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

April 6, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L018 - Fri 6 Apr 1979 / Ven 6 avr 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION

NEW MEMBERS

ORAL QESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

HOME INSULATION PROGRAM

HUMAN RIGHTS CASES

GO TRANSIT SERVICE CONTRACT

PENSION FUNDS

BELL CANADA RATES

ATIKOKAN HYDRO PLANT

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

EMPLOYMENT OF HANDICAPPED

MINISTRY OFFICE MOVE

REPORT

GOLD FUTURES CONTRACTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM AMENDMENT AT

SHERIDAN PARK CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, honourable members will know that the report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability has made 165 recommendations designed to address the problems it has discovered in the management of the federal government. I am delighted by the thrust of the recommendations and have asked my staff for an extensive review of the report in the hope that some of the recommendations can be used to strengthen our own management system.

As members will recall, this commission was established by the federal government about two years ago in response to warnings by the auditor general that the federal government had lost, or was close to losing, control of the public purse. Although the Lambert commission, as it is called, pertains primarily to the scene in Ottawa, there are several aspects of definite interest in Ontario.

Among the reforms put forward by the Lambert commission is a management control organization patterned on the system that was put in place here in Ontario, following the report on the Committee on Government Productivity in 1972. Using the basic framework of Management Board and cabinet committees, we are continually refining the management process to ensure we have control and that accountability is properly placed. The speech from the throne notes that effective management must be the hallmark of all areas of government operation. Recent organizational changes indicate this government’s commitment to better management and fiscal control.

I am not suggesting that all our management problems have been solved at Queen’s Park. However, we have learned enough during the past four years of spending restraints to know that if Ottawa is indeed serious about curbing its spending, it must be prepared to adopt some of the control procedures recommended in the report.

Bringing government spending under control is a difficult and painful adjustment that is now being made by governments across the continent. As a note of caution, I would point out that attempting to solve deficit problems on an ad hoc basis without a management control system in place will result in haphazard and abrupt adjustments that could be very damaging to staff morale and program delivery.

The Lambert report has an important message for all levels of the public sector in Canada. I would strongly urge the federal government to act on these recommendations without delay.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, National Steel Corporation of Canada Limited announced on January 15 last that it intended to close its Moose Mountain iron-ore operation at Capreol, Ontario, effective April 1, 1979. The decision announced in January was based on an oversupply of iron-ore pellets on the market.

The announcement gave rise to understandable concerns in the town of Capreol where the 250 employees of National Steel constitute a significant portion of the population. In an attempt to avert the April 1 shutdown, the government immediately initiated discussions with National Steel and with the major potential customers in the Ontario market. The Premier (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and I intervened personally and were able to arrange a series of meetings to explore marketing possibilities for National Steel.

I am pleased to announce today that the final obstacles to a transaction that will prolong the life of the Moose Mountain operation now have been removed and that an immediate shutdown has been averted. As a result of our discussions, Dominion Foundries and Steel Limited has agreed to purchase a quantity of iron-ore concentrate from the Moose Mountain mine on an experimental basis. If the Moose Mountain concentrate is technically compatible for additional feed to the Sherman mine, Dofasco is prepared to consider placing further orders.

At the same time, National Steel has arranged to ship concentrate to a customer in Detroit, Michigan, again on the same experimental basis and relationship. The combined effect of these two commitments for concentrate will enable the Moose Mountain operation to remain open for a period of time.

The continuation of operations that I have described would not have been possible without the co-operation of National Steel, Dofasco, Canadian National Railways and the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, all of whom have worked together with the Premier’s office, my ministry, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Northern Affairs to ensure that the test product can be shipped on an economic basis. Reasonable concessions were made on all sides and the government, through the Ministry of Northern Affairs, has contributed approximately $25,000 to enable the experimental transactions to go forward.

While I can give no assurances as to what may occur following the testing phase, it is my sincere hope that the parties will be able to come to satisfactory arrangements to permit National Steel to maintain its Capreol operation over the long term. In this regard the government will continue to work with both companies and, in particular, will continue in its endeavours to assist in the location of customers for the iron-ore pellets.

I hope the effort expended in this matter by all concerned not only will preserve employment for Ontarians but also will be seen as evidence of our capacity to work constructively and co-operatively to minimize the economic hardship caused by what I hope are only temporary problems in iron ore market conditions. I want to express my appreciation in particular to the officials of both companies, the railways, the town of Capreol, the local member --

Mr. Foulds: Name him. Elie Martel.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- interested citizens and the United Steelworkers union, all of whom have played important roles in achieving this result. I look forward to working with all of them in an effort to achieve a permanent solution.

NEW MEMBERS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, by way of a statement or a matter of personal privilege:

I would like to take this occasion to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition -- the leader of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Swart: A Freudian slip. The real opposition.

Mr. Eaton: Pretty close.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am congratulating the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) too.

Mr. Foulds: They were third yesterday, and they’re going to be third for a long time to come.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It cost him $1 to the Canadian Cancer Society. There will be no tax receipt, I think.

I also want to express a sincere welcome to the two new members of the Legislature, who I assume are in the gallery this morning. If they are not here -- yes, I think they are here. I would like most sincerely to welcome them to the House and congratulate them on their victory.

Before the leader of the New Democratic Party assumes that this means for him a sweep of the province, I would remind him that the majorities were down, in Scarborough West by 60 per cent and in Wentworth by 90 per cent. As they say in Britain, if that trend continues we’ll have a majority government. But, most sincerely, I welcome the new members.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker. I saw a button yesterday in Scarborough West that said, “Make April 5 a PC day.” I want to tell you April 5 was NDP day, and it is with great pleasure I introduce two men who are in the gallery today but who will shortly be making their mark as MPPs in this House: Colin Isaacs for Wentworth and Richard Johnston for Scarborough West, the new MPPs for the New Democratic Party.

I want to assure the Premier that his Freudian slip didn’t go far enough, because I have aspirations not just to that particular position but to the Premier’s job itself. I look forward to the day when I can bequeath this particular chair to the Premier. We are working at it.

I would remind the House that the share of the votes we hail in the ridings of Scarborough West and Wentworth was identical to the share of the vote that has the Conservatives in government right now. What we intend to do is simply emulate that across Ontario and we will shortly be on that side of the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Being Friday morning, it seems I ought to say something as well. I want to congratulate the two gentlemen in the gallery for having waged strong campaigns in each riding. They were very clean campaigns and I certainly want to congratulate them on their victory.

I might just say, with regard to the aspirations of the leader of the third party, as he is considering these aspirations he might consider that one out of every three voters who voted New Democrat in those two ridings in 1977 voted for one of the other two parties this time, and our vote increased by a factor of 50 to 60 per cent in each riding.

Mr. McClellan: You have lost four straight by-elections.

Mr. Wildman: Zero for four.

ORAL QESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Will the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) be here, Mr. Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The minister is, unfortunately -- I was going to say under the weather; if you had come from Brampton this morning you would understand that. No, he is not well this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: Sick?

Mr. Cassidy: We are sick of him as well.

Mr. Wildman: His doctor opted out.

Mr. Peterson: Is he at home or in the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ambulatory care, is that how you describe it? Ambulatory care, or whatever.

Mr. McClellan: Chronic care would be more appropriate.

Mr. S. Smith: I hope he is getting some kind of care that isn’t ambulatory or any other kind of tory.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Minister of Energy yesterday, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) put a question to the Premier. I think it is important that the question be reput, because I don’t believe the essence of the question was responded to yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean? How can you make that accusation?

Mr. S. Smith: Could I ask the minister if he is aware of reports within Ontario Hydro that are called Internal Significant Event Reports and which deal with problems that arise from time to time with regard to the nuclear stations?

Is he aware of these reports and does the minister in fact see these reports? Do they come to his attention on a regular basis? If he does, can he comment on them in the House and tell us what assurance he takes from them? If he doesn’t, does he not agree it is something he should be seeing on a regular basis?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am aware of the reports but I don’t see them on a regular basis. They are mainly of a technical nature. They are given to the Atomic Energy Control Board,

I believe, on roughly a daily basis and then they are filed in the public reference library so that any member wishing to see them can go down to the Hydro library and see them.

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister tell us what assurances lie may have taken from these reports and, more specifically, can the minister make a statement with regard to the boiler at Pickering and the nature of the problem there that has led to a delay? Was this an anticipated delay or was this something that has been rethought in view of recent events?

[10:15]

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will have more information, some of it of a technical nature, on the boilers at the Pickering second-unit construction site on Tuesday. I can tell the honourable member that in routine testing of the boilers late last fall there was some concern because the boilers for the new unit there are of a slightly changed design and a different metal, I believe, to those for the first part of Pickering and the first part of Bruce. As a result of the testing, the manufacturers were notified to stop construction about mid-December until there was a little further look at them.

There has been further inspection and testing by Hydro. I would assume the Atomic Energy Control Board is aware of this too because I believe the same style of boiler was to be used in La Prade, in the new plant in Quebec and in the new one in the Maritimes. I’m not in a position at the moment to say exactly what the solution is or what further action will be taken, but I can assure the House that this has no connection with the event in the US. It came to notice, as I say, in mid-December last year.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: I had difficulty hearing what the minister was saying. Was he talking about the boilers?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Correct.

Mr. Sargent: The Babcock boilers? I have knowledge that there is a series of happenings with dates on them that is of great concern to me as a citizen. If he has seen these reports, would the minister be so good as to supply the Leader of the Opposition and both parties with copies of these reports as they come out. I know they’re classified as secret, but what is more important at this point than that the members of the Legislature know what’s going on In this very serious field?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are down in the Hydro library. Read them on the weekend.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I said, all the member has to do is walk down the street and they are in Hydro’s reference library. They are not secret reports.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Take them home.

Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you do some reading for a change?

Mr. Sargent: That’s a deal.

[Later (10:59):]

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear, because I didn’t --

Mrs. Campbell: You never do.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What’s new about that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and repeat what I said the other day in the statement. The boilers the Leader of the Opposition was asking me about are, of course, of quite a different design from the boilers I believe the same firm designed and manufactured for the plant it built in Pennsylvania.

[Reverting (10:17):]

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and given that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is probably unaware of these matters, I’ll ask the Premier --

Mr. McClellan: You can be sure she’s unaware of them. She is unaware of everything.

Mr. S. Smith: -- whether he is being forced to rethink the way in which his minister is applying holus-bolus across Ontario certain so-called bed ratios.

Given, for instance, the problem reported at the Queensway Hospital, where an administrator within the Ministry of Health says no complaint was ever made, though we were told, and so was the newspaper told, that the complaint was made last July that people are being treated in the emergency room instead of in hospital beds, can the Premier give us some assurance that he will look again at the matter of chronic care specifically, recognizing there are scores of patients in acute hospital beds who should be in chronic beds and that that’s causing a backup and a misutilization of facilities all the way down the line.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the minister has said repeatedly that where the need for additional chronic beds can be identified the ministry would move in to assist. This is the situation at Queensway.

Mr. McClellan: He says it but he doesn’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am informed that some ministry staff will be at Queensway today --

Mr. Wildman: Only five or six months late.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- discussing with the administration the proper placement of chronic-care patients.

Mr. Foulds: It’s a problem at Thunder Bay too.

Mr. McClellan: Why weren’t they sent out in July?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I also understand the West Park Chronic Hospital will be opening in July this year. it is in the same general area.

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t you wait until it opens before you cut back on active-treatment beds?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will have about 154 chronic beds.

I’m not sure of the exact geographic location, but it’s quite clear that the minister has said in those areas where needs are identified, to the extent it is humanly possible, we will be moving in the direction of providing chronic-bed facilities. As I say, the staff of the ministry will be out at Queensway today discussing with the administration ways and means by which they can help to resolve the situation.

Mr. S. Smith: I recognize that the Premier obviously can’t possibly know what every civil servant in every ministry is doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only 90 per cent.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right. His mandarins keep him informed as to the marionettes in the other ministries. Could the Premier ask the Minister of Health to explain to us how it could be that Mr. Keillor within the ministry would say the Queensway never complained about this and never brought this matter to the ministry’s attention, when Mr. Box, the administrator there, has confirmed yet again this morning that the matter was dealt with in a letter to the minister in July and was responded to by a sort of noncommittal letter from the minister in July?

Would the minister, therefore, tell the House how it could happen that a member of his ministry would say that no complaint had ever been received?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure the minister would be delighted to deal with that on Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. McClellan: You are going to leave him hanging by himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition is quite right. I only know what goes on with about 90 per cent of the public servants. I am well informed by my office staff. I would just say that the marionettes or martinets are over there, not in the Premier’s office.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that people in Thunder Bay have brought this question of backups in emergency wards to the attention of the government in the last couple of months; that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has brought the matter to the attention of the government in relation to backups in emergency wards at the Scarborough General Hospital; that the same thing is happening at St.

Joseph’s Hospital in Peterborough; that the people in Hotel Dieu Hospital in Windsor brought the matter to my attention when I was in Windsor two weeks ago; that these backups in emergency wards are now occurring in hospitals all across Ontario, and in view of the fact that the government is intending to cut a further 1,272 hospital beds just in Metropolitan Toronto alone and more than 4,000 hospital beds across Ontario --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member come to the question?

Mr. Cassidy: -- can the Premier explain whether it is the government’s intention that emergency-ward backups are going to become a chronic condition in every hospital of the province and, if not, how does the government intend to cut all these beds and not have these kinds of situations occurring in every hospital to the grave detriment of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not the intention of the government to have this situation develop.

Mr. Warner: It is just happening by accident. Do something about it.

Mr. Cassidy: If the Premier says that is not the intention of the government, will he acknowledge that is a result of the government’s policy, and will he explain why it is that in Etobicoke, where the specific situation at Queensway Hospital is taking place, there is not now in a borough of more than 300,000 people one single chronic-care bed? Why is the government making people back up for emergency beds in the hospitals in Etobicoke, when there is no provision at all in that community for chronic-care patients?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not our intention to have chronic-care people in the emergency part of any hospital.

Mr. McClellan: Why is it happening?

Mr. Mackenzie: You haven’t got an answer.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question about health for the Premier.

Mr. Gregory: I hope it is better than the first one.

Mr. Swart: I hope the answer is.

Mr. Cassidy: We are looking for some answers in health and we are not getting them from the government these days. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Health has been monitoring the opting out by physicians and by specialists in different communities across the province for a year now, since the great opting-out binge began, can the Premier explain why it is that the government has not yet responded to questions in this House by tabling information which we have been assured we would have so that the Legislature and the public can have accurate information about how high a degree of opting out by specialists and GPs is taking place in every community of the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of Health has already dealt with that question.

Mr. McClellan: He hasn’t, not to anyone’s satisfaction.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You asked him the identical question.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of Health has not dealt with it. Having promised the information, he has refused to bring it up. I am asking the Premier, will he not ensure that the information is made available.

As a supplementary, I would ask the Premier, in view of the fact general practitioners are now saying to me and members of my party they cannot reliably refer patients to specialists without knowing which specialists are in OHIP and which are not, and in view of the fact that doctors have been complaining publicly, at medical forums and places like that, that they are having this difficulty because they don’t know which specialists are in the plan and which are without and to which, therefore, they can afford to send their patients, will the government exercise its powers and use the information available to OHIP in order to publish lists of doctors who are opted into medicare across the province so that the people of Ontario, as well as physicians of Ontario, can know where to find care at the insured rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, I believe the Minister of Health dealt with this almost identical question --

Mr. Warner: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- some few days ago and indicated his conversations with the OMA and ways and means to make it possible for patients and certainly other members of the profession to find which of their colleagues were in or out of OHIP.

I am not as familiar with Metropolitan Toronto, but in the great city of Brampton the members of the medical profession do know which of their colleagues are in and out without any question.

Mr. Warner: Yes, it is just the people.

Mr. Grande: You are not familiar with the people of Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier indicate whether or not he personally has met in the recent past with the senior officials of the Ontario Medical Association and whether or not during such encounters he has given that group any personal assurances? If that is the case, could he share those personal assurances with this House this morning?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it all depends on how recently the honourable member wishes me to go hack in my memory and what he means by “personal assurances.” If he can further define that for me I will try to recall just what was said and when.

Mr. Peterson: Fortunately nobody takes them at face value anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How recent is recent?

Mr. Swart: May I ask the Premier whether he personally agrees or disagrees with a reply sent by Mr. C. J. Friday, the claims manager, Hamilton district office, to Mr. Gerry Michaud, the insurance representative of local 199 UAW in St. Catharines, when he was sent a list of physicians for the city of Welland by Mr. Michaud and asked if he would tick off those who have opted out and return the list at his earliest convenience?

Mr. Friday replied: “We are only allowed to furnish information in regard to the person who provided the service or to the person who received the service. I am, therefore, returning your list of doctors and respectfully suggest that they be contacted individually or through their local medical academy.”

Does the Premier not agree personally that the people of St. Catharines and the people of Welland should have the right to know through OHIP whether their doctors are in or out of OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member has asked me whether I personally agree with a letter that was sent by a member of the ministry to the --

Mr. Swart: No, the reply.

Mr. Warner: The reply.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said a letter that was sent from a member of the ministry. A letter is a reply; a reply is a letter. Me we talking about the same thing?

Mr. T. P. Reid: A letter from you is not a reply.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A reply from me is a reply. It may not be the kind of reply the member always wants, but it is a reply.

I would say, not being totally familiar with it, that I assume the ministry official is acting within the general framework or policy of the ministry, so I would agree with him operating within that framework. As to the policy itself, I would have to think this thing out to see whether or not it is an appropriate policy and --

Mr. Swart: Do you agree with that framework?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I am sure the minister would be delighted to deal with it. But certainly I agree with an official of the ministry dealing within the existing policy of the ministry.

Mr. Swart: Do you agree with the policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would also point out to the honourable member if he, as I know he does so actively, works on behalf of his constituents, there are probably X number of doctors on that list. It would be the simplest thing in the world for him to accommodate his constituents, make half a dozen phone calls and get them the answer.

Mr. Swart: But they won’t answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure, they will. Call the doctors; they will tell you.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the basic approach of medicare when it was introduced in Ontario was that every Ontario resident should have medical services without having to pay extra over the insured rates, can the Premier say whether he now agrees with that principle which underlies medicare? If so, what steps will the Premier take to ensure medicare is provided to every citizen in the province without his being forced to pay extra?

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the basic principles with respect to medicare have changed from the day the program was introduced until today.

Mr. Swart: You believe in the people having to pay.

Mr. Wildman: You haven’t believed in it all along.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The government is in the process of dealing with the profession to resolve those problems.

Mr. Warner: Nonsense.

HOME INSULATION PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Energy. Since Ontario Hydro has now deferred its decisions on system expansion for another couple of weeks, and since those decisions may also be influenced by the consequences of the accident in the United States, and since its expansion is going to be financed by borrowing on the credit of the province of Ontario to the tune of close to $2,000,000,000 a year, has the minister informed himself of the benefits in terms of conservation and saving of energy of a major program of home insulation in Ontario?

Is he aware that such a program could reinsulate every home in Ontario in 10 years and create 8,000 jobs in the process? What action will the government take to bring in that kind of conservation program in order that we can start energy saving in a world increasingly short of it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe Hydro indicated about a month ago they would be reviewing their expansion program or their construction program, and as expected would be making some decisions and announcing them at the next meeting, which I believe is next Monday or Tuesday.

As far as a major program of insulation by the province is concerned, we have looked at this. My predecessor has made statements about it in the past. I should remind the honourable members this province, I think, was the first to remove the provincial sales tax from insulating materials, which has encouraged sales. I have to say I have benefited from that myself and I am still in the process of doing a little further insulation in my own house.

I can tell the honourable members the greatest incentive I have found is a month ago I got a notice from the gas company saying my 12-month billing was being reduced by $22 a month because our consumption had dropped considerably. That is the greatest incentive I have had so far and I commend this to the honourable members.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why this government made a solemn promise in the 1977 election campaign that there would be a $100,000,000 program of low-interest loans for insulation for home owners and residents of Ontario and backed down on that election promise at a time of increasing energy shortages in Ontario and in the world? Isn’t it time for the government now to reconsider that abandonment and to bring back such a program so we do, in fact, start to save energy by insulation and conservation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, my recollection on that is that the government was looking at a program --

Mr. Cassidy: It was a promise.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and the federal government went ahead with one so we felt it was not necessary for us to do so.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: The minister will recall, of course, this issue was discussed at great length in the last campaign and his response was the government had no place in the attics of our nation. A very catchy piece of rhetoric.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I said that.

Mr. Peterson: I want to ask the minister this question because it is serious.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Please do.

Mr. Peterson: Would you consider entering into discussions with the energy distributors -- principally the oil distributors and the gas distributors in this province, but there are more, obviously -- to develop a program whereby they can assist in the upfront capitalization payment for insulation, then pay it back over a period of time along with the monthly energy bill? Would the minister discuss that kind of program with the distributors, so that there is not necessarily a large front-end financial burden for people who want to insulate but who can’t afford the upfront cost?

Would he consider that kind of imaginative program and discuss it, then come back to this House with some kind of proposal along these lines?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a steal from the NDP program.

Mr. S. Smith: That was our platform in 1977. Why don’t you go back and look at it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given to that kind of scheme in the past. It may well be one of the things that will be discussed again with the feds.

The real question, of course, is who is going to subsidize the interest rate? And if, in fact, we are going to subsidize insulation, what is the best method of subsidizing the people who need it most?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the federal CHIP, on which the minister is resting his case, involves only older housing and provides loans for only part of the cost and not the whole cost, would the minister explain now how the government can argue that Ontario can’t afford to get into an insulation program, when such an insulation program would create large numbers of jobs and cost far less than the $1,800,000,000 a year Hydro is now spending on new investments in generating stations?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t know that I can pet it any more clearly than I did to the member for London Centre. I have just been given a reminder, which I can mention at this time, that we understand Consumers’ Gas has entered into such a program in Toronto. I can’t give the details of the interest rate et cetera, but I think something in the order of 50,000 people have taken advantage of it.

Mr. MacDonald: That is a switch from oil.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to say it is my privilege to receive a certain amount of equalization from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) in return for the results of last night’s campaign, and my colleague from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) expects to receive likewise from the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. New question.

HUMAN RIGHTS CASES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister condone the procedures of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, whereby a complainant is forced to take an instant, on-the-spot decision to proceed with or to drop a complaint? The minister is frowning; should I repeat the question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes, would you mind? There is some noise.

Mr. Peterson: Oh, just take it under advisement.

Mr. McGuigan: The problem is when a complainant is asked by caseworkers whether or not he should accept an offer from a respondent without the complainant having the opportunity to look at the files to see whether the file items are correct, misleading or circumstantial in nature. The complainant has to make an instant decision, and it is rather unfair to put people in that position. The adviser has the experience of his position and all the information available to him, while the complainant does not.

Does the minister feel this is fair, especially in the field of human rights, where the very act is meant to counteract such situations?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I would like to comment on the fairness of the activities of the human rights commission. I think no one should suggest, and I don’t think you are suggesting, that they don’t endeavour to be fair. I have never met a group of people who are more dedicated and who try to be fair to the utmost of their ability.

But that doesn’t mean one should always be concerned about the fairness of the process. It was for that reason that the chairman and I did have a meeting about a month and a half ago. She is conducting a review of the process within the commission, with the very point that my friend has brought up in mind. I cannot tell the member the results of that review at the moment, but I want him to know I share his concern. However, I emphasize I am very proud of the fairness the employees of the commission demonstrate and have demonstrated.

Mr. McGuigan: I wish to assure the minister we are not concerned about the fairness of his employees but about the procedure.

Could the minister speed up this decision so that any changes could be made very quickly and so we do not have to wait until the complete revision of the code is brought in?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It was for that very reason that I did meet with the chairman one and a half or two months ago.

GO TRANSIT SERVICE CONTRACT

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Could the minister inform the House as to results of meetings he has held concerning the Canadian National employees who are members of local 76 of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers and whose jobs may be lost as a result of GO Transit inviting bids to supply the services that these employees have been providing for many years?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and I did meet with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour and the CN employees’ union about a week ago, I guess, it was, and I expect to be meeting with them again, perhaps next week.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister assure the House that these 80-odd employees, who have been performing these jobs for many years, are not going to find themselves deprived of their jobs as a result of these bids?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I cannot assure the honourable member that there will be no changes in the procedure of operating the ticket offices for GO Transit. The new contract that was signed last year between Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority and Canadian National provided for the phasing out or the changing of the lakeshore line from CN employees to TATOA employees or others.

The way the TATOA organization is set up, with it growing and with the new line that will be coming on stream in about two years, I think it is necessary for TATOA to make some changes in its operation.

What I did say to the representatives of the union was that we would give consideration to a different system, some method of phasing this out over a period of time, so that these employees could be phased back into the CN organization. They are CN employees and, of course, they have their union security with the CN union. The number is about 80, of whom I believe about 25 are almost at retirement age. I think we can work out something that will be satisfactory to the union and to TATOA.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the minister not recognize the very point he makes about the seniority of some of these members and that, where the livelihoods of 80 people with some time on the job are at stake, part of the condition of any such arrangement should be that it is not the workers involved who are going to suffer as the result of whatever rationalization is being done in the operation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Minister of Labour and I are certainly taking this whole matter very seriously as far as the workers are concerned. I am sure, as I said, we will come up with a solution that will not be a hardship on the workers.

[10:45]

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; he is reflecting on liquor prices, I guess, but I want to ask him a very serious question. In view of the difficulties experienced by the workers at the Prestolite plant in Sarnia, with which he is familiar, I’m sure, and given that this points out some of the fundamental inadequacies in the pension legislation in this province, which I will go into if he would ask me --

Mr. Mackenzie: What about portable public pensions? Do you support that? That would resolve it.

Mr. Peterson: -- given the fact we have had two or three or four ministers dallying in this subject --

Mr. McClellan: What about portable pensions, David?

Mr. Peterson: -- the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, the Minister of Labour and so on -- none of whom has revealed any comprehension or concern for the subject -- I want to ask the minister very seriously how he views the situation. Is he prepared to bring in legislation to change some of the inadequacies in the legislation or the regulations affecting private pension plans in this province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Speaker, like the honourable member, I view the matter very seriously. I don’t think it’s a question of inadequacy --

Mr. McClellan: Sure it is. We don’t have totally portable pensions.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t think it’s a question of inadequacy.

Mr. McClellan: You’re wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There have been a great number of changes in the industrial sector that simply weren’t there a number of years ago, not the least of which has been the very heavy burden of inflation, particularly when it is a management-funded program.

Mr. Peterson: You’ve been aware of that for quite a while.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I have been aware of it. The member wanted to know how I felt about it and I’m trying to answer him. Then we’ll come into what he wants --

Mr. Sargent: How do you feel about it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- and at the end of it he is going to get exactly what he wants.

Hon. W. Newman: Right between the eyes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, no. He is quite right.

It is a very serious matter. It does give me very deep concern, particularly with the rationalization of industry, the fact that more and more mergers are coming.

Mr. Mackenzie: Rationalization -- that means scuttle the workers.

Mr. McClellan: The two of you should keep it to yourselves.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Sometimes the mergers are effected in other jurisdictions. There is quite a rapid rationalization here. Also, in terms of the private pension industry this has been held out to the average Canadian as a way he can hedge against inflation, whether it is management-funded or whether he makes his own contributions.

I have no doubt that within the next 12 months there will be significant legislation that will bring the private pension industry -- its regulations, the administration and so forth -- into the general industrial sphere at this time.

As members know, for some time there has been a royal commission into pensions. That commission has been compiling a great deal of data.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is almost pensionable now.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It has been taking a very serious look, particularly in terms of inflation accounting, inflation contribution.

Mr. McClellan: We hope it’s an improvement.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am looking forward to that report. I think on the basis of that report it is reasonable to assume that very shortly thereafter there will be very significant legislation regarding private pension funding in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: I welcome the minister’s assurances. I can assure him it’s the most positive thing I have heard from the ministries.

Mr. McClellan: You don’t know what he is going to propose.

Mr. Swart: He backs off.

Mr. Foulds: It’s good enough for a Liberal.

Mr. Peterson: But apart from the problem of these massive unfunded liabilities, one of the central problems, as I see it, is that the general level of knowledge is so dismally low in this complicated area. Would he not feel, even before the legislation comes down --

Mr. Foulds: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t worry about that.

Mr. Peterson: Shut up -- part of his responsibility would be to bring some kind of public education in this matter? For example, I am referring to forcing disclosure, involving beneficiaries on pension fund management, to allow a much higher degree of knowledge and awareness of some of these fundamental issues. When it comes right down to it, as I’m sure he would agree, many of the choices today are society’s choices.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. McClellan: He should write a book on the subject.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In reply to the honourable member, first of all, I don’t think there is much more need for education in a large sector of private industry --

Mr. McClellan: What we need is decent pensions.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- where the pension program is part of the collective agreement or an appendix to it. Regardless of how the plan is funded, the person, through his labour organization does have professional access and explanation.

One of the difficulties is that some of the pension agreements, even where there is a labour organization, were entered into at a time when there was resistance to the labour organization having participation in, or at least an overview of, the plan. It’s in those areas that there is some difficulty.

Secondly, a large body of private industrial pension funding is in industry or commerce where there is no formal collective agreement. It is a matter of some concern to me. I have asked, and I will ask again, in terms of the work of the royal commission if it might not on an interim basis provide suggestions as to what might be proper guidelines or proper disclosure.

What concerns me, and I’m sure the honourable member shares the concern with me. is that one can disclose quite accurately the terms, contents, conditions and so forth of a pension plan. Yet to the ordinary person who is going to be the beneficiary, what may look good may not be good and what doesn’t look good is good.

Mr. Conway: Run that one though again.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would like to try to come up with something that is understandable and that people can base their future upon because that is the real reason they’re involved in these things. I will ask the pension commission, perhaps prior to its report, to do some work on this. I would be glad to share that with the members because this is one area that I think is everybody’s concern in this House. The only time a person finds out whether there are any deficiencies in the plan is when there is a plant closing or a forced early retirement. By that time it’s too late for the individual to plan how to adjust.

Mr. Peterson: But the minister can do something about it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: For all of the reasons he’s raised, would the minister also take a look at the issue of portability in all private pension plans in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The question of portability is one of the terms of reference, if I understand it correctly, of the royal commission into pensions. I think there has been considerable work done in that area in the past few months because the commission has been ongoing for some time.

BELL CANADA RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of Bell Canada’s net profits increasing by 37 per cent last year over the previous year, from $288,000,000 to $395,000,000 and in view of yesterday’s report of the consultative committee on the implications of telecommunications for Canadian sovereignty, saying that long-distance rates are too high, will he make application to CRTC to reduce Bell Canada’s rates in this province, particularly the long-distance rates?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I have no plans to make such an application to the CRTC. About each year for the last number of years, Bell Canada has been making applications to the CRTC for rate adjustments. When this takes place, we are represented at those hearings. Ontario does intervene to make sure to what degree we can that rates are not approved that are higher than necessary for the financing, expansion and level of service that the people of Ontario require from Bell Canada. I haven’t seen the report the member refers to, but I have no plans to make such an intervention at this time.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that Bell Canada received far more revenue last year than it estimated it would on the increase it received in rates? Is he not aware that CRTC itself does not do any investigation. Application has to be made by some other source if rates are going to be reduced.

Is he also not aware that in Florida an order was issued to return $41,000,000 to the consumers by Bell Telephone because it had made excess profits, when our rates in this province are 50 to 100 per cent higher than they are in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta where the provinces operate the telephone system? Doesn’t he think he should use the clout of his ministry to make some effort to reduce rates here and keep down Bell Canada’s profit in line with the increase in wages and salaries?

Mr. Warner: Let’s have a good answer.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. I guess that’s the only answer I can give him.

Mr. Mackenzie: The profiteering is allowed. Controlled wages, but profiteering is okay.

Mr. Swart: The great protector of the consumers.

ATIKOKAN HYDRO PLANT

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, or Natural Resources and Energy, relating to the Ontario Hydro plant at Atikokan. Since Hydro is going to be making its decision on Monday as to whether to proceed with that plant, can the minister inform the House what procedures will follow its decision? Will that decision then go to the minister and the cabinet for either final approval or change? If the decision of Hydro is not to go ahead with that plant, will the minister and the cabinet have a meeting with the people of Atikokan to discuss the final decision?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question, depending on what the board decides there might be no further approval required from the government. If it had to do with additional transmission lines and some of the things which were in the seven alternatives which I believe they showed the select committee, a variety of things would have to happen. There would be environmental assessments and hearings and then final approval by the government.

If they simply proceed with the things which have already received the necessary approval -- and all the projects in their program have to one extent or another -- then there would be no further action needed from the government. In the event that they decide not to go ahead with Atikokan, certainly the government would be involved again with the community in looking for other things to happen there, but I think statements by some ministers of the government have indicated that the government would be happy to see Hydro go ahead with Atikokan. I’m sure they must have read those statements themselves.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: The minister mentioned the transmission line. Is he aware that at a recent meeting, in Sault Ste. Marie I believe, an advisory committee came to the conclusion that if Hydro went ahead with the transmission line between the east and west systems the planning itself, and the environmental assessment and so on, would take until about 1987, and construction another three or four or perhaps even five years?

Is the minister aware, therefore, that we’re already underpowered, if I may use that term, in northwestern Ontario and that the alternative of a transmission line between the east and west systems cannot be built in a time frame to assure northwestern Ontario of uninterruptible power?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have indicated to Hydro, and our staff has indicated to Hydro’s staff, that processes for new transmission lines could be quite lengthy. I’m sure they are aware of that themselves from their experience to date. Nobody should be banking on the assumption that a new line would be built in any particular time frame.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary; Is it not accurate that the cabinet has already considered Hydro’s proposals for cancellation and/or stretching out of the construction program of other plants, and if so, has the minister made recommendations to Hydro as to what the cabinet’s views are, since they have not only a power generating objective but also, in some areas, a regional development objective?

[11: 00]

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I mentioned, statements by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) indicated nut only to Hydro but to everybody what the government’s preferences would be.

Mr. Sargent: I have a supplementary about additional plants. Mr. Mueller, a senior adviser to the Ontario government on energy matters said this morning that Hydro does plan more nuclear plants. Will the minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There are two additions. In the program discussed by the Hydro board at its last meeting on which I assume a decision will be made at the meeting next week, there was one new plant, Darlington, additions to two existing plants, and a new lignite plant in Atikokan.

Mr. Sargent: Are these nuclear plants?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes. Darlington is a nuclear plant. That is the only totally new plant they are planning of which I am aware.

Last summer they were looking at sites in various places; eastern Ontario, sort of mid-Ontario, was one; and Georgian Bay near Sault Ste. Marie was another general area. They were looking at sites which might be expanded from one to several plants over a period of years. In the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning interim report Dr. Porter recommended, based on his information, Hydro should only be looking at three more nuclear plants between now and the year 2000.

As far as I am aware, Hydro has not made any announcements of any plans for those three plants, if in fact, those three plants are needed.

Mr. Wildman: Is it not correct that Hydro is going ahead with site acquisition along the North Channel site at Burton Island and if that is the case, what does this mean? Is this purely landbanking, or are they going ahead with their plans for the new plant?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think the honourable member knows as much about it as I do.

Mr. Foulds: Probably more.

Hon. Mr. Auld: They have indicated they are still looking at landbanking, because of the long time frame involved in acquiring a site and the transmission corridor that will connect that site with the existing network. The size of the site is the question at the moment.

I am not aware when that site will be acquired, or whether it will be optioned, or what will happen, because Hydro, as I am sure all honourable members are aware, have been reviewing their future program.

The same thing applies in eastern Ontario not too far from my own riding. There is a great concern on the part of people there to know what is going to happen in the future. Hydro has indicated they hope to have some definitive answer on those two matters this summer.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of urgent public importance. I regret that it must be directed to the Minister of Energy, but here goes.

Does the minister recall the statement his predecessor made on June 5, 1978, when he announced the Canada-Ontario radioactive waste management program? One of the points made in that statement, and I quote from it, was; “The government of Ontario has insisted that it be consulted at each step and that its prior approval be obtained for all activities leading to a site in Ontario.”

In view of that statement, is the minister aware of, and has the government of Ontario given approval for, the statement made yesterday by Egon Frech, the public relations director of AECL’s Whiteshell program that the Canada-Ontario nuclear fuel waste management co-ordinating committee would be approving a test drilling site in or near Atikokan next week? Can he confirm or deny that and is the minister now ready to level with this Legislature and tell the public which two to four sites have been decided on for drilling for a possible nuclear waste disposal site in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member is not implying that I don’t level with this House because I do and I am accused of doing it at some length on occasion. I read that announcement and I believe I discussed this question in answer to another question earlier this week about what was happening. I think it was from the member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: But you didn’t answer.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I really can’t add anything to that. We have approved and all the honourable members who might be affected have been interviewed by the team from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as to their public participation procedures.

Mr. MacDonald: But has a decision been made?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I believe there have been discussions in Atikokan and as soon as I am personally aware of the approval of the community and if there is to be a test drilling site project there, I imagine that I would approve it because it is a test drilling project, not a test burying of nuclear waste project. I, also, believe that there will be several other sites where they hope to do the same thing providing that they get the approval of the community to do that kind of test drilling.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell us whether or not he knows at this moment which sites have been decided on? Can he reveal those sites to this House? If he cannot, can he explain what lack of communication and breakdown of Ontario’s authority has taken place in view of the former Minister of Energy’s statement last June and Mr. Frech’s statement that they are planning to approve a site in the Atikokan area next week?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I asked that question the other day.

Mr. Foulds: You didn’t get an answer on Tuesday either.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The information about the other sites they are looking at I don’t have with me but I believe we have it. I will certainly dig it out and report to the House, perhaps on Tuesday.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Would the minister consider, when he’s getting that information, if he would table in the House the procedures that pertain between AECL, the Ministry of Energy and the government as to what Ontario’s responsibility is in these matters so that we can he informed of the input of the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will do that, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my predecessor had indicated that at the time the agreement was made with the federal agency but I’ll get it updated.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you know now?

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not find it disturbing that a public relations spokesman for AECL should make such a definitive statement that indicates clearly a site has been selected for drilling when the minister does not know and is not in a position to inform this House or the public definitively?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am assuming that the community has agreed because I know there have been discussions going on with the community there. I just don’t happen to know what the latest status is as far as pieces of paper are concerned in Energy, but I will find out.

Mr. Foulds: But the committee of which you’re a member is supposed to approve it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: But let us again remember that we are talking about test drilling, we are not talking about test storage.

Mr. Foulds: I understand that.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s more than pieces of paper.

EMPLOYMENT OF HANDICAPPED

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Labour and Manpower. Will the minister, at this time or in the near future introduce amendments to the Human Rights Code or accept my bill, Bill 21,

an act to amend it, to eliminate discrimination in employment on the basis of a physical handicap where the handicap doesn’t preclude the reasonable performance of that particular employment?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well this government’s commitment to that very issue he’s raised and, as I said in the I-loose last week, it remains my intention to introduce certain amendments to that legislation after they have gone through the regular legislative consideration and the process that always occurs.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: As we are approaching the warm weather months and job opportunities improve, is the minister aware that the big three automotive manufacturers are very reluctant to employ the handicapped, even though the handicapped may be able to perform the jobs to a reasonable degree of satisfaction?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes, I was aware of that.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Could the minister tell us what we are to say to people with certain forms of epilepsy, for instance, whose doctors say that they are not disabled in the sense that they can perform jobs but who continue to be discriminated against in the work place because we don’t have that Ontario Human Rights Code amendment? And will the minister undertake to bring forward an amendment to the Human Rights Code, to bring forward a revised code, whatever he likes, but something to get that in there in this session, before we rise for the summer? I know there are touchy issues involved, but let him have the courage to bring it forward.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I try to tell people such as the member has described the very same thing he does -- that is, that they should not be discriminated against -- and the commitment that I have given the member is the one that I have just given to his colleague and that I have repeated before. That is, it remains my intention, and it has always been the government’s intention with regard to the class of disability we have spoken about, to deal with it.

Mrs. Campbell: After 37 years?

MINISTRY OFFICE MOVE

Hon. W. Newman: On a point of order:

In the interest of all members of the Legislature, I would just like to point out that starting as of Monday, the Minister of Agriculture and Food’s office will be located at 801 Bay Street.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not a point of order. It is a point of disorder.

Mr. Gaunt: We have already been down there, Bill.

Mr. Peterson: Can you imagine Bill Newman on Bay Street?

REPORT

GOLD FUTURES CONTRACTS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with

section 20 of the Securities Act, I am tabling today an order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission authorizing the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange to trade prospectus-free its proposed call options on gold futures contracts. The commission's reason in the matter is set out fully in the order.

If I might just elaborate on that, the commission’s order, which is dated January 15 but was released in early March, permits prospectus-free trading of exchange-traded call options on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange’s gold futures contract by securities and commodity brokers who are registered under the Securities Act. The forms of prospectus provided for in the regulations to the act do not lend themselves to these instruments.

Instead, more meaningful disclosure will be provided the investor by the

summary disclosures statement that the order requires be provided him, conditions three and four on page two of the order. The order also imposes on brokers conditions as to proficiency standards -- conditions two, 5(1), pages two and three -- and supervisory procedures, condition five, page three.

The Winnipeg Commodity Futures Exchange expects to commence trading of these options in late April. Before trading is permitted in Ontario, the conditions of the order will have to be satisfied. This may not prove possible until into May.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM AMENDMENT AT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved first reading of Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Industry and Tourism Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, this is a short housekeeping bill which in essence will allow the ministry to employ residents outside Canada or Ontario to work on behalf of the crown. The second

section sets out the authority of the minister to enter contracts and agreements as well as authorizing the minister to delegate this authority to his deputy or other designated officers of the ministry.

SHERIDAN PARK CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved first reading of Bill 42,

An Act to repeal the Sheridan Park Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This short bill, which the NDP seems to have some major policy objection to, is a housekeeping measure which --

Mr. Foulds: Abolishes the corporation.

Mr. Warner: Your housekeeping is demolition.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- abolishes the corporation as part of our drive to deregulate and get off the books those items and pieces of legislation which are no longer required.

I would point out to this House that this will dissolve the corporation which has been inactive since March 31, 1971, when all the unsold land at the Sheridan Park Research Centre was acquired by the Ontario Development Corporation. Since that time the Sheridan Park Corporation has not maintained accounts or processed financial transactions. The corporation has no assets or liabilities.

Mr. Foulds: You are not abolishing the research centre?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.

[11:15]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might take this opportunity to table the answer to question 91 and the interim answers to questions 97 and 98 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to take

part in the debate on the reply to the speech from the throne. This is my second opportunity to do so. In looking over the speech from the throne which Her Honour delivered, I find it very difficult to reply to such a vague speech.

In this speech the government has very little in the way of programs that are going to answer some of the things and some of the problems that are the most difficult for the people of Ontario to accept at this time. I guess it is the old saying that if the government doesn’t have plans and programs to spend massive amounts of money, the throne speech is naturally very dull. It is that; there is no question about it.

But there is one paragraph of the speech which I would like to read in order to begin my comments on it. It is the first paragraph on page three. It reads: “Some may wish to argue as to whether the primary emphasis of this session should be directed to improving the economic climate of Ontario or to improving the social services available to our people. In truth, extensive attention must be given to both.”

I say the attention that is required to both of these topics mentioned in that paragraph has not been addressed in the speech from the throne. There is no imaginative program for improving the economic climate in Ontario, the one point that is made in this paragraph. And, instead of improving the social services available to our people, they are being eroded under our very eyes.

I don’t know how the government can expect to enjoy, or indeed should have, the attention and the support of the people of Ontario in that kind of vague statement that is not founded in fact. I guess they are trying to fool the people that all is well, but I do not believe they are fooling some of the people. I would suggest the senior citizens of Ontario are not being fooled by that vague statement. The chronically ill in Ontario certainly must be wondering about that, as must be the handicapped people of Ontario. Families with children with various disabilities, particularly children with mental health problems, must also be wondering about those statements.

Let us back up and look at some of the problems I have just mentioned. In our society today we have an increasing percentage each year of people in the over-65 group, and we are surely expected to have programs that are going to be of benefit to these people in order to help them live out their remaining years, one would hope in the community and at least in decent circumstances.

The Ministry of Health has said it is not cutting back or reducing costs in the health service; it is emphasizing different priorities. I wonder what we would hear from those people who are lying in hospital beds that are for people who come in for emergency treatment; those people are lying there, occupying these beds, and not getting the treatment or the atmosphere they should have in an active-treatment bed. I wonder what those people think of the priorities that are being talked about by the Ministry of Health.

St. Joseph’s Hospital in Sarnia has recently renovated its fourth floor, south, as a very proper area for the treatment of chronically ill patients; it is known as the chronically ill ward, and I believe it contains 40 beds. The construction, furnishing and equipping of that ward was completed three or four months ago. But as of yesterday it had not been opened, because there are not sufficient funds to provide the staffing of the unit.

The fact that these beds are not available is putting great strain on the availability of active-treatment beds, as many people have mentioned in this House, both today and on other days. As a result, the people are having to be cared for in the emergency

section of hospitals, awaiting a bed.

The Ministry of Health is not permitting -- in most cases, anyway; certainly not in my riding -- the issuing of any further permits for nursing home beds. Here we have another problem. The government has said it is looking at new ways of doing this, new priorities and so forth; but, before putting in the alternatives to the existing system, it ha’; started cutting off the advantages of the existing system.

There are people in Ontario who would begin tomorrow to build more nursing home beds. From a conversation I had with a group of people from Bestview Lodges of Ontario I can say that they have been trying to build more nursing home beds but they have been refused, certainly in our area and in most areas of Ontario. They have shipped off about $4,000,000 to Texas where they are able to enter the field without government interference.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Community and Social Services has refused permission to have any additional homes for the aged beds built in our community. So, it seems to me that in this revision of priorities the elderly people are being shuffled out of the deck.

The minister has said there is going to be much more in the way of day care, more in the way of home care, more in the way of outreach programs. That is a splendid idea which I endorse 100 per cent. This is right; we should be able to try to keep elderly people in their homes as long as possible in the community. This is a good program that is being talked about.

But the problem, of course, is that the funding that has been provided thus far for these programs has been completely inadequate to accomplish anything to a marked degree -- not enough to accomplish something that is going to offset the disadvantaged position that I have spoken about in the way of chronic care beds, nursing home beds and homes for the aged beds, which of course, are very expensive initially in terms of capital and in continuing cost also.

However, the day care, home care, and outreach programs could be the answer, but thus far have not produced any very great assistance to these people.

The $9.80 co-payment for chronically ill people in hospitals I can see is fair in one respect, since it has been paid by the chronically ill in other institutions such as nursing homes for some time. But when you take that in round figures, say, $300 a month, out of the income of an elderly couple it almost makes it impossible for the spouse of that chronically ill person to continue to maintain his or her home in the community.

This is really flying in the face of what the government has said: They want to establish day care, home care and so forth to keep the elderly in their homes in the community. I suggest to you that the way this $9.80 copayment is being carried out is defeating the purpose of keeping the elderly in their homes. If that much more money has to be allocated on a daily basis for the care of the one spouse, the other spouse is naturally going to have that much less to pay his or her taxes, energy bills, et cetera. This, as I was saying, needs a great deal of thought, and I would ask that this he looked at very carefully.

Then, in reference to that paragraph I read from the speech from the throne, I come down to children’s services, where we are experiencing here again the product of what is known as the restraint program. Here in the International Year of the Child, of which everybody seems so proud, we have a letter from the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services to the chairman of the board of children’s mental health centres. If I may, for a moment, just read a line or two from that letter:

“A number of children’s mental health centres, along with other parts of the ministry, will be asked to reduce certain services in order to make funds available for the designated priorities of the ministry.” This is really an unusual way to celebrate the International Year of the Child.

[11:30]

This is just one area in the case of the children’s mental health centres. It has got people in this service throughout Ontario most anxious and concerned about continuing care for these people. This is what is happening in various other services within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, where one after the other there is talk of cutbacks at a time when we need the services even more than we ever needed them before.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that many of the services provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services for children, particularly the younger children, are services that would be expected to, and I believe do, head off down the line much greater problems among those children with much greater cost to the people providing the service. I think it is a bit shortsighted to say that certain of these services should be cut.

I think there should be a great deal more emphasis on the prevention of problems among children and early teens. That is only a proper thing to do. But to cut the funding for children’s services -- in his letter the deputy minister mentions prevention, advocacy, child abuse, foster care, francophone services -- the ministry is developing priorities in this area. So members know what that means and I’m afraid the people of Ontario know what that means.

It seems to me this government, which has been in power for so many years in Ontario, has lost its grip on the situations as they affect the people. Back in the late 1950s, the 1960s -- the postwar period, generally speaking -- and really up until the early 1970s, in this province all systems were go. We had a continually increasing birthrate, we had a continuing amount of immigration into our province, we had increases in the industrial might of the province, and so forth. It seems to me almost anybody could have governed the province and done it well in those days when things were going our way and were building the people and industry and business of this province.

Now, of course, things are different. The birth rate has fallen off markedly; immigration to the province has been reduced considerably. As a matter of fact we are finding an outflow from Ontario to the western provinces, particularly Alberta. There have not been great increases in industry. So all those things that were going for us in the postwar period and right up to the 1970s are not now there. Therefore it takes a lot more to plan wisely and govern wisely for this province.

This government, which has been in power throughout all those years, has lost its grip on the problems that are facing the province. It is not now able to cope with the new problems we find because of the new sets of circumstances in our economy and in our society.

I would also like to speak on the matter of day care. About 50 per cent of women in this province are now working. Many of these women have children. Naturally, in addition to their work -- even above their work -- they are interested in their children. How can a woman work with a free conscience if she does not know she is able to get adequate and properly supervised day care?

I believe in 1977 there were just under 50,000 licensed child care places in Ontario. It’s obvious there are not going to be enough licensed child care places to meet the requirements of the number of mothers who are now working.

The second thing is that it costs a great deal for a woman to provide adequate day care for her children while she is working. This is compounded because the average income for a working woman is in the $8,000 to $8,500 bracket. How can she afford to pay the present prices for day care, a day-care system that does not fully supply the needs of the people anyway? This is one area I believe must be looked at this year, since more and more mothers are returning to the work force, in addition to the 50 per cent of women in Ontario who are already working.

I would like to mention one or two matters that pertain more directly to my own constituency. I hope many of these things will be taken seriously by the government.

In Sarnia, as everyone knows, we have a concentration of petrochemical industries. This is now a healthy, vibrant industry. It embraces the whole gamut of all the major companies in these fields: Imperial Oil Limited, Shell Oil, Sun Oil, Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide, Polysar and Petrosar. They are all operating in Sarnia, in an industry that historically has been volatile and one in which there are many hazards.

We speak today of the hazards in the existing and the coming nuclear field. The petrochemical industry has gone through those hazards in their industry, and now is practically accident-free. They have a competent staff, and are mostly manned by members of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers’ International Union, who are dedicated to their job, who are educated for their job and who are performing in complete safety. Seldom is there an accident in this massive industry in Ontario.

The major pipelines from western Canada all come into Sarnia. This industry is growing well, but I want to point out we have a great challenge to the continuing petrochemical industry in Ontario from the province of Alberta, which of course is a natural situation. I would expect any government of Alberta to continue to try to achieve greater eminence in this field. if would like to point out the government of Ontario must do its

part in watching and guarding the needs, the legislative needs of this great industry in Ontario to ensure it has a healthy, competitive situation and that it will be able to continue to prosper for the people of Ontario generally.

The next matter I would like to touch on is the difficulty that the people of Point Edward and Sarnia have encountered with the closing of the Prestolite plant. Prestolite, a company owned by Eltra Corporation of the United States, had been reducing its staff for some time because of a reduction in business but closed the plant at the end of November, 1978; this threw out of work many people whose sole employment record over the years had been with that company. The problem they now are facing, of course, is finding alternative jobs. I really think this matter is one in which the Ministry of Labour and Manpower should take some

part in helping these people find alternative jobs.

One problem that is being faced by those people who have retired, or who have had to retire because of the closing of the plant, is the dreadful pension situation. I do not know how any company could get away with having a pension like the one Prestolite had for its employees.

To give you just one example, Mr. Speaker, I will cite the instance of a couple, a man and wife, both of whom were employees of Prestolite. When they retired at the age of 61 and 62 years, they were in receipt of pensions that, added together, came to about $790 or $800 a month When the plant was closed by Eltra Corporation, and the company fled back to the United States, this couple’s combined pension was reduced to $403. One would not think that such a thing could happen in our society today.

I noted that there were questions today by my colleague from London Centre (Mr. Peterson) of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) regarding pensions. The minister did say that many of the things we were talking about -- the portability of pensions and so forth -- were being discussed by the royal commission in Ottawa. The minister also said there would be some legislation brought in, perhaps within a year.

I hope the minister will hear what I have said about the poor Prestolite pensioners. This one couple I mentioned -- it’s an absolute fact; I can give him the details of it -- were getting about $800 and now are getting $403 together. This is a very important thing for this government to look at, and I hope that, in bringing in the new legislation that the minister mentioned, the government will take recognition of this fact.

No throne speech debate participation by a member from Sarnia riding would be complete unless I talked about the lack of a controlled-access highway from Sarnia to Highway 401. I will very briefly make some comment on that.

I found an old newspaper dated October 1938, 41 years ago, when the Bluewater Bridge between Sarnia and Port Huron was opened. Governor Murphy of Michigan and Premier Hepburn of Ontario met in the middle of the bridge and shook hands. In the events that went on afterwards, the governor and the Premier at that time said that the bridge was one of the major steps to build a controlled-access highway from Chicago to Montreal. That was 41 years ago. That was a very foresighted position to be taken by these two people, the governor of Michigan and the Premier of Ontario. But that was 41 years ago.

Even though 41 years have passed, we do not have anything that was spoken about and envisaged by those two people then.

[11:45]

Mr. Ruston: The Tories came in and messed it up.

Mr. Blundy: Yes, that’s exactly what I was going to say. The member must have read my notes.

Mr. Ruston: Great minds think alike.

Mr. Blundy: That was back in 1941 and 1938. During the few years remaining in the Hepburn term of office, there were seven miles of dual controlled-access highway completed from the bridge through Sarnia and Sarnia township. That was within five years of the opening of the bridge, when Hepburn’s government was in power.

Mr. Hodgson: Who was that? Who was that Hepburn guy you are talking about?

Mr. Ruston: Remember him? That shows your age.

Mr. Blundy: If you look back, you might see many interesting things about that time.

Mr. Ruston: You have to be over 50 to remember him.

Mr. G. I. Miller: We haven’t had a change since then?

Mr. Blundy: In the ensuing 36 years since this government has been in power, we haven’t really -- well, we have the controlled-access highway now to the middle of Warwick township in the county of Lambton, and there it stops. There is work progressing on it, thank God, and I am told by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) that by 1981 we will be able to drive in relative safety to Highway 401.

I mentioned that this road is completed now to the middle of Warwick township, and I would like to interject a very sad note. Only two weeks ago the reeve of Warwick township, John Pedden, and his wife Marie were killed when they got off that road onto Highway 7. They were both instantly killed in a head-on collision after they had gone east of the area served by the highway.

When I look back over the years, there have been scores killed on that two-lane road which carries tremendous traffic, particularly truck traffic coming to the petrochemical industry. There have been scores killed, scores maimed. It was a very sad note that John, the reeve of Warwick for a number of years, and his wife should have been killed only two weeks ago on that highway.

I have covered a number of my concerns, particularly in the Community and Social Services field, and one or two items that are really important to the people of my riding. I have enjoyed participating in this debate very much, and I hope some of the things said will not fall completely on deaf ears. With that remark, I will close my comments on the throne speech debate.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan cost the taxpayers $108,000,000 last year. About half of this money went directly into the pockets of the pharmacists. I suppose the Tory members across the way would see nothing wrong with this because they see it as free enterprise.

The Ontario government manages the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan in such a way that pharmacists get three fees instead of one. The government will pay for a six months’ supply of free drugs, but most druggists refuse to fill prescriptions for longer than 30 days. They do this in order to collect as many dispensing fees as they can. Much of the $50,000,000 they pocket in dispensing fees from the plan could be eliminated if druggists would give up their insistence on only giving out prescriptions one month at a time, or if the government ordered them to do so.

Recently, the Premier (Mr. Davis) warned that the province may have to tighten up the plan that provides people over 65 with free prescription drugs because costs are running too high. The Premier said part of the blame lies with doctors who prescribe too much medicine for the elderly. He indicated this results in non-prescription drugs costing much more than if they were simply bought off the pharmacy shelves. However, the abuse is by pharmacists who collect dispensing fees every month by refusing to fill long-term prescriptions.

Many people are on long-term maintenance drugs hut still they have to go back to the pharmacy and get their prescriptions renewed every 30 days.

Here is the story of a Toronto woman with a thyroid condition. She takes a drug called eltroxin, two milligrams. The pills cost 1.8 cents each. She used to buy a three-month supply for about $4. Now that she gets free drugs under the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan, she can get only one month’s supply at a time. The result: the druggist gets three dispensing fees instead of one. The government picks up the tab for $9.42 -- more than double what the drug cost when she could get a three-month supply.

The 30-day limit on medication was introduced when the plan covered only welfare recipients. In fact this was the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association price for opting into the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan. The government did not want to supply drugs for more than 30 days because they felt the recipient might go back to work and pay for his own drugs at that point.

Since January 1, 1976 the plan has been extended to cover 785,000 senior citizens. The Ministry of Health will pay for a six-month supply for seniors at a slightly higher dispensing fee, but druggists prefer the 30-day limit so that they can charge the extra dispensing fee.

The average prescription last year cost $6.12. Of that amount $3.30, or about half, was for the drug. The other half, $2.82, represented the dispensing fee charged by the druggist. Billings have soared from $69,800,000 in 1976 to $86,600,000 in 1977, and then to $108,000,000 in 1978. As I said earlier, nearly half of this money went directly to the pockets of the pharmacists.

Here is a case of an Etobicoke woman who takes a blood pressure medication called hydrochlorothiazide. She takes only two tablets a week so a bottle of 10(3 lasts her a full year. Before the woman turned 65 she could buy 100 tablets of hydrochlorothiazide for $3.50, but when she was covered by the plan she could only get one month’s supply, nine pills at a time. The cost to the government was $2.35 a month or $28.20 a year. As a cash customer she pays $3.50; under the plan it costs taxpayers $28.20.

My assistant contacted 19 pharmacies located in Toronto, Burlington, Barrie, Windsor and Thunder Bay and asked for a three-month supply of these hydrochlorothiazide tablets. Only one pharmacy agreed to fill the prescription for three months. Two others said the government would only pay for a one-month supply at a time and the other 16 flatly refused to dispense for more than 30 days stating that this was government regulation.

Originally pharmacists got a straight fee of $2.25 for every drug benefit prescription. Last year they could receive $2.82 dispensing fee per prescription as long as the fee they charged the government was no more than what they were charging the public.

This marketplace system is not working because it seems to have given many pharmacists the green light to charge the public more so that they could get more money out of the government. Everyone pays more because of the marketplace concept of the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

Here is a letter from a Toronto man. I will just quote his opening statement:

“Several times on a regular repeat prescription where the doctor ordered 60 units, I have been sent 30 units. I went back and made them give me the other 30.” Most people aren’t that insistent.

I have another letter here from an Arnprior man: “The report of your concern with the abuse of the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan certainly was welcome. I have been fighting this unsavory practice on a personal basis for some time and so far I’ve succeeded only in having my doctor prescribe for 100 tablets to be taken as directed,

whereas prior to the inception of the plan I was able to get Prednisone tablets by the 1,000 from the Vanguard Prescription Drug Service Limited in Toronto. The last order returned was marked, we cannot send prescription drugs through the mail. Even this I don’t believe.

“I’m obliged to take three separate drugs daily for the rest of my life and this refusal by the druggists to dispense more than a month’s supply could leave me with an obligatory visit to the drug store monthly for 20 years.

“Letters have been sent by me to the Honourable William Davis, Honourable Frank Drea, Honourable D. Timbrell, Paul Yakabuski and Mike Cassidy, asking all of them to please put a stop to this costly, wasteful and inconvenient practice, which seems to make it as difficult for those over age 65 as possible.

“Thank you for your efforts, keep up the good work. Who knows, we may be successful.”

Here’s a letter from Pembroke, Ontario:

“Re Ontario Drug Benefit Plan for our senior citizens and druggists who refuse to fill more than one month’s supply.

“This is exactly what goes on in Pembroke. I would suggest that all doctors in Ontario be asked to prescribe more than one month where advisable and druggists demanded to fill the requirements as given.

“We appreciate the assistance of the taxpayers for our help, but deplore the get rich quick methods of a Pembroke outfit exploiting the good intentions of the government through the taxpayers.”

Here’s a letter I received from a Weston, Ontario, man:

“Perhaps you will be interested to know that I wrote to Mr. E. N. Thompson of the drugs and therapeutic pricing department early this week, pointing out the various increases in the price of the drug I have been taking for the last five years.

“I cannot go back to the entire period, but in May of 1977, I paid $7.11 for 300 tablets of novophenytoin; in October 1977, the price for a mixture of dilatin and novophenytoin tablets -- there was not enough of the one at the time to fill the order -- was $10.18.

“I questioned the 43 per cent increase in the price, and took the ease to the Ontario pharmacy college, which, after investigation, ordered a refund of $3.

“In July 1978, I came under the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan and as you’ve said was limited to 68 tablets per prescription. The excuse given was that the druggist was not allowed to dispense more at a time -- probably by roles and regulations set up by themselves.

“The first 68 tablets given under the plan was in November of last year. The cost to the government, and therefore to the taxpayers, was $4. In January of this year, it was $4.13. On a basis of 300 tablets this would amount to a cool $18.22, an increase of some 260 per cent over the price of $7.11 paid in May 1977.” This was when he was a cash customer.

A ministry official assured me that since January 1, 1976, they look at one month’s supply as the minimum quantity, but many pharmacists look at it as the maximum quantity. He says: “Pharmacists have it ingrained in their mind,” and these are his exact words, “that they can only dispense one month’s supply.”

Now I’m going to quote from the Windsor Star, February 10, 1979. “Essex County Pharmacists’ Association president ... says the monthly fees are not a ripoff. They cut down on drug abuse and allow doctors to re-evaluate the results of medication.” These are her exact words: “It’s actually a very wise way to do things and has been followed with all other drug plans.” Why isn’t it “wise” for cash-paying customers?

[12:00]

Here’s how another pharmacist put it:

“Dear sir: As a third-generation pharmacist, I resent very much your accusation that the pharmacists are ripping off the drug benefit plan. (Toronto Star, February 1.) The government of Ontario agreed to the 34-day supply at the time Parcost was introduced and seems to prefer that the pharmacists submit their accounts once a month.” Now listen to this: “The up-to-date thinking re health care for the elderly is that loneliness is the biggest problem, Therefore, if they visit the pharmacy once a month they have at least one social contact.

“For example, long before the drug benefit plan was thought of, I had a customer who telephoned me twice a month for half of her prescription, The reason was that I would visit her after hours, twice a month, instead of once a month.” I wonder if he collected his dispensing fee for those half prescriptions as well.

Here’s how the pharmacists feel about it. On February 15, they wrote into the Toronto Sun: “The abuse of health-care professionals has been rampant in the media of late. February 1, a report of the remarks made by Ed Ziemba, MPP, on pharmacists and prescriptions appeared. Mr. Ziemba is either unaware of the facts or distorts them to gain cheap publicity.

“If he is so anxious to release statistics, perhaps he should state those factors which influence the data. For example, he states that billings to the plan have increased, but neglects to say that the number of people eligible for coverage may have increased.” They are wrong. They haven’t increased. Good try.

“Mr. Ziemba charges pharmacists with refusing to issue more than a 30-day supply of drugs under the drug benefit plan as a practice instituted by them to gain the dispensing fee. In fact, this is one of the fundamental rules of the program imposed by the government, and any diversion from this path is subject to approval by the Ministry of Health. We would hope that Mr. Ziemba’s remarks were misinterpreted and that he will be anxious to clearly articulate his view. Signed, R. Halliday, BSc, Phm, and 10 others.”

The Sun, in its usual fashion, has a little snarky postscript: “We suspect that his mind is made up.”

Mr. Conway: Now, now, Ed, take it easy on the press, particularly the Newcastle Trombone.

Mr. Cureatz: It’s the Newcastle Reporter.

Mr. Ziemba: A ministry official was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen: “Earl Coulson, director of the drug benefit plan, denied that it is government policy to allow only a month’s supply to be dispensed at one time.” Here are his words as quoted from the Ottawa Citizen on February 1: “‘There is no way that it is, and they are misrepresenting the contents of our drug benefit plan.’ Coulson said the terms of the government’s agreement with the Ontario Pharmaceutical Association allows druggists to dispense anywhere from one to six months’ supply of a prescribed drug. Druggists who insist on dispensing only a month’s supply of drugs do so because they stand to gain financially, Coulson admitted.”

Here again, Mr. Coulson was quoted in the Windsor Star: “Earl Coulson, co-ordinator of pharmacy services for the Ministry of Health, said in an interview that subject to some qualifications, Ziemba is right. Coulson said the drug plan allows for drugs to be prescribed for a maximum of six months and a minimum of one month. He agreed that many pharmacists insist on only giving enough medicine for one month but said any druggist is incorrect who says the one-month period is required by government regulation.

“Despite the abuse in dispensing fees by some pharmacists, he said, there are some arguments in favour of maintaining the status quo. He said he knows from experience that it is ‘probably right’ that most druggists insist on 30-day limits. But Coulson said there are some arguments in favour of not forcing druggists to issue long-term prescriptions. He said the plan was negotiated with the Ontario Pharmaceutical Association and if any changes were made to the agreement it could end up costing the government more.” What are they going to do, blackmail him?

I tried to contact Mr. Coulson the very next day after he made that statement, hut he had been transferred to another department, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that physicians do not appreciate having pharmacists alter their prescription quantity, especially on long-term maintenance drugs. I don’t see why the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan prescriptions have to be treated any differently from any other prescriptions, prescriptions that people walk in and purchase, cash and carry. The Ontario Drug Benefit Plan is being mismanaged by this government. The time has come to get tough with druggists who are milking the plan; the ministry should send out a directive tomorrow stating that the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan prescription quantity is not to be altered by the pharmacist.

The Ontario Pharmacists’ Association, which represents 1,600 pharmacies, insisted on this 30-day dispensing fee as their price for co-operating with the drug benefit plan and they shouldn’t have been allowed to get away with it. We would not have to be cutting back on hospital beds and punishing the weak and the powerless in our communities if the government would manage plans like the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan properly.

Mr. Cureatz: It is my pleasure to rise to debate the motion before the House, Mr. Speaker.

In my remarks this afternoon I would like to reiterate one or two of the points touched on in the throne speech. Because of the intensity of the debates nowadays surrounding the control of government spending, and because I think this is a period of readjustment for all governments at all levels in Canada, I would like to discuss what I feel is a growing paradox in politics, the so-called constraints that we are facing today.

The conflicting demands of present government policy are obvious, I think, to all of us. On the one hand, there is a growing mood among both the public and the business sector to have the government reduce its role as a regulatory agency, to control its spending in order to keep taxes down and to provide capital for the private sector. On the other hand, in our present economic climate there is added pressure being placed on governments to assume increased responsibility for the well-being of the people of this province. There is, of course, no simple solution to balancing the fine line between government meeting its responsibility to those in need and maintaining fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Conway: Sure there is; read the charter.

Mr. McClellan: You are not supposed to read your speech.

Mr. Cureatz: In part the problem stems from the expectations that society has imposed on government; namely, access to high standards in education, health and social services.

Mr. Samis: From the heart.

Mr. Turner: But he is doing it well.

Mr. Cureatz: With each new generation this expectation has grown stronger. In 1945, the Ontario budget was $183,000,000, with some $20,000,000 or 9.8 per cent being spent on health care.

Mr. Conway: I remember it well.

Mr. Cureatz: Today, the Ministry of Health alone has a budget of $3,900,000,000, accounting for 20 per cent of the province’s budget.

Since 1946 we have witnessed the emergence of what I think is one of the best systems of social care in the world. The growth of the system went hand in hand with the building of a burgeoning economy.

In 1946, Ontarians, tired of depression and war, turned their attention to building a strong growth-orientated and prosperous society. Prosperity brought with it a willingness to invest in social services and improve the quality of life in Ontario.

Mr. Conway: From the cradle to the grave.

Mr. Cureatz: In a sense, public concern in Ontario merged with the willingness and empathy on the part of the government to form a common bond of expanded and improved services in the education, health and welfare fields. Few people would argue that we are not a better society for it.

In recent years, however, we have come to realize that social services can be costly, and if economic growth and revenues do not keep pace, government can be placed in a precarious position.

The experience in California with the passage of Proposition 13 is of great significance, because it is a clear indication that taxpayers are fed up. Not only are taxpayers in North America feeling the sting which accompanies the large bite that governments take from taxable incomes, but they are also beginning to rebel against levies on their capital acquisitions through property taxes. The people of California obviously reacted to a distrust of government; and, while their actions may ultimately lead to unforeseen and perhaps even dire consequences, I think all governments which increased spending through massive social planning in the 1960s must read the California message.

Even Michael Pitfield, the most powerful of federal civil servants, has asked the fundamental question: “How long can the public sector take on functions and manpower from the private sector before the latter loses its vitality and not only our system of government but the whole structure of society is irrevocably changed?”

The question is answered simply, for as long as governments lack conviction and courage we will not have restraint. But spending must be stopped unless deficits increase enormously or the taxpayer is prepared to cough up a whole lot more than he is already doing. The challenge of government today is to serve the public more effectively while at the same time adhering to principles of restraint.

Mr. Lawlor: You don’t believe that malarkey, do you?

Mr. Cureatz: Often the only way to reduce the burden of taxation is a painful one which will involve cutbacks.

Mr. Lawlor: All your planning is lining the pockets of the rich.

Mr. Cureatz: I am buying the member’s book, and he is complaining. I don’t think I will be buying his book now.

Unfortunately, if government is serious in its efforts to control spending, it must take a long, hard look at three areas in particular; these are, because of their costs, the areas of education, health and welfare. The area of education provides a good deal of insight into the new equilibrium between service and cost that this government is attempting to achieve. It also provides insight into the criticism that the opposition parties are currently engaging in.

Mr. Conway: Very valid criticism.

Mr. Cureatz: Here we go. This is the meat of this speech.

Let me turn briefly to the question of education. I think it is time that we and the opposition both recognize what effects demographic changes are going to have in our educational institutions. A most obvious instance is the university situation, which is currently having to prepare for declining enrolment. How can the members opposite criticize funding for universities when they know that increases really amount to spending larger sums of money on programs serving fewer members of our population?

I think it is high time that the members on the opposite side of the House came to the realization that universality, that magical word born of a feeling that government can be all things to all people, is more and more open to question as we preach restraint. Universal programs, rather than meeting the needs of a special group in society for which they are intended, often produce large bureaucracies which are insensitive to individuals. Often the so-called universal application of one particular program costs enormous amounts of money.

For example, just because all children are subject to a particular learning program in the school system does not mean that we have accomplished the means by which we can effectively recognize remedial or compensatory needs in a few children who truly need individual help. If government is going to be as generous as people continue to want it to be, this means we are going to have to maximize the use of existing resources by carefully assessing needs in the light of the individual who cannot care for himself. We are going to have to question the concept of universality.

Just as one has to question universality in education, I think one has to question institutionalization in our health and care programs. The shift away from strong, central control over health services towards local community organizations is simply an outgrowth of our awareness that community-based preventive services are both more desirable and cost-effective.

It is essential that the reorganization in the delivery of health services be viewed as a system, and, as such, isolating single aspects of the changes is misleading. For example, it is misleading to discuss a 4.5 per cent increase in 1979 funding for active beds and ignore a 5.3 per cent increase to chronic-care and rehabilitation units within active-treatment hospitals.

The point I am making is that human nature is often reluctant to accept change. I suppose many would prefer to maintain the status quo. However, once again, demographic shifts will in a few years alter greatly the demands on the health-care system. An ageing population will require a mix of health services different from our current ones.

[12:15]

Therefore, unless we want a largely institutionalized elderly population, which we cannot afford, we must ensure we have a healthy population and alternative services which provide care, yet allow people a large measure of independence and flexibility.

I mentioned welfare when I began to speak, but perhaps I can best sum up my thoughts by saying that I sense, as most of us do, a growth in our awareness of the relationship between welfare programming, or any of the social services for that matter, and the revenue resources that fund these services. I think we all realize we cannot afford to divorce social planning and economic goals from each other. We recognize the strong balance in what we do economically and what we can do in the social services.

Mr. Conway: What are you going to do about too many lawyers?

Mr. Cureatz: In order to maintain a healthy balance, we in Ontario have committed ourselves to encouraging industrial strength as best we can. We are focusing more and more attention on those industries and resources that have long-term potential.

This will require a greater emphasis on research and development. In some instances it has meant providing incentives that will assist these industries to provide long-term employment and to improve our competitive position locally and internationally.

Mr. Lawlor: You are doing no such thing. You are blundering around in utter darkness. What industries are you putting so much money into apart from automobiles?

Mr. Cureatz: By way of example, the down-sizing of automobiles for energy efficiency has opened up a whole new avenue of investment potential in the last few years. It is important that we attract some of those investment dollars for Ontario. The automobile assembly and automobile parts manufacturing industries are the largest dollar-producing sectors in the Ontario economy. Only through the tapping of this investment market, created by the production of smaller cars, can we retain economic health in our automobile industry.

That is why our government is proud of the fact that our $26,000,000 incentive to Ford brought a $500,000,000 V-6 engine plant and over 7,000 jobs to the Windsor area. It is worth mentioning, also, that Ford has further decided to locate a $150,000,000 aluminum casting plant there as well at no cost to the government of Ontario. This achievement is a direct result of an aggressive attitude on the part of the government to make Ontario as attractive as possible for new investment.

The results of these are obvious, especially to the people of Windsor.

Mr. Lawlor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: How is it possible to heckle a member properly if he reads his speech? If he is speaking off the cuff, then you can get yourself in. But if they go on a blue streak, having it all set out in front of them, they obviously have an advantage. This is being utilized by this government too extensively. I wish you would bring an end to it.

Mr. Turner: You might consult the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Eaton: The last speaker read all his speech. He even read a letter.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Lakeshore will have to use his own authority.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the points I am trying to get across to the House are so important I want to make sure they are concise and that the record is able to establish the exact train of thought.

Mr. McClellan: You have some hack writing your speech for you because you are incapable of thought.

Mr. Cureatz: Pulp and paper manufacturing is another example of an industry which has in the past and continues at present to make strong contributions to the Ontario economy. The government has offered the industry about $100,000,000 in incentives to upgrade environmental protection equipment and to effect process modernization which will result in increased productivity and a cleaner environment.

Mr. Samis: Look at their profits last year.

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you just table the speech? File the speech with the clerk.

Mr. Cureatz: It is through the provision of these incentives at a time in the pulp and paper cycle --

Mr. Lawlor: Now we have to pay them to make money. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Cureatz: -- when the companies are realizing profits that we can ensure this industry does not lose its competitive edge in the world market.

Mr. Lawlor: It is a complete betrayal of the free enterprise theory.

Mr. McClellan: This man is a regular reading machine.

Mr. Cureatz: In Ontario, we are prepared to address changing realities. The aggressive attitude taken by this government to attract new investment and its program to assist those sectors of our economy which demonstrate an ability to compete in the new world market are two of the large number of major initiatives which we are undertaking to ensure that Ontario’s economy remains competitive.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a complete reversal of anything Herbert Hoover could put up with.

Mr. McClellan: Go back to the sacred text of Herbert Hoover.

Mr. Cureatz: If we are to be successful in attracting new industries to Ontario or in encouraging those already in Ontario to expand, we must be able to assure them that they can expect a reasonable return for taking risks and innovative measures. We must also be in a position from which we can ensure an adequate supply of energy, which is both secure and competitively priced. Ontario’s Hydro nuclear program, viewed within the reality of OPEC policy and an uncertain Iranian situation, places us in an enviable position. I think we can easily deal with our surplus energy -- and no one denies that we have one -- by selling it to industry.

Mr. Conway: Would you mind repeating that?

The Darlington nuclear generating plant becomes a very reasonable proposition, when we look at it as part of the government’s “go east” strategy and as a cornerstone of an overall plan to stimulate the economic growth towards the other side of the Metropolitan Toronto area. Darlington 2 will be a key element in our growing nuclear energy industry.

From the local perspective, the station with its 8,000-megawatt capacity will employ 600 people at present and approximately 3,700 people during its peak construction period. From a global perspective I think it is becoming clear that Candu nuclear technology is superior to much of the technology being developed elsewhere and this success is important to maintain as we look to exporting the products of this technology abroad.

If we are going to give business a successful boost I think one of the most important things we can recognize is that healthy economic growth cannot take place when governments are overly interfering and blindly going ahead creating red tape. The government of Ontario is fully committed to the principle of regulatory reform in the broadest sense in order to reduce, as far as possible, the complexity of statutes, regulations, directives and administrative practices.

Particular attention is being given to those areas where simplification of government requirements can assist in reducing the cost of compliance both in financial and human terms, although I must confess to the member for Lakeshore I often wonder who created all the red tape in the first place. Deregulation is a further insurance that we will remain competitive in the world marketplace.

Mr. Lawlor: Why don’t you want to subsidize the red-tape industry?

Mr. Cureatz: We are committed to creating an environment that will be attractive to investors and will demonstrate we have a system of government regulation both stable and fair. The element of fairness, of course, must apply equally to the investor and consumer of his product. That is why we are examining all the past legislation and programs to discover whether there are areas of overlap, overregulation or unnecessary regulation.

Furthermore, any new legislation being considered should be examined to ensure it is efficient in terms of its administrative cost and time to government as well as to the group affected.

Another area in which the government recently has been moving to establish greater equality and fairness is that of tax assessment. Just prior to last Christmas, the Municipal Assessment Amendment Act was introduced. The bill is aimed at allowing municipalities to realize the full potential of their existing tax base under the present property tax-assessment system. Municipalities may request implementation of

section 86 of the Assessment Act to calculate the new equalization factors for their municipality. This will remove the freeze on mill rates that has been in place since 1970 and will be the new basis for the distribution of government grants to municipalities and school boards in Ontario. This program is attempting to eliminate serious discrepancies in the current allocation of municipal grants for 1979.

The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) is attempting to correct serious assessment inequalities with the implementation of

section 86. When a resolution is filed by a municipal council, it will allow assessors to amend assessments in order to equalize assessment values and similar real property in the vicinity. There will be no property tax shifts from one class of property to another -- for example, from industrial to residential.

The revised mill rates will become the basis for the 1980 education resources equalization grants to municipalities based on the 1978 market value. No municipality or school board will receive less grants in 1980 due to the introduction of new factors. To date, 13 municipalities have applied for the implementation of

section 86 in 1979, and more than 50 municipalities have applied for assessment equalization in 1980.

The two-year time factor involved before implementation of the new mill rates will allow municipal and school representatives to review the factors and, if necessary, appeal the change. Provisions will also be made to allow for phasing in of drastic changes in mill rates.

In my riding of Durham East, the town of Newcastle, which encompasses the old township of Clarke, the township of Darlington, the village of Newcastle and the town of Bowmanville, is undergoing this initiative for change. Any initiative for change is usually accompanied by some confusion and uncertainty. The town of Newcastle is no exception. However, I think council made the right decision in requisitioning such action.

While

section 86 should bring fairness among properties within a given class -- residential, commercial or industrial -- it also protects against tax shifts from one property class on to another, such as from commercial on to residential. In other words, each property class will hear the same proportion of the total municipal tax burden following the

section 86 assessment as it did before. The objective is solely to achieve equality within each property class.

Certain property owners within a class that has been paying more than its fair tax share will have both their assessment and their property taxes reduced. I think this confusion comes in where others who have been underassessed will face tax increases. For those people, however, who may think their assessment is incorrect, the regional assessment office may he contacted. Of course, there may be the occasion where a person is still dissatisfied with a decision. In this case, he or she has the resources of the right to appeal to the assessment review court.

It is also my understanding that under the Municipal Act, sections 505 or 636 might be used by residents to approach their local council to seek some relief where there has been a very sharp rise in taxes. The local councillors for the individual wards should be approached in this regard.

Another matter that very much affects my own riding and relates indirectly to the topic of deregulation is that of decentralization of government services. A great deal of progress, for example, has been made in the past year in the Ministry of Revenue’s preparations for the relocation of its head office to Oshawa. A site was purchased on the southeast corner of King and Centre streets in downtown Oshawa, and the building’s preliminary design stage is nearing completion. Construction is scheduled to begin in May 1980 and continue for two years.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s a depressed area.

Mr. Cureatz: By May 1982 the ministry expects to begin transferring employees to the new facility, which should be fully staffed with 1,300 employees and in operation by October of the same year. Although Revenue officials expect many of the present employees to remain in their jobs, a significant proportion of the positions will, over time, become available to local people.

As well as the economic benefits from the original construction employment factors, the area’s economy will further benefit from the spending and housing requirements of the new families moving into the area and also from the supply and service demands of the ministry itself.

These are a few of the initiatives the government has taken recently to make both Ontario and the Durham region a more attractive investment location. When discussing the broad topic of restraint in social services spending, however, it is not enough to talk about deregulation or decentralization by themselves; nor is it enough to mention our commitment to free enterprise as a means to ensure a stable revenue source to support services. We in Ontario must continue to recognize the human aspect of free enterprise, or of freedom and enterprise, if you will.

We must continue to realize that in today’s context we still have a social responsibility, a responsibility to those disadvantaged by change, not choice.

Perhaps, given the current emphasis that is being placed on restraining the growth of government spending and the pressure that is being placed upon us to review each new initiative carefully, we should be returning, as the government House leader said in a speech he delivered not long ago, to the spirit of volunteerism that once permeated our society.

In recent years, with government assuming an ever-larger role in the delivery of social services, this principle has been somewhat eroded. Government should, of course, continue to meet its responsibility in the social field. What I am saying, however, is that this role must go hand in hand with individual involvement and community initiative. A government can only do so much alone. We need the family institution. We need a social commitment to one another, and I think we are entering a time when decentralization of our social services is the only sane, rational policy to follow.

Finally, we need a commitment to improving