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

March 29, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NEW CONSTITUTION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

ASSISTANCE FOR HOME CARE

SEVERANCE PAY

SKILLS TRAINING

INDIAN BANDS COMPENSATION

SUCCESSOR RIGHTS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

DAY CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2:01 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NEW CONSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House this afternoon will want to recognize and support the important constitutional event which took place today in London, England. Queen Elizabeth today gave royal assent to the Canada Act which provides for our new constitution. Henceforth, Canadians will be governed by a made-in-Canada document which they and their leaders have worked so long and so diligently to achieve.

It is significant that this approval today occurred 115 years, to the very month, day and hour, after Queen Victoria gave royal assent to the British North America Act of 1867. I am sure all members will share with me the sense of great honour that we, as members of this Legislature, are a part of such a historic occasion, taken within the framework of our British parliamentary and Commonwealth traditions.

We now look forward to the next formal event in the achievement of this stage of constitutional reform. I am sure we warmly welcome the visit of Her Majesty to Canada from April 15 to April 18. The highlight of this visit will be the proclamation by the Queen of Canada of the Constitution Act on Saturday, April 17, in the Senate chamber in Ottawa.

As part of that occasion and as part of the ceremony surrounding that occasion, the Ontario government is planning an appropriate ceremony here at Queen's Park which will allow members of this House and the public to participate in these celebrations. Detailed information of this ceremony will be available shortly, but for the present I will say that I am sure we all wish to express our very loyal support of this important act by our monarch.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I wish to take a moment to join with the honourable minister in expressing our great pride in what has transpired today. I am sure our children will look back at the leaders of the day with a great sense of pride in what has gone forward as a result of these difficult and laborious negotiations over the past couple of years.

I think we would be remiss at this point if we did not recognize the contribution of our Premier (Mr. Davis), along with the other Premiers and the Prime Minister, who laboured mightily and arrived at a compromise that, even though not satisfactory in every detail to every person in this country, was the best achievable result in the circumstances and one that will serve our country and our children well over the many years to come.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to join the minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) in expressing our appreciation for this achievement.

I suppose one must reflect a little on how long the process of evolution from colony to nation takes. As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) has pointed out, it has been 115 years since the British North America Act was first proclaimed and some 50 years since, theoretically, we became an independent nation back in the early 1930s. Now all of those trappings of an earlier colonialism have been dispensed with and we can rejoice at this achievement.

I look forward to whatever commemoration of this event the Premier and his government will be arranging for Queen's Park along with Ottawa and the rest of the nation. I trust it will be done with an appropriate degree of pride and modesty in these tough times.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I ask the indulgence of the House to recognize the contribution of the pages who have been for us for the past two weeks and who will remain with us for the coming few weeks. I am doing this at this point rather than waiting until their term is over so that everybody perhaps will get to know them better, recognize them, speak to them and make use of their invaluable service.

I will read their names:

Melissa Barton, London Centre; Alonzo Beatty, Chatham-Kent; Fiona Bird, Frontenanc-Addington; Eric Blais, Prescott-Russell; Tassie Cameron, Ottawa East; Denis Croteau, Sudbury East; Anne Donaghy, Scarborough North; Dennis Hannah, Nickel Belt; Catherine Hooper, Mississauga North; Erin Kennedy, York South; Jennifer Klenavic, Carleton East; Paul McClelland, Victoria-Haliburton; Cathy Norris, Lambton; Douglas Pinto, Etobicoke; Stacey Rakestrow, Oshawa; Spencer Snowling, Welland-Thorold; Darryl Stewart, Durham West; Robert Turner, Renfrew North; Michelene Urlocker, St. Catharines; Patrick Westcott, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Lisa Whitehead, Oriole; Stephen York, Beaches-Woodbine.

I ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming these young people to this chamber.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Now they are all going to have to work twice as hard.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

I am sure the Premier is aware of the layoffs announced last week; just to refresh his memory, there were 1,750 people laid off at General Motors, 1,150 at Great Lakes Forest Products, 925 at White Farm Equipment, 140 further layoffs at de Havilland, 150 further layoffs at Algoma Steel, 140 layoffs at Umex Mines and 125 layoffs at Armco Canada Ltd.

Can the Premier tell this House what he is planning to do about that?

2:10 p.m.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should stay away more often.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I'd wait for the answer, myself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I knew the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) would say that. I had to give him something to applaud. He has not had anything to applaud in the first week of the session; so at least I gave him a chance today. I read all that went on, including his leader's throne speech contribution, and this is the first time he has had a chance to applaud with vigour.

I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that I welcome his question. I know he raised economic issues with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and other ministers in the first week of the session, including having an emergency debate.

It is also fair to state that part of our problem relates to the economic policies or the economic situation in the United States, partly to consumer confidence and partly to the question of interest rates. But in this country it is also related in part to the present federal policy on the importation of vehicles from offshore.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I am in no way quarrelling with, being critical of or being negative with respect to the quality of the products from other countries, but on three occasions and at the first ministers' meeting I made a speech in which I conveyed to the two federal ministers that I think this country has to become somewhat firmer in terms of its external relationships.

We have introduced the concept that was initiated by the parts manufacturing sector, supported by the United Automobile Workers and perhaps not to the same extent by the companies themselves, of at least the consideration of a Canadian content rule. In this issue we are discussing more than just the state of the auto sector; we are discussing the question of the lifestyle in this province and this country.

I have had no direct communication with Mr. Lumley since his return from Japan -- I am only going by press reports -- but I sense that he did not have an enthusiastic reception for his ideas or proposals when he was there. I think it is fundamental to the long-term health of the auto sector here that this country take a firmer position with respect to imports from offshore. I know the leader of the Liberal Party probably will disagree with this point of view, but it happens to be mine. It is one that I think is essential.

As to two other firms he referred to, one of them relates to a downturn in the metals industry generally; it is not a question of the economy of this province but a question of market. I think the other one he referred to probably related to the pulp and paper industry, where there has been a downturn even though, when compared to a lot of other jurisdictions, our pulp and paper industry is still relatively healthy and we hope it will stay that way.

The Leader of the Opposition is asking what the government of Ontario can do with respect to the economic conditions. I think it is fair to state that the Treasurer has been giving this a great deal of thought. This past fall he introduced the short-term tax reduction which the Leader of the Opposition did not support but which I think had a positive impact on the 1981 inventory of dealerships.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that every auto dealer in this province from whom I have heard, and there have been many, was totally in support of that tax holiday, or whatever way he may wish to describe it, even though in his position as financial critic he was less than enthusiastic. That is a charitable way of saying he was opposed to it.

Mr. Peterson: I am happy to have given the Premier an opportunity to make a speech. Let me ask him specifically about the White Farm Equipment situation in which, as he will recall, this government has an investment in terms of a $2-million loan and a further $3-million loan guarantee. He is aware that the layoffs there were not caused by lagging sales or problems in the automotive industry but by a squabble between White and a third party. How can the Premier and his ministers sit here and let those 925 people be laid off because of an internal squabble when the government has such a strong, direct investment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not refer particularly to the White situation. The honourable member is quite correct. That is not related to the auto sector generally. I will be delighted to have that supplementary redirected to the minister. He may have had some more recent communication about that situation than I have had, but I think it is fair to state that at least four of the firms the member mentioned in his initial question did relate to the auto sector.

Mr. Peterson: To correct the record, it was two out of seven.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The steel industry was included.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, as I have just walked in, I wonder if the honourable member will be good enough to repeat his question.

Mr. Peterson: I am asking about the layoffs at White Farm Equipment. As the minister knows, the government has an investment of $2 million by way of a loan and $3 million by way of a loan guarantee. Layoffs of 925 people were announced last week, not because of lagging sales or a depressed market but because of an internal squabble in that company. What is the minister doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, basically I can indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that our ministry has been in direct contact almost on a daily basis, if not an hourly basis, with the individuals involved. The telephones have been ringing frequently in Dallas and Nassau, where some of the officials are. For some time we have been attempting to work out some kind of arrangement. I am optimistic that by the end of this week sufficiently adequate language will have been established for an arrangement or an agreement which will allow for the recall of the individuals who unfortunately have been laid off here.

The member is quite right; there appears to be a squabble, and we think it is very unfortunate that these individuals have been caught in between. However, he can rest assured that our ministry is on top of it. People from our ministry have been in communication by telephone and have been meeting in person. Indeed, I may be directly involved with the principals.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Premier. Since this is the first time I have heard him say that he agrees at least part of the responsibility in the auto sector is legislative, and given Mr. Lumley's lack of success in Japan, is he now prepared to say that, at least until some content legislation has been established with the Japanese government, we will go for and this government will support a total ban on Japanese imports until there is a resolution of that content requirement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa should consider that carefully. I really do not think people in the industry have been calling for that extreme a position. I may be wrong about that, but I do not think the United Automobile Workers, for instance, have suggested an absolute ban. This government has been making an effort in terms of any pressures that can be brought to bear to find a reasonable or satisfactory solution. I do not think I could support an absolute ban. The member is talking about a number of consumers and dealers.

I think there has to be a reasonable solution. As I said, in my view part of that solution in the longer term is the possibility of Canadian content. Quite frankly, pressures have to be brought to bear to see that some assembly or some work is done in this country. To me, that is a potential solution as well.

Mr. Cooke: More branch plants; more branch plant economy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the honourable member who wants to interject that I understand from discussions of this issue with some knowledgeable people as recently as this morning that, in regard to the company in his own home community of which he is always so critical and which he wanted to be making the front-wheel drive, the larger units of Chrysler happen to be the ones that are selling. In spite of his predictions, that plant is doing relatively well. Does he remember that?

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I just want to make the Premier aware that there is a Japanese backhoe, a Hitachi, digging in the front yard of Queen's Park. It is about a $200,000 machine. I thought he might look into that to be sure it does not happen again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not our construction.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier referred the matter of White Farm Equipment to the Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker), I wish to put a supplementary to the minister based on facts of which he is aware, that close to 1,000 people were laid off even though the product manufactured is in demand and there is no surplus product sitting around waiting to be sold.

Since his ministry and the government have a financial involvement in the White situation, does he not think it is his responsibility to call the principals into his office and see that they are not permitted to make pawns of the working people who have just recently been laid off because of some sort of internal debate over third-party financing which really should not affect the ability of those people to maintain their jobs?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) brought this to our attention last week. We have been continuously and directly involved with the principals on this question since then. We share the member's concerns, and indeed those of the member for Brantford, who raised the same point, that the employees of this company are perhaps being treated as pawns in the process.

There is no doubt that there is a cash squeeze. There is no doubt that the balance sheet looks fine, but the cash problem is true and accurate.

There is a basic demand for guarantees being made by Borg-Warner (Canada) Ltd., which is the company that has provided the financing. So there is an outside external force that is being applied to these people; they did not bring it about themselves. But the problem having been brought to them, they now are in a position where there is a conflagration between the officials.

There is no question that our ministry has been directly involved in talking to the people. There is no doubt that we are going to have this matter brought to a resolution as fast as we possibly can. We do not want to see people put out on the street, nor does the member for Brantford or the honourable member wish to see anyone out on the street as a result of this. To the best of our ability, we will make sure that these people are back to work as quickly as they possibly can.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. He will recall that last week I asked the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) some questions about Suncor. The Treasurer sort of redirected them, but the minister at that time did not feel it was a redirection and did not want to answer the question.

The minister said in debates on the Suncor question last fall in this House, "By any measure, the information available to the Legislature and the public of this province generally on this transaction is considerable." Can he tell this House why no one inside the House, or outside of it for that matter, at least publicly, was aware that there would be a $78-million dividend stripped out of that company the day before the transaction closed?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, to amend the

preamble to the question, if I may be permitted, that question was not redirected to me last week, with respect.

Mr. Peterson: He thought it was, but you didn't.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is a matter of record. The point is that the price that was paid for Suncor took into account the payment of that dividend on the day it was paid.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why didn't you tell us?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is as broad as it is long. If it had not been part of the negotiations, the price would have been that much higher.

Mr. Peterson: Why would the minister not have told us that? Did he not think that was material information? Why did he deceive us in that regard?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition may want to reconsider that remark.

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words, Mr. Speaker, and if they are offensive I will withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Peterson: But the point is that this is material to the entire contract. Why did the minister not tell us this when discussing the value of that contract in the House and in front of our caucus, the New Democratic Party caucus and a variety of other people?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There was full disclosure with respect to all matters in dealing with that transaction. The honourable member knows that. The agreements that were signed have been tabled for some time. I will bet the Leader of the Opposition has not even read that documentation.

Along with the officials, I appeared before both caucuses, where any questions that were raised were answered. I will tell the member right now that this was part of the transaction at the time of the negotiation.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr.

Speaker, since at the time the minister's officials appeared before our caucus and the matter was discussed we were unaware that the Ontario government had contemplated going into the acquisition of the Suncor shares in partnership with Hiram Walker, and since Hiram Walker subsequently bought a major stake in an American oil company, Davis Oil, and has taken a loss of more than $250 million because of the miscalculations it made in assessing the oil reserves of that particular company, has the government re-examined the value of what it has taken over in Suncor to see whether there might also need to be a similar writedown in the value of its Suncor assets or whether the changes in the energy futures right now have depreciated the value of that government investment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, we were never considering going into that venture in partnership with Hiram Walker.

Mr. Peterson: The honourable gentleman asked a question I want to pick up on.

The minister is aware that the world oil price is falling almost daily, and it looks as if it is throwing out of whack his calculations upon which a fair return would have been based to justify that purchase and to say it was a good and wise investment at the time.

The minister will recall that the Treasurer said most of the people of Ontario thought the purchase of Suncor was a wise investment, and I assume that is from a financial point of view. Yet at the same time the chairman and president of Noranda, who said several other things about the whole purchase, also said he could not understand why they, the government, purchased Suncor. In addition to that, the former Treasurer, Darcy McKeough, said in an interview last week or so that he thought it was not a particularly good purchase and he would not have purchased it as Treasurer.

How can the minister stand here now, and what new information does he have to bring to this House. to say that was a good investment for the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no information available to us at the moment, I suggest, other than that we made that acquisition at a good price, and I repeat that. I also want the honourable member to realize the motivation that prompted this government to make the acquisition has not changed.

I assume the member is on the side of the fact that as far as this country is concerned right now, regardless of what may be happening in a temporary way to the world situation, we still import 25 per cent of the crude oil we need into this country, and that is not a very acceptable situation to have ourselves in.

We believe in crude oil self-sufficiency. We made this acquisition at a good price, and it is very important that the members opposite understand that particular matter and perhaps join us in acknowledging the importance of Canada being self-sufficient with respect to oil.

Mr. Peterson: Can the minister tell me how the Suncor purchase will bring one more drop of oil to Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The previous question was the final supplementary.

[Later]

Mr. Cassidy: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Energy, in the House earlier today, denied there had been any plans by the Ontario government to enter into a joint venture for the acquisition of Suncor with Hiram Walker Resources Ltd. The Globe and Mail, on March 2, 1982, reported, "Energy Minister Robert Welch said yesterday that a joint venture with Noranda and Hiram Walker came very close and would have been an ideal situation." Either then or now, he was not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Will you please withdraw that inference? I do not think it is called for, and certainly it is not acceptable.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister was speaking out of both sides of his mouth and contradicting himself.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that remark is any better. Surely this is a matter for the minister and the press to clarify.

Interjections.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

The Premier will be aware that two of our sister provinces have introduced budgets within the last couple of weeks and that both of those provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have brought in plans to protect home owners from high interest rates. Saskatchewan's home protection plan will subsidize some 25,000 home owners against high interest rates, and Alberta has put in $60 million to provide subsidies of up to $520 a month.

Will the Premier indicate whether his government is prepared in the forthcoming budget to introduce some form of protection for home owners against high interest rates, since Ottawa has opted out totally?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member knows full well that I am not in a position to disclose -- and even if I were, I could not disclose -- what might be or might not be in the budget.

I cannot comment on what may or may not be in the Treasurer's (Mr. F. S. Miller) budget.

Mr. Martel: We might demonstrate concern to people who are losing their homes while we sit on our hands. At the same time, in the Alberta and Saskatchewan budgets both governments have introduced programs to advance housing starts this coming year. Both of them will contribute to approximately 50 per cent of the construction in those two provinces.

The Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada has indicated to the Treasurer of Ontario that some 22,000 jobs will be lost in the construction industry this year if we do not get a start. The Premier might be interested in knowing that in the furniture industry in such companies as Kroehler, Sklar, Croydon, Goldcrest, Simmons, Knechtel, Hanover Kitchens -- and the list is endless -- there are major layoffs.

Is the Premier prepared to consider in the budget -- and he does not have to tell us what is in it -- the possibility of this government getting involved in some form of program to initiate housing starts (

a) to help the housing industry, (

b) to help the furniture industry and (

c) to help the lumber mills across northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think housing construction goes beyond just the furniture industry. It includes rugs and the white goods industry. It is one of the major industries in terms of the peripheral effect it has.

Mr. Martel: You are helping to make my point.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to be helpful to the member on any occasion I can. I was willing to recommend the member as chairman of the board of Inco. He did not want the job. I have done all I can for him.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier address himself to the question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I shall. I totally agree with the acting leader of that party, or whatever his title is -- the House leader. I know his leader is watching him carefully from the balcony to see how he performs.

The residential construction industry is important. Unlike Saskatchewan, which has introduced a number of interesting programs in the last 10 days for reasons that became obvious yesterday --

Mr. Martel: They did not put anybody in jail.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Really?

Mr. T. P. Reid: It seems to me they put some people back to work who were on strike.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, but he is interjecting.

Not too many months ago this government initiated programs that led to the construction of some 15,000 or 16,000 rental units. These also require furniture and they require white goods. I think that is a clear indication of the importance we attach to that industry. If the member is saying this is something that might be considered by the Treasurer, I would be surprised if he were not considering the housing industry. But that is in no way to prejudge that there will be references made in his budget to the housing industry. I cannot tell the member what is going to be in it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer told us two weeks ago he was waiting to see what Ottawa did in terms of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, and regrettably Ottawa seems to have acted unilaterally in introducing legislation. Will the Premier tell us if this will speed up the introduction of the budget in Ontario? Will we have it within the next couple of weeks to deal with this very serious economic situation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the information from Ottawa has now become more definitive. I like the way the member for Rainy River has described it as a unilateral action on the part of the Liberal government of Ottawa. I think the way it was done and in that context was very unfortunate. It is very regrettable that in a federation such as ours a national government would act in this fashion.

I am glad we share that point of view. I know the member will communicate it to a very close relative of his who has some involvement in these decision-making processes in the national capital, along with the brother of another individual who sits on his right -- sometimes three over, sometimes four -- philosophically to his left.

I know the members are anxious to have the budget and the Treasurer is anxious, but I think it would be more important that it be the right budget, as it has been for year after year after year. I know the member for Rainy River supports that point of view.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he has any idea how many people in Ontario the- federal program to alleviate the mortgage problem is going to help? Is he aware that in the city of Windsor 0.8 per cent of the people who have had to renew their mortgages with new interest rates since the program came in have qualified for the program. This adds up to a grand total of nine -- three for grants and six for interest deferral.

Is it not about time this government realizes the federal government is not going to take the action and that it has the responsibility itself to bring in a moratorium on foreclosures and an interest rate relief program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member's initial question was whether I endorsed the federal program. If he wants me to reply to that, rather than replying to the speech he made at the end of his question, the answer is simply no, I shall not endorse it.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware of the horrendous lead poisoning at Wilco Canada Inc. in London. Management there has committed the following violations: blamed personal hygiene as the problem and not inhalation even though there is not proper ventilation; respirators were not provided until the workers became ill; provided inadequate facilities for washing up; provided no lockers or facilities for washing clothes on the job; provided no lead control program or lead assessment program; and posted no results of air sampling.

Also there was no health and safety committee until the illnesses started to occur, and then the company wanted to discuss the possibility of a committee. Is the minister prepared to prosecute in this case?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation that my colleague has brought to the attention of this House. Quite extensive orders were issued on February 24 of this year, and the inspector asked that those orders be complied with within three months of that date. Because of the seriousness of the situation, there is a meeting going on at the plant between senior officials of the occupational health and safety branch and the officials of the company in question at this very moment. It started at 1:30 this afternoon.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware that the company sent registered letters which are a form of intimidation to 16 of the workers affected by lead poisoning? Let me read one paragraph: "If you do not accept this transfer, we have no alternative but to terminate your service with our company. You would not become eligible for workmen's compensation or unemployment insurance benefits." Both of these are direct lies.

After having been instructed by their doctors to stay out of the plant, the workers are still being threatened with dismissal. What is the minister going to do?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the occupational health and safety branch who are there today are discussing that very point among many other things. They will be reporting to me later this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, given that the incident which caused the sterility of these workers is an extremely serious matter, and given the fact the minister has said a meeting of people from the occupational health and safety branch is going on at the very moment, will the minister give the House a commitment to table at the first possible opportunity a full report on the incident at Wilco, including the results of today's meeting?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the privilege of doing that.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, although the lead criteria were established in August, these violations have been going on for some time. Why are we going through the charade of yet another meeting? Workers are fined on the spot for not wearing their hats; yet these companies can continue to violate and all we do is to send someone in to look over the situation. The internal responsibility system, which the government takes so much pride in, is not working. When is the minister going to get tough with some of these companies?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I understand the feelings and the concern of the member opposite.

Mr. MacDonald: What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am trying to do something to speed up the process. The company was given three months to comply with the orders. We are not waiting for the three months to end. We are trying to do something now.

ASSISTANCE FOR HOME CARE

Ms. Copps: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister is well aware that this government professes a commitment to expanding home care in Ontario. I believe the minister is further aware that the number of home visits by the Victorian Order of Nurses in Toronto alone has increased 42 per cent over the last five years. Why has the ministry cut $1.6 million from VON's break-even budget for 1982? Is the minister aware that VON nurses in Toronto have already been told they may have to start looking for another job by the end of this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are trying to get VON into a position similar to that of many other home health care providers as to the cost to the ministry, that is, to arrange matters so that there is not an automatic pass-through of an increase in wage and salary costs paid by VON, thus causing an open-ended situation with regard to the ministry's responsibilities. Discussions have been undertaken with VON to try to put it on a sensible and what we consider to be a more rational basis. I believe the member will find upon further research that VON will be satisfied with the arrangement finally worked out with us.

It is our firm desire to continue to expand our home care programs in homemaker services and chronic home care facilities, as well as our acute and active treatment home care facilities, throughout the province. Our dealings with VON are related to our attempt to put these programs on a fiscally manageable and responsible basis that will allow not a contraction but an expansion in that service.

2:40 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Under the old budget of fiscally responsible management, the Toronto VON suffered a $60,000 deficit. This year the projected deficit in Toronto alone is up to $300,000. VON nurses in Toronto have already been told there will be no pay increases this year. There are 32 other branches across Ontario that may be suffering similar circumstances. The minister knows this shortfall could result in the destruction of an already limited home care system of delivery across Ontario. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought I had indicated a moment ago that we are trying to get out of a situation where VON, which is providing a very important and valuable service to the people of this province, is not in a situation where it is chronically running up deficits year after year and does not know if we are going to be able to cover them, but is put on a businesslike and sensible basis with the ministry.

If the member's position is that we should continue with the current situation, continue to fund deficits and not try to work with VON to put it on a basis on which we can fund it properly in order to allow expansion of the kinds of services it provides and to ensure it is able to continue to attract the quality of people it always has, then the member should say so.

In my view, cleaning up the situation, that is, putting it on a fiscally responsible, current basis, where it is not suffering under the present uncertainties the member is referring to, is far and away the preferable way for us to go and will put us in a position where we can continue to implement and increase our budgets and our manpower in the field to provide those services, which is the right way to go.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure the minister is beginning to find out what a shambles the whole network of home care and home support services is and about the ongoing jurisdictional split between his ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Whatever happened to the promise of a single piece of omnibus legislation to rationalize and put on an orderly funding basis all home care and home support services? That was first promised by his colleague, who is sitting beside the minister, in 1976 or 1977, if I am not mistaken. It has been promised again every year -- 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. Why does the minister not promise it again today, maybe with a timetable attached to it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to share one of the concerns my friend the member for Bellwoods expresses that there is some overlap, some duplication in the system. I do not want to deny that. To keep it in perspective, I will say we are relatively fortunate to note that in this province we are not dealing with a large shortfall and with the absence of a lot of these kinds of facilities. What we do have is a lot of agencies, at both the provincial and municipal levels for that matter, that have responded to clear and identifiable needs.

It is a much better problem to have, that is, how to sort out the number of services that are provided and available, rather than to be dealing with the unavailability and shortage of facilities.

I think the step taken to appoint Lawrence Crawford to begin to co-ordinate some of the facilities is a very important step. While I do not have an immediate piece of legislation to bring in, my colleague and I, under the auspices of the chairman of our policy field, are working very closely to see what we can do to co-ordinate and rationalize the delivery of these services. A government that dedicates itself to continuing to expand services in the way we have, under the co-ordination and leadership of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs.

Birch), and finds itself with so many services that there is some uncertainty as to who should go where and who should undertake a given new program has a problem, but it is a problem I would far rather have than the problem every other jurisdiction is facing, which is how to begin to move into this field.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister give the House some assurance he is prepared to assist such workers as those at Dominion Auto Accessories in Windsor, where the last 49 workers of an original work force of 101 are denied severance pay benefits that in many cases would amount to as much as $4,700 because the sequence and timing of the layoffs mean that 49 rather than 50 workers lose their jobs in the final layoff?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my staff for a complete investigation of that situation.

Mr. Mackenzie: I wonder if the minister is also aware of the growing number of employers who appear to be taking advantage of the severance pay legislation through staged layoffs of less than 50 employees or through transfers to other operations prior to layoffs so that severance pay is not applicable? Is he prepared to plug the abuses by removing the 50-person requirement for a permanent layoff so all those facing permanent layoffs have the same rights? Why should 49 workers have no rights compared to 50 workers just because one fewer is laid off?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That matter is under review. I would like to ask the member if he would be good enough to let me know the identity of any companies he feels are bypassing the legislation.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to know from the minister if he will review the legislation to tighten up these loose ends to ensure that these managers and the corporations which own these plants do not deliberately try to avoid their responsibilities and the intent of the legislation. Second, in the specific Windsor case, if he finds the employer deliberately tried to avoid the intent of the law, will he ensure these workers are paid the money owed to them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's request is a reasonable one. Accordingly, I will certainly look into it.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister will be aware of the serious problem of youth unemployment in Ontario. I believe the most recent figure was something like 163,000. I am making reference to the most recent Ontario Manpower Commission report, Labour Market Outlook for Ontario, 1981-1986. It says, "The overall supply of university graduates would far exceed the projected requirements.

For occupations where colleges are the main source of supply, such as engineering technicians and technologists, the college system will not be producing enough graduates to meet the need." It goes on to say, "The potential supply from the apprenticeship and modular training programs would provide roughly half of the manpower needs for these occupations."

Given that this report, the most recent one from the manpower commission, clearly indicates a serious mismatch between the manpower needs of this province and the manpower supply of this province, with every one of those programs coming under the jurisdiction of this minister, what is she going to do to alleviate that mismatch?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious that the honourable member has not been aware of the recent initiatives that have been taken that have significantly increased the numbers of those involved in apprenticeship programs, as recognized by the latest information which has been developed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and Statistics Canada.

This has significantly increased the number of training programs under employer-sponsored training in a way which the federal government through CEIC is now not only applauding but supporting financially. It has significantly increased in number the young people who are involved in linkage programs in the secondary schools that provide them with a portion of the academic part of their apprenticeship training while still in the secondary school program.

It sounds to me that the honourable member is asking whether I am going to suggest to the students of Ontario that they not become involved in educational programs at our universities. I think that is a very shortsighted view and I am absolutely astonished the member would even so much as allude to the fact that a university education is not likely to be appropriate in these changing times.

There can be no doubt that we have specific needs for specific training in specific areas, but for the next two decades the only constant I can see in our society is going to be change. Those people who are best able to adapt to change, to be flexible enough to deal with change, are people who have had an appropriate educational program. I believe that an arts and science program at a university is a very appropriate university and educational training.

I would hope the honourable member would support that kind of thesis. We are not about to become dictators about who goes where to do what for training and education in this province.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: I would remind the minister that with all of her vaunted new programs this report is dated only four months ago, November, 1981, and is a projection of her colleague's Ontario Manpower Commission for the period 1981 to 1986. I am reasonably sure that her colleague's ministry would be aware of the programs she mentioned and would have taken them into consideration, so that is not a very suitable answer.

May I go on and point out to the minister that one third of the university graduates in Ontario were underemployed on the basis of a previous Ontario Manpower Commission report and that has now increased to 39 per cent underemployed. An earlier report showed 21 per cent were in jobs not related to their training and, by the most recent report, that has increased to 23 per cent.

I would have to ask the minister, again referring to her previous answer, what kind of guidance counselling is going on in the secondary schools and even in the universities and colleges of this province where one quarter of the graduates end up in programs or in jobs that have nothing to do with their training and up to 39 per cent of them are underemployed on the basis of their training.

We have to ask this minister whether or not she and her staff are doing anything about these questions because the reports go on year after year and the same thing comes out.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There has been a very concerted effort within the Ministry of Education and within the community colleges of this province to ensure that appropriate guidance and counselling are being provided.

We have extended guidance and counselling to grades 7 and 8 across the province within the past year because we recognize that students make their decisions about career choices very much earlier than the teachers who were around when the honourable member was involved in the educational system directly understood that they made their choices. Indeed, as a result of some of his efforts and expressions of concern, we have moved that activity, related to guidance and counselling, very much earlier into the public system.

I would ask the honourable member what his definition of underemployment is. Would he agree with me that perhaps some of the members of this House on the opposite side are overemployed at the present time? Has the Peter principle reached the opposition? One really has to be concerned about this.

I am not convinced that those "experts" who wrote that interesting report, stimulating though it is and motivational though it is in terms of the kinds of examinations which we must take, really understand underemployment and overemployment for university graduates.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why, if this government is serious about skills training in this province, it took six months to get the skills training centre open in Windsor after it was ready, built and completed in September. It has now been open for only two weeks.

Has the minister been in contact with General Motors, which just closed its brand new skills training centre in Windsor, which was built because they had to import 95 workers three years ago?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the skills training centre which is currently functioning in Windsor will perhaps replace some of those which were operating in other areas. They cannot in fact provide all of the skills training. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that employers in this province, as well as across the country, recognize their responsibilities for training. The weak link at the present time is within the private sector in terms of providing places for on-the-job training.

Somebody mentioned Ontario Hydro. Obviously they do not know that Ontario Hydro has one of the best training programs provided by a non-institutional or academic institutional arrangement anywhere in Canada, and it is so recognized by all the other provinces in Canada as well.

The member knows why we had some difficulty. It was a conflict that occurred over which, unfortunately, the ministry had no control, but we were able to negotiate a resolution and that institution is now open and functioning.

INDIAN BANDS COMPENSATION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Premier. It was reported at the end of last week that the federal government had reached a substantial settlement with the Islington band at Whitedog and Grassy Narrows with respect --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I cannot hear the question and I am not sure whether the Premier can. I would ask the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) and the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) to please confer with the minister afterwards. The member for Riverdale has the floor.

What is the present position of the negotiations between this province, Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd. and Reed Paper Co., to the extent that they are involved, and the band councils of those two bands to bring to a settlement the obligation of this government and the obligation of Reed now transferred to Great Lakes Forest Products?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wonder if the House would indulge me. I think the former Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, now Minister of Labour, can probably help with part of the answer. It may be that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who is unfortunately incapacitated, might have to help with the balance of the answer.

If he is still incapacitated tomorrow, I will undertake to get some form of answer on the legal aspect for the member, but if the House will agree, I think the Minister of Labour can answer part of the member's question.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe I can answer with a certain amount of enthusiasm.

An hon. member: Enthusiasm?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Enthusiasm on the basis that in the past couple of months there has been considerable progress made in reaching a solution to a problem that has been ongoing for a period of three years. I have not been actively involved in the past month since changing portfolios, but I have kept in touch with my former portfolio and have been led to believe that things have been moving quite satisfactorily. I know they were definitely headed in that direction a month ago.

For example, we managed to get the Whitedog situation, the unrest and doubt as to where the province stood, established to the satisfaction of Great Lakes Forest Products and of Whitedog, which permitted them to get to the bargaining table. This is something that had not happened in the past. I think that was a major breakthrough.

Another major breakthrough was that we were able to work out the difficulties Whitedog was having with Ontario Hydro. Those have been resolved and an agreement may already have been signed in that respect. If not, it will be signed quite shortly. All in all, I think things have been moved off-centre. I know I was very pleased with the progress that was made during the months of January and February.

3 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Premier, because the minister who is responsible should be reporting to the House, not the former minister. The question does not relate to the legal obligations which may fall to the Attorney General.

My supplementary question is: When is the $15 million going to be paid by Great Lakes Forest Products? That was the minimum amount of money that was to be their obligation. What is the extent and degree of the Ontario government's obligation and when will the settlement be effected?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there are actually three questions. With great respect, the honourable member has phrased it in a way that is probably not factually correct. I will get that information. I will not guarantee to have it here on Tuesday, but if not Tuesday, I will have it for the honourable member on Thursday.

SUCCESSOR RIGHTS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister will certainly agree that the current state of the economy requires a condition of sound labour relations in this province to help protect workers. Therefore, I wonder whether he is aware of a situation that has arisen at Emrick Plastics in Windsor.

A new employer, who purchased the company after it had been in receivership, is apparently flouting the terms of the existing collective agreement with Local 195 of the United Auto Workers union by forcing employees to reapply for the jobs they have been performing. Furthermore, he is only selectively rehiring those employees in utter disregard of and disrespect for their rights under the collective agreement. Is the minister aware of this matter, and what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the matter but I will be by the time the day is out.

Mr. Wrye: Surely the minister should recognize that the actions of Emrick are a direct result of the lack of teeth contained in

section 63 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Surely he agrees that what is happening is a rather crude attempt by an employer, who is literally bringing people in off the streets, to break the union and demoralize the rank and file by stripping them of their leadership.

What commitment is the minister prepared to make to the House to introduce tough deterrent penalties upon any employer engaged in such callous disregard of the successor rights provision of the Ontario Labour Relations Act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will have a completely detailed answer to that for the honourable member tomorrow.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio who is presumably in charge of freedom of information.

The minister will be aware that six months before the Williams commission reported, the Premier assured this House that as soon as it reported the government would proceed with a bill. He will also be aware that his predecessor, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who was in charge of advancing freedom of information, shared in the press conference announcing the royal commission report and said we would have a bill before Christmas. That was Christmas of 1980. In view of that, the minister on the eve of this session was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

"But if the cabinet asks me which way is easier politically, to go ahead or just drop the bill, I will probably have to answer the easiest thing politically is just to say no to freedom of information and walk away from it. There is no way we can win on this issue. We are going to be in hot water regardless of what we do."

I have two questions of this midwife over here who was going to bring in an abortion or something stillborn.

After seven years of consideration of this issue by the House and after the expenditure of $1.5 million on a royal commission investigation, how can the minister be contemplating for one fleeting moment that he is going to walk away from this? Secondly, if he is in the hot water at the prospect of bringing it in, is he not in hot water because of his absurd recommendation to the cabinet that they should be the final arbiter of any difference of view on whether freedom of information may be made available and therefore in violation of the royal commission and every other advocate of freedom of information legislation?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, as a point of information to the member for York South, I do happen to be the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, no doubt this question relating to the freedom of information and the privacy law has been with this government and many other governments around the world for a long time. The British started to consider this question in 1968; in 1972 the Australians did as well, and in 1974 it was the Canadian federal government. I believe it was in 1976 that our government went into this matter.

The member for York South is not correct in saying that our model, in relation to the final appeal process, is unique. If he would study the Danks report from New Zealand, which has been dealing with the issue since the early 1970s, he would see it recommends a similar model for the appeal process.

My intent, as I have outlined in a public statement, is that the principle of ministerial responsibility should be maintained. I believe, and I am recommending to my cabinet colleagues, that the final responsibility as to whether a document should be private or public should rest with the politician and not the judge.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can tell me what he tells the Honourable Walter Baker, his fellow traveller in the federal riding of Nepean-Carleton, who has complained publicly about the stand of this government with respect to freedom of information.

Can the minister tell this House what he tells his friend when he complains about the minister's indifference? When the federal member asks when, where and how he intends to bring forward the long-promised, much-talked-about and endlessly studied freedom of information bill for Ontario, can he tell us what he tells him?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Honourable Walter Baker on this matter on many occasions; in fact, we debated it on the radio. I disagree with him. I stated publicly that I disagree with him.

I hope I will be able to bring this matter to some conclusion in the very near future. It is now being considered by the executive council, and in the not-too-distant future I will be able to proceed with a piece of legislation outlining the access and privacy policies of this government.

[Later]

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: So that my friend the Provincial Secretary for Justice will not be under any false impression, I wish to set the record straight. The federal member, Mr. Walter Baker, said his fellow Tories at Queen's Park were racing full-speed back to the Middle Ages with their stand on freedom of information.

DAY CARE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services on the subject of taxation of day care centres. The minister knows that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) has decided to proceed with realty tax assessment of nonprofit day care centres located in public schools, specifically in North York. I am informed that his officials have undertaken a study of this issue. Why is he now just studying this issue when day care centre operators are faced this year with an immediate tax increase and costs of approximately $1,500 per classroom used for this purpose?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have brought the matter of the use of school space, as well as others, to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Revenue. I am confident the problem will be solved shortly.

3:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Ms. Fish moved, seconded by Mr. Shymko, first reading of Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. MacQuarrie, first reading of Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. MacQuarrie, first reading of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, first reading of Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the bill adds energy conservation to the matters to be considered by the Ontario Energy Board in setting gas rates. It also clarifies the board's jurisdiction over the hookup charges levied by gas companies and is intended to prevent extra charges because fuel-saving measures or devices are embodied in buildings.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 1 to 7 on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, April 2, and the interim answer to question 13. See Notice Paper].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, before we go into the order, I thought I might indicate that, with the agreement of the House leaders, we have come to a slightly different order for the estimates to be called today. They are in the same numerical sequence, with a few missing. The Ministry of Government Services, I suggest, could go first, followed by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Environment.

Before the House adjourns at six o'clock tonight, we will announce the order for tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding from the House leader that this is in agreement. With that in mind, we will proceed in that order.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 503, real property program; item 2, real property acquisition:

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions relating to these supplementary estimates, I will be glad to answer them at this time.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I do not have too much to go on. Perhaps the minister can give us some additional information relating to the $3,837,100 required additional funding to carry out his ministry's program of acquisition of real property. Looking over the past three years, in 1979-80 the actual cost involved was well over $85 million, in 1980-81 it dropped down to $28 million and some, and in 1981-82 it was $20 million. Now the minister is asking for an additional $3.8 million.

The question is, where is this property being purchased? Is it being purchased for the land development bank of the province or is it being bought for some other reason, for some other provincial agency? Can the minister tell us what this is all about? Where and in what community is the land being purchased?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: In 1974, when it was decided to purchase the land for Ontario Hydro in the parkway belt, the Ministry of Government Services was directed to purchase the land and Ontario Hydro was to pay for all the land we purchased at that time. Subtracted from that would be any lands we needed for other government uses such as highways. The Ministry of the Environment might want to run a line through; there could be things of that sort.

In 1980 it was decided that the payment we owed Hydro to bring us up to August 1979 was in the amount of $58,466,484.13. The additional amount we are asking for in the supplementary estimates shows $8.3 million, but we have built into our estimates enough to cover the balance. The real figure we owe Hydro at this time is $8,375,121.18. This represents all the purchases we made that we are using for other government purposes up to August 31, 1981.

In this figure there were a few transactions that we were not able to complete in 1978, so that makes up part of the almost $8.4 million we are paying this time. I am told there will be a bit more to pay in future, and the honourable member may be interested to know that the amount we are talking about today represents about 85 properties.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister is telling me we are buying it from Ontario Hydro which over the last few years has had difficulties in running its cables and high-tension wires along that corridor. I imagine much of it has to do with the Niagara Escarpment bordering on that area. It seems to me we are talking now about running highways. The minister is not quite sure whether the land is being bought for highways or for park purposes.

What are we actually talking about? Why is there a need for this land? Ontario Hydro bought it and now the ministry is paying it back; is that what the minister is trying to tell us?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: No. Where the Hydro corridor runs, Hydro paid the whole thing at first. We have looked into the possibility of where we may need some of that land for a road or road widening. Perhaps the Ministry of the Environment needs some land for water and sewers or something of that sort where we will need it in future for government purposes. We are paying for that portion of it. We will not need all that land and some of it will be sold off, as has been done in the past. The portion that Hydro is using for its corridor has been subtracted from this amount. Am I making it clear?

Mr. Haggerty: There were public hearings in the past for the purpose of Hydro obtaining land for a right of way. The question now is, if the government is moving in to take certain lands for its projects, whether for sewers, water lines, parks or highways, should there not be further public hearings to inform the public of the intent of government to move into this particular area? Perhaps the people have not had a proper hearing; the hearings related to Ontario Hydro, but not to any government projects in this particular area. I sense that the minister may get himself involved in something that could be more costly than buying the land without the public being informed.

The minister is saying one thing about the corridor from the Bruce Peninsula to this particular area, the Georgetown-Bradley junction, and Hydro is saying that it is going to be used for hydro only. Now we find there may be a switch and it could be used for a highway, or it could be used for bringing a water line down -- something they talked about years ago -- from Lake Huron to feed the area here.

I suggest to the minister that he seems to be circumventing the real intent by not informing the public of the government's intention. I do not think the government should have it both ways, getting land for a hydro corridor and then going back for other services, without the public being better informed about it.

The minister says he is going to be selling some of this land back. Why would he buy so much and then turn around and sell it back?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Any watermains or highways that would go through there would be subject to environmental assessment and all the other programs they would have to go through before they would start. I am sure the honourable member knows that.

In some cases we have bought so much of a person's land that we have land-locked some of it. I know the honourable member who asked the question is a farmer. He knows that if you block his way of getting in to do his work you should really buy that land, because it is not any use to him if he cannot get the machinery on to work it. This is where we have had to buy some, where we have taken so much of the land that it is not a viable operation any more. Maybe we bought it voluntarily; maybe the land compensation people have said, "You have taken so much that you should buy the whole thing."

These are areas where we usually buy the land and perhaps sell that land-locked piece to the farmer next to him to work, these sorts of things. If it is a bit that lies outside the parkway belt, we have sold some of those in the past and we will in the future as people come along.

As for a road or a sewer line going through there at some time, it would be subject to environmental impact studies and the public would be involved in those.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a matter that deeply concerns me. I want to go into it in some detail with the minister and get a detailed response. The matter I would like to deal with involves the construction of physical assets and therefore is included under this vote.

Mr. Chairman: Just keeping the agenda in mind, it does say real property acquisitions. You may continue and we will hear what you have to say. I do want to make sure that we are on the right vote.

Mr. Philip: I can assure you we are on the right vote.

Mr. Chairman: In terms of your comments.

Mr. Philip: You will find what I have to say very interesting.

Mr. Chairman: That is not the point.

Mr. Philip: On October 26, 1981, the Ministry of Government Services called for public tenders on the uninterrupted power conversion system, UPCS, for the Ontario government computer centre. The UPCS is basically a large battery which stores power. It is hooked up to a rectifier, which changes the current from AC to DC, and an inverter to supply power to the computers.

Two companies bid on the contract. One was Datasphere Sales Ltd. --

Mr. Chairman: The minister has a point of order.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I have been expecting this question in question period for two or three weeks, ever since the researcher came over and talked to our people. It has really nothing to do with the purchase of land in the Hydro corridor, but I would be glad to answer it tomorrow in question period or at any time the member would like to ask me. I have been expecting it since the House came back into session.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to the minister, and I hope the minister will consider it, question period is not a time during which we can go into something in as much detail as I wish to share with the minister. I would submit, sir, with the greatest of respect, that this deals with the construction of physical assets, that what we are dealing with is a large battery which supplies power to computers in these buildings.

I hope that the minister will permit me to give him some detail on this. This is clearly the forum in which we can cover it, not in question period where we have only one or two minutes to deal with a matter. I think this is something that requires some detail and I would ask the minister to consider allowing me or encouraging me to put on the record some of the information I have. He then would have an opportunity to elaborate at some length, if not today then maybe with a ministerial statement on the subject.

Mr. Chairman: I want to reiterate to the member that I am having some difficulty in formulating his inquiries under supplementary estimates. Keeping all things in mind, the minister has indicated that he is willing to answer. What does the member think about dealing with this when regular estimates come forward?

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other issues I can deal with in the other estimates. I would like to deal with this at this time. It is a matter of great concern to me. A number of jobs have been lost in Canada as a result of the actions of this ministry and there are very irregular procedures in terms of the tender. I would like to deal with this issue at this time because it is a matter of some urgency, and the minister should have an opportunity to reply in detail at this time.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I am really willing to answer at any time, but in all fairness, the estimates we are dealing with today concern the parkway belt and not our computer centre battery terminals in the George Drew building. That is all I am saying.

If we are going to open it up to discuss everything in the Ministry of Government Services, that is fine; I have been here a couple of years and I am comfortable with it. But that is getting far off track, and I think we are really talking about the Hydro corridor and the parkway belt. As I said, I have been expecting this question for two or three weeks and I would be glad to answer it in question period or, if the member wants more detail, whenever our estimates come along. But I do not think this is the time to discuss it, right here today, if we are going to keep on track.

Mr. Stokes: I do not know whether what I am going to say will be of any assistance, but if we look at the supplementary estimates that were presented to us by the Chairman of Management Board there is very little detail other than the actual amounts in very general terms for the area of the ministry the supplementary estimates cover. On page 2 of the supplementary estimates dealing with the Ministry of Government Services you will note an amount of $3,837,100 for the acquisition and construction of physical assets.

I listened very carefully, Mr. Chairman, when you asked the minister if he had an opening comment or anything by way of an explanation for the benefit of members as to what specifically this money was required for. He declined to make an opening comment. I submit to you, sir, that anything dealing with the acquisition and construction of physical assets is quite appropriate for comment when a minister of the crown comes before the committee of supply asking for additional sums.

I am sure he must have had some input into the limited amount of information which was given to the House and which includes specific reference to acquisition and construction of physical assets. No reference to the parkway belt was included. When asked if he wanted to be specific and focus on it, the minister declined to do so. However, I think anything that deals broadly with acquisition and construction of physical assets is quite appropriate for comment during these estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Could I ask the member for Etobicoke how much time he will require to deal with the problem he proposes to discuss?

Mr. Philip: I think I can cover it in half an hour, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Following the example of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). I read under supplementary estimates "real property acquisition." I am sure the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) could tell us what "real property" means from a legal standpoint. However, in your opening statement you indicated something to do with the construction of computers, which I would think would be considered chattels. On the other hand, if the chattel is secured to a particular piece of property and land, it would certainly fall under the category of real property.

I cannot anticipate what the minister will do with this, but he has indicated he would probably not respond to some of your inquiries in the area you want to investigate. However, in an effort to reach a happy medium, I wonder if the member might find a time somewhat shorter than half an hour that would be sufficient to get ourselves out of this predicament.

In view of the comments made by the member for Lake Nipigon and my ruling that property acquisition in the area on which you are focusing may come under real property, although here I am stretching it a bit, you can continue. But keep in mind that the chair will not be looking favourably at so long a time as half an hour.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to have the experience of the member for Lake Nipigon, who understands parliamentary procedure better than I ever could. I appreciate his counsel as well as your decision.

On October 26, 1981, the Ministry of Government Services called for a public tender on the uninterruptible power conversion system for the Ontario government computer centre -- I mentioned before exactly what that entails -- and two companies bid on the contract. One is Datasphere Sales Ltd., a sales office of the US-based Emerson Electric Co.; the other is Exide Canada Inc. of Mississauga, a subsidiary of Inco, which is a Canadian company.

Back in 1976, Exide and Emerson bid on a similar contract which was awarded to Emerson on the grounds that it had the lowest bid. Exide complained at that time that the Emerson system was dumped on the Canadian market at below normal trading prices. The system had been commissioned and built for the US army and was sold as surplus. Exide fought the issue through the federal anti-dumping tribunal, which was unable to establish dumping because of the nature of the product.

This time the companies were given until November 19, 1981, to submit their bids. Exide asked for an extension because the technical details were written according to the specifications of the Emerson system and they needed additional time to translate the details. This ministry showed its great Canadian patriotism by refusing the request. None the less, they both submitted in time. Exide had the lowest bid, but the Ministry of Government Services awarded the contract to the US company. As of today, Exide has not been officially informed by the Ministry of Government Services that it did not win the contract.

Exide was informed in a phone conversation, which was initiated by Don Sly, chief electrical engineer, that he had recommended the other company. In a letter dated February 16, 1982, the Premier (Mr. Davis) informed them they were unsuccessful. The point, however, is that the tender office and MGS did not officially communicate the results of the tender to Exide.

3:40 p.m.

Exide understandably is as angry as I am that it did not win the contract. On January 14 they sent a telex to the Premier with a carbon copy to the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones). On January 29, 1982, they sent a telex to George More, office of procurement policy, Ministry of Industry and Trade Development, answering questions he had raised. On February 9, 1982, they sent another telex to the Premier with a carbon copy to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), Mr. More, the member for Mississauga North, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie).

The documents on file at the tender office only record the bid amount submitted by Exide; the Datasphere bid is left blank. At the public opening of tenders on November 19, 1981, only the Exide bid was read out; the Datasphere bid was not. The Ontario Manual of Administration states: "At the opening, only the tender number, bidder's name and address and the amount of the bid -- that is, the total, partial or no bid -- need be announced and recorded."

Mr. Pencak, the assistant deputy minister, explained the situation as follows: "Tendering officers are required only to read the bottom line total. In this case, Datasphere had not added up the three figures and consequently failed to fill in the bottom line. As such, no total was read out at the bid opening."

According to Exide, they were neither contacted nor informed as to what the total Datasphere bid was once MGS had completed the addition. Therefore, they did not know who had the lowest bid. The bids were as follows:

Exide, $263,834; Datasphere, $423,944 -- a difference of $160,110. The bid does not represent the total value of the contract. There are still an additional two units to be purchased at a cost of $160,000 and a preventive maintenance package and spare kit part and so forth. This makes for a total Datasphere contract of more than $600,000.

The rationale for refusing the bid is very interesting, as noted in the briefing notes that were attached to the Premier's letter. Perhaps somebody in his office slipped up and accidentally attached the briefing notes. The reasons outlined were as follows: evidence of poor Exide track record; Inco's attempt to sell Exide; five identified technical shortages; and incompatibility of the existing Emerson system and Exide add-on.

The letter the Premier sent to Exide is dated February 16, 1982, more than a month after the purchase order sent to Datasphere. In a telegram to Mr. More and ITD on January 29, 1982, Exide responded to these reasons, and I would like to summarize the response.

The company had increased its field services so the track record was not an issue or was not relevant to the first point. Inco supplied a letter of comfort agreeing to honour any business commitments that Exide must make. Thus, the second point is completely erroneous and of no consequence.

They supplied a list of computer users to comment on equipment reliability. The list included Statistics Canada, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, IBM, Canadian Pacific and the Alberta government, interestingly enough. It seems to be more interested in buying Canadian than this government is.

Exide contends compatibility of equipment is not a problem. The interesting thing is that when asked for a third-party analysis, that is, outside consulting engineers to assess the situation, this government refused.

It is interesting to note the present state of Exide. It now has 33 people out of 88 on short-term layoffs working three days a week, with the Unemployment Insurance Commission paying two days a week. What we are talking about is not just a loss of a contract to a Canadian company, but also a loss of jobs as a result of this government's action.

If we deal with some of the details of the instructions of tenders, the Ontario Manual of Administration in its policy statement No. 1 states: "Whenever possible product service requirements shall be described in terms of performance, design or generic specifications in order to encourage supplier competition, and general brand names shall not be specified unless accompanied by the words 'or equivalent."

The next sentence is the interesting key point. "However, when special circumstances make performance, design, comparative or generic specifications impractical, a written explanation authorized by a senior official of the ministry shall be attached to the requisition and a copy retained for audit purposes." No letter was sent to Exide until it sent three telegrams and made one phone call to the ministry.

Second, at the bid opening no bid was recorded for Datasphere and, as I have indicated before, subsequent to the bottom line being filled out by the MGS, Exide was not informed.

Third, Exide was not officially informed it had lost the bid. The decision to recommend was made on December 21, 1981. The purchase order was written on January 8, 1982, and only in a response from the Premier on February 16 did the company know for sure what had happened.

Fourth, the background briefing notes of the Premier's letter point out that "MGS officials, after consulting with Mr. Wiseman, had declined to debrief Exide on the reasons behind their preference for foreign equipment." Exide asked for that session, but MGS would not even meet with it to discuss the reasons for refusing the Exide bid, even though it was $160,000 less than that of Datasphere.

Fifth, the reasons for refusing, which were supplied in the briefing notes, I addressed earlier. In fact, the notes point out that the office of procurement policy could not judge the compatibility issue and, furthermore, found the issue of Exide's track record not as clear as MGS suggested. I can read those briefing notes from the Premier into the record if the minister wishes. I would be happy to do so, but I want to get through some of these points first because I am keeping in mind the chairman's admonition about time.

Clearly, looking at the case, it seems to violate the "objective and suitable manner" clause in the competitive purchasing policy. I would remind the minister that if we look at item 2 under his ministry's policy on competitive purchasing, the supply section, it states: "All interested suppliers shall be given fair opportunity to bid on government business and the selection of those suppliers invited to bid shall be conducted in an objective and equitable manner." I suggest to the minister this was not done in this case. His ministry has clearly violated its own guidelines.

3:50 p.m.

Sixth, the briefing notes for the Premier make the remark that Exide, both independently and through Inco, has a history of using the political route to enforce saleability. That is surely relevant to this particular tender, is it not?

The equipment Datasphere will supply will be produced in London, England, and will be shipped to Canada. Datasphere claims its bid will include 50 per cent Canadian content. If we really look at what that means, we are talking about federal and provincial sales taxes, markup from Datasphere, startup and commissioning, warranty and setting up, unloading and setting up, and a three-panel circuit board, which is basically very minor.

The Exide package will include much more Canadian content and, more to the point, it will include Canadian manufacturing content. This is what this ministry has blown. At this time when the government purports to buy Canadian, we have an opportunity not only to save the government money but also to create some manufacturing jobs in this province, yet this government blows money overseas.

The government has a specific policy related to Canadian preference in purchasing, but this ministry chooses to violate that policy. The issue is not so much one of price, but of a general preference. If the government is willing to provide a price preference to support and

encourage Canadian production, surely it should be good enough to do it in reality and not just in its speeches. That clearly has not been done in this case.

I find it very interesting to read the briefing notes into the record for you, Mr. Chairman, because this is the first time you have come across this interesting case. I guess somebody is in trouble for including them with the Premier's letter. I would like to read them into the record for the minister's benefit, although no doubt he has been given a copy by this time. This is exactly what the briefing notes on Exide Canada Inc. say:

"On January 14 Exide Canada Inc., Inco's electronic subsidiary, telexed Messrs. Davis, Jones, Gregory and Kennedy regarding the expected loss of a contract with the Ministry of Government Services to supply a $263,834 uninterruptible power conversion system for Queen's Park computer facilities. The Honourable Mr. Grossman received a similar telex on January 19. Procurement policy began an investigation on January 20 and 21. UPCS equipment is critical to the operations of the Queen's Park computers.

"MGS sought tenders from Exide Canada and Datasphere Sales Ltd., agent for the imported Emerson electronics equipment, in September 1981. On January 7 MGS issued a purchase order to Datasphere Sales Ltd. at $423,944. In choosing the higher-priced imported equipment, MGS cited I gave you those reasons, such as evidence of poor Exide track record, and I have dealt with each of those. It goes on to say, "MGS has purchased Exide equipment in a different configuration from the Downsview computer centre and has satisfactory performance." That is very interesting is it not, Mr. Chairman? Then it deals with the issues.

"MGS has opted on technical grounds to purchase imported equipment at a price premium of $160,000 instead of the Canadian-manufactured product. Exide contends they were not informed of the issuance of a purchase order to Datasphere and loss of this contract will lead to a direct loss of jobs in the Mississauga plant and an indirect loss of jobs due to the implications of Ontario going elsewhere."

One wonders where the Mississauga members are today. One can see the kind of representation they and their constituents get, when their government blows away this many jobs in their own ridings.

Mr. Conway: Let the record show that Mr. Kennedy is here under the gallery.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry, is Mr. Kennedy here? I did not see him. He is over there. He is sitting in the gallery and that is quite often where he is -- well, nevermind.

It goes on: "Procurement policy has been unable to develop a definitive third-party option on the reliability of Exide equipment in the particular use MGS intends." That is interesting. "References cited by MGS regarding Exide's poor track record are not black and white, but some question of confidence remains and MGS officials are adamant that the risks involved in adopting Exide equipment in this particular use are too great." They do not say what they are and they admit they cannot define them, but they are too great according to the Premier. "The MGS officials, after consulting with Mr. Wiseman, have declined to debrief Exide on the reasons behind their preference for foreign equipment."

Here is the Premier; he knows all this; this is all in his briefing notes. He thinks nothing of it. It is fine that his ministry is behaving in this reprehensible, irresponsible manner. He thinks nothing of it and does not do anything about it. He is not even competent to deal with the issue. He happened to let somebody shove his briefing notes into the letter to the other company or otherwise we would not have found out about all this. He is not even capable of the coverup he is inadvertently doing.

"Exide, both independently and through Inco, has a history of using the political route to reinforce their saleability." Then it goes on to its conclusions. "Procurement policy has forced an internal review of this purchase. MGS is adamant that they will not withdraw their contract to Datasphere and decline to meet with Exide to debrief them on the purchase. Exide maintains this loss of contract will be a contributing factor to the layoffs and the attached response from Mr. Grossman and the draft response for the Premier's office are based on accepting MGS's position."

Here we have a situation where this government violates, or apparently violates, its own rules of conduct regarding competitive purchasing. It squanders Ontario jobs and then it goes on television and tells everybody to buy Canadian. When it comes to the crunch, not only do they not buy Canadian but they go and buy from foreigners at a higher cost than it would take to buy from a Canadian company. To make matters worse, it is not just this ministry that knows about it. The Premier knows about it. He has a full briefing on it, as is evident from the briefing notes, and this nonsense still takes place.

To make it even worse, the Conservative member whose riding it is in is briefed on it, or is obviously sent some letters about it, and we see no evidence of his acting on it either. I say to the minister I hope he has some response to this.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. I know there are no time restraints in regard to supply. I appreciate your consideration in this matter.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I see why the honourable member did not ask this in question period. I would like to clear up a few things. There were the two bids as the member mentioned. One of the bidders, Emerson, did not total its bid, but that is not irregular. Some do not. The figures were there.

At the bid openings we usually read out who the bidders are. We reserve the right to make sure all the people bidding have bid fully on everything they have been asked to bid on in the tender. We usually reserve the right for around 30 days or up to 30 days -- sometimes it goes a bit longer and sometimes it is shorter -- to give a decision as to which one we think it should be. In all cases that come across my desk, particularly those where there is a difference in what would appear at first glance as being cheaper, I call the ministry officials in and ask for the reasons. In this particular case I did the same.

4 p.m.

The system we have at the George Drew building is one of the largest computers that is available in Canada. My experts in this field tell me the basic difference between these two systems and the difference between the two companies is that one company -- the one my friend has mentioned, Exide -- has built 60-cycle units but has very little knowledge, I am told, of the 415-cycle unit that is needed to make sure there is no interruption of power at the George Drew building. I hope we never have to use it, but it is there if we do.

He mentioned they had sold one to Alberta. I could be wrong but I believe, and the honourable member can check this out, that is a 60-cycle unit and not a 415-cycle unit.

I also understand that when one takes space into consideration, as we have done with Exide, the battery storage area would have had to have been enlarged because it is a different type of system from the present one and requires more space. In that building -- as anyone who has visited there knows, and I think some of my critics have -- the space is very limited.

Also taken into consideration on this was the fact that we have had good maintenance done by Emerson. I am told Emerson has serviced well what it has sold us. My experts also say Emerson equipment is a much better product technically.

The bottom line on this is that my experts -- and I am no expert in this field -- say the two systems are comparable in price, although the performance and capability of Exide equipment appear to be the outstanding problems. I am sure anyone who knows computers is in agreement that we have to be sure we have that uninterruptible power if and when we need it there. From what they tell me, when one takes all things into consideration, the costs are very similar.

I have run through a lot of notes I had. The member kept saying this government and my ministry were not buying Canadian and were not interested in a procurement policy. I say that we very much are, to put that on the record. The member -- the one from the north with the big smile on his face, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) -- knows when I spoke on this in the estimates that I was astounded to find that in the mechanical and electrical areas we had difficulty in buying more than 40 or 50 per cent of our mechanical and electrical requirements in Canada. We have been working quite closely with what is now the Ministry of Industry and Trade Development to try to overcome that.

In areas where we see we cannot buy Canadian at present, we encourage people to get into that field. We are working quite closely with the Ministry of Industry and Trade Development on that, as we were with the former ministry. We have asked our architects when they are designing buildings or, when the buildings are being built, to make sure they try where possible to order the Canadian equivalent. Some of our Canadian products perhaps have not been tested as much as some from other countries, but how are they ever going to get a chance if we do not allow them to try them?

We are doing that, and we are hoping, as I know all honourable members are, that perhaps that 45 per cent -- I believe that is the right percentage; I could be corrected -- will be a higher percentage when we are doing our estimates this year. We are doing our bit. We are buying Canadian where we can, but bear in mind we had to think of the service, the uninterrupted power and the fact that this company had done a 415-cycle installation previously. I am told the other one did not have the expertise at this time. I hope I have answered that question satisfactorily.

Mr. Philip: No, the minister has not answered the question. Rather than estimates, or perhaps in addition to estimates, ministry officials may enjoy appearing before the public accounts committee to answer a few more questions.

The competitive purchasing procedure clearly states that when special circumstances make performance, design, comparative or generic specification impractical, a written explanation authorized by a senior official of the ministry shall be attached to the requisition and a copy retained for file for audit purposes. Can the minister tell us whether that was done?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I will have to check that. There was one point I missed in my remarks; I would like to check out the statement the member made that I had told my ministry staff not to do the debriefing with Exide. I think I have a pretty good memory, and I really do not recall ever saying that to any of my staff, but I will be glad to check it out. I firmly believe that anyone who is not successful should be informed and I do not know why Exide was not.

I believe the statement also was made that Exide did not know until the Premier's letter in February. I understand that is wrong, that Mr. Sly had told them when they phoned. I believe the date was January 17, or close to that. I did say to our people that was not good enough, that they should have been notified before that time that they were not the successful bidder.

Mr. Philip: Can the minister answer whether at any time he considered having a third, impartial party examine the two bids, knowing full well there was a Canadian company with some expertise in the field, that it had come in considerably lower than the American-owned company and that jobs would be created in Britain rather than in Ontario? Did it not occur to the minister to have a third party evaluate the bids in the light of the buy-Canadian policy and advertising of this government?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: As I told the honourable member, I did notice that, and at first appearance it would seem that Exide was cheaper until one considered the storage of batteries would have to be changed, the battery system would have to be changed. If memory serves me, when one added that cost to the difference in the bids, what was an apparent saving in going to Exide brought them up to be quite competitive.

When looked at from the standpoint of the experts in Government Services, the one had a good service contract and had worked with a 415-cycle unit before

whereas the other, if it had worked with it at all, had done so in only a limited way; they had always been with a 60-cycle unit. I am sure all honourable members know a bit about computers and you cannot have them going down in power or you get into all sorts of trouble; that is very important. And, as I said before, it is one of the largest computer terminals in Canada, if not the largest.

Mr. Philip: That is a nice rationalization but I like to deal in the real world. I wonder whether the minister can supply us with those additional cost figures and let us examine them. Has the minister supplied those costs to the two companies concerned so they can both comment on them?

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I think we have been very fair. When the honourable member's researcher asked to come over, I had nothing to hide in our ministry. We do everything above board. We gave him two of our chief people to sit down and discuss this with and go over the facts. He has had ample time to go over those.

If this was such an important matter -- as I said, I have been expecting this question in the House since the House started. If the member for Lake Nipigon had not come in and intervened, it probably would have been ruled out of order, because we are talking about parkway belts. We have answered it for him. His people were over and had a look. I do not know what else we can do.

This decision was taken on the advice of the experts and I am sure the honourable member who asked the question is no more of an expert when it comes to computers than I am. We have to rely on our experts. We cannot have all the answers ourselves. I am convinced we did the right thing in this instance.

Mr. Chairman: Is that the minister's final comment?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Yes.

Mr. Philip: I would like to make a favourable remark about you, Mr. Chairman, because I am sure you have the intelligence to have ruled in the same way you were assisted in ruling by the arguments from the member for Lake Nipigon. You would have seen the fairness in what we were trying to do.

At the same time, I simply want to ask the question again: Were the additional costs supplied to the two companies? Yes or no?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has no further comment.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Etobicoke said the Mississauga members showed disinterest in this and did not participate, which is the furthest thing from the truth. It was of considerable concern to the members, because each of the Mississauga members does what he can to look after the people he represents. This includes the industry in the community. It was discussed by the three members from Mississauga with the minister, and it came to the attention of the Premier.

It was a matter of deep concern. We regretted that the award could not be made to Exide. The explanation, as given by the minister, covers the situation as it was, regrettable as it is. The letter from the Premier was the conclusion of a very careful reconsideration. That was taken with the support of the three members for Mississauga. I want to correct the record as it has been inaccurately expressed by the member for Etobicoke.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I took it for granted that everyone knew both the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) had talked to me. I would not want to let them think the member for Etobicoke was the only one who asked the question.

Vote 503 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

Under the agreement by the House leaders, it is my understanding that the Ministry of Health supplementary estimates are next. The minister is present.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 3202, institutional health services program; item 4, institutional care services:

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement. The proposal for our supplementary estimates this afternoon is to seek the approval of this House for an additional 588.8 million for our hospital system. This request, together with the $118 million which the House granted in supplementary estimates last December, brings the 1981-82 appropriation of my ministry to more than $2.8 billion for hospital services.

Today's appropriation has helped us meet most of the deficits incurred by the public hospitals of Ontario as well as costs related to the expanded role of Providence Villa in chronic care.

In responding to requests for additional funds, we have developed a very detailed set of criteria to ensure that all hospitals are fairly treated. One of the criteria we look at is the volume of growth in life support system programs. Here I refer to such program as neonatal intensive care and dialysis for cancer treatment. These have needed more funding to prevent them being reduced in scope or volume.

Improving service efficiencies in hospital operations is an ongoing concern in our system. Certain studies were required to look at effective reorganization of hospital departments, sharing of services between hospitals and the like. These studies are included in the criteria guidelines.

The ministry has also considered the growth in the general reutilization of hospital services as justifiable within our criteria. We cite, for example, the rising cost from the greater use of high technology. Specifically, to cite one example, seven new computerized axial tomography scanners have been approved for our hospitals. Five are in Toronto -- at Wellesley, Mount Sinai, Scarborough General, North York and Etobicoke hospitals -- another is at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa and one is at Kitchener-Waterloo General. When these CAT scanners are in place, it will mean there will be a total of 24 in hospitals throughout Ontario.

When hospitals encounter a decline in revenue from uninsured patients -- those either outside the province or the country or whose treatment is paid by other agencies such as the Workmen's Compensation Board and the Department of Veterans Affairs -- the ministry applies its criteria and makes up those revenue shortfalls as well.

In addition, the ministry has awarded additional funds for unusual salary adjustments, as we always have, and chronic bed conversions. We agreed to the transfer of 224 extended care beds from the Ministry of Community and Social Services to my ministry for use by chronic care patients at Providence Villa in Toronto. The cost of the conversion is included in today's supplementary estimates.

Mr. McClellan: Those are 224 new beds, as the minister's predecessor used to describe them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am giving you the facts, as I always do -- just the facts.

Mr. McClellan: I understand. They are new chronic care beds, right?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We understand perfectly; I am not sure you do.

I expect these additional funds will be sufficient to deal with any serious deficit or other problem faced by the hospitals in the fiscal year that is now ending. I should emphasize to the House that we will, however, continue to respond to problems that emerge as our hospitals complete their year-end reports.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, in the absence of my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), who was called away to a meeting and was not able to be here, I rise in my place to offer some comments on behalf of the official opposition.

This is my first opportunity to communicate formally with the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), and I would be remiss if I did not take this first opportunity to congratulate him upon his new ministerial responsibilities. Some time before your arrival here, Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure of joining with the member in a public forum in this fine city when, as I recall, he was like the rest of us -- merely a private member -- and one of the issues of public interest and concern affected his electoral district and a particular public institution, namely, Doctors' Hospital.

4:20 p.m.

I have always been very impressed by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I have watched with great admiration his upward mobility and the steady, serious determined way in which he has marched in that direction. Like many on this side, we expect to see that upward mobility culminate with the grand prize not too many years hence.

In concluding my best wishes to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, I thought at that time that he fought so very valiantly -- against the directive of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), who was then the Minister of Health -- to countermand the order of the Minister of Health. As has been the case in many other situations and on many other occasions with that particular colleague of his, as I hear privately, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick won the day.

I thought then, those six years ago, that it would be fitting if he should some day become the Minister of Health. Now that he has, I feel he will want to join in those enthusiastic battles in which he engaged so happily some six years ago.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This time he is going to close it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, he isn't.

Mr. Conway: Let the record show that the Minister of Education, as she smilingly leaves her place and the House, said, "This time he is going to close it."

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was an unidentified member.

Mr. Conway: Let me do the identification. I will leave it to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick perhaps to speak of that another time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You have been doing great so far.

The Deputy Chairman: Speak to the estimates.

Mr. Conway: I don't think, Mr. Chairman, you would want me in any way to slow down the good words and best wishes to your friend the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick as he takes on his important new responsibilities.

In concluding, I want to say that in so far as his new responsibilities are concerned, I have not yet seen any of our high-priced pundits note that, in the great battle I hear raged within the oak-panelled confines of the executive council, the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) settled that great battle within the economic part of cabinet not in favour of his youthful friend from St. Andrew-St. Patrick but, very interestingly, apparently in favour of the beleaguered Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He solved it in favour of the hospitals and health care.

Mr. Conway: At any rate, I say best wishes and good luck to the minister.

I have a couple of questions relating to the supplementary estimates. They are substantial, although in relative terms, given the $2.8-billion hospital budget, I suppose they are not unheard of in terms of their requests. Will the minister table in this committee at his earliest convenience a line-by-line, or at least detailed breakdown of the appropriation we are now asked to vote for? In other words, can he indicate specifically how and where the $88,772,300 will be spent?

If I heard his initial comments correctly, I presume it will go, as it says, by and large to the public hospital sector. We have something in the neighbourhood of 253 of those institutions. I presume most of that money, with the exception of the chronic care that he mentioned, will find its way to a number of those public hospitals. I am interested to know whether he will share with us the specifics of the appropriation. Which hospitals are getting how much and for which budget year do those moneys apply?

I personally want to see that information at the minister's convenience and I hope within the time allocated to supplementary estimates in this committee of supply.

The other point I want to make is that I listened with interest to the minister when he was reading in very quiet tones. Like the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I was having a little bit of difficulty hearing the minister, who I must admit in his early going, as a wise person would be counselled to do, has been mildly diffident. We have not seen that confident chutzpah for which he was so famous in earlier incarnations, although I fully expect that within very short order.

Mr. McClellan: He knows a mine field when he is walking on one.

Mr. Conway: I am sure the member for Bellwoods knows more of that than I, being the current Health critic for the New Democratic Party. I rather agree with him, if I might digress. God, the poor, poor minister. I do not wish him anything but comfort and good will in the job he now has. I would not in any way betray any confidence, because I think that would be improper, but I wish him well. This will prove, perhaps better than any previous assignment, whether he has that first ministerial mettle that undoubtedly many feel he has. It is certainly an interesting ministry into which he has strayed.

In his remarks he talked about well-developed criteria that have been developed by his ministry for dealing with budgetary difficulties at the public hospital level and in particular well-developed criteria to make additional payments to public hospitals that find themselves in difficulty from time to time.

Like the member for Bellwoods, I have been down this path before, and sometimes it has not been a very happy or productive promenade I want to know whether the Minister of Health will table in this committee, at his earliest convenience,

chapter and verse of this new list of well-developed criteria. He has a very full looking briefing book over there and I can almost feel that he wants to rip out the pages. He has a whole screed of criteria nicely set out that he would be happy to share with this committee.

Taking the minister up on his statement that there are well-developed criteria for the adjudication of these sometimes endless hospital appeals, will the Minister of Health share with us at his earliest convenience

chapter and verse of those well-developed criteria?

Might I be so bold as to ask the new Minister of Health whether he or anybody in his ministry has been so reckless as to share with the boards and/or administrators of the 253 public hospitals in this province the well-developed criteria for these budgetary appeals?

It just so happens that last week in my constituency I had the opportunity of discussing with a variety of hospital officials their current budgetary relationships with the Ministry of Health. I got rather an interesting report.

At the risk of being a bit like the Premier, I will become unbearably parochial and ask him to look specifically at the Pembroke Civic Hospital situation which is of some immediate concern to the local member and that particular board and where, quite frankly, the reaction to the budgetary situation at the current time is not positive. They are projecting cumulative deficits from 1980 to 1982 of something in the neighbourhood of $450,000. I am wondering what kind of help they can expect in addition to the $79,000 that was paid out about eight months ago. Dr. Dyer has kindly undertaken to bring that matter to my attention once the review has been made.

I found it interesting, in dealing with other hospitals in my part of the province, that in some cases there was a rather positive response about the way in which the ministry had performed.

I thought the most interesting thing about what a couple of these not unsatisfied hospital people said was: "We have no idea how these people in Health function. As to what the rules are, we don't have a clue. It seems in this instance we happened to have come out fairly well, but God knows how or why. We are happy with the condition in which we now find ourselves, but if there is a set of rules, criteria that are to be relied on for guidance at our level, at this end of the discussion, we don't know what they are."

4:30 p.m.

Given that intelligence, I was even more interested. As I said earlier, not all of this was unfavourable to the minister -- the ministry I suppose I should say -- although initially I hear they are very well disposed to the new minister. Let us face it, the hospital and health community must realize its importance when two putative Premiers make it their second or last stop along the way. It tells them something about the importance of this department. I want to stress to the honourable minister --

Mr. McClellan: Or it could be a graveyard.

Mr. Conway: I will leave that to the more funereal capacities of the member for Bellwoods.

In respect of the well-developed criteria, can the minister indicate whether (

a) those well-developed criteria can be entered as evidence in this committee and (

b) those well-developed criteria have ever in a fit of rashness, boldness or indiscretion been communicated to the hospital boards and administrators at the other end of this equation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Feel free to go ahead.

Mr. McClellan: Do you have a reply?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course I do.

Let me begin by thanking my good friend, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, for his mostly kind remarks. I do appreciate the sentiments he expressed in the opening part of his remarks. May I assure him that notwithstanding how he reads this minister's initial -- I forget the words he used, but he indicated I was not being quite as vituperative and as forceful as I was in previous incarnations. I have always believed one has to adopt a style appropriate to the problems one faces from time to time.

Mr. Conway: Are we to conclude it is just the passing of Bernie Ostry that has made you so -- that may be a low blow.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I reflect back --

Mr. Conway: Don't you think, by the way, that Bernie Ostry and Gord Walker will make a good team?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No more charming than your current leader and your former leader.

The Deputy Chairman: I call upon the honourable minister to respond to the supplementary estimates questions and I ask the member for Renfrew North to cease and desist in interrupting.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the chairman will allow me, I should say to my friend that on this side of the House these inner discussions that go on between my colleagues and I within the big oak walls -- or whatever he referred to -- are indeed the way we stay in office. Lest you interpret the activities on this side and try to identify how things have worked out, I can say for myself I was delighted to assume this ministry. I look upon it as a very important responsibility, as I know my friend looks upon it.

To pay proper respect to my predecessor in this portfolio, I assume a ministry in what I consider to be fine shape with excellent civil servants and with a fine record in dealing with the problems of the past five years.

The problems of the next five years or so are the problems I am most intensely interested in and we are well poised to address them. Which is a long way of saying, Sean, if you guys get out of hand, I will get nasty too.

Mr. McClellan: We look forward to it. Is that a promise?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, because I know the member will show a lot of good judgement, fairness and openmindedness.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister will respond to the point that was raised.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect to the questions raised by my friend from Renfrew North, yes, information will be available as to the specifics of where the money went. The estimates for this coming year will reflect much of that when they are tabled shortly. As well, all of the hospitals involved know that they have or have not received the money.

It may be helpful to the member to know, by category, where the $86 million was spent on these hospital deficits. In 1980-81, the growth factor in life support programs accounted for $9.1 million; management fees were $1.6 million; the straight picking up of deficits where we thought there were problems in utilization or other problems that were beyond the control of the hospital that contributed to the shortfall of revenue, $5.3; million other miscellaneous ones were $900,000; for a total of $16.9 million.

In 1981-82, the rollover of the life support funding we had given in 1980-81 accounted for $10.2 million. The new life support programs and the growth of those programs amounted to another $15.7 million. The growth of other new programs introduced in the previous year accounted for $20.9 million. Utilization growth and unanticipated declines in revenue accounted for another $16.2 million.

That brought the total for 1981-82 to $63 million which, added to the 1980-81 figure of $16.9, brought us to $79.9 million. The current reviews -- which were the result of the appeal process in which we invited the hospitals to participate if they were unhappy with the breakout given those programs and the funding we provided -- accounted for another $6.7 million being allocated to the various hospitals, making a total of $86.6 million.

As to whatever information may have been related to my colleague about the criteria, I guess I could make two points. First, I believe the criteria were made eminently clear to the Ontario Hospital Association and the various administrators who have been in to see the ministry. Second, while one has to have a set of rules, there will also be -- and in my view of government there always should be -- a factor built in for some flexibility. If you do not exercise that flexibility, you have too stringent a system -- one that results in inequities.

For example, sometimes people say they are not sure what the rules are. Some administrators will say, "I do not think hospital X should have got this when you did not give it to me." They would read that as not knowing what the rules are. However, we listen to special pleas which are made by hospitals from time to time and respond to them. The allegation that we do not know what the rules are is, in my view, an unfair one, but it is one that administrators of hospital boards are allowed to make because we are trying to address different problems in different hospitals.

I should also remind my friend that all of this grew out of a desire by the hospitals to move away from line-by-line budgeting, where we did indeed scrutinize intensely each line of every hospital's operation, to a global system which allowed the hospitals to have more flexibility in their operations. Consequently, some could say we do not know what the rules are, which I said earlier would be unfair. We have let them know that they have more flexibility in our global budgets to do more of the things they think are needed for their own hospitals. I think that is a good thing.

I might deal for a moment with the funding category, since my friends from Bellwoods and Renfrew North both have walked down this road many times before. Maybe I could give them some guideposts which were on the road but which they did not notice the last six or seven times they walked it.

4:40 p.m.

Under management consultant fees --

Mr. Conway: Don't make me go to the files and look up your 1976 speeches.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have got them all and they are all fine speeches.

Man