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

November 5, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

SPEAKER'S ROLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

BILD INITIATIVES FOR AGRICULTURE

ECONOMIC POLICY

BILD-FUNDED FORESTRY PROJECTS

MICROELECTRONICS TASK FORCE REPORT

VISITORS

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE BRUTALITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

UNEMPLOYMENT

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

GRANT TO RACING CAR OWNER

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

LAND ASSESSMENT

PETITION

ONTARIO NURSES' ASSOCIATION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM

PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXPANSION

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM

PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXPANSION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

SPEAKER'S ROLE

Mr. T. P Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the point of privilege I raised with you the other day in which I brought to your attention the

article that appeared in The Toronto Sun on Monday, November 2. I would like to read the third paragraph from the

article by David Oved:

"PC back-benchers say Premier Bill Davis implied at the first Tory caucus this fall that he gave the word to Turner to clamp down on opposition MPPs, who helped create intermittent chaos in the House last spring."

I presume, since you did not start to say anything, that perhaps I should now give you the opportunity to say whether or not you have had an opportunity to read the

article and whether you are going to make any comment on it today. As you are aware, sir, it calls you and your office into some question, and certainly detracts from the fact that you are supposed to be nonpartisan and the protector of the rights and privileges of all members of the Legislature.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness and implications of this article, that you now address it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

On Tuesday, November 3, Mr. T. P. Reid raised a point of privilege concerning an

article which had appeared in the Toronto Sun of Monday, November 2, under the name of Mr. David Oved. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) also directed my attention to the same matter on the same point of privilege.

Unfortunately, I was not aware of the

article or of the allegations. However, I did assure the House I would read the

article and report back when I had done so. I have since read the article, reviewed the matter and am prepared to comment.

I would advise all honourable members the suggestion in the story that the Premier (Mr. Davis) had spoken to me and -- I quote directly from the story -- "that he gave the word to Turner to clamp down on opposition MPPs," is nothing more than sheer nonsense and is totally false. I would like to take this opportunity to advise and assure all honourable members further that never, at any time since I assumed the office of Speaker, has the Premier or any other member of government ever given me direction or advice on how I should carry out the duties of this important office.

I really do not know where the idea came from that I had met with the Premier in his office, because that was not mentioned in the article. As I assured the members when the matter was raised last Tuesday, I have never at any time since being elected a member of this assembly been in the office of the Premier of Ontario.

Further, let me take the opportunity to assure all honourable members that I will, indeed, as requested by the member for Rainy River, continue to carry out the duties of Speaker in an impartial and nonpartisan manner. I will also continue to protect the rights and privileges of all individual members of this House.

I want to thank the member for Rainy River and the member for Sudbury East for bringing this matter to my attention and affording me the opportunity to correct the record.

Mr. MacDonald: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to raise a question which affects the privileges of all members of the House.

Last Tuesday evening, we witnessed yet another example of the legislative business grinding to a halt because many members found intolerable your handling of the proceedings. It is not simply a case of whether it was correct in accordance with rule 36 of our standing orders but that, having made a decision, you then flip-flopped on it.

There is a growing feeling among individual members that the privileges are being abused by an application of the rules which is uncertain and uneven. The future wellbeing of the Legislature as the central forum of political life in this province is being jeopardized. Some expressions of concern with regard to how the House business is being handled from the chair were expressed in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, including those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith).

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, not out of any sense of personal pleasure but rather of compelling necessity in light of the circumstances, I wish to move a motion, seconded by Mr. Cooke, that this House has lost confidence in the Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate competence and impartiality, thereby resulting in frequent infringements of the privileges of individual members --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I quite understand that. The motion you are moving requires 24 hours' notice, I would suggest with all respect.

Mr. MacDonald: Speaking to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, our rules do not require -- when a person has the floor he can move a motion. I would remind you that while there is nothing --

Mr. Rotenberg: That is not a point of privilege. It is a motion.

Mr. MacDonald: But it is part of a point of privilege. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I acknowledge there is no precedent in this House for this and I recognize the gravity of what I am doing. The last time it was used in Canada was in the House of Commons in 1956 when Mr. George Drew, at the end of the pipeline debate, moved a motion which read as follows, "The House resolves that it no longer has confidence in the presiding officer." That was debated for some three days and then voted upon. I suggest it is in order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would suggest that, as I understand the standing orders -- and I am well aware of the motion which was moved in 1956 -- the House of Commons in Ottawa requires 48 hours' notice of such a motion, while we here require 24 hours' notice of motion.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. MacDonald: What rule? Direct me to the rule, Mr. Speaker -- to the standing order.

Mr. Speaker: There is no standing order, but it has been established by custom, precedent and tradition. I stand to be corrected. It comes under the ruling of a substantive motion, apparently.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if that is the rule, I hereby give notice and I will move it at the appropriate time. We are not achieving anything by this delay.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see anything wrong with putting the motion forward. But my advice is that such a motion requires written 24 hours' notice.

Mr. MacDonald: I will complete putting the motion then. The motion reads as follows: "That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate competence and impartiality, thereby --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: There is a proper time for presenting motions before the orders of the day, and I think the member well knows that.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, you gave me permission to complete it. Now may I complete or are you going --

Mr. Speaker: You rose on a point of privilege and I did indeed ask you go ahead and complete the motion. However, this does not preclude, as I understand it, the need for 24 hours' notice. Is that right?

Mr. Rotenberg: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if it is proper to bring a motion under a question of privilege? The member rose on question of privilege and I submit he does not have the right to put forward a motion under --

Mr. Speaker: He rose on a question of privilege to draw attention to the matters he felt are of the utmost importance to himself and this House. I understand what you are saying -- that as a motion it should come under motions. On the other hand I think it only fair, after having advised the member that 24 hours' notice of motion has to be given, in order to make me and all the other members of the House aware of what his concerns are, I would like to hear the motion.

Mr. MacDonald: The record will indicate you gave me that permission before the intervention of the government whip. I shall read the motion:

"That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate competence and impartiality, thereby resulting in frequent infringements of the privileges of individual members and jeopardizing the orderly conduct of the legislative business.

"Therefore, this House: (1) urges the Speaker to resign; and (2) establishes a committee made up of the House leaders of each party which would report back an acceptable list of nominees for election by members of the Legislature of a new presiding officer."

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Point of order, the member for Mississauga East.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I find this shocking that the member, on the basis of what happened on Tuesday night, chooses to say the Speaker was flip-flopping. The members well know that during the 10-minute recess you called you had been very firm on your position. During that 10-minute recess the House leader of the New Democratic Party and the House leader of the Liberal Party and myself as deputy House leader met in your chambers and discussed this. The decision that came out of that was by unanimous agreement of the House leaders and yourself, taking the advice of those House leaders. If that is a flip-flop, I think it is on the part of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification: I did not base my statement or my resolution on Tuesday night alone. It was only the latest of the persistent recurrences of this kind of thing. It was on that basis the motion was put.

Mr. Eaton: If you people would act like gentlemen there would be no problem in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

You have drawn my attention to the

article that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. While I understand fully what they have said and what you have said, I think perhaps there is some lack of understanding of the standing orders and the application I have made of them.

It was quite obvious during the debate the matter under discussion was becoming very emotional. In fact things were being said that had nothing to do with the motion before the House. As Speaker I used my discretion to call a recess in order to consult with my advisers and with the House leaders to seek direction and advice. It was my view that as Speaker I have a responsibility to the House to make sure not only that decorum is preserved but also that the business of the House is addressed in a respectful and dignified manner.

So after consultation with my advisers I was assured that a precedent for what I ultimately did had been established, and with the concurrence of the three House leaders -- who, I assume, represent the wishes of the three political parties -- we proceeded. I just give you that as background material.

I also point out to all honourable members the decision to call the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) out of order is very clear, in my view, in our standing orders. I was further assured after the consultation I had with my advisers during the recess that the procedure I was using was indeed correct. I have once again gone over the background material I used to make that decision, and I feel, perhaps more firmly now than I did then, I was on solid ground and that I applied the rule correctly.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rotenberg: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Further to your rulings, I want to understand, because a precedent might be set on your ruling on what the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) brought forward a few moments ago. Did you rule he was allowed to give notice of motion today, or did you rule that as part of his point of privilege he could read a motion which would be brought up in the future?

Mr. Speaker: I thought I made it very clear that this would not preclude the notice of motion 24 hours prior -- in written form, I think I said.

Mr. Nixon: It has to be in written form.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would really like some clarification, because I am not sure whether you intend to follow precedent A, precedent B or some other precedent if we were to get into the same kind of situation again and if you were in the chair.

Last Tuesday night I was named and I was sent out of this place. Having been kicked out I was then kicked back in, and frankly --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That was the only mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I believe we jointly established a parliamentary precedent never before heard of in a thousand years of parliaments in Britain and in the Commonwealth.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, is it your ruling there are certain situations when you are not going to hear points of order under any circumstances? If so, would you be kind enough to tell the House when you intend to act in that fashion because I think members should know.

I do not intend, and I did not intend on Tuesday night, to have myself ejected from the House. I still believe I was in order and I thought when I was brought back in my point of view was vindicated. Now you are telling me I was not vindicated at all. Which position is it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Clearly, the member for Ottawa Centre has not taken the time to read and fully understand standing order 36. I asked you to leave the House because you refused -- and you said you refused -- to do as I requested. In order to preserve decorum in the House I asked you to leave, which you did.

Mr. Sargent: Join the club.

Mr. Speaker: There is ample precedent for what was done. I do not have the written copy in front of me but I can assure you it has happened before. With all respect, your statement again indicates to me you did not understand standing order 36.

It is not a question of applying a precedent on a selective basis. It is a matter of applying or looking for a precedent that has been firmly established. I did that and I think I have done that since being appointed Speaker of this House.

In answer to the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), I will take this whole question under consideration and reply more fully some day next week when I have the opportunity to document all the precedents and former rulings I relied on. However -- and this is dangerous -- well, I won't say it because I do not have the paper here, but it is well established.

Mr. Cassidy: On Tuesday evening, as the leader of the third party in this Legislature, I was seeking to raise a point of order. I was not permitted to raise that point of order. In fact, in attempting to do so, I was ejected from the House. That is why I complained that an opposition member and leader of this party was being muzzled by the chair. Is it your view. Mr. Speaker, there are circumstances when this party does not have the right to raise points of order? If that is the case, I would contend that is a biased way of administering the chair.

Mr. Speaker: Your understanding is just not in keeping with the facts nor with standing order 36. I would direct the member's attention to

section 36 which states quite clearly:

"The previous question, which may be moved without notice or a seconder until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question and shall be put in the following words: 'That this question be now put.' Unless it appears to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement on the rights of a minority, the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. If the previous question is resolved in the affirmative, the original question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."

I would respectfully suggest the question before the House was, "That this question be now put."

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, could you then clarify for us? I think I raised this the other evening and my friend will recall what bothered me. The order says the issue would be decided without amendment or debate and I am prepared to accept that. However, the question I posed then and which I pose now is, does that prevent anyone from raising a point of order? In other words, is a point of order a debate? Is it an amendment? Or is it allowed? I think that has to be clarified in the ruling because we do not know whether we are in a position at least to make a point of order before the question is put. I think that question has to be clarified.

Mr. Speaker: Again I say it is very clear in my mind what the procedure is. The question that was before the House was that the question be now put; it was not the main question, with all respect. The standing order clearly says that must be decided first -- to gain the permission of the House that the question be put. Then we can address the main question.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could try again. I am not disputing --

Some hon. members: Throw him out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: May I just give you further clarification? I have just been riffling through my papers and I have come up with something I think is interesting and germane to the decision. I quote directly from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, 1958, "Standing Orders and Rules of the House of Commons of Canada," part one, "Public business." In the preface to those, it says, and I quote directly: "The previous question, an old proceeding originally introduced in 1607 for the purpose of sidetracking amendments ... " That is the main precedent.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite this matter and to get back to the regular business of the House. may I make a suggestion. There seems to be some difficulty in understanding the rules, or everybody is not reading them the same way. Is this a matter that could be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs for clarification, or at least a rewriting, so that everybody will be able to understand what they read?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it may very well be, if it is the wish of the House to do that. I will certainly take that matter under consideration.

Mr. Martel: Can I now place my question?

Mr. Speaker: Your final one.

Mr. Martel: I am not disputing what you said, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I agree with you on the

interpretation of the rule. What I am asking is whether a member is precluded from raising a point of order. The rule speaks of an amendment or a debate. I am not suggesting either one. All I am asking is whether it is in order, before the original question is put, for a member to raise a point of order. That is all I am asking. That is what I am trying to get clarification on.

Mr. Speaker: In order not to detain the business of the House I will take these matters under consideration, as I said earlier. I will report back to the House more fully when I have had an opportunity to consult with the books and the people I had consulted before.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government has always recognized the important role the automotive industry plays in the economy of this province. I do not have to remind my fellow members that about one out of every six jobs in Ontario is dependent upon this sector. Therefore, it is clearly this government's duty to ensure as strong a performance as possible in this industry. This brings me to the situation we face today.

In spite of significant sales incentive programs introduced by the major domestic producers, sales of North American-built cars are slumping badly. As a result, dealers have a considerable inventory on hand. With the current high level of interest rates pushing up carrying costs dramatically for the industry I am afraid we are fast approaching a dangerous situation. Too high inventory prevents full production runs of the new 1982 model year, resulting in layoffs and job losses. At the same time, dealers are crushed under the associated high carrying costs, damaging the extensive and sound distribution network so crucial to the auto industry's success.

Members will remember that in early 1980 I reacted to the emergence of a similar situation. As I said at that time, it is not sufficient for Ontario to turn its attention southward and hope for a strong upsurge in buying south of the border. Our action at that time was successful and strongly endorsed by representatives of the auto industry.

2:30 p.m.

In the last month, I have met with representatives of both the manufacturers and the labour movement on this current situation. They have indicated to me the problem is more severe than that which existed with respect to the 1979 model year. Consequently I am announcing the government of Ontario will once again be stimulating consumer demand via sales tax relief.

Under this temporary assistance program, there will be a full rebate of retail sales tax paid, up to a maximum of $700, on purchases of new 1981 model year passenger cars and light trucks. The rebate will be in effect for vehicles delivered between November 6, 1981, and December 5, 1981, inclusive, provided the vehicle is purchased prior to November 29, 1981. Full details of this program will be made available by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

I fully expect this measure will result in brisk sales of 1981 inventory. By doing so, I anticipate this measure will provide a critical push for the manufacturers into a more solid 1982 model year, while maintaining intact the extensive distribution system so important to industry performance.

Experience with the similar measure implemented during February 1980 and with the rebate program implemented in November 1980, and the fact our action will be reinforcing significant dealer efforts to move products, support this expectation. Furthermore, I feel a strong potential for sales exists as there has never been as many older cars out there as there are at this time. In this light, I have estimated a potential cost to the province of $20 million in revenue foregone.

Every member of this House knows the automotive industry has in the past decade faced major structural problems compounded by vigorous foreign competition. It will be difficult to resolve these problems, but resolve them we must. I reiterate this government is committed to working with the industry and the unions that represent it to build a strong and vigorous automobile industry, one that will continue to grow and provide needed jobs for the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You will have your opportunity during question period.

BILD INITIATIVES FOR AGRICULTURE

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure as chairman of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development to announce to this House that since its inception the board has been vigorously pursuing its goal to create and implement Ontario's economic development strategy through a large array of initiatives.

I am especially pleased to announce further initiatives today. Two are on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), who is in London, Ontario, today. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) will announce two others. In partnership with these ministries, BILD will contribute upwards of $5.5 million on a variety of resource development programs over the next five years. Additional funding will also be provided by each of these ministries.

Recognizing the increasing need for advanced education in agriculture, including computerized farm management and high-precision laboratory procedures, a four-year program is to be instituted at the agricultural colleges throughout the province. This program will strengthen the high-technology component of agricultural education in various ways. Microcomputers are to be purchased so students can learn how to use the computer on the farm for accounting and recording systems, and for budgeting and marketing. High-precision instruments are to be provided for laboratory technology courses that include instruction in food management, animal health and agricultural laboratory technology.

Complex farm machines are becoming normal equipment for many farms, and funds will be used to lease or purchase such machines for college instruction. This Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, as my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food would tell members, helps his ministry maintain the high standards they have set for agricultural education.

The second new BILD initiative under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the extensive upgrading of facilities at the farmers' market at the Ontario Food Terminal in Toronto, including greatly increasing the number of stalls and installing a roof, at a total cost of $3 million, of which BILD will pay two thirds, the remainder coming from the food terminal board.

The BILD program for the Ministry of Natural Resources being announced today by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources is a major forestry undertaking in eastern Ontario, to which BILD is contributing $2.2 million.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You may recall that on Tuesday last I rose in my place and asked the Treasurer whether he was going to provide assistance for home owners if no such assistance was to be provided in the federal budget. You may recall that the Treasurer said he was not going to introduce any kind of economic stimulus until the federal Minister of Finance tabled his budget.

Do you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasurer of Ontario was not being completely honest? We want to know why he is prepared to help the car dealerships and not the home owners of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I have no idea, but he has obviously changed his mind -- and, I would think, in response to the needs of the people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILD-FUNDED FORESTRY PROJECTS

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, my statement this afternoon has to do with further details of BILD funding as it concerns two major forestry projects in eastern Ontario. A total of $1,429,000 in funding has already been approved by BILD for one of the projects. Another funding arrangement, between Domtar and my ministry in the Cornwall area, has been approved in principle. However, the amount of funding and some other details still have to be resolved. These projects deal with the production of hybrid trees, mainly poplar, in which my ministry has the lead role.

At this time I believe it is appropriate to direct the members' attention once again to our new Ontario Tree Improvement and Forest Biomass Institute. A great deal of its work is concerned with the development of fast-growing trees, with special emphasis on what has been referred to lately as Ontario's supertree, the hybrid poplar. Essentially, that is what the two forestry projects are all about. The biomass institute was established as part of the BILD program to accelerate Ontario's development of fast-growing trees. The two current projects are helping us to carry out that mandate.

The funded project is at Carlsbad Springs, east of Ottawa, where my ministry will grow hybrid poplars on 1,250 acres of crown land. They will be planted on a five-year rotation basis. This project is energy-related, because at harvest the biomass will be suitable for providing a high-grade fuel supplement to the waste material which is to be burned in the Ottawa-Carleton district heating plant. In anticipation of a go-ahead for this project, we would like to begin work in 1982-83 on planting 250 acres per year of hybrid poplars with high calorific values.

In August, my ministry held a scientific review of our most dramatic forest technology development, the hybrid poplar program. It began in 1969, but has gained momentum particularly in the past five years in terms of both size and scientific content. Our program has been watched with great interest in many other countries, and we invited experts from around the world to come and give us their reactions to our work so that we could have the benefit of their comments and ideas in planning our future work program.

The scientific review represented a new departure, and, of course, the poplar program is unique in Canada; so it was a very worthwhile experience. We are going to publish the papers that were presented then.

2:40 p.m.

Benefits stemming from this program are many. A project between Domtar Incorporated and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has been approved in principle. Under this project, Domtar will lease lands from private land owners in the Cornwall area. On lands not suitable for agriculture, plantations of fast-growing hardwoods will be established.

Through this program, land owners with idle land currently producing no worthwhile crop will be able to derive an annual income through a leasing agreement during the early years and stumpage at the time of harvest. Private land owners will receive this payment from the company. The Ontario government will reimburse the company for a portion of these costs.

At the same time, Domtar will be able to ensure the long-term tenure of its Cornwall mill by securing a significant part of supply. The present patterns of land ownership will be maintained since the land will be leased and not owned by the company. By producing wood fibre in intensively managed and highly productive plantations, the wood can be grown on a smaller land base, closer to the mill, resulting in substantial savings in transportation and energy costs.

The establishment of production forests in the local area will stimulate the local rural economy in the way of jobs and supply and service contracts. The cost effectiveness of production will be enhanced since all the forest management activities will be carried out by the private sector rather than through a government agency. In addition, idle land in the Carlsbad Springs land assembly will be brought into production, and a major biomass-for-energy demonstration project will be established.

Positive results will bring an expanded knowledge of poplar-growing technology, an enhanced pulpwood supply close to mills and a significant step towards full technology in the MNR hybrid poplar program. I look forward to keeping members up to date on these exciting forestry programs. I believe wholeheartedly that this is a real breakthrough in supplying a major part of Ontario's energy needs for the future.

MICROELECTRONICS TASK FORCE REPORT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the report of the Ontario Task Force on Microelectronics. Along with the task force report itself, I am also tabling extensive background documents that were prepared by my ministry staff to assist in the deliberations. The other background papers prepared by participating ministries are listed in the task force report and are available from those ministries upon request.

In the speech from the throne of March 1980, the government of Ontario announced its intention to "establish a working group of private and public sector experts dealing with microelectronic technology to ensure optimal benefits for industry and the people of Ontario."

The throne speech expressed the government's recognition that there is a need for the development of suitable policies to capitalize on the industrial benefits that could accrue from this new microelectronic technology.

We also acknowledged that the introduction of major technological changes would bring with it significant adjustments for labour, industry and society and that policies would have to be designed to maximize the benefits of microelectronic technology while simultaneously minimizing the cost to society.

Accordingly, my ministry established a task force composed of seven members under the able chairmanship of Dr. Donald Chisholm, president of innovation and development of Northern Telecom. In addition to Dr. Chisholm, who is with us today in the Speaker's gallery, were the following members: Mr. Des Cunningham, chairman of the Gandalf Group; Mr. Mike C. J. Cowpland, president of Mitel Corporation; Mr. Tom H. Savage, president of ITT Canada Limited; Mr. Ian P. Sharp, president of I. P. Sharp Associates; Mr. Robert Butler, secretary of the Management Board of Cabinet; Dr. Ken C.

Smith, chairman of the department of electrical engineering at the University of Toronto; and Mr. Glen Pattinson, president of the Canadian district of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers.

Over the past year, the task force was assisted in its deliberations by staff from the Ministries of Industry and Tourism, Transportation and Communications, Labour, Education and Colleges and Universities.

The task force report stresses that labour, government, industry and our educational institutions must work together to maximize the use of microelectronic technology and to see that adequate training and retraining programs are provided to our young people and to those already in the labour force.

The task force has advised us that adjustments to the microelectronic era have to be planned for and made as quickly as possible. This is particularly true for Ontario, which relies so heavily on its ability to manufacture efficiently and to remain competitive in world markets.

In addition, there are a great many Canadian companies, particularly small firms outside the electronics industry itself, that could benefit from the opportunity this new technology offers to improve their competitive position. They will, however, find it difficult and expensive to acquire and utilize.

The task force is cautiously optimistic about our ability to realize the opportunities associated with the development and diffusion of microelectronic technology while minimizing any costs associated with required adjustment. However, they see careful planning as essential in this process.

With respect to the role of government, the task force sees our role as that of a catalyst in the process of change. From their point of view, change must come from co-operation between industry, labour and all levels of government.

I am pleased to note the task force's support for many of our government's recent initiatives, including establishing a microelectronic technology centre; establishing centres based on computer-assisted design, manufacturing and robotics technology; establishing a microelectronics installation fund for the introduction of new process technology; providing $5 million to support a Telidon-based tourist information system; and our government's assistance in the development of a Canadian-produced educational microcomputer with associated software and courseware.

The task force has recommended the early establishment of a microelectronic technology centre, and I am pleased to report that I will be able to make a statement about that centre in the near future.

In addition to the establishment of this centre, the report makes a number of recommendations in the field of industrial development. It recommends that government develop policies to improve the climate for research and development, monitor the ability of industry to secure adequate supplies of integrated circuits, stimulate investment in high-technology ventures through tax incentives and other measures, provide support for purchasing foreign technology through licensing procedures and treat software as an industry in its own right.

In the important area of labour adjustment and manpower availability, the report recommends co-operative government, labour and industry retraining programs for labour affected by microelectronic technology, a co-operative program to monitor the impact of microelectronic technology on the health and safety of workers and develop health and safety standards where necessary, provision of income support programs to assist workers displaced by this new technology and provision of government support to increase the supply of highly skilled personnel in this vital and growing industry.

It was particularly encouraging to note the task force's view that microelectionic-based products have a tremendous potential to assist the handicapped. The task force urges government support to develop such products to help the disabled overcome their handicaps.

With respect to education and awareness, the report points to the need for programs to increase public awareness of the potential of microelectronics and to ensure that all students learn about computers.

The findings of the task force underline the sense of urgency our government attaches to the development of policies and programs for the microelectronics industry.

The task force has presented us with a substantive examination of the opportunities and challenges surrounding our emerging microelectronics industry, and indeed the report contains many sound recommendations.

As the ramifications of this report are complex, far-reaching and vital to the future of this province, we will review the implications of the recommendations contained in the task force report carefully. It is imperative that government and industry now respond in a manner that will maximize the potential benefits of this burgeoning industry for the citizens of our province.

Today, with the release of the report of the task force on microelectronics, Ontario has taken another important step forward to meet the challenge of the dawning microelectronic era. In effect, we are telling the world that we are a mature industrial nation, that we have developed a world-class capability in high-technology products and that we intend to compete successfully in international markets.

As the task force has stated, "some degree of sovereignty in microelectronic technology is regarded as essential for long-term economic growth." The fact is that we cannot stand by while other countries use the technology to automate their industries and thus erode our ability to compete in world markets. We must use this technology to enhance our international competitiveness, protect and create jobs, improve the quality of our work and home environments and raise our standard of living.

With planning and investment, microelectronics can create jobs in the long term. However, as the task force report has acknowledged: "There is no doubt that technological change can lead to job displacement and the obsolescence of hard-won skills. The challenge is to ensure that the technology does not simply eliminate jobs in Canada and create new jobs elsewhere."

2:50 p.m.

My ministry, along with participating ministries, will examine these recommendations thoroughly and report back to the House concerning the implementation of our specific programs and policies. Because of the importance of this subject, we will give this report top priority.

Finally, I know the members of the House will join me in thanking the task force and Dr. Chisholm for their report and recommendations and for making available their time and efforts and talents over the past year. I ask the House to join me in recognizing Dr. Chisholm.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, a very happy event happened in Toronto last Monday night. A beautiful young lady from London, Ontario, Miss London, was chosen Miss Canada 1982. I would like now formally to introduce to members Miss Karen Baldwin from London, Ontario, a student at London Central Collegiate, who has been very active in the United Way and really does her

part in the city. We all welcome her in her continuing role and wish her well as she continues on in her role as Miss Canada, representing Canada in the Miss Universe Pageant for 1982.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on the same point: May I just say how proud all of us in Hamilton were that the runner-up, and a very worthy runner-up indeed, was Miss Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, although Miss Toronto was third runner-up, I do not rise on that point of order. I just want to express my regret that, although we wish her well, Miss Canada got more applause from this assembly than Dr. Chisholm did. I would hope that the members might try to even that off for both of them.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, for the past three days Ontario has had a very important visitor, Dr. Carl Gustav Andrén, who is --

Mr. Smith: Miss Congeniality.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Hamilton West could take lessons from me.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members that the clock is running.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, for the past three days Ontario has had a very important visitor in the person of Dr. Carl Gustaf Andrén, the Swedish Chancellor for Higher Education, who is with the National Board of Universities and Colleges of Sweden.

Dr. Andrén and his wife have been visiting the Council of Ontario Universities, and we have had the opportunity of hosting him and sharing concerns and problems with this gentleman, who represents the entire post-secondary area in Sweden.

I ask my colleagues in the Legislature to welcome Dr. Andrén and his wife, who are sitting in the gallery under the Speaker's gallery.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, while everyone is in a congratulatory mood, I want to draw to the attention of the House that Alex Baumann, a youngster from the city of Sudbury, has just been chosen the world's swimming champion of the year.

Mr. Speaker: While we are in such an expansive mood, maybe we could extend congratulations to all those people who have been mentioned this afternoon on behalf of the Legislature of Ontario.

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Statements appear to have come and gone, and we have not heard from the government about the very historic agreement reached with regard to the constitution of this country.

First of all, I want to express my own great happiness and that of my colleagues that the impasse has been broken and that the constitutional agreement between the federal government and at least nine of the Premiers has been reached in such a way as to indicate at first glance that the agreement will have a much better chance of going through the United Kingdom House of Commons.

We feel that the first ministers bargained in good faith. We are very pleased that the first minister of this province went in the spirit of attempting to reach an agreement and that he did what he could to help that agreement.

I hope that before we finish the question period today it will be possible for the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) to report to this House on what he understands to be the details of the agreement -- perhaps not the entire agreement, but some of the salient features as they might pertain particularly to the people of Ontario -- so that we in this House might receive the government's official view of the agreement and not just be dependent on what we may have heard from some reporters on the radio and television so far.

This seems to be a happy day for the country. I want to pay tribute to those who took

part in the negotiations, and we look forward to a complete report on the details from this government -- I hope before question period is over.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have had only the sketchiest information about the agreement, which has been initialled by nine Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. Obviously my party and I are both happy that there has been a resolution, but at this stage we cannot comment on all the particulars, because I suspect that not even the government has a particularly clear picture.

It is a pity that we should have 54 years of confrontation over the constitution and then, in a matter of a few hours, an agreement is finally struck. That is not the best way to make an agreement, but one none the less hopes that the Premiers have devised and designed well.

It is a historic event when the provinces and the federal government can reach an agreement on this matter, which, although it is not at the tip of everyone's tongue or on everybody's mind here in Ontario, certainly is of ultimate long-term importance to us all.

I hope that, this stage being over, it will be possible to begin considering means by which there can be closer institutional co-operation between the provinces and the federal government in view of the very serious economic problems which now face our province and our country and which have had a tendency to be put on the back burner while the constitution is being considered.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the comments that have been made, and I am sure we realize as we follow the events of this particular day, that November 5, 1981, will go down in the history books of this country as a very significant day in the evolution of our federation.

I appreciate and am very grateful for the positive comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party in this regard, emphasizing as they have the importance of the events of the last few days as they show the results of negotiation between the various jurisdictions in this country.

I think it was obviously reasonable to expect that at the first opportunity -- our own first minister, the Premier (Mr. Davis), played a very key role in this; I am sure that we in this House and, indeed, all the people of Ontario are very proud of the role the Premier has played in these negotiations and, as the Leader of the Opposition has reminded us, of the spirit of cooperation expressed by all the first ministers.

In checking some of the details in preparation for the opening of the House, I was advised that the Premier himself wanted the opportunity to share the results of today's discussions and of the agreements that have been reached, and that he will use the first opportunity for that tomorrow morning.

3 p.m.

ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE BRUTALITY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before we move on to the next order of business, I rise on a point of order with respect to another matter, unfortunately not quite as pleasant as the one that has just been raised.

I refer to the concerns expressed in the media in regard to certain tactics and operations that were claimed, before the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, to have occurred and included allegations of brutality with respect to a variety of individuals within Metropolitan Toronto.

Can the Deputy Premier advise us whether there is to be a statement on this particular matter that he knows of, or will the matter have to stand over until the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) is back in the House, perhaps at the beginning of the week?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any statement and, in the absence of the Solicitor General, there is not likely to be one today. At the first opportunity, I will have a word with the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) and report back if there is any change in that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I will leave aside the rather bitter irony involved in his ministry's recent publication, Ontario Business News, which says, "For Canadian Admiral Corporation of Mississauga, attendance at a Ministry of Industry and Tourism manufacturing opportunity show 18 months ago is now paying off."

Now that we know these plants have closed and the company has gone into receivership, can the minister tell us, in this very sombre situation, what the status is, as he understands it. with regard to the severance pay for the 1,000 to 1,600 workers in Ontario, I am told, whose jobs have apparently been terminated?

What are the possibilities, as he understands them, for these workers to find other jobs in Ontario manufacturing, and what plans he has to assist them in this sort of relocation? Will he be involved in helping to find a buyer for the plant and for the company, or in helping the workers, should they so desire, to purchase the company themselves?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I followed the list of questions, answers to the last two questions are yes, we will be working with the employees and indeed any other group that might be interested in looking at the possibility of salvaging that company. It is an important company to us, and we will do everything reasonable in the circumstances to reconstruct that situation.

I might say I am gratified to note that this ministry not only was involved with Canadian Admiral when it ran upon difficult times in the last little while but also was working with that company as long ago as a year and a half or two years to see that we could do what we could to make sure they got an increasing share of what was obviously a difficult market for consumer durables.

Mr. Smith: Does the minister not recognize that for these 1,000 or 1,600 workers and their families, whose lives are now caught up in Ontario's manufacturing decline, our first priority in this Legislature must be the revitalization of our manufacturing base, which has eroded so badly over the years?

That being the case, how can he justify the Suncor expenditure to those workers? Can he imagine how those workers feel when they see that $650 million in scarce, borrowed dollars has been put into a passive investment with no job creation benefits for Ontario, rather than being utilized to revitalize the manufacturing sector which has declined so badly?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This government is terribly concerned about the situation with those workers. I had a call early this morning from the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). who is just recovering from a bit of an operation, expressing his concern during a long conversation on that. The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) has been in touch with me throughout the morning to express his concern and see what could be done.

Mr. Mancini: A lot of concern but no action.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should just listen for a second. Those who have studied the industry will know that Canadian Admiral's problems have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether this government spends money on Suncor or anything else. Canadian Admiral's problems are related to the very difficult situation for consumer durables in a period of high interest rates.

Canadian Admiral has been assisted by this government before. I believe if the honourable member checked with Canadian Admiral, the company would have nothing but compliments for the efforts made by this ministry and this government in trying to make sure it had every chance to survive in this economic climate. I am proud of the fact we were not there just at the end of the cycle, but were there at an early stage with some front-end assistance to Canadian Admiral to give it every chance to survive.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: The previous time the government helped Canadian Admiral it closed a plant in my riding and 220 jobs went down the drain. Now it has done the whole thing and the company has shut down completely.

Is the minister aware of the statement by Coopers and Lybrand distributed to the employees yesterday that says among other things, "The agent's primary responsibility is to protect the interests of the company's bankers," and then asks the co-operation of the workers with the company and the agent in these difficult times.

What situation have we come to in this province when a company is taken over by bankers and the bankers force more than 2,000 workers out of their jobs? What is the government going to do to ensure that workers in this province can have jobs and not be thrown out on the street as a result of bankers intervening because of their high interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the member is suggesting that a well-established and reputable firm should not look after the rights of its client, that is something he might want to take up with Coopers and Lybrand, the accounting profession or whatever. That is a totally unrelated matter.

Now that the leader of the third party has finished his grandiose speech, the question is a very simple one: What can be done in the face of a company --

Mr. Martel: The minister would know about that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should never mind his crocodile tears and those of his leader for the workers. We are working hard on this side, including looking at every single alternative to save those jobs in Mississauga and Cambridge. We have spent a great deal of time on it. We have been doing nothing else in my ministry except working on this all day today and we are dedicating every effort of this government to do what we can to save those jobs.

Political speeches such as the one made by the leader of the third party, which would purport to indicate to the workers they are being mistreated or somehow losing jobs because of the inaction of this government, do not do him or the workers any service. It creates more uncertainty and tension in the minds of people who are seeing their entire lives threatened.

I suggest to him he reconsider how important his own political imperatives are in light of the situation being faced by those workers. The member should show some responsibility. We are working hard over here to save those jobs and we are going to do that and ignore his partisan remarks.

Mr. Barlow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I would like to assure the minister I will certainly continue to work with him on behalf of the employees in Cambridge. However, I want to be assured by the minister that he will continue working with the receiver, Coopers and Lybrand, to make sure a buyer can be sought out and obtained for this important industry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. In fact, pursuant to several calls placed by the member for Cambridge and the member for Mississauga South, we have put our senior ministry staff people on the matter and they have been meeting with several people involved with the company, including canvassing some other private sector opportunities for that company. We will continue to pay a lot of attention to it.

Mr. Smith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister agree the issue is not so much whether the government has done what it could for one company? In the free enterprise system certain companies will get into difficulties for market reasons, managerial reasons or whatever. Would he agree rather that the problem is that in the entire manufacturing sector things are in decline and therefore alternative jobs are much less likely to be available for these people?

That being the case, would the minister admit Ontario's great tradition as the manufacturing centre of this country requires we do what we can to stimulate that area, rather than make an investment of $650 million in a tar sands company where the investment does not even circulate through Ontario? Would he not recognize it is manufacturing that requires an investment of $650 million and not a passive investment in the tar sands of Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to look at the dedication of funds made by this government to the industrial sector last January through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: All it was was a bunch of propaganda.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then the member for Rainy River should stop begging for part of the BILD funds for his riding.

The fact is that there has been a massive dedication of funds. I have found my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), to be most responsive to any requests I have made in terms of the real and legitimate needs of the industrial and manufacturing sectors.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition who suggests there are no alternatives for these workers that I hope he is wrong in saying that. I know he hopes he is wrong in saying that. We will exercise every effort we can to restructure this company.

I would point out two other things. One, manufacturing employment is up in this province some 42,000 to date. That indicates this year to date we are increasing --

Mr. Smith: As a percentage of jobs in Ontario it is down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know how the member can say the manufacturing sector is in decline when we have 42,000 more people employed in manufacturing now than there were in January of this year. That is not a sector in decline.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite right when he suggests there are going to be further adjustments in the manufacturing sector. That, I think, is obvious. We are working hard to deal with that problem. I refer the member to -- and I know he will be interested in it -- the report of the microelectronics task force which acknowledges that. It makes recommendations for the very kind of retraining of the existing labour force that may be required in this kind of circumstance. As I indicated it my statement, we will dedicate every amount of effort to ensuring that retraining.

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Now that he has announced a program to increase our deficit by another $20 million in order to help a few automobile dealers, will he admit that his program can do absolutely nothing to help the automobile industry but can help only a few automobile dealers? First of all, his rebate will apply as well to imports, which are more or less one third of the Ontario market at this time. In addition to that it is not possible to add a single production job because of this, since the cars to be sold are 1981 cars that have already been produced.

If he says this is going to help the 1982 market does he not admit that when the former Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) did this back in 1975 the increase in the number of cars sold was at least 50 per cent borrowed from the sales of the next year, which proportionately went down, and the timing of sales was changed? If anything, the 1982 sales are likely to be lower. Will he admit, therefore, that all this gimmick is going to do, apart from giving him some good publicity, is allow the auto dealers to sell off their 1981 inventory without having to put it at sale prices, because the government of Ontario is now prepared to subsidize them to the tune of $20 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we had a lot of discussions the last time I did this in February 1980. The honourable gentleman went through a lot of newspaper ads, I recall at that time, and came to some erroneous conclusions. I believe he even made a retraction of some of the things he said that badly hurt a couple of specific dealers. He may recall doing that.

Mr. Smith: That is not so. There was no retraction.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He did not retract -- fine. He showed then, and he has shown now, an abysmal lack of understanding of the market. I have to tell him I do understand that market pretty well. I can also tell him right now, for example --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer is responding to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Will he please proceed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Approximately one ninth of the cars that are carryover models in stock in Ontario are imports. Eight ninths are North American, if the statistics we have are correct. It is not just a few dealers I am trying to save. I am trying to save the jobs of a lot of people working for those dealers. I am trying to unplug a very costly inventory flow that is absolutely stopping orders for 1982s from the factory, and I am trying to move things.

One more thing: In 1980, when I did it --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A lot of soothsayers in February 1980 said all I was doing was helping the dealer who had excess stock. The truth was that while we moved perhaps 75 per cent of the 1980s in stock that month in 28 days, we also had -- and we kept very careful records of it -- unprecedented increases in the sales of the current model, because showroom traffic was generated. That will happen again, and I am convinced members will see, along with the direct payments being made by two manufacturers plus the low-interest program being used by another manufacturer, a tremendous psychological and real reason for a number of people to decide to purchase an automobile.

Mr. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Even the 40,000 or so cars he expects to be able to sell this month account for less than half of one per cent of North American production. He surely cannot believe that even if all the cars being sold are North American, which they will not be, that is going to have an effect on the production line.

Would the minister not admit that if a seven per cent reduction in the cost of a car is going to do all these wonderful things -- bring people into the showroom, move the inventory -- then all the companies have to do is announce a seven per cent reduction or have their parent companies announce a rebate to car buyers? All he is doing is taking the money of the people of Ontario and subsidizing these dealers so they do not have to put on their own sales.

If he is willing to do it for car dealers why will he not do something to help all the small businesses of Ontario, all the farmers of Ontario who are suffering from high interest rates, who are going bankrupt in record numbers this winter? And he knows that is going to happen.

Why does he not help them with their interest rate problems and their inventory problems? Why does he pick on car dealers like himself and his son? Why does he not deal with people who know something about the difficulties of high interest and who have been begging him for help these many months?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House prevent swearing, or I would swear at the member.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right -- because he deserves it.

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: There is no implication, and I wish to remove any implication --

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Just let me finish. There is no implication that I am suggesting there is any effort at self-interest or interest of family. I want to remove that.

I want to say, however, that because of family involvement in that business the Treasurer is very familiar with that business and seems to me annually to be more interested in that business than in others with which he has less experience. And I think the record will show he helps the dealers every year and does not help the small businesses of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we are lucky that he is retiring.

For the record, since he has impugned my family and me, I think I have the right to make certain comments.

Mr. Smith: No one is being impugned.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You did it and you emphasized it.

Mr. Smith: He knows the business -- that is all I am saying. There are lots of other businesses in just as much trouble as that business.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first. I did not have a son in the business the last time I did it. Number two, I do have a son in the business now. I have been in the business myself: I do understand it, but that is not why I specifically chose it Whether the honourable member likes it or not it happens to be the single largest manufacturing type of business in this province, and it happens to be a tax that it is within my jurisdiction to do something about.

And I am doing it. I am even pleading with the federal government to do something in the same direction. I was approached, as I said in my statement, by the Ontario automobile dealers association, which represents all dealers: I was approached quietly by labour people concerned about the state of employment in the industry.

Mr. Smith: Which part of the industry? Come on.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The automobile manufacturing industry.

Mr. Smith: What is there for manufacturing here? These cars are not manufactured here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought I said that for example, Chrysler is giving cash rebates of between $200 and $1,000 on their cars; Ford is giving $500 on their cars and light trucks; AMC is giving between $500 and $1,000 on their cars; and General Motors is giving low-interest-rate financing on its cars. More power to them. They have taken those measures, and I was assured the whole state of the industry depends on this.

For every person on a production line making an automobile there are quite a few people in dealerships and in the service departments of dealerships who depend for a weekly living on things like commission and on things like parts and labour. If those things go up, they create immediate local spinoffs right across this province in every town.

I cannot do anything about farm machinery because there is already no sales tax on it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday I asked the Treasurer if he would bring down a mini-budget to create jobs this winter, and he ducked the question and said he was going to wait until after the federal budget. Now he has changed his mind and come in with a hemi-demi-budget, which is an ad hoc measure. While welcome, it is extremely small in relation to the need to create jobs in the auto industry and in this province.

Can the minister explain why it is, however, that his position has changed so radically since his mini-budget of November 13, 1980, when he said:

"In current circumstances, measures to stimulate demand for passenger automobiles would not provide a significant enough boost to domestic employment to justify the expenditure.

"Many of the passenger cars purchased by Ontarians are produced in the United States. Conversely, our production of passenger vehicles is predominantly exported to the US. As a result, only the recovery of demand in the US will generate substantial production and employment gains for Ontario producers of passenger cars."

What has changed from November last year that the minister is now bringing this measure in to stimulate the sales of passenger cars and what long-term measures has the government got to offer in order to ensure that Ontario workers in the automobile industry will have jobs after December 5 this year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, things have changed since I made that statement a year ago, and they have changed quite dramatically. I think my statement tried to stress the basic problem right now is an inventory problem, and it is an inventory problem which --

Mr. Mackenzie: It was an inventory problem a year ago.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, it was not an inventory problem to the same extent a year ago.

Mr. Foulds: What is different from a year ago?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed with your answer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Opposition members often accuse us of taking steps like this with immediate electoral objectives in mind. I would hope this time the honourable member would accept my statement when I say I really do not give away a dime right now without thinking it is going to pay off for the citizens of this province. That is why, after a great deal of consideration, a great deal of pressure by a lot of people, I have conceded that something was needed to help unplug the pipelines so they could begin to place orders and so that they would survive. I did not want to see a non-North American dealer network left intact while the North American market was destroyed.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer's rebate applies to imports as well as North American cars and last month 37 per cent of the cars sold in Canada were imports. Why did he not use a system where he based the amount of rebate on the improvement in the gas consumption of an automobile and then only allow those improved cars to be tax-free? This was the system they had in the United States which I brought to his attention over a year ago. Why did he not use that system so that we are not paying all this money back to imports?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons, and I think I pointed out the first one to the Leader of the Opposition when he started the question -- that is, that the carryover problem just does not exist to any real degree for the imports.

Mr. Ruston: They flooded the market with Japanese cars.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It only applies to 1981 models. They happened to have moved their stock.

Mr. Ruston: They have been coming in since July.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am talking about the ones they have. I told the members one ninth of the inventory is imported and roughly 30 per cent of the market is imported; therefore eight-ninths of what is out there plugging up the pipelines is North American.

The second reason is that it is my understanding, and I am not an authority on law, that those kinds of measures have been ruled invalid by the courts of Canada and that we are not able to enforce them. If I could, believe me, I would not give away one penny on an imported car.

Ms. Copps: Then don't do it. Don't do the program.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can't.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He can't avoid it.

Mr. Smith: It's a useless gimmick and you know it. It is going to cost us $20 million and does nothing for manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Treasurer. We are facing very serious times in this province right now. On Tuesday, the Treasurer bragged about what he said was a --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I would caution the members of the official opposition. Their leader has had the two questions to which he is entitled. Now let us show some respect for the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday when the Treasurer was bragging about the economy, he overstated the number of jobs that have been added in Ontario in the past year by 17,000 jobs and he ignored the fact there are 323,000 people in this province who are out of work now. That is an increase of 60,000 since a year ago.

Today we have learned about the layoffs at Canadian Admiral and we have learned about the shortfall, the reduction in sales in the automobile industry of 1982 cars. Can the Treasurer say what the government now intends to do to provide jobs for the 60,000 more people who are unemployed today than a year ago?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring to the month of September because I do not think we have seen October's figures yet. When the statistics came out about the 60,000 increase in the unemployed, particularly in the labour market, as I recall there was a 62,000 increase in the total number of people available for work in September, 1981, over September, 1980, with 2,000 more jobs in that month, so there was a net increase in unemployment of 60,000.

It was qualified in the notes I got. It said that of all the months of the year the most difficult to get accurate statistics for is that particular month as the school year begins. Very often retroactive changes are made in all the figures. Now that does not mean that my figure of 129, which I used and you say is wrong; that is the recollection I had. I will go back and check it in case my memory was wrong.

It does not mean that will not be increased or decreased. It does not mean the total number of people available for work will not be increased or decreased. Traditionally, the October figures tend to stabilize that and I am waiting within the next three or four days with some interest to see what they have been.

I would dearly love to think there are more people at work than last year, again in October. I suspect it has been a tough month and I am showing very real concern, as the member is. That is why some of these measures were taken today.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister telling us he expects a retroactive change in the layoff notices to the workers at Canadian Admiral? Is he suggesting there will be a retroactive change for the thousands of workers in the automobile industry in Windsor, Amherstburg, Chatham and right through southwestern Ontario who have been on layoff, in some cases for months?

What specific measures does the minister have in mind? What does he intend to do specifically for the 133,000 young workers, 16,000 more than a year ago, who are currently on the streets of our province without work? Will the government bring in a works program to put young workers back to work this winter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party and I would not disagree on the ends we are both trying to achieve. What differentiates all parties is how to get there.

I think the member would have me decree by fiat there shall be employment. It does not work that way. What we are trying to do first is counter some of the negative things our federal government has done in terms of attitudes towards this country as a place in which to invest. We have a major task there. We do our best in this province to create the most important of all the ingredients, the impression of confidence in a government so that one says, "We can make an investment there and we will be safe." Our federal government has not done too much to reinforce that lately.

Second, through the BILD program and a number of other initiatives, like the grants to Ford a year ago and the grants to Volkswagen, we are doing our best to help compete with foreign locations and we will continue to do our best. We are trying hard, as the member knows, to upgrade --

Mr. Cassidy: You ship the resources out and bring in unemployment.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us about those.

Mr. Martel: You have sold our resources which are the basis for making it better.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is never good enough. We are doing our best to make things better.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the Treasurer has announced his government will undertake this $20-million program, I would like to ask whether this is going to preclude his taking further action after the federal budget has been introduced? Can we still expect at least a mini-budget, or better yet, a comprehensive economic package to try to stimulate the economy of Ontario and to protect home owners, small businessmen and farmers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been asked that question both inside and outside the House. Nothing I have done today would preclude me from having any options open. What I did today was something which would help people about a week or so before the federal event and which was completely in my domain -- sales tax is. No matter what some sceptics may say, the dollars given away by a government on any form of sales tax rebate program are dollars consumers trust. They have had very real effects.

The whole problem with the Canadian economy in terms of the drop in big-ticket demand is largely related to drops in consumer confidence quite properly about their job security, confidence about all kinds of things. If a person read the papers each day or looked at the media, it would be pretty normal for him, if his job depended upon a manufacturing entity, to say, "Is it safe?"

Some things can change that direction, and in the past, believe it or not, sales tax programs have had some influence.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In the mini-budget last year the Treasurer, speaking about the auto industry, stated, "A large-scale review of the industry's prospects and problems is now under way to determine what more Ontario can do to secure the industry's longer-term future." The ministry's review is completed; it gives a devastating prediction; it has now been complicated and made worse by interest rates.

When is this government going to introduce a long-term strategy to build a healthy automobile sector in this province, rather than using the ad hoc approach of a grant here, a grant there, a dropping of sales tax here? There never is anything that provides for long-term development of the auto industry.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the honourable member's leader a moment ago our objectives are the same. But I would argue with the member that the kind of comprehensive planning that traditionally his party would support is not the kind of planning that works.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: You've made a mockery of ad hockery.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A mockery of ad hockery? You've got a future somewhere, Michael.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad you don't.

Hon. F. S. Miller: As long as I'm here, I am in my future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Treasurer respond to the question, please?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, they are testing my vocabulary today.

Mr. Speaker: Address your remarks to me, then.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You are much better looking. Thank you; I have said enough.

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Minister of Labour with respect to the dismissals or whatever has happened with the workers at Canadian Admiral.

The workers at Canadian Admiral have yet to receive either notice of layoff or separation slips; yet the agents of the bank, Coopers and Lybrand, are demanding they sign a waiver that absolves the company of any further financial obligations to them in return for being paid three days' wages for the time they worked this week.

Will the minister investigate the legality of this tactic and the propriety of the means by which this shutdown was engineered? I will send to him this document called "Assignment," which the workers were being asked to sign before they could get their pay for this week. It says, "I hereby irrevocably nominate the assignee as my agent and authorize the assignee to take whatever steps the assignee may see fit to collect, obtain or enforce payment of the assigned claim."

What on earth does this mean, and why are workers being asked to abandon any claim they have to wages, and goodness knows what else, in return for only three days' wages?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the honourable member that my staff are in touch with the receivers and are having some meetings and discussions with them. I certainly will explore the information the member has. It is not in my possession yet, but I certainly will be pleased to explore it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the workers at Canadian Admiral receive any form of severance pay? What kind of claims will they have on the company if it is bankrupt? And does the situation not illustrate the necessity of controlling layoffs and plant closures along the lines the New Democrats proposed in this House some time in the past year, which measures, however, were blocked by the Conservatives in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is really suggesting there was sound reason to believe that one should block companies from going into bankruptcy, I think that is an unusual step and I do not know many people who would take it seriously.

With regard to the issue of severance pay and termination pay and the legality in this situation, certainly that is something I will explore in the particular circumstances. As a general rule, the member knows quite well that those two matters would take their place in the line of creditors as preferred creditors. I would have to explore this particular case to know exactly what is happening.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, how many more examples of this type of situation involving layoffs are we going to have before the minister will respond to an opposition demand that the select committee on plant shutdowns be reconstituted so we can consider some other options, instead of leaving these workers in the dark as to their future and their severance pay rights?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that we have in place in this province one of the most advanced layoff procedures anywhere in North America. Everybody acknowledges that. The member for Hamilton Centre does not want to, and neither does her party, but privately they know that to be so.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister why it is always the workers who are the bottom people on the totem pole? We have asked this minister before when we were going to see action to take care of workers in terms of bankruptcies or plant closures, and it is not happening. The workers are the last ones who get paid, while the bankers are protected with whatever assets are there. Will the minister tell us what has come of his promise to intervene with his federal counterparts in terms of changes in the bankruptcy legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that under the present Bankruptcy Act secured creditors are secured creditors and that wages have been listed under that legislation as preferred creditors. He also knows full well, because we have had numerous discussions and correspondence about it, that I have indicated to the minister in Ottawa my view that he should give serious consideration to altering the nature of the positioning of wages in bankruptcy legislation. He knows that already. I sent him a copy of that correspondence many months ago.

GRANT TO RACING CAR OWNER

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker. my question is to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. The minister will recall that some 17 months ago he promised that the taxpayers' $15,000 investment in one Moe Carter and his automobile, which failed to qualify for the race in Le Mans for which the money was given, would be returned.

I quote the minister's words of June 16, 1980: "I hope to have the cheque back in our hands shortly after the team returns, which I understand is tonight or tomorrow morning." I further quote: "I am so sure that we will get the $15,000 back that, if we do not, maybe I will take the case myself." On June 19, 1980, the minister stated, and I quote: 'We may even have the cheque today; one can never tell."

I want to know from the minister why the $15,000 has not been returned and when we are going to ask this former Conservative candidate to refund the Treasury.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member really read Hansard very carefully that day he just recited. If he did, he would remember that the grant was not made to the gentleman who ran against the member's leader at one time but rather to a firm called Descon Industries. Descon has acknowledged some responsibility to the ministry. My staff has been working with Descon to find a way to recompense the government and the ministry without bankrupting the company.

Without going into too much detail, it really would be oppressive for us to be unrealistic in enforcing payments. My people are working on it. Descon is co-operating at the present time. We hope to have something soon.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I fail to understand why 17 months ago the minister said things like, "We are going to get the money immediately, and the cheque is going to be returned to the Treasury." He stood up in the House and gave the impression that he was taking strong action and the $15,000 was going to be returned to the Treasury. That is his exact quote. I want to know from the minister what has changed from 17 months ago until today? Why has his attitude changed towards Moe Carter and his refund of the S15,000? That is what we want to know.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the honourable member that I have to face important questions in this House that take a lot of time, be it Massey-Ferguson or Chrysler Canada, which is in the member's area -- there are a lot of auto firms and a lot of employment in his area. We spend a lot of time on those things.

In many instances, sometimes at the member's request, where the Ontario Development Corporation has provided financial assistance. this government has to write off arrears of interest owed. When people default on ODC loans, rather than putting the company out of business and sending in the receivers, we often write off part of the loan and keep the company going.

In those instances, there is no question we have enough securities to take over all the assets, as happened with Coopers and Lybrand and Canadian Admiral. We are the government, we are a development corporation, and in those circumstances we think it is important to act a little differently. We do not roll in and seize assets and put a company out of business just to solve these major problems.

When it comes to minor problems, while other members of this House asked about other matters of state -- a diesel plant and things like that -- the member happens to be concerned, as I know his leader was, about Mr. Carter and Descon. In truth, I am not about to put Descon out of business if that is what it will take to get the member for Essex South off my back during question period.

My responsibilities are larger than that. If I have to stand here and put up with the questions of the member for Essex South, and the cost of that is to keep Descon in business, I will keep Descon in business and put up with his questions. We are going to effect a reasonable settlement that is fair to everyone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Surely the minister's quotes that I read to the House were in response to a question that had been put by him. He is the gentleman who informed the House that the money was going to be returned.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister stand in this House and talk about the possibility of Descon going into financial trouble when the minister knows full well, as do certainly the people of Hamilton, that the dealership of which Mr. Carter is the chief and principal officer is supposed to be the largest General Motors dealership in Canada?

I have a suggestion for the minister. Since he seems to have a terrific propensity for raising money, will the minister consider a collection among all the dealerships in Ontario after they have received the Treasurer's goodies today? Perhaps then we could finally write off this debt, which the people of Ontario should have received about a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Somehow Carter always causes excitement in Hamilton, Mr. Speaker.

May I remind the honourable member that Mr. Carter was the driver. He was not the owner of Descon Industries; he does not own shares in Descon. He was the driver. As I recall it, Descon Industries owned the car, and they hired a driver. The money was given to Descon Industries.

I do not mind telling the member that, if I were Descon. I would be having a couple of words with Maurice Carter. I have had a couple myself. The fact is that the liability is from that company to this government, as far as I am concerned. If the member's suggestion is that we cause extreme difficulties to Descon, I do not mind --

Ms. Copps: Because he was a PC.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Will the member take it easy? I do not mind her having fun with Maurice. I do not even mind her having some fun here; her leader and I have had some fun on this. But if she really wants to suggest that it is helpful to Descon, which was operating in good faith at all times, for us to drag all their affairs out here so she can have some political fun --

Ms. Copps: You don't really believe that yourself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Will the console operator turn that microphone off? I can hear the member very clearly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If she really wants to put that proposition, I am not buying it.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that on September 14, at about 5 p.m., a Mr. Batista of ITT Aimco in Mississauga reported to his supervisors that the condition he was working in was unsafe, and that Mr. Companion, his supervisor, refused to conduct an investigation? This is contrary to the act, which says, "Upon refusing to do particular work, the worker shall promptly report the circumstances of his refusal to his employer or supervisors, who shall forthwith investigate the report in the presence of the worker, and if there is such, in the presence of ..." and it goes on to indicate the number of people who would he involved.

Is the minister further aware that Mr. Companion then assigned another worker to work in the unsafe conditions and assigned Mr. Batista to work in another area? This again is contrary to

section 23(5) of the act which states, "Until the investigation is completed, the worker shall remain in a safe place near his work station."

What action is the minister going to take against this company, which deliberately violates the intentions of Bill 70?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have portions of Bill 70 read to me. I am pretty familiar with them, but I appreciate the opportunity of hearing them.

I think the member knows full well that I will take his question as notice and review the case. But if questions such as this about particular cases are to be put to the Minister of Labour, he really should have some advance notice if the person seriously wants an answer. If not, then I can simply say I will take the question as notice and return an answer to the question.

Mr. Martel: I wrote the minister on this item in September, and in October I wrote him two further letters. I still have no response. If the minister wants to play that kind of game with no notice, he knows he has it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have received many letters from that member. If he expects that I keep a record of them all here, I do not.

Mr. Martel: The minister said he had no advance notice, when he has had.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware that on the day in question one of his inspectors, Mr. Dyson, went to this plant to investigate the complaint, and when he found the proper plant procedure had not been followed he refused to investigate the situation?

In the words of the union representative, "Dyson used the rather technical excuse that because an initial investigation was not first jointly conducted by a representative of the worker and a representative of management, he refused to conduct it and the workers continued to work in those unsafe conditions."

Can the minister justify an inspector going to a plant and, because some procedure has not been followed, he refuses to investigate it? Or is he going to put an end to that sort of nonsense?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will take the question as notice and respond.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: While the minister is looking at this, might I ask him, if management refuses to establish the proper committees or to conduct the investigation according to the act and, if the minister's investigators are not prepared to investigate a site that is considered unsafe when they are there, what action should the workers take or, better still, what action will the minister take to ensure that Bill 70 is applied and that this company is prosecuted for its violations?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The obligations of the ministry, of the inspectors, of workers and of management are clearly outlined in Bill 70, and we expect them to be followed. The honourable member knows full well that in those situations where, for example. health and safety committees have not been set up. either there have been directions that they be set up or there has been an inquiry to determine what might be the appropriate number and type of health and safety committee to be set up. There is no reluctance in this ministry to deal with matters that are presented.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. I have copies here of 11 letters consisting of one day's problems addressed to his ministry from my constituency office. Is the minister aware that he has a huge volume of frustrated senior citizens out there trying to figure out and receive their correct property tax rebate and sales tax cheque?

Is he aware that he is wasting his money advertising a telephone number that is always busy? Is he aware that seniors who turned 65 years of age since January are now receiving the second half of their rebate cheque with a letter saying they received their first cheque last spring, a cheque they did not receive because they did not apply until September?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the issues the honourable member is referring to in a specific sense; for example, those people who turned 65 in the first half of this year. I think I alluded to this last week in the House when I read a statement in which I acknowledged that problem. There was a computer error which we found after the fact and had already started to correct before we had the many responses, and I did acknowledge many responses from seniors.

Without going into a technical explanation. since I am not a computer analyst or specialist by any stretch of the imagination, somewhere in the system the computer picked up a previous payment that had not been made. As a result. the cheques to those people who did turn 65 in the first half of the year did indicate they got a payment which they did not get. We are already in the course of rectifying this, and all the corrected statements and cheques will be going out to those seniors on or before next Monday.

Mr. J. A. Reed: What does that do to your 99 per cent track record?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is very easy to criticize something. When one considers that we have handled cheques in the magnitude of 1.4 million --

Mr. Smith: The whole thing was unnecessary in the first place. You did it for publicity.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there are hundreds of thousands of seniors in this province who do not share the inaccuracies shared by the Leader of the Opposition. That is not the case at all.

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The record will show that seniors have always received money of this kind and that it would have been received with their rebates from the federal government and the computer in Ottawa. All these new cheques, at a cost of $3 million a year, were added as unnecessary accounting expenses. The seniors would have got as much money in other ways. This was done simply so the logo of Ontario would be on the cheque for political benefit.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, that is a simplistic observation which I do not agree with at all. There is no doubt that there were many benefits to the seniors of Ontario in the new property and sales tax grant programs. They gave more money to more people faster than under the previous system. There is no doubt about that issue whatsoever.

As I acknowledged before, when we are handling 1.4 million cheques to a variety of people and when one considers the mobility and the changing statistics, which literally change every day with new people becoming 65 years of age, people relocating and, yes, people dying, it is very difficult to keep a list that is accurate for more than a matter of hours. I think my ministry has done exceedingly well in this program.

In the sales tax grant program, we have had an error rate of basically one tenth of one per cent. I think that compares very well to any program ever put on by any government in this country.

Mr. McKessock: Since the Treasurer spoke today of being careful about giving away money, is the minister aware that there are seniors out there who are still working and drawing a pension from previous work and from the Canada pension plan, and that the government is giving them $500 to help pay their taxes plus $50 to help pay their sales tax?

In view of all the problems associated with the rebate program, does the minister not feel that he would be better off and that the people would be better off if he forgot about the rebate program and added an extra $50 monthly to the guaranteed annual income system cheque?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I would like to know if the member is actually putting on the record in this question his opposition or his party's opposition to the grant program we have in effect in this great province. It would be very interesting to know if that is exactly what he is saying, and I hope he will have the opportunity in a supplementary question to put that on the record.

Again, I realize it is always very easy to come forth with some simplistic answer. Rightly or wrongly in the view of the members opposite, this government recognizes, through the property tax grant and sales tax grant programs, that the efforts and contributions to this country and this province of seniors reaching the age of 65 should be recognized regardless of their financial situation, regardless of their other situations and without their having to prove any other abilities.

We make no apologies for that program. It is working, and I want to know what the members opposite think.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether it is true that he and his government were so anxious to have high visibility and to be seen handing out the cheques directly that he prepared the system inadequately in the first place; that the number of cheques he had to send out was so great that he simply could not do it; that, as my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr.

Laughren) pointed out, he has had to devise a special complaint and inquiry form to handle the number of complaints and inquiries he is getting from seniors who are not receiving their cheques; that when you phone the special number you cannot get it, and most our of constituency offices are receiving 30 to 40 calls a day on this matter alone --

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: Will he not agree --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The member for Port Arthur has the floor with a supplementary. Proceed.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister not agree that he has completely and irrevocably fouled up the program? Will he tell us when he is going to get the program in order on time so that senior citizens are not given the expectations his government gave them and then disappointed in those expectations, as he has so bitterly disappointed them?

Mr. Speaker: The minister will answer briefly, please.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I have a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.

Mr. McKessock: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister tried to interpret my question as being against giving money to seniors. I hope the minister will take it that I was pointing out a more efficient way to run the program, which would put more money in the hands of the poor and provide savings for the government.

4 p.m.

LAND ASSESSMENT

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister, the Minister of Revenue.

The minister is aware that the city of North York has been trying to collect property taxes from the four oil companies that hold land in the Finch and Keele area. He minister knows that this has been going on for 15 years and that those companies are paying $110,000 less than they would pay if they were assessed like all the other home owners in North York.

Is the minister willing at this point to amend the Assessment Act or, alternatively, to accept my private member's bill or a private bill from the city of North York which would help to solve the problem?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question vis-à-vis the Assessment Act is no. Let me say very briefly, without going into great detail, because I am sure that will come up in the debate on that particular bill next week, that there are many farms and farming operations of significant size which are legitimate in their nature and operation in this province and which have designated zoned land uses that are different from agriculture.

Many municipalities, as a matter of fact, in conjunction with the implementation of an official plan, put zoning on the property even though land use may not change for many years ahead. There cannot be a blanket type of change at all. This is a significant percentage; so the answer to the first one is no.

Vis-à-vis the second question about his own bill, which was, "Will I be supporting it?" the answer again is no.

As regards the third question, about the private bill being proposed by the city of North York, I have indicated to others, and I am quite pleased to indicate here now, that when I have a look at the bill and see what they are proposing, we will have a serious look at it and determine the appropriate course of action at that time.

PETITION

ONTARIO NURSES' ASSOCIATION

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that will be of particular interest to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie).

I want to present this petition on behalf of Local 51 of the Ontario Nurses' Association, protesting the length and design of the arbitration system and asking for alternatives to it.

I want to inform the House that I am presenting this on behalf of myself and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz).

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Elston for Mr. Wrye.

Motion agreed to.

[Later.]

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, apparently I goofed on the motion. I was under the impression by advisement of someone in the Clerk's office yesterday, and I might have misunderstood him; but apparently the motion should have Mr. Bradley replacing Mr. Wrye.

In case you want a new motion, I can do it.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you will allow us to withdraw that motion and change it. If you will accept it in its present form today, I will be glad to present it again in that form.

Mr. Ruston: It shows anybody can make a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: That is a rather involved process, but --

Mr. Martel: Give it back to him.

Mr. Speaker: You're right. I do not hear any objections. We could give it back to him and let him start over again.

Mr. Martel: You didn't do so well after all, Bud.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I withdrew the first motion so that we could change it. Can I --

Mr. Speaker: Why don't you just get it back?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Can we do it verbally? It has to be done today.

Mr. Speaker: We will substitute the name "Bradley" for "Elston."

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Bradley for Mr. Wrye.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the following changes be made in the sequence and location of estimates consideration in the committee of supply: Lieutenant Governor, Premier and Cabinet Office be taken third; Intergovernmental Affairs be taken fourth; and Revenue be taken fifth; and that Natural Resources be transferred to the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments with the committee authorized to sit Monday nights, Thursday mornings and Thursday nights.

[Later.]

Mr. Speaker: As required by standing order 47(a), Mr. Gregory's motion will require the unanimous consent of the House. Do we have that consent?

Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, first reading of Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this is a general omnibus bill containing routine but necessary items of administrative legislation required to clarify existing provisions of the Education Act to bring it into line with legislation enacted by other ministries and to ensure consistency between legislation and regulations. The amendments have accumulated over the past several years.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wish to table the answer to question 174 and the interim answers to questions 169 and 173 standing on the Notice Paper. (See Hansard for Friday, November 6.)

4:10 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM

Mr. McClellan, seconded by Mr. Stokes, moved resolution 20:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government recognizes that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, many of its candidates and its constituency associations spent inordinate amounts of money during the last general election thereby seriously undermining the integrity of the electoral process, and that in order to correct this undemocratic development, this House directs the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses to proceed immediately under sections 4(1)(

d) and (

f) of the Election Finances Reform Act. Specifically, the commission should investigate expenditures by parties, candidates and constituency associations with a view to recommending amendments to the said act to set spending limits for future provincial elections.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to reserve about four minutes for my windup.

I think this is an important and necessary resolution at this period in time. I should say at the outset that I do not have any particular axe to grind with respect to my own constituency and the spending of the Progressive Conservative Party in that riding. As far as I am aware, the Progressive Conservative Party has ceased to exist in the great riding of Bellwoods and has yet to file a return from the last election. So I am not aware of what the actual expenditure in Bellwoods was but it was, let me say, indiscernible, as was the campaign and as was their vote.

But in other parts of the province, such was not the case. The party as a whole spent $`8.1 million. The point I want to make in my speech is that most of that is public money. The Premier (Mr. Davis) does not seem to understand that when we passed the Election Finances Reform Act before the 1975 election, we accepted the principle of public subsidization of election expenditures.

We give a cash contribution in the form of a rebate to every campaign that achieves 15 per cent of the vote, and everybody seems to understand that. They get a cheque from the Treasury of Ontario if they get 15 per cent of the vote to help pay for the costs of their campaigns. But they seem to conveniently ignore the fact that every contribution is also subsidized through the tax credit system.

I will come back to that point, but when we are talking about the amount of money the Progressive Conservative Party spent in 1981, let us remember that a good portion of that $8.1 million was public money.

Mr. Eaton: Because somebody chose to give a donation.

Mr. McClellan: That is right, and we will come back to that. People donated to it and, as the honourable member says, they chose to make the donation. But when they made the donation they received a subsidy for that donation in the form of a tax credit. That was money paid from the public to the contributor in the form of a tax credit: so it is relevant --

Mr. Eaton: The same applies to the people who donated to your campaign.

Mr. McClellan: Absolutely. But it is relevant to raise the question of what is done with public funds during an election campaign, and that is what this debate is about.

It is important to remember the background of the provincial legislation. It followed the federal Election Expenses Act, which came out of the 1972-74 minority government in Ottawa. The motivation of the federal act was quite simply a concern for democracy.

I have had the opportunity to read those debates and, just to refresh some memories, the federal Election Expenses Act was brought in at the insistence of the New Democratic Party, with the full approval of the Liberal government of the day. It was an expression of a concern that had been felt for many years, that election disclosure was an important principle of democracy and that election expenditure ceilings were an equally important principle of a genuine democracy.

As I said, I went through the debates. The most succinct expression of the concern that was voiced by members of all three parties in Ottawa was put by Mr. David Lewis. I want to quote what he said during the second reading debate of the federal act:

'Why have we wanted this sort of bill? I suggest to you that there are three overriding objectives that genuine democrats of whatever political allegiance have always had in mind. The first is that elections ought not to he the property of those who can get the largest amount of money somewhere at election time, that elections ought not to he bought by large amounts of money by parties in the democratic process, and this is what has happened in the past.

"The second objective that all democrats of whatever political allegiance have had is that candidates ought not to be discriminated against because they themselves have not the funds or are not in a position to collect the funds to fight an election in this modern age of electronic media, which are very expensive.

"The third and perhaps most important objective which everyone has in mind is that the people of a democracy are entitled to know the sources of funds which political parties and political candidates used at election time and between elections."

Those were the three important principles of the federal Election Expenses Act. As I said, it was supported by all three political parties.

As a matter of fact, during the second reading debate one of the speakers said there should be more stringent expenditure ceilings, and he argued very persuasively that the federal expenditure ceilings were too generous. The speaker said:

"There is a tremendous difference between a ceiling of $26,250 per candidate and one of $10,000." He was arguing for a ceiling of $10,000; this was in 1973. "I think this is a very important change, because it would enable the very best people in the country, particularly young people with great ability but limited means, to present themselves as candidates for Parliament.

"Also, it would improve the type of campaign indulged in. It would require all candidates to campaign personally to let the voters see them and assess them. The candidates would need to go from door to door, hold small meetings and generally let the voting public see who and what it is voting for."

That contribution to the debate in 1973 was by the Honourable George Hees, not unknown to the members opposite. The same arguments precisely were made by the Honourable Flora MacDonald and by many other members of the federal caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party. Many of them argued that the expenditure ceilings should be more stringent than they were under the draft legislation.

There is an important contrast between the democratic sentiments that motivated the federal legislation and the origin of our own provincial legislation, which was the Fidinam affair and the activities of a certain Mr. Kelly in the employ of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The reason we had the provincial Election Finances Reform Act was not to make the electoral process more open and democratic but to put the lid on a fairly serious political scandal that involved the way the Conservative Party was funded by a relatively small number of big donors.

As a result, we had

an act that dealt with the problem that had led to the scandal,

an act that required the disclosure of contributions and limited the size of contributions. The act, fortunately, accepted the democratic principle of subsidization, but it did not accept the principle of expenditure ceilings, and that has got us into the dilemma we witnessed in the most recent provincial general election.

I want to go back to the fact that we are talking about the use of public moneys. Seventy-five per cent of each donation up to the first $100 is subsidized penny for penny out of the public Treasury. For every $100 that a person donates freely to the political party of his choice, he gets back $75 in cash; and 50 per cent of each cent that is given between $100 and $500 is likewise given back in cash when he goes to pay his income tax. The member knows how it works.

Mr. Eaton: They take it off; nobody gives it back to them in cash.

Mr. McClellan: Well, that is a mighty fine point, is it not? The member is trying to pretend that it is not coming out of the public purse because of the mechanism of a tax credit. Well, it is public money, and it is obvious to most of us in this House that the Conservative Party and the Premier and the apologists for the degree of wasted expenditure in the last campaign do not give the slightest damn about the expenditure of public funds.

4:20 p.m.

Most of the contributions under the current legislation are contributions below $1,000. That is clear when one examines the returns. In fact, the majority of the contributions are less than $500. The point is that for every $1,100 of contribution, as I understand it, one is eligible for a tax credit, which is a direct deduction of $500 in cold, hard cash from one's tax billowing.

In addition to that, every candidate who gets 15 per cent of the vote is eligible to get a cash payment of 16 cents from the public Treasury for the first 25,000 voters etcetera -- the formula continues.

We are talking about public funds. That is the principle of the legislation. When we start to look at the way the Progressive Conservatives spent money during the last election, it is legitimate to question some of those expenditures, to question the amounts that were spent by some of the candidates.

Sixteen candidates of the Conservative Party in 1981 spent more than $50,000 in a combination of pre-election riding expenditures and campaign election expenditures. Most of that money is subsidized at a rate of either 50 per cent or 75 per cent from the public purse; so it is legitimate for us to question the nature and amount of those expenditures totalling $8.1 million.

If one were to take the rough rule of thumb, one could argue that at least $4 million of the $8.1 million was a public expenditure on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. How did they spend that money? Did they spend it wisely or foolishly?

When the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) spends $1,000 for consultants and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) spends $3,500 entertaining her political associates at a golf tournament subsequent to the election, half of that, using my rule of thumb, is paid for out of the public purse. I hope they had fun playing golf at public expense.

There was the $4,500 barbecue of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). Again, the money was raised to pay $4,500 for this little feed on behalf of the minister and his cronies and was subsidized out of the public Treasury. The minister obviously cannot be trusted to use his own common sense with respect to the expenditure of funds that are subsidized by the public. That is obvious, otherwise he would not have barbecued whatever he barbecued for them that cost $4,500. I wonder what it was they were eating. Sorry, I am wrong; it was $5,200 for that barbecue. I had it confused with another feed.

Mr. Bradley: Must have been steaks.

Mr. Stokes: You can bet it wasn't humble pie.

Mr. McClellan: I do not think they were eating hamburger either, not for $5,200. The government House leader (Mr. Wells) spent $8,200 entertaining members of his executive and his poll captains in his riding.

Mr. Eaton: Would you do away with the subsidy on the donations?

Mr. Bradley: Don't be silly. Just limit it.

Mr. McClellan: If it is so obvious, let me continue through this stupefying list.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) spent $129,000 getting himself re-elected, half of which was subsidized out of the public Treasury. Did he really have to feed his workers $1,000 worth of snacks and munchies on election day? Did he really have to pay $2,156 for security at his committee room? Perhaps the security was necessary, because he spent $2,288 on carpets for his election committee room; he did not want to get the carpets dirty and so he had to have the committee room guarded by the police. This is just stupid.

The list also includes the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) with her boat cruise and the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) with his dinner at the Roadway Inn.

Do these people not have any sense of shame with respect to using funds subsidized by the public? Obviously they do not. Obviously there is a glaring need for expenditure ceilings in this province because of the Conservative Party's flagrant abuse of the subsidization principle in the last election. Obviously this matter should be referred to the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses for a thorough review and for amendments to the act that would prevent this nonsense, this abuse of public funds from taking place.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has three minutes left. Would he like to retain that time for the end of the debate?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, please. Thank you.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak somewhat objectively on this matter, because I was not only one of the lower spenders for my party but one of the lower spenders generally.

Mr. Breaugh: How much?

Mr. Rotenberg: I will tell the member in a moment. I do not think any limits set on total expenditures would apply to me because of my expenditures in 1981 or in 1977. In 1981, my expenditures were $27,800, and I think the significant figure is 59 cents per voter.

It is interesting to note, since I gather the Liberals will be supporting this motion of election spending limits, that the Liberal opponent in my riding spent some $44,200, or 94 cents per voter, compared with my 59 cents per voter. Among other things, I think this demonstrates that money cannot buy votes: nor does it win elections -- my Liberal opponent was not even close.

The New Democratic Party in my riding simply disappeared in this past election.

Any spending analysis should be on a per voter basis. It is interesting to note that the member for Bellwoods, the mover of this motion, spent some $1.47 per voter. He spent $31,759. He spent $4,000 more than I spent in my riding, with less than half the population.

Mr. Eaton: Holy mackerel! Oh no!

Mr. Rotenberg: Please, gentlemen, do not interrupt me.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I simply want to correct the record. I did not spend $31,000. I spent $16,000 and change. I cannot put my finger on the exact figure.

Mr. Rotenberg: That includes the member's riding association expenditures as well.

Mr. McClellan: I am adding