cassidy: He was hiding behind the arras.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware of the fact that within the bounds of the Canadian National Exhibition grounds on two occasions, one as it had to do with the Home Show a couple of weeks ago and more recently at the Blue Jays ballgame, the premium was not being paid on American funds?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: In view of the huge tourist deficit and in view of the fact we are hoping the difference on American exchange will help the tourist industry, does the minister have any plans to institute in order to encourage the industry across the province to pay the premium and thus encourage American visitors?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member might be aware of an exchange that took place between myself and the Blue Jays last week, which resulted in an exchange booth being put up.

Mr. Deans: What did they get for you?

Mr. Lewis: Which box?

Mr. Deans: What did they get for you in the exchange?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I may assure the hon. member it wasn’t on the left-field side.

Mr. Breaugh: You’ve been there once, and back. Why not again?

Mr. Wildman: You’re a switch hitter.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We can only encourage these agencies -- be they attractions such as the Blue Jays or any other attraction -- to honour the exchange that is being recognized as the difference between the dollars. We don’t have any authority to force anyone. We do have a campaign going on to advise our American visitors that there is a premium to be paid on their dollar. Quite frankly, if we don’t get the co-operation from the people in the hospitality industry or the entertainment industry, then of course we’re going to look awfully foolish by telling people that there is this premium available and it’s not being paid.

It’s a problem. It was a problem last year and it will be a problem this year. If the merchants and the people who are dealing with our visitors are not going to pay that premium then, of course, we are going to lose business and we’re going to be looked upon as a very greedy people in not being prepared to offer that exchange. It’s to our benefit and to the benefit of the industry and to the province as a whole that we honour that exchange.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister consider posting at all points of entry, the daily exchange rate for American money so that the tourist coming in would know the value of his dollar and approximately the given amount of premium?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Probably not the posting as such, but I’ve been advised that all the people who work in the tourist information centres that are located at all our border crossings are aware of that

Mr. B. Newman: Not everybody stops there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Frankly, I don’t think I’d want to get into a posting situation. That information is available. Most people are aware, I think, that there is an exchange rate. Surely to goodness, we shouldn’t have to ask our visitors to demand their exchange. Surely, the people in the industry here, in the business world here, should be aware enough of the importance of it, to give the exchange. It’s a legal exchange and it should be paid.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Would it be possible for the minister, in the interests of Ontario, to approach the federal government and to suggest to them that at the border crossing points we set up a banking mechanism, open 24 hours a day, that will allow people to exchange money? It would make it a lot easier and it avoids, then, the problem of having to try to get the exchange.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Certainly an exchange booth of some kind would probably be one of the best ways to do it.

Mr. Deans: Like you have at airports.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, similar to what they have at the airports. However, I don’t think it’s necessary to have the federal government do it. I would think some of the banking institutions might see some advantage to that and set them up.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister do it then?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We’ve made that suggestion.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We don’t control the banks.

POLICE SEIZURE OF MEDIA MATERIAL

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. I’m aware he has now received petitions from the Newspaper Guild, the Oshawa and District Labour Council, the Ontario Newspaper Photographers’ Association and the Publishers’ Association on this matter of the police seizing records, films, negatives, tapes and what not, all used by the media in preparation of material for publication. He has now been informed that all of these people disagree with that practice. Has the Attorney General so far given them a formal response in any way?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t replied formally to the groups that have been mentioned. I just signed a response, as a matter of fact, over the weekend to the publisher of the London Free Press who was expressing similar concerns.

Basically, what I said and what I will be saying to the groups that the hon. member has mentioned is that evidence obtained by journalists, whether it be photographs or other evidence in relation to their responsibilities, that might be relevant to a criminal trial must, of course, be available to the courts in the same manner that any other relevant evidence is available.

Obviously, the police must show some judgement -- and I think generally they show very good judgement -- when they execute search warrants in relation to obtaining photographs or other material which may be relevant to a criminal prosecution. I would like to think the hon. members would agree -- and I believe, quite frankly, that most people in the news media field agree wholeheartedly that they should be in a position no different to anybody else who might have relevant evidence in his possession. Basically, that is a position that I’ve taken in the past and must take in the future.

The public interest requires that all relevant evidence be available to a court, particularly when it’s a matter of criminal justice.

[2:45]

Mr. Breaugh: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Attorney General then, on what legal basis -- not saying that courts have subpoenaed any evidence or anything like that -- does the police officer go anywhere to any news agency and seize material of this kind? I want to point out in this question that when they went to Global Television they were told to go and get it themselves. They decided not to do so. But, in other instances, they apparently had material handed to them. What’s the legal basis for the police officer doing that? He has not got a court order, nor is he seeking evidence that has been subpoenaed by a court.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: A police officer has no authority without a properly executed search warrant.

Mr. Peterson: Has the Attorney General issued any guidelines about the use of that? As he is aware, there could be tremendous abuse and this kind of procedure could go on for fishing expeditions to gather evidence to lay charges when, in fact, they don’t have sufficient evidence to lay charges on their own? It’s a very sensitive matter and I understand that, but has the Attorney General issued any guidelines as to what kind of behaviour he expects from the police department?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t issued any guidelines to the police because it would be outside my authority to do so. The Solicitor General, of course, is responsible for the administration of the police departments.

Police forces in this country have had experience in these matters for a long time. We read in the press recently about evidence in relation to obtaining a search warrant from a justice of the peace. It was suggested by one witness before the McDonald inquiry that rather than mislead a justice of the peace, a particular police department decided to make these entries without search warrants.

I have to say I would not condone that conduct for one moment, and I doubt very much that police officers in this country are prepared to make false statements before a justice of the peace as to the reasonable and probable grounds that require a search warrant in so far as relevant evidence is concerned. So, as far as that is concerned, I’m satisfied that at the present time the Criminal Code is adequate protection in the obtaining of search warrants.

I don’t wish to debate the activities of any national security force, but regarding any police departments that have responsibility for criminal investigations, I think it’s fair to say there has been very little evidence over the years as to abuse of these powers in relation to the execution of search warrants.

Mr. Peterson: May I have one final supplementary? It is a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. Catharines with a new question.

FUND-RAISING EVENTS

Mr. Bradley: My question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the difficulty now experienced by service clubs and volunteer organizations in raising funds because of such factors as higher fees for special occasion permits, high corkage fees and competition from government-run lotteries, is the minister prepared to amend the Liquor Licencing Act to permit these groups to advertise events at which alcoholic beverages are being sold under a special occasion permit?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have a serious problem with that. It’s a desire on the government’s part, in any event, to try to be fair to the people who are running small businesses in those same communities.

As the member might be aware, there are a large number of small businesses running licensed dining rooms who have to operate five, six or seven days a week --

Mr. Kerrio: They’re only on contract Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- subject to the very rigorous requirements of the Liquor Licence Act, subject to the provisions of, in some cases, the Hotel Fire Safety Act and so forth. Those operators have to carry employees all week because they’re serving the public on a day to day basis -- two, three, four meals a day -- and they are looking after a lot of needs in the community.

What happens on the weekend is that on Friday and Saturday night -- when a lot of these small businessmen, the restaurateurs, rely upon getting the bulk of their income really, the bulk of their billing -- what happens is that some people, some legitimate organizations, have special occasion permits and are operating out of the banquet halls in the area. This drains a heck of a lot of money off of the legitimate small businessman who has been operating six and seven days a week.

There is, of course, nothing the slightest bit wrong with the Legion or anyone else getting a special occasion permit and having its members in to have a banquet on that weekend night, nothing at all wrong with it. The problem that we face is in advertising these things generally. This obviously is advertising directed either advertently or inadvertently to the public at large. Our experience has been, where that occurs, that more and more members of the public tend to gravitate, under whatever guise, to these special occasion operations and eventually they drive the very legitimate small businessman who is running a dining lounge out of the community.

We think it’s fair that the current rules continue; that is the clubs advertise to and amongst themselves, deal with their own members by way of the ordinary mail or whatever other ways they have of communicating with themselves, but that they not be allowed to be put in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the small guy who has been running a dining lounge for 10, 20 or 30 years in a local community.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: While this may have been true before the factors that I mentioned developed, such as the competition from the federal and provincial lotteries and the higher charges that are now made to these organizations -- previous to that I could certainly see that point -- would the minister not give consideration to at least allowing them to advertise with no mention of the serving of alcoholic beverages but using what is called a public service type of advertisement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might say we are amenable to any positive suggestion that may help us to be as fair as we can to the Legionnaries and others who for many years have relied upon this facility. We do want to be fair to them and find a way that will work but, notwithstanding any disagreement the hon. member and I may have about lotteries and the competitions for funds and so on, I might say that I don’t think we should shift the onus or the loss resulting from any of that competition, if there is one, on to the backs of the local dining lounge operator or the local restaurateur.

I don’t think that would be fair either. Any positive suggestion the hon. member may have which would assist us to treat everyone fairly in the circumstances we would be pleased to entertain, of course.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: This is a two-part question. In the first place, has the minister ever considered encouraging the small restaurant operators to serve decent meals, in which case we wouldn’t have this problem?

Mr. Ruston: Send that out to every businessman.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have had several good meals at small restaurants.

Mr. Bradley: That’s not a sweeping generalization.

Mr. Makarchuk: The second point: Is the minister aware of the fact that the various service clubs, in order that they can notify their members of upcoming events -- and this has been a matter of some correspondence between the minister and me up to this point -- is he aware of the fact that it’s very expensive for the clubs to mail out every time they have an event, to put out a mailing to their members, and if they send out a club magazine, the club magazine may go out only once a month, or possibly every six weeks --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You should withdraw that, Mac.

Mr. Mancini: Withdraw.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- in which case they could not list the events that may happen or may come up in the club? Is the minister aware of those problems and what is he going to do to try and resolve them?

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Oh, I didn’t think the minister would answer that question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say, in response to the second question, as I said earlier I am happy to receive any constructive suggestions the members might have, and indeed we are considering some of the suggestions I have heard today.

Mr. Warner: Give us beer in the ball park then. There’s a constructive suggestion, serve suds at CNE.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the debate ensues over the entire changes that we might be proposing in the next few weeks with regard to liquor, that might be an appropriate point at which the members may want to make some constructive suggestions with regard to how we might deal with everyone.

Now, with regard to the first remark the hon. member made, may I say that all the experiences the members of my party have had in Brantford, and especially Mr. Gillies of the Premier’s office, indicate that the small operators there serve very fine food. They are very fine operators.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hear, hear; excellent.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You can denigrate them whichever way you like --

Mr. MacDonald: When were you last there?

Mr. Makarchuk: In that case, why are you afraid of the competition?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I would be happy to eat in any establishment in Brantford. The hon. member may not

Mr. Gaunt: Is the minister aware that the enforcement of this particular advertising requirement under the Act is being irregularly and unevenly enforced across the province? What is the ministry going to do about that?

Mr. McClellan: For the minister, it’s simply by spot check.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are aware of the problems and, we want to be as reasonable as we can. Where we find that a Legion -- to pick one -- is inadvertently doing what it thinks is appropriate -- for example, advertising its functions in a local community -- our people are not coming down with both feet, but we do then contact them and explain the regulations. I might say we have found all those groups, without exception, to be understanding of the problem, once we’ve gone through the explanation with them. Some, in fact, are positively trying to find a way to accommodate all the problems.

SELF-SERVE GAS STATIONS

Mr. Grande: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that Petrofina, Shell Limited and Imperial Oil are right now in violation of the Employment Standards Act concerning the matter of allowing employees at their respective self-serve bars, who work on a full-time basis, on eight-hour shifts, at least one half-hour for lunch?

Is she aware that the employment standards branch has knowledge of these violations and has done nothing to find a solution, nor has it prosecuted?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, although I doubt the basis for the last portion of the hon. member’s question, I shall investigate this and report to the House.

Mr. Deans: Why do you doubt it? He wouldn’t say something that wasn’t true.

Mr. Grande: Will the minister come down with her report and investigation of this matter with speed, so that we do not have to wait for two years as I have on a similar question I asked in this Legislature about Globe Envelope, for which a solution has still not been found? Will she do it with speed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I guess this is the reason I said I doubted the basis upon which the hon. member made his remark. Indeed a solution has been found at Globe Envelope and he knows full well it has. With the agreement of the members of the staff, the solution has been found.

I shall most certainly report to the House as rapidly as I can.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SERVICES

Mr. Mancini: I have a question for the Chairman of the Management Board. Can the minister verify for us the report in today’s Globe and Mail on the disbanding of the government’s centralized computer system, which gives as the reason for the system’s failure the general incompetence of the staff obtained from other ministres of the government?

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would say that what was disbanded was not the computer services division, it was the systems development services division. The computer services division is alive and well and one of the best in the country, according to people in the computer hardware industry.

It is quite correct that the services development division was disbanded as a result of a pretty thorough look at it and the fact that it was not meeting its budget as the committee on government productivity recommended it do when it was set up. As the committee on government productivity also recommended it should, it was sot able to compete in the marketplace with people outside.

It was perhaps unfortunate that the story in the Globe and Mail, if you read it, gave the impression that the staff were not competent. I don’t think that’s correct. I would say that when you go around any large organization and attempt to centralize an operation and ask for the staff from each part of that organization to be seconded back to you or transferred back to you, you will not always get the best people in every department.

[3:00]

On the other hand, the systems part of computers is a highly specialized business. The person who might be extremely good at devising a system for, say an accounting operation, would not be competent to devise one for an engineering operation.

Mr. Lewis: But will he make it for Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The operation we had put together had an opportunity to prove itself and it turned out that it couldn’t. It couldn’t compete and I think that is no surprise, because the government’s requirements for computer systems are relatively narrow compared to the rest of the world out there and we found we just didn’t have enough business for it.

Mr. Lewis: We give up. Do you remember Jim Renwick comparing you to Anastas Mikoyan for longevity?

Hon. Mr. Auld: You see, there are some systems that just go on forever.

You see what happens when you centralize them. I would say it was an experiment that did not work --

An hon. member: Remo, aren’t you glad you asked?

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone recall the question?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps I could read the bit from the paper, Mr. Speaker, I have it here.

Interjections.

An hon. member: And you do it with such a straight face, too.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. member. I have more.

Mr. Deans: He is getting up to ask you to tell us the rest.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to ask the minister if it’s true, as stated in the article, that this program has lost over $2 million in the past five years; and is it also true that there are 185 staff members still left in this department which the minister intends to disperse?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No and yes; or no: no and no.

Mr. Breaugh: Or yes and no.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s an Alice-in-Wonderland type of answer.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The cost of operating --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Somehow this seems more like Friday.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired -- I don’t know about answers.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: A point of privilege -- and I believe this is very important because I believe the rules of this House are being avoided by the government on this issue.

I asked a question on February 23; an interim answer was tabled March 9 which said only that there would be a further reply to the question. It is some six weeks after that and I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that you got involved in this to make sure that the standing orders are followed, to make sure that questions on the order paper are answered. That is question 10 that was filed some two months ago.

I would ask your advice and assistance on what should be done by opposition members who ask questions of the ministry and they decide not to answer them, which is in fact what has happened here.

Mr. Speaker: I want to advise the hon. member that the spirit of the standing order is being lived up to, and if the hon. minister is taking an inordinately long period of time to answer, people can draw their own conclusions. But I want to assure you that it is not within the power of the Chair to insist that you bring in a new provisional rule. That is up to the House collectively, if they are not satisfied with the standing orders. The spirit of it is being lived up to, and it is up to the minister to answer in any way that he sees fit within the standing orders.

Mr. Peterson: I’d like to respond to that, Mr. Speaker. I think that the spirit of it is that it be answered within 14 days. If a little extra time is required so be it, but clearly not two months. I would take issue with what you say in the sense that the spirit of the rule has been definitely violated and requires your intervention at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The only way that you can express your displeasure is by standing up on a point of privilege, but don’t ask the Chair to change the standing orders.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think your

interpretation is quite right. I think I’m right in this. I try to keep an eye on the questions. This is question number 10. I think the hon. member should be realistic. I’m sure he understands that this requires a fairly lengthy answer and involves a fair amount of detail.

Just in case some members don’t know, the hon. member has asked for “an updated list of all boards, agencies and commissions to which the government makes appointments, the administrative costs of the above boards, agencies and commissions including the names of commissioners and method and amount of indemnity, and the amount of funds administered by the said boards, agencies and commissions in the current fiscal year.” I would point out to the hon. member that it does take more than just a few days to assemble that amount of information, but I am told we probably are only about a week or 10 days away from having it available, which will give him a total weekend’s reading and then some.

An hon. member: The Tory Senate.

An hon. member: Ask the Treasurer.

Mr. Peterson: The fiscal year is changed. The Premier may be aware of that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s why we’re going to have to update it.

PETITIONS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. S. Smith: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I have been requested by certain citizens of my constituency to present a petition which has to do with their support for a private member’s bill in the name of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) regarding the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. I present that petition.

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. M. Davidson: I beg leave to present to the House a petition addressed to the Hon. the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We the undersigned beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: That the recent proposed increase in OHIP premiums is unconscionable and should not proceed and that a less regressive method of financing Ontario health care services should be instituted,” and it’s accompanied by 1,721 signatures.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition to Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor: “We the undersigned would like to bring to the attention of the Ontario government that we are opposed to provincial Treasurer Darcy McKeough raising OHIP fees 37.5 per cent May 1, 1978. We feel that it’s an insult to our intelligence as well as an already depleted income.

“We are drained by other essentials, such as fuel costs, taxes, housing, rents, clothing and food. We would like to know why some of the sales tax cannot be used as part of the increase. This additional cost to the working class individual is an extra burden to his or her already over-taxed income.”

Mr. Rotenberg: The speech is tomorrow.

Mr. Warner: “The six per cent wage increase that most working people of Ontario will receive has already been swallowed up by the almost 10 per cent annual inflation rate, therefore the OHIP increase will be an even greater burden to the people of Ontario.” This is from several hundred more people voicing their opposition to the government.

REPORTS

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table today the report Life Together, a report of human rights in Ontario, and apologize to the House that it had not been tabled earlier.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMIITEE

Mr. M. Davidson, on behalf of Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr38,

An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough, be not reported.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HILLPORT MOTORS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Rowe, on behalf of Mr. Hennessy, moved first reading of Bill Pr16,

An Act to revive Hillport Motors Limited.

Motion agreed to.

TOWNSHIP OF TILBURY WEST ACT

Mr. Ruston moved first reading of Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Township of Tilbury West.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

On vote 101, Office of the Lieutenant Governor:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall these estimates carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any members wishing to speak on this item? The hon. member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: The opportunity presents itself in absence of other speakers. I had a few remarks that I wanted to make during this debate. It is an opportunity for some of us on the back benches to speak to the Premier directly; a rare opportunity.

We haven’t had very much time for budget debate under the new rules in this session. There are two matters that I wanted to bring directly to the Premier’s attention on behalf of my constituents --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I might remind the hon. member that these are the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. McClellan: Oh! When, may I ask you --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: When the Office of the Lieutenant Governor estimates are carried, we then move to the Office of the Premier.

Mr. McClellan: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I’m speaking on the wrong vote.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any members wishing to speak on the estimates on the Office of the Lieutenant Governor?

Mr. Peterson: For my edification, Mr. Chairman, who would respond?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m taking her estimates. It’s a great pleasure.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier would be defending? He would be very good at that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Do you have any questions?

Mr. Peterson: No, I was just curious.

Vote 101 agreed to.

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 301, Office of the Premier.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the Premier have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, in view of the obvious interest in the estimates of my office and that of the cabinet office, the overwhelming attendance on the other side of the House and the great desire to ask questions, I will postpone my two-hour dissertation on the functionings of both offices --

An hon. member: We gave up after we saw nobody there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and allow members opposite to ask whatever questions they would like. I’ll postpone my initial dissertation.

Mr. Lawlor: Postpone it until when?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to the member for Lakeshore I will postpone it until whatever hour he has long enough away from his public responsibilities to sit down with me and share whatever point of view he might have.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, it is kind of nice to stand over here and have the Premier almost directly in front of me. I don’t really get this opportunity very often. During question period, we members have 24 or 26 ministers to choose from and to ask these urgent public and important questions. Not very often does a person who sits in the third row get a chance to go directly at the boss of the province. I really treasure this opportunity --

Mr. Bradley: The Treasurer is not here.

An hon. member: A Freudian slip.

Mr. Mancini: -- and I am enjoying it immensely.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how people from the rest of the province view it, but the people from Essex South, when they think of the Premier’s office, they usually think of big Cuban cigars, a well-dressed gentleman --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The latter

part I appreciate.

Mr. Mancini: -- well-dressed chauffeurs, big blue limousines; that’s what the people of Essex South usually think of when they think of our fine friend who is the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I smoke a pipe, and it’s a green car.

Mr. Mancini: Now that we are talking of big blue limousines, I was driving through the town of Kingsville one day. I was doing about 39 in a 30 mile-an-hour zone. Sure enough, as I looked behind me, there were lights flashing and I said, “Oh my God, here comes my first ticket.” The fellow pulled me over and said, “Oh, yes, you’re Mr. Mancini?” “Yes.” He started to write me up and said: “Don’t feel bad. I’ve written up the Premier.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I want to make it very clear that he has not written up me. Now he may have written up somebody who was with me.

An hon. member: Who paid the fine?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know. I don’t even remember.

[3:15]

Mr. Mancini: So that is why I say that usually the people of Essex South view the Office of the Premier as large Cuban cigars and chauffeurs and big blue cars.

Mr. Lawlor: You smoke a pipe now, don’t you?

Mr. Mancini: But getting more to the point of the Office of the Premier, we have noticed through the past year -- I have in particular --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is a green car and has been for several years.

Mr. Mancini: Fine, but most of the rest are blue.

Mr. Bradley: Is that a sign of hope?

Mr. J. Reed: One night I saw you go home in a blue car.

Mr. MacDonald: That proves he’s a red Tory.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Do you think it is because of the talk of the “big blue machine” that --

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I think that was it. But we have noticed the Premier take these wonderful trips around the world, and we are concerned at the cost of these trips, and we are concerned who you bring with you and what all these other people do.

Possibly the Premier could give an account of some of the trips he has taken outside the country during the past year, the cost of these to the public purse, the number of people that he has brought with him and possibly an explanation of what they were doing. I know the Premier likes to be around people, and I realize that is one of the reasons why he usually has quite a substantial entourage.

Secondly, the Premier has made a lot of the fact that he has gone to the province of Quebec at least on two or three different occasions in the past year, hopefully to promote national unity, and as Joe Clark calls it, national harmony. I was wondering if the Premier could give us an account of those trips, and give his own personal opinion of national unity and also what he is doing as the Premier of this province to help promote this cause.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Supporting the schools in Essex county.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I have read your comments about the school. You said very plainly, and it was recorded, that the people of Essex were not against the school but were against the use of the extra dollars to construct one when they could have used existing facilities.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, because it is a very important issue and so there is no misunderstanding about what I said, my understanding of what I said, and I think I am reasonably accurate, and I hope I interpret what I sense to be the feeling --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Premier, you are rising on a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am answering as well, Mr. Chairman. I can only take one or two questions at once --

Mr. Mancini: That’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- so I am answering the second question or third question first.

I have said about the situation in Essex that in my understanding of it the people were not opposed to the French instructional program. The debate really centred on the provision of the physical facility for it, and I drew that distinction in the province of Quebec because so much had centred on the school. The feeling existed among some of the media that the people in Essex were opposed to the French language program, so that is very simply what I have said.

In response to the first question I will try to get actual figures for the hon. member, but in the fiscal year these estimates cover -- I think I am right in this -- there was probably only one trip out of the province. That would be the one to Japan, which we have discussed here. I could go on at great length if the hon. member would like me to, but I think that was the only one.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry if I didn’t have the words exactly correct, but I am glad the Premier has stated exactly what he said --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a distinction.

Mr. Mancini: -- because we know in Essex we are far ahead of many counties in this province as far as French instruction is concerned, and you know the counties to which I refer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, you tell me.

Mr. Mancini: Well, you should know because you are the Premier. You should know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I would get that information from you.

Mr. Gaunt: You know, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is going to be very disappointed; he is missing your estimates again.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They have been scheduled for a long time.

Mr. Makarchuk: Quite often, Mr. Premier, questions have been raised in the House on your comments and also your requests to the federal government dealing with the auto pact, dealing with the pipeline and getting the inclusion of some mandatory clause to ensure that Canadian steel or Canadian supplies are being used for the oil pipeline and so on. You mentioned that you had carried on a certain amount of conversation and correspondence with other levels of government on this matter.

It seems to me this is a matter of rather urgent importance now, because if you look at the auto pact there is obviously about three or four per cent of both parts and autos that should accrue to Ontario in terms of the steel and of the pipe for the Alaska pipeline. But there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Canadian manufacturers are going to get any of the business in that area.

In the farm implement industry, again we find the situation where about 12 per cent of the farm implements used in North America is used in Canada. Yet we produce only eight per cent.

I am sure these matters concern you to an extent. These are matters that have been raised in the House on many occasions. At one time, you said you may even table some of the correspondence that has gone on about these matters.

I have lost faith and confidence in those people in Ottawa to care about either this country or the economy of this country, and I don’t think you can separate the two. You are the leader of the largest industrial province in Canada where consequently the effects fall directly upon the whole economy of the province and the people of this province in terms of everything we are so concerned about.

What have you been doing recently in order to bring this matter to a head and in order to point out if necessary to the people of Canada and the people of Ontario that those who represent us in Ottawa right now are not doing the kind of job they should at least in my opinion, to protect the industry and the economy of this country and of the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t want to be facetious but if rumour is correct, all of us will have an opportunity to say what we think about the competence of the present government fairly soon now. I’m not sure whether that will turn out to be the case or not.

I don’t think the automotive industry is something that can be brought to a head overnight. What I have been doing is meeting with the manufacturers. I have meetings this week, I think, scheduled with the parts people. I don’t know whether the date has been set but I am to have a discussion with the UAW and one or two other groups. I indicated to the member’s leader that when these discussions were finished we would probably prepare some material here for members of the House to have some discussion.

It is important to point out that really what we have been talking about in some respects with the automotive industry is some of their longer-term capital expansion plans. I think -- and it causes me some concern -- that there has been an understanding abroad that the industry over the next few years was going to invest something like $50 billion -- I think that is the figure that has been used -- in new capital plants.

The truth of the matter is a good part of that investment is going into altering the methods or the material used in the automobile, moving from steel to aluminum, moving from steel to plastic, et cetera. It isn’t $50 billion for an expansion of the industry per se. A lot of it is replacement of existing plant or existing facility. If you say, as a company, that you’re going to invest a billion dollars, it may be in terms of jobs or a replacement of an existing facility that may now be using steel for the engine block

whereas two years from now, under the regulations, they have to move to aluminum or something of that kind.

While we want our share of that and we’re working to see what can be done to get it, I just hope the members opposite aren’t under the impression that there is going to be a major expansion in terms of total numbers of cars built and sold, et cetera. I think there’s been an annual increase over a period of 10 years. I expect this increase will continue, but I should point out that the bulk of that major investment will be for replacement of existing facilities and not for additional facilities for more production.

I can only assure the hon. members that we have been working very carefully and making our views known both publicly and privately as to what we feel should happen in terms of this capital expansion.

I think it’s also important for all of us to understand that it has become a very competitive sort of field. I’m sure you have been reading some of the newspapers with the ads from some of the neighbouring states. All of them are competing, both neighbouring states and the southern states, and they are actually offering pretty generous inducements for location of the physical plant.

As the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Rhodes) has pointed out, we may be getting into that sort of environment. I’m reluctant for us to get into that sort of environment. We’d like to see these decisions on capital investment made (

a) in the spirit of the pact, and (

b) where it makes sense in terms of geography, et cetera, but there is no question that some states and perhaps one or two provinces are very actively competing in terms of inducements.

Whether we will have to get into this, Mr. Chairman, I honestly don’t know at the moment, but as soon as we have the meetings concluded and some suggestions or some analysis, or whatever term one might wish to use, I am contemplating tabling this in the House or giving it to members of the House, and perhaps providing some time for a discussion of it. I just want to assure the member that we share his concerns. We’re working very diligently to see what can be done about it and when we have this information I shall be delighted to discuss it further.

Mr. Makarchuk: There’s no question that we will be able to pass judgement on this, but according to press reports and the discussions up there, I think there is a certain reluctance to hurry that day of judgement. I think the matters we’re touching on right now are directly related to the doubts in the Premier’s mind.

I would point out to the Premier though that it was described somewhere in an

article that I read that we’re in a sense a sort of beggar nation. We always go ahead and ask: “Would you let us have a little bit of the pipeline? Would you let us have a little bit of the auto pact? Would you let us have a little bit of this or a little bit of that?

The Premier says that, of course, we don’t want to intervene. We want to let the marketplace decide and, of course, the corporations will be kind and generous and fair, et cetera, and they will locate in Ontario. That’s not the case. The corporations don’t work that way. The corporations are basically interested in making profits, that’s what they’re there for and that’s what they’re all about. They’re going to operate where and how they can to maximize their profit.

Somewhere, somebody has to intervene sometimes to ensure that there are some other methods they should consider as to where they locate. I could not think of a single developed western nation that would allow another country to build a pipeline across its soil and not insist that it get its share of the jobs and of that pipeline, except Canada. Could you imagine Britain, or Sweden, or Norway, or Germany, or France, or Italy allowing a thing of this nature to happen, or Japan for that matter? They won’t, but we do.

Here again, I admit that being a province you can speak at a certain level, but somehow I feel that in order to let the public know what we’re all about, if there has to be that kind of a thing, if, the people at the top are not doing it -- and they’re not doing it -- then at some time the Premier of Ontario has to get off his backside and tell them: “Look, we’re mad, we’re annoyed. These are the kinds of things we want and these are the kinds of things that should come into legislation.”

I don’t think you’re going to scare anybody off. It’s not going to create any great disorganization in the marketplace and it’s not going to drive General Motors, Inco, or anybody else out of the country. They’ll be here because the markets are here and the money is here and everything else is here. That’s why they’re here. What we’re doing, and what we want you to do for a change, is to insist that we’re not asking for more. We just want our share.

[3:30]

I think it’s a legitimate request. It’s a request that should be made by the Premier of Ontario because the Prime Minister and Allistair Gillespie and all the other ministers aren’t doing anything about it, and Jack Horner is prepared to settle for the crumbs they are going to get from the fallout when they build the pipeline. You know, there will be jobs for the dishwashers and ditch diggers; that’s what we always get. I think, again, you have to move into that situation.

The other item which concerns us, of course, is that every so often the Premier of Alberta will get up and say: “We want to export our natural gas,” and, of course, you can understand the reason. They have a surplus so they say: “Let’s sell it now because we will get the money in right now.” About the future? Well, nobody seems to be concerned.

So, again, I think that the Premier of Ontario has to make that kind of representation somewhere along the line and say: “Look, we can see your problems. We can see that certain companies would like to see their cash flow increase in Alberta, but I think you have to speak for the rest of Canada.” And I am asking you, Mr. Premier, to speak for the rest of Canada because the people in Ottawa aren’t speaking for it. You have to speak and say: “We have to look to the future. If we get rid of our cheap gas right now, what are we going to do in the future? What economic costs will we have to bear in the future?

How will this country operate in the future?” In think those are the kinds of things that the Premier of the wealthiest, largest province in Canada should be saying.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t want to prolong the discussion. I think that on two of those issues our point of view has been made very clear and has been made public. I think there is a distinction between the automotive industry and what is potentially happening there in the matters of the pipeline. The only point I was making on the provision of pipe for the pipeline was that if it were to be legislated it was to be Canadian-made pipe -- and I know the hon. member would support that -- I think there are instances where pipe and steel products have been supplied by Canadian manufacturers south of the border.

I am not going to argue for a moment that perhaps the American Congress has said on occasion that if any public work is going ahead the material in it will be totally American, but I am sure there are many examples where that has not been the case, and this is where I think there is some delicacy in terms of how it is handled.

With respect to natural gas, we have expressed our views on some aspects of it. I would only point out to the hon. member that three years ago we were sitting in this Legislature debating the shortage of natural gas. Since the price of natural gas has increased, further exploration has gone on. There is today a surplus. Don’t ask me how long that surplus is going to continue nor ask me to estimate what the long-term prospects are for the development of natural gas in Alberta and in the north and so on. I don’t think anybody can give that sort of figure.

While the hon. member suggests that it’s cash flow for the companies that the Premier of Alberta is talking about, I think that there is also a slight royalty payable to the government of Alberta, and that his interest isn’t totally in the cash flow for the companies supplying the natural gas. I think there is a certain amount going into the provincial revenues of that province which may also have some impact.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to ask the Premier about the results of his discussion with the various senior officials in the auto industry, because the Premier certainly knows the concern that we have over the potential loss of 750 jobs when Chrysler phases out the truck plant on the corner of McDougall and Tecumseh Road in the city of Windsor. He has discussed that, I understand, with some of the senior officials at Chrysler and he was given the assurance that 350 of those employees may be transferred into the new panel truck plant on Pillette Road.

But what happens to the other 400 employees of the plant being phased out? They are extremely concerned. There has been no guarantee or assurance given to them that there will be employment available to them, either by way of any additions that Chrysler may contemplate. Their only source of future employment hinges on a rising economy so that the vans would be moving substantially better than they are now and then there would be an opportunity for them to be employed in that van plant on Pillette Road.

Mr. Premier, I assume now you have met with all of the senior officials in the auto industry in the province of Ontario. What has been the results of the discussions with them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, I pointed out to the member for Brantford that we still have two or three meetings scheduled before I can say to the House that we have completed this round of meetings. My guess is that these meetings will never totally finish; we’ll be doing this for the next three or four years, so there are two or three yet to be held.

It’s interesting to note, without singling out the companies in terms of manufacture of automobiles -- and I think this is true in Windsor -- when the market conditions have been relatively buoyant there has been a relatively steady increase in the number of people employed by the automotive manufacturers. Part of the problem is in the parts sector of the industry and they’re the ones I’m meeting with this week or early next week. I’ll be able then to give the House some better assessment.

If the hon. member looks back at the figures in Windsor -- take Chrysler, for instance -- people’s memories are very short. I guess it was three years ago when the American market was down somewhat generally and yet the Chrysler plant -- and this is part of the problem -- was building the Cordoba. The Cordoba was an extremely acceptable model that year and I guess still is, and they were operating at full capacity. I think they were having double shifts, or whatever,

whereas some of the American facilities of the same company were running well below capacity. There’s always a tendency to forget the good years when there is a slack year.

I was able to inform the House, Mr. Chairman, that we were assured by Chrysler that the 350 people would be re-employed by the first of January. Just about everybody was covered by the supplement program in any event. It does, however, depend on the acceptability of whatever models a company is producing and I can’t give the member for Windsor-Walkerville a guarantee what the market share will be of any of those cars or trucks manufactured for the 1979 model year. This I can’t do. Assuming the projections are relatively accurate, assuming people will still be buying automobiles and trucks, the company is without any doubt optimistic about those 350 employees.

I do not have the capacity to guarantee either market or share of market. The automotive industry has for years been susceptible to the public’s reaction to different models, different manufacturers and my guess is that that’s not going to change very much. I think there will always be those high areas and low areas on occasion. I don’t think there’s much government can do about that.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I appreciate your remarks. However, I would like you to look into this aspect of it.

Today, we look upon the auto trade pact as the balance of payments. We happen to have a surplus, I believe, as far as the manufacturing of the automobiles is concerned, but there’s a substantial deficit in the parts industry. I understand that even in vehicle manufacturing, some of the parts do come in from offshore. Some parts come from South America. I think engines coming in from Brazil has been mentioned. Once they are assembled in a Canadian car, I have been told, or I think I have been told, that is considered Canadian content. As a result, that would throw the picture off balance.

I would prefer government, rather than look at the balance of payments in the auto industry, to look at it from a jobs aspect. Let’s try to get a balance of jobs. If we produce 12 per cent of the automotive vehicles in Canada, then we should have at least 12 per cent of the jobs. If we produce 12 per cent, we have 12 per cent of the jobs, I would assume, but we consume only 10 per cent. We have a surplus of jobs then in the production end.

But there should be some way of making it up when it comes to the parts manufacturing. If we’re producing six per cent of the parts manufacturing and have only three per cent of the jobs, there is something wrong. We should try to equate job for job. We should have in all, the same number of jobs as there are vehicles consumed, including parts, in the Canadian market. Have your officials ever looked into the trade-off of job for job, rather than dollar for dollar, when it comes to the auto industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there is a certain hazard in discussing some of these figures in a general way. It would be helpful if perhaps we awaited the material we will get together. There are some who would argue in the context of the auto pact, if you relate it to the market in this country as it then relates to the number of jobs, that perhaps in job terms Canada, and Ontario in particular, has been the beneficiary. We have to be fairly careful how we enunciate these things publicly and what sort of public positions we take.

Another point I have been making to the manufacturers is that in job terms -- and the figures may prove to be fairly interesting -- while there is the question of content, there is also the question of the kind of jobs. I would inform the members of the House that one of the things we have been saying to the manufacturers is “Let’s not argue numbers of people today, but let’s discuss the potential for the kinds of jobs that are available in this country.” I think there is no question but they would all acknowledge that we primarily have been the supplier of components and assemblers.

I think there is no question that over the years this has been the basic thrust of the automotive industry in Canada.

I have been suggesting to the heads of the companies that we would like to see a portion -- and who can identify what percentage? -- of the more sophisticated work of the industry done in this country. I have raised this on economic grounds and I have also raised it on social grounds, if I can use that terminology. I have pointed out to these people that maybe 20 years ago one could make the argument that we might not have had the capacity, although I would have argued with them anyway in terms of the talents or abilities of our people coming on to the labour force.

There is no question today that in some technical fields with our college programs and some of the graduate work at our universities we are graduating people both with doctorates and without who can compete quite effectively with the talent in the United States. What disturbs me is that we are educating people to a higher general level and sometimes specialized level of education, yet those people are not able to find jobs in that industry here in this country.

I have urged upon the manufacturers some consideration of a certain amount of research and development being done here in Ontario. I don’t want to quote him inaccurately, but I think the head of Ford made some comment about combined provincial and federal initiatives in the research field being of some interest to his company. I don’t know how much further Mr. Bennett went in that observation, but I think my message to them has been understood.

They have counter-arguments. They will argue the question of scale and where you centralize your research and development facilities. You really can’t split research, they say, in a new engine as between Dearborn and Oakville or perhaps Windsor. My argument is you have engine research in geographic place A, but if you are going to start using plastics instead of metal, let’s have that part of the research done in this country or something of that nature.

How successful we will be, I can’t tell the hon. members. I can only tell them that this has been pressed quite aggressively with the industry for two reasons. One is economic and the other is social. I can’t predict just what results we will have, but we are not ceasing our endeavours.

Mr. B. Newman: I would hope we would reach the stage where we would equate our jobs according to our North American consumption, including research and all phases of the manufacturing aspect, so that at least if we consume 10 per cent of the North American market, we get 10 per cent of the research, we get 10 per cent of the assembly, and we get 10 per cent of the parts or more. At least there should be a balance and I would hope there would be a balance.

I hope you will do everything you can to see that we can save the jobs of those 400 employees in the Chrysler plant and if that one plant closes that at least the 400 employees are absorbed in some Chrysler facility in the city of Windsor.

Mr. Swart: I rise to pursue a little further with the Premier the matter my colleague from Brantford raised relative to the contract for the pipeline being awarded to Canadian producers.

[3:45]

I am dissatisfied with the action of the Premier and the Premier’s office in their approach to the federal government -- or lack of approach -- in endeavouring to assure that those contracts do go to Canada. The attitude which was taken by the provincial government and the federal government, I suggest, may have been appropriate in a time when we were not experiencing tremendously serious unemployment. If it wasn’t a fact that perhaps two-thirds of the contract for that pipe and the other facilities for the pipeline would come from Ontario, the Premier of this province might not be required to involve himself to the degree which I think he should have involved himself.

But I think that he may underestimate the possibility of this contract going elsewhere. I have faith, and he has, that our producers in this province can meet a fair competition. But if you look at what is taking place in the other nations which can produce this pipe -- such as Japan and Italy and West Germany; I’m not sure whether there are any others or not, but at least those three can produce this pipe -- we find that they’re running greatly under capacity, and that there are all kinds of ways within those countries for indirect subsidies which can hardly be proved as subsidies, not to say much lower wage rates in at least two of those countries.

The pipe producers in this nation have some concern about the competition -- and perhaps unfair competition -- but the competition may come from those countries. And as you are aware, the 700-and-some miles of pipe for the Alaska pipeline did come from Japan and therefore the Canadian producers may have some reason to be concerned.

It bothers me that your government did not make specific proposals to the federal government on Bill C-25 -- I believe that was the bill -- that set out the policy with regard to the construction of this pipeline. It seems to me that one or two clauses could have been changed there which would have given the assurance that the pipe would have been purchased in this nation.

I understand the philosophy of your government, although I don’t agree with it fully, that you’re going to always depend on competition. That is your God. You don’t want to deviate from it, even under the present conditions, even if it risks losing contracts perhaps of $1.5 billion to the producers --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s a slight oversimplification.

Mr. Swart: -- in this province and in this nation.

But I think we should recognize that in addition to the massive unemployment we have and in addition to the fact that this pipeline is going to be constructed on Canadian soil and that perhaps two-thirds of the pipe will he coming from this province, once this pipe is in the ground the rates on the gas which is going through it are not going to be set by competition -- there’s no way of doing it. They are going to be set by the energy board and others. Surely it’s not unreasonable to say that the pipe, therefore, which goes into this pipeline should be Canadian pipe.

It can be said at the present time -- and I would agree with this -- the difference in the value of our money enhances the possibility that the bulk of the pipe contract will come to Canadian producers -- and I guess there are just two. But that can change in six months’ time; the value of our dollar could be equal again and then we would lose that advantage.

I would also point out to the Premier, and I’m sure he is aware of this, that when he said that it would be a monopoly -- I don’t want to put words in your mouth which you didn’t use, but I think you did say that if the pipe is awarded to the Canadian producers it would be a monopoly --

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I didn’t say that. What I was discussing with your colleague was, shall we say, the policy of stating in the bill that it was to be exclusively a Canadian producer of the pipe. I pointed out to him that maybe the United States on occasion had done this, although I couldn’t think of any specific examples. But you just gave me one where they did not. That was with the pipe in Alaska where, as you point out, the Japanese were successful. So I guess there wasn’t a national American policy saying you had to buy American pipe.

I did not say that it would give a monopoly, if the hon. member suggested that in fact would be the result, he may be right, but I didn’t suggest it.

Mr. Swart: I think I am correct in saying that you did go so far as to say that there wouldn’t be competition if it was awarded in Canada, or much competition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I think it is a very important issue.

Mr. Swart: We’ll check the record on that, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me correct what I said, if I didn’t say it right. What I said was that I felt the Canadian producer could compete. I felt we had to be careful about having a policy that was exclusive to the extent that others might then reciprocate with the sort of policy where our producers wouldn’t be allowed to compete where I think they can effectively compete, and that is in the American market.

Mr. Swart: I think I would be correct in saying the Premier did make some statement. We can check the record.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think it matters.

Mr. Swart: I won’t pursue it relative to it, although I may not use the words “make a monopoly for Canada.”

I wanted to point out that in Canada we perhaps have at least 33 per cent more capacity than we would be using in the two plants. Therefore, if they were bidding to get as much of the contract as they can there would be some competition, I would suggest, between them.

Even if it is a case of a negotiated price, with the circumstances that now exist with regard to unemployment I think we should be going that route rather than running the risk of losing these contracts for the pipe. In Welland alone, this will mean about 800 jobs in the pipe mill. I would point out that the Niagara Peninsula now has, according to the last report by Statistics Canada, the highest level of unemployment of any area in this province.

Mr. B. Newman: What is it?

Mr. Swart: It’s 13.4 per cent.

Mr. B. Newman: That is high.

I just want to ask the Premier, if I may, about another company which bothers me a great deal, and that is Bell Canada, where there is a rate hearing taking place.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It bothers me so many times a day, I agree with you.

Mr. Swart: Yes, we can share that sort of concern about it. That is not really the context in which I wanted to raise the question, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure it wasn’t.

Mr. Swart: Northern Telecom, which is a subsidiary of Bell Canada, is apparently, as near as we can find out, financed by Bell Canada. It is, I believe, 62 per cent, owned by Bell Canada and at the present time is building more and more of its productive capacity in the United States and laying off workers in this country.

In the most recent annual report of Telecom, they state they expect within five years that 45 per cent of all their production will be in the United States, something like 40 per cent in Canada and 15 per cent outside of North America.

I would like to ask the Premier if he has had any discussions with Bell Canada or any of its many subsidiaries or Northern Telecom with regard to these proposals and whether he has made any representation that more of that expansion should be taking place here in this province so that we don’t have a reduction in the number of workers in a place like Bramalea where, I believe, the number has gone down from something like 2,500 to something like 800 at the present time. That has taken place in the last seven to 10 years.

I wonder if the Premier would like to comment on this, because this is a Canadian company which is raising the money here and which is raising a great part of its capital through an increase in rates. The people of this province are providing much of the capital which appears now to be going outside of the country for investment in productive capacity in other countries, particularly the United States,

whereas it should be taking place in this province and in this nation. Could we have some comments on this and particularly on whether he has made any representation to the ministry governing this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just have a very brief comment. Part of what the hon. member is suggesting is true. I am not saying the rest of it isn’t, but part of it is speculative at the moment. Having that very large facility in my riding, I am really quite familiar with what has happened and with some of the concerns that are being expressed for the future of Northern Telecom. Part of the problem relates to the fact that a portion -- and this applies to the Bramalea facility -- of the material there is being produced for the export market.

There have been discussions and I can assure the hon. member there will be more discussions. It is not that I give any greater interest or priority to situations in my own riding than others, but it does happen to be there and I am aware of the problem. Yes, there have been discussions and there will be further discussions. It does give it a priority.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to make a number of comments to the Premier. I think it is interesting and should be recorded that these estimates of the Premier are rather different in quality both from last year and also from previous years. The Premier will recall that in the past this has been the occasion for largely political speeches on the part of the opposition parties without too much opportunity to question the Premier. Last year we seemed to go from the sublime to the more minuscule. There was questioning about the number of people working for him and whether that was more or fewer than the number of people who worked there the year before, and that kind of thing.

I want to raise a number of questions that perhaps fall in between those two levels, first, by talking a bit about the question of minority government and asking for the Premier’s comments, and then talking about a number of other issues which I think are of concern to members of this Legislature and, I believe, to the public at large, and to which the Premier might also wish to respond. This is a different kind of forum than we have in question period and, as I am sure the Premier can tell from the tone I have adopted, I am looking for some answers and not for too much in the way of rhetoric.

I would, first, like to make a comment or two about the question of the minority government. The Premier is no doubt aware that on two occasions the people of the province have spoken pretty decisively about electing a minority government They appear to prefer that outcome to either the outcome he might prefer of having a majority or the outcome we might prefer, which is forming the first New Democratic government that Ontario will have had.

I was concerned since becoming leader, have been concerned in the past and remain concerned, about the degree to which the government is prepared to abide by that decision of the people of the province. We may know better in a few hours in terms of whether or not the government is preparing to bend on the question of OHIP, as to whether there is any kind of tolerance of the minority situation of the government’s side at all.

[4:00]

I think the OHIP question could risk being an aberration. That is why I would appreciate it if the Premier could comment on the question of the minority situation more generally. We know that with the threat of an election pending provincially and with an impending election federally, there is, to put it mildly, some substantial pressure on the government

How does the Premier see his party responding to the minority situation when as is the more normal course of events, we would hope not to have to constantly go to the wall in order to have the views of our party in opposition reflected on or responded to by the government? I guess that is the simplest way of putting it, because I believe that given the verdict of the electorate last time there is a responsibility on the government to pay heed to what the opposition parties are saying, particularly in view of the fact that they represent the majority of the electorate.

I want to say, as I said when I first became leader and spoke in the Throne debate, that we understand that in a minority situation we cannot expect to have everything we would like to see adopted by this Legislature actually go through. I think it is fair though that if we play it straight, as we intend to and always have done, that we should have our views considered. We also feel that from time to time those views should not only be considered but there should also be a response on the part of the government in a constructive way -- in other words, actions directed towards the lines which are suggested from this side of the House.

That leads me to another question which is closely connected with the spirit of minority government, although I believe it was also a problem -- I know it was a problem -- back in the bad old days when we had a majority prior to 1975. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the Premier that there has not yet been a reasonable response to the need for resources for the opposition parties in order to enable all members of this Legislature to adequately fulfil their role as legislators, as developers of policy, as participants in the increasingly complex work of this House, and the responsibilities that we carry across the province as members of the Legislature.

As the Premier knows, I have a fairly longstanding interest in this, having been part of the party that originally pushed for the creation of the Camp commission and having subsequently been a member of the select committee of the Legislature which examined the Camp commission report and made a number of consequential recommendations.

In general this is a matter where adequate response to the need of the opposition parties should be a matter of shared responsibility. The Premier says, as he has tended to say in the past, “Ultimately the buck stops on the government side and if we were to take such an action in order to give adequate resources to the opposition parties it would really be seen as being the responsibility of the government and of the government alone.”

We reject that point of view. We believe that if the government acts in conjunction with the opposition parties to implement the recommendations of the select committee report, for example, that is something which can properly be seen as being the responsibility of all three parties.

We also note the reticence the Premier has shown from time to time on this issue in the past and compare it with the much more open-handed kind of attitude the government has taken when it comes to spending in areas which are entirely within its own area of responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Such as what?

Mr. Cassidy: Such as the billion or so year increase in spending which the government is responsible for in the annual estimates.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But Michael, we are always being prevailed upon by you people to spend even more than that.

Mr. Cassidy: That is true.

Mr. Warner: Spend it more wisely.

Mr. Cassidy: I am suggesting that in the area of the resources for the Legislature from time to time it may even be in the government’s interest to drag its feet or to be reluctant to move in this particular area. This winter I think there were four or five major inquiries or standing or select committees which were working during the period of the recess between the end of December and the time when the House resumed late in February.

That was a kind of demand which put enormous burdens on the members of the opposition parties and even greater burdens -- in fact, it totally exhausted the capacity to respond of the support staff, the researchers and so on, who were working with the various opposition parties. That’s an indication as to just how stretched things have become.

When the Camp commission talked about the member’s role -- and this was in its first volume -- it said, after talking about a number of aspects of the member’s role having to do with the constituency, doing casework, making speeches, doing party work and that kind of thing:

“What we have sketched about the member’s role has not stressed the demands on him” -- or her, I suppose -- “within the Legislature itself. It is there that much of the skimping and shortfall in performance is taking place. Put most brutally, government and its administration steadily increases in complexity, size and resources. Reports, studies and expertise proliferate. Few legislative proposals are simple and clear-cut.

The ministries are sustained by an increasingly impressive array of talent and organizational ability to which the ordinary member of government or opposition has limited access and few ready rights of use. Surely the time has come to recognize that this balance, not so much towards the government but towards its highly knowledgeable bureaucracies, must be countered by stepping up the resources, facilities and services of the Legislature and the legislators.”

One can argue, as I would, that perhaps the Camp commission underestimated to some extent the capacity of the members of the opposition. We’ve got some pretty able people over here, and they do an excellent job; but they do an excellent job regardless of very limited resources. I believe, quite apart from the partisan aspects of our job over here, that in terms of making a contribution to the development of policy within Ontario and in terms of the improvement of legislation as put forward by the government and by the bureaucrats working for government, that we could and should be doing a better job had we more adequate support.

I could argue as well that at times the Camp commission perhaps overestimated the capacity of the officials working with the government or perhaps the judgement which is applied to those officials by the government itself. Nevertheless, the point is made, and I think it’s incumbent on the government to respond. In fact, I hope the Premier would consider responding.

The Camp commission came back to this particular argument in its second report and concluded that at the present time things are deficient in terms of providing the opposition parties with adequate funds relating to their functional requirements. They pointed out the lack of sufficient depth and professional competence in underpinning the efforts we make in the Legislature as well as the efforts that we make across the province.

They recommended more adequate research capacity and, as the Premier knows, that was then followed up by the select committee of the Legislature which recommended that research assistance be provided in three ways: It recommended that it be provided through the library, it recommended that it be provided through committees and it recommended that additional research support be provided by giving a research assistant to each member of this House.

As leader of my party, I am now in a rather privileged position, as I suppose is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith). If we snap our fingers, we tend to get support from the limited number of researchers who are there in our research group. But speaking as a one-time backbencher, an experience that the Premier may have difficulty in recalling, the fact is that for the members of my caucus --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a very good memory.

Mr. Cassidy: You have a good memory? Okay.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You have none.

Mr. Nixon: That was in the Premier’s previous incarnation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am still younger than you are.

Mr. Nixon: Not for long.

Mr. Cassidy: The fact is that for members of my caucus who wish to explore or develop a particular line of inquiry, it is exceptionally difficult to do unless one can do it by means of volunteer researchers of one sort or another; and to carry out sustained knowledge and critique of what is happening in the many areas of government, given the pressures which exist on opposition members to carry out their other political responsibilities, is extraordinarily difficult.

Perhaps I can summon up, from my more recent memory as a backbencher, an experience I had about a year ago at this time. A young social worker student, Jeffrey Moore from Nova Scotia, studying at the Carleton school of social work, came to work with me for three months in the area of mental retardation. He travelled around and looked at some of the facilities. He came out with some excellent material in terms of enabling me to have a better understanding of the area of retardation in which I was interested but which I could never have found time to pursue as a front-bench opposition member without a portfolio responsibility.

That’s just one example of the kind which I think should quite properly be taking place on the opposition side but is not taking place now; and, I believe, this House, this Parliament and this province are the poorer as a result.

I would appreciate some comments from the Premier when he gets a chance to reply, just talking about whether he is prepared to bite the bullet and to take the major step -- and we admit it’s a major step -- in terms of providing not just a small increase in resources for the opposition parties, but in agreeing with us that it is necessary if this Legislature is to function adequately, particularly in a minority situation, that the recommendations of the select committee at the very least should be implemented.

I think it’s fair to ask the Premier, since our efforts to get action from anybody have been so far fruitless, what his position is on the recommendations that have been made repeatedly both by the Camp commission and also by the select committee relative to the transfer of control of the legislative building to Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which could almost be called an old chestnut because it has been around for so long.

But I do not believe that adequate provision will be made in order to ensure that this House works effectively and that the members can enjoy adequate working conditions, so long as the government continues to control this House and treats any of its facilities on a grace-and-favour basis. That has been the position in the past.

The Premier will recall, because finally in some embarrassment he had to ask for the lady’s resignation, that the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) as Minister for Government Services considered that this House was somehow an extension of the premises in which she lives in one of the better areas of her riding. The brief tenure of the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. McCague) in the position of Minister of Government Services was more positive. When he had a debate last December on the select committee’s report, he indicated that he saw no reason why control should not move over into Mr. Speaker’s hands. Alas, his tenure was too short. No action was taken.

The member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), who is now the Minister of Government Services, alas considers, or appears to consider, that this Legislature is an extension of the premises in which he lives somewhere down in the rural areas of the great county of Lambton. I have no objection to his adopting that attitude so long as he remains the member for Lambton when he is within his particular riding; I do object to having all of this Legislature subsumed in some magical way to the point where somehow the turf on which we tread in this House becomes an extension of Lambton riding.

Mr. Nixon: You have a fantastic imagination, it seems to me.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems to me that the Premier himself can cut this Gordian knot and simply say that as a matter of policy he is prepared to see an orderly and rapid transfer of this building to the responsibility of Mr. Speaker. If the Premier wants to say, as the select committee recommended, that the premises of the Premier’s staff and of the cabinet office themselves should remain under government control through some kind of legislative condominium arrangement, obviously we are prepared to go along with that.

I would draw the Premier’s attention to the fact that as regards other central ministries of government the Treasury seems to have no difficulty, or few difficulties until recently, in performing its co-ordinating role within government from premises across the street. There are ample facilities, in the Whitney Block, I think it is, which is just across the road and is connected by a tunnel, where the various superministry secretariats could easily find a home and continue to carry out their functions without having to take up premises which should belong to us here in this House.

[4:15]

I would also like to raise the matter of access to information. Again, I think that’s important with relevance to the minority government situation in which we find ourselves today -- and in which we may no longer find ourselves tomorrow; but if the government can come up with an accommodation on the OHIP question we are likely to see continued until the next election; or quite possibly beyond, since I’m not prepared to say yet that when we form a government in the next election we will do so by a majority rather than by a minority.

Mr. Gregory: You will be lucky to get in.

Mr. Cassidy: I do want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minority situation may, in fact, be the most appropriate time for the government to bite the bullet as regards freedom-of-information legislation.

There are very real questions in our minds over the delays, or over the continued work of the royal commission which is looking at this subject right now. We fear that that commission was set up in order to confuse the question of the privacy of the individual, of which there should be more, with the question of the privacy of government documents, of which there should be less. We think that distinction should be made very clearly.

We think that the government should be prepared to commit itself now to take the appropriate action in order to have a far-reaching freedom-of-information Act, in order to make government information which is related to policy, or which is related to the ongoing workings of government, available in an open and free manner.

This has been pioneered in Europe. It is now a practice i