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

April 1, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FISH TESTING PROGRAM

WINDSOR WATER QUALITY

SPACESHIP COLUMBIA

PHYSICIANS' FEES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

URANIUM CONTRACTS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONCLUDED)

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN WORK PLACE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SEVERANCE PAY

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

JOHN F. MCCLENNAN (BLOOR) LIMITED ACT

CITY OF BARRIE ACT

373800 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

MOTION TO SUSPEND ORDINARY BUSINESS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Before embarking on routine proceedings, I would like to advise all honourable members that on Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) raised what he considered to be a matter of privilege with respect to a letter by one Bryan Rowntree, president of the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association, calling on the members of that association to support a fund-raising dinner apparently organized by the Muskoka Progressive Conservative Association in honour of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller).

At the outset I must point out to all honourable members, as I have before and as my predecessors have on many occasions, that it is no part of the responsibility of the Speaker to investigate and report back to the House. The Speaker's sole function in such matters is to decide whether or not a prima facie case of a breach of privilege has been made. If he rules that there is a prima facie case, then the House must deal with it as it sees fit.

I have examined the documents that were presented to me with great care and I find the notice of the dinner appears to be an ordinary notice of a political fund-raising dinner such as is common to all parties. Mr. Rowntree's letter urges the members of his association to subscribe to this dinner. I suggest it is his privilege if he wishes to do so and does not come under the control of this House.

There is no suggestion that the member for Muskoka was a party to Mr. Rowntree's action. Mr. Rowntree's motives for that action are his own and are not the responsibility of the member for Muskoka, nor indeed of this House. It is therefore my ruling that this is not a matter of privilege.

Mr. Roy: Just on that point, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but it is not debatable.

Mr. Roy: Can I --

Mr. Speaker: No. There are procedures to be followed, and you are out of order.

Mr. Roy: I want to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, you cannot ask a question.

Mr. Roy: Can I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker? You have to hear my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will hear a point of order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, please listen to the members, for God's sake, before you make a ruling. That is all I am asking.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will indeed.

Mr. Roy: The point is simply this: You have made a ruling that it is questionable whether you have jurisdiction to investigate this matter. I do not quarrel with that. Do you intend therefore to transfer this matter to any other official of this House, for instance the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), to investigate the situation to see whether there has been a breach of the Legislative Assembly Act or any other statute?

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the member for Ottawa East was not listening. I said it is the responsibility of the House and not the Speaker to take such action.

Mr. Roy: Then transfer it.

Mr. Speaker: That is not my responsibility.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to your statement on a point of privilege: I understand your ruling that you do not feel you have investigative powers in this circumstance but, as I understand the rules, you do have the power to refer it to the standing committee on procedural affairs of this House.

Also, as I understand it, the government House leader (Mr. Wells) or the Premier (Mr. Davis) has the power to refer this matter for further investigation to that committee. I believe you should exercise your power to refer this matter to that committee for an investigation to make up for your lack of investigative powers in this circumstance.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that was not the point in question. The point in question was whether you had a point of privilege, and I have ruled that you did not.

Mr. Sargent: Why don't you stop protecting the government?

Mr. Speaker: I ask the member for Grey-Bruce to withdraw that remark. I will not tolerate personal references to the chair.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order. I asked you to do something, and I expect you to do it.

Mr. Sargent: Do what?

Mr. Speaker: Withdraw that remark.

Mr. Sargent: I certainly feel you are protecting the government.

Mr. Speaker: I find your remark out of order. I will not tolerate a personal criticism of the chair.

Mr. Sargent: It is a total conflict of interest. You know it is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the member does not want to take

part in the proceedings of this House.

Ms. Copps: He just said he withdrew it.

Mr. Speaker: Did he?

Mr. Sargent: You know my feelings, but I will withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I hate to lecture and sermonize, as somebody pointed out, but I have to point out to all the members that a criticism of the chair is a criticism of this chamber.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FISH TESTING PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, last October I reported to honourable members on the results up to that time of my ministry's comprehensive testing programs for chemicals in fish. Today I wish to bring that information up to date.

I emphasize at the outset two positive factors: (1) the increasing ability of our environmental scientists to detect and to analyse minute quantities of a wide range of chemicals and (2) the high priority that has been assigned to this continuing and expanding activity.

I will describe the results of two series of tests, one on minnows from the Canadian and American sides of the Niagara River and one on sport fish in Lake Ontario, the Niagara River, the Grand River and Lake Superior.

Spottail shiner minnows taken from the Niagara River contained trace levels of the chemical known as dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Our scientists are satisfied the dioxin originated on the New York side of the river as a result of previous disposal practices at sites associated with chemical companies in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York, area.

Fish species from Lake Ontario and from the lower Niagara River contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD but in no case, except in the lake trout from the Port Credit area, did the average value exceed the 20 parts per trillion federal guideline. No dioxin was detected in fish from the Grand River near Waterloo, and trace levels of one or two parts per trillion were measured in three of 11 lake trout from Lake Superior.

Niagara River and Lake Ontario drinking water supplies were tested for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other contaminants found in the minnows and sport fish. Dioxin was not found in any water sample at or above the detection limits of 0.2 parts per trillion. Mirex and DDT were not found in any water samples. Polychlorinated biphenyls have been measured occasionally in Lake Ontario waters but concentrations are much below the interim Ontario drinking water objective of 0.003 milligrams per litre.

However, findings for 11 lake trout collected in the Port Credit area of western Lake Ontario are of particular concern. Dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD in these fish averaged 27.4 parts per trillion, with individual values ranging from 17 to 57 parts per trillion.

These findings mark the first time in the ministry's dioxin testing program that the average concentration of a sampling of fish exceeds the 20 parts per trillion federal guideline. These trout also exceed the unrestricted consumption guidelines for the chemical substances PCB and Mirex.

Medical specialists with the Ontario Ministry of Labour were consulted by my staff and have recommended the continuation of the limited consumption advice for lake trout from the Port Credit area as defined in the October 1981 Environmental Health Bulletin. This recommends that an adult male should consume only one or two meals of lake trout a month and that no lake trout caught in the area should be consumed by women of child-bearing age or by children under the age of 15. Anglers and consumers are advised to consult the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish published by the Ontario government for advice on consumption of specific species at specific locations.

PCB and dioxin concentration in minnows from Cayuga Creek, New York, which contains drainage from the Love Canal area, reinforce concerns about seepage of contaminants from industrial waste disposal sites. The dioxin level there, averaging 59 parts per trillion of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Cayuga Creek site, was four times higher than dioxin in minnows from other Niagara River locations sampled in 1981.

Dioxin was not detected in spottail shiners collected in the Nanticoke area of eastern Lake Erie which is upstream from the area and unaffected by industrial waste losses to the Niagara River.

The current test sport fish results support earlier tests which showed that levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are higher in Lake Ontario fish than in fish from other Ontario water bodies tested, and they support the opinion that industrial waste disposal sources in the Niagara Falls, New York, area are the main source of this chemical in Lake Ontario fish.

As I have stated, our drinking water is safe and of good quality. I am concerned, however, about the potential long-term problems which these increased levels of dioxin in fish may present.

Consistent with my concern, I would like to outline for honourable members some of the steps I have taken so that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind about how seriously I view these developments.

These new dioxin findings by our Ontario scientists are being communicated immediately to the Canadian Minister of the Environment, the Honourable John Roberts, and to the appropriate officials of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.

In addition, I have instructed my officials to send copies to all the US and Canadian environmental groups involved in recent judicial proceedings on Niagara River pollution problems.

I am seeking, at the earliest possible date, a meeting with the Honourable Robert Flacke, commissioner of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, to discuss new and urgent priorities for pollution crackdowns.

In addition, the Premier (Mr. Davis) will raise the question of discharge to the Niagara River at his pending meeting with Governor Carey of New York state.

The Premier has also accepted an invitation from the Governor of Michigan, Mr. Milliken, to participate in a meeting on Mackinac Island about Great Lake problems. We will take this opportunity to raise our concerns over transboundary pollution and especially the question of chemical discharges into the Niagara River raised by our current findings.

The US-Canada Niagara River Toxics Committee is continuing development of long-range plans for the control of hazardous contaminants in the Niagara River, and Ontario will continue to participate in hearings held in the United States to deal with pollution of the river.

The honourable members will recall that in November I established a special scientific team to deal with the problem of pollution of the Niagara River and to ensure that the quality of this river is protected and improved. My ministry's Niagara River improvement team has been in operation for some months, and I have now expanded the team to include a hydrogeologist to zero in on the suspected source of contamination on the New York side, including the Hyde Park and the Love Canal dump sites.

Our scientists are convinced that this dioxin originated and is continuing to enter our waters from American sources. Our findings give clear indication of a potential long-term problem. Chemical sources in New York state must come under tighter control, and some additional cleanup may very well be necessary in the very near future.

Mr. Elston: Are you considering any legal action?

Hon. Mr. Norton: We are already engaged in legal action.

WINDSOR WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have a further statement which I would like to deliver at this time. I would like to inform the House about the results of my ministry's investigation into allegations that have been made about the safety of drinking water in Windsor.

These allegations were made by Professor Joseph Cummins of the University of Western Ontario, primarily during an interview on a local Leamington radio station, February 21. His remarks about the quality of Windsor's drinking water were subsequently distributed through an open letter by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) on March 9.

Professor Cummins's charges, as given to us in a transcript of that radio interview, have proven to be inaccurate upon close examination.

About Windsor's water, Professor Cummins says: "It's as clear as it can be, but there is something very bad with this water." He goes on to claim that the number of spontaneous abortions, birth defects and digestive system cancers in this community are abnormally high and are attributable to chemicals in Windsor's drinking water.

He says some of these statistics are "incredibly spectacular. They just blow your mind ... they tend to light up and say bad water, bad water, bad water." That is a very restrained statement for a scientist, is it not? He also advised pregnant women in Windsor to buy their water from London. And he makes comparisons of cancer statistics between the two communities to demonstrate that there is some kind of health problem resulting from Windsor water.

I take very seriously any fact or evidence that indicates any community's health is potentially at risk because of contaminants in the water or for any other environmental reason. When these particular allegations were brought to my attention, I instructed staff to launch an immediate investigation. The facts, as determined by that investigation, are simply as follows.

First, the water supply of the city of Windsor is well within the acceptable guidelines for drinking water quality. A check of test results from my ministry and the Windsor Utilities Commission consistently shows that there is no evidence to support Professor Cummins's allegations about bad water.

In fact, there is no meaningful difference between the drinking water quality of London and Windsor and no evidence to justify his warning to pregnant women that they drink only water from London. Staff of my ministry have advised the commission of this verbally and will be replying formally by letter.

2:20 p.m.

Second, ministry staff have met with the local medical officer of health to determine whether there are indeed any anomalies in health statistics that are attributable to Windsor's drinking water quality. They have been advised that the data do not support Professor Cummins's allegations.

In a letter to the Windsor Utilities Commission, the medical officer of health, Dr. Jones, concludes as follows: "There is no proven association between the domestic water supply and health problems ... in my opinion, the residents of Windsor-Essex should have no fear from drinking the domestic water supply."

Ministry of the Environment staff have also received written opinions from Professor Frank Innes, a medical geographer with the University of Windsor. He is conducting research into the epidemiology of specific mortalities under a grant from the Ministry of Health.

In his opinion, his findings for infant mortality and digestive cancers, while high in some instances, show trends that more likely reflect occupational, ethnic, lifestyle and socioeconomic relationships rather than the quality of the common water supply. This opinion is shared by MOE's medical advisers in the Ministry of Labour's special studies and services branch.

Third, Professor Cummins referred to a report done by the bureau of chemical hazards environmental health directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare as evidence to back up his view that Windsor is suffering health effects because of contaminated water.

Due to be released soon, the Williams-Nestmann report is a study into the relationship of chemical substances in raw and treated drinking water to possible mutagenic effects. However, in the report's conclusion, it states that no relationship between mutagenic activity and the presence of individual or groups of chemicals could be found.

Fourth, since 1977, the ministry has been engaged in detailed work and monitoring on the St. Clair River. The entire purpose of this study is to define any existing and/or potential problems with the water quality that could have an impact on human consumption and to devise solutions before any problems could become serious.

While this investigation is continuing, there is no evidence to date to indicate that a serious water quality problem currently exists in Windsor. Strategies are being developed to prevent any potential problems from occurring in the future.

Drinking water quality is a high priority to me personally and to the staff of the ministry. We have been able to speak with expertise and accuracy on drinking water safety, knowing that our statements are backed up by a continual updating of our scientific expertise, technology and knowledge in this field.

There is currently considerable controversy about the potential long-term impact of minute traces of chemicals which scientists can now detect through advanced analytical techniques. In order for us to continue optimum public safety, I feel it is necessary for the ministry to constantly review our monitoring programs, our knowledge and our testing capabilities to reflect the latest research into drinking water quality.

I would like to inform the House that the Ministry of the Environment is actively involved in doing this. In addition to ongoing studies in the St. Clair River, our examination of latest testing procedures and our fish testing program, which operates as an early warning system for drinking water problems, the ministry has under way a special examination of our entire drinking water guidelines program.

This examination, scheduled for completion in early summer, will ensure that our guidelines, technology, testing and monitoring programs continue to reflect the latest scientific knowledge about water quality effects on human health.

With these recent allegations about Windsor water, I consider it irresponsible when the best interests of a community are treated as they have been in this case. If there is evidence that a water supply is contaminated, I would hope that evidence would be brought forward immediately to the agencies responsible for verification and prompt remedial action.

I do not feel the public interest is served when questionable and unfounded allegations about public safety are aired as scientific fact. There has been much attention focused recently on drinking water quality, not only in this province but also across North America, and people are quite understandably concerned and certainly more aware of potential dangers.

In a situation like this, those citizens have an unqualified right to be completely and fully informed about the situation. But they also have a right to accurate and responsible information. That is the approach which the ministry has consistently taken in the past in matters of this kind and will continue to take in the future. I would ask the co-operation of both the media and the members of this House to ensure that citizens receive that service to which they are entitled.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members in keeping the level of their personal conversations down so that the chair may hear the statements.

SPACESHIP COLUMBIA

Mrs. Scrivener: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am sure members of this Legislature have been thrilled and excited by the adventures of the spaceship Columbia II and the men associated with her during her recent eight-day journey through outer space as she undertook important tests for future missions, and were awed, as I was, by Columbia's incredibly beautiful re-entry and landing last Tuesday at White Sands, New Mexico.

As Canadians, we have been especially proud of the achievement of the Canadarm, the 50-foot-long manipulative device which is probably the most important component of the Columbia. Astronauts Jack Lousma and Gordon Fullerton heaped lavish praise upon its performance during the flight, declaring that it is a "fantastic piece of machinery."

Designed and built by Spar Aerospace Ltd., a Canadian firm based here in Toronto, the remote manipulator system, the RMS or Canadarm as it is called, was first tested on board the space shuttle during its November voyage last year. These two missions have confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt that the arm is indeed capable of conducting the operations for which it was designed; that is, spacecraft deployment and retrieval, as well as platform assembly in space.

This fine achievement has been executed within a remarkably short time. In 1969, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, invited Canada --

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We are all moderate people on this side, but you have refused to allow my colleagues to put valid points of order to you, yet you are allowing the honourable member to go on at great length on a subject in which we are all very interested and of which we are all proud but which really is out of order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on the same point: I was very deliberately allowing the honourable member to continue, because you are setting a precedent whereby all of us, on any given day, can get up and make a statement. I wish my friend had not said anything, because you would have allowed that to occur and, in conjunction with the ministers making daily statements, this side of the House would have been allowed to make statements as well.

Mrs. Scrivener: In response, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that while the members are perhaps making a valid point, in most instances very few members have an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House an important feat of this province and of this city, of a nature that is historic in world space transportation. Therefore, I would appeal to you to permit me to continue.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I take exception to the remarks that were made by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). Indeed, I did not disallow anybody from making a point of order, valid or otherwise.

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) came to the heart of the matter, of course, and obviously there is an objection to the statement carrying on.

Ms. Copps: Statement is right.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what it was.

Ms. Copps: It was not a ministerial statement. It was a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I did not recognize a point of privilege. However, the objection having been raised, I will uphold it. I will also make note of the great and historic event, and of the part played in it by Spar Aerospace of this province and of Canada. I would ask all members of this Legislature to join me in greeting some of the people responsible for this great feat.

[Applause]

2:30 p.m.

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, may I introduce the guests in your gallery?

Mr. Speaker: I think we have already done that, other than by name. Unfortunately, I do not have a list of their names, but I suggest if you will table the names they will be recorded in the proceedings.

Mrs. Scrivener: The gentlemen in your gallery are the leaders in this operation, in the production of the Canadarm, as well as the head of all of the shop stewards --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Scrivener: -- representing over 200 --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is this the new minister for outer space?

Mrs. Scrivener: The New Democratic Party did not want their names read into the record.

Interjections.

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a very important statement on the matter of the physicians' negotiations, might I first apologize to my opposition critics and others across the House who, I think, will be getting copies of the statement momentarily. I think they have them now.

Second, may I indicate there are one or two important typographical errors contained in it and that is the result of the fact we wanted to be very careful with this statement. Copies are still being produced for some members of the media and others as I rise.

Finally, there are appendices to this statement which will also be forwarded in the next few minutes as indicated in the statement. I apologize, but I should indicate that I think it was important we not rush this matter unduly and that we take as much care as possible to get the right tenor and the right wording in this statement.

I would like to share with the House our plans to protect medical services in Ontario as a result of the Ontario Medical Association's refusal to accept what we consider to be a fair adjustment in the Ontario health insurance plan

schedule of benefits. At the same time, I would like to deal with some of the recommendations which the council of the association has made to its members.

In doing so, I want first to make clear our belief that medicare is one of the most precious possessions of the people of Ontario and to re-emphasize my determination to protect it. To achieve this, we will take necessary steps to ensure that physicians are adequately rewarded for the contribution they make, that patients have the quality of care they require and that hospitals are able to function in a safe and efficient manner.

The situation we find ourselves in today is unique in the experience with medicare in Ontario. After five months of negotiations, including the use of a fact-finder, we have not been able to reach an agreement for a

schedule of benefits, which we must have in order to pay for medical services provided since the formal agreement expired at midnight.

Since the inception of OHIP 10 years ago, the government has, in the language of our agreements, recognized the Ontario Medical Association "as the sole negotiator on behalf of physicians of Ontario generally with respect to the

schedule of benefits."

Through an annual negotiating process, we have agreed to a global amount by which the government would enrich the

schedule of benefits. The association would in turn adjust the fees for various procedures performed by physicians and OHIP would pay this amount.

Three years ago, the negotiating process was refined by the introduction of an independent chairman who could, on request, act as a fact-finder to resolve issues in dispute. While his proposals were and are not binding, they did form a basis for settlement of the last two agreements.

Negotiations for a new agreement began late last year with Professor Paul Weiler of Harvard as our agreed choice as chairman. Professor Weiler was chairman for the 1981-82 negotiations and his report, which was made public last year, recommended an increase of 14.75 per cent to the

schedule of benefits which expired yesterday. Last year the government and the Ontario Medical Association agreed on that figure and it was implemented. That agreement raised the income of the average full-time physician from $67,000 to $80,300 after deducting the cost of practice.

Members will recall that this year the government originally offered a 10 per cent increase in the

schedule of benefits. The OMA asked for a one or two-year agreement with an effective increase of 27 per cent per year.

Although we believed the 10 per cent increase we proposed would provide physicians with a fair settlement, Professor Weiler found in a report, which I am formally tabling today, that a staged increase of 14.25 per cent would reconcile what he understood to be the principal concerns of both the government and the physicians of Ontario.

Regardless of what the government's reaction to Weiler might have been, the recommendation was almost immediately rejected by the council of the Ontario Medical Association. Their negotiators, in turn, suggested a longer-term agreement.

We found this concept attractive but, unfortunately, the OMA request was a complex variation of their original monetary demands which we calculated would, over three years, increase the bill for OHIP from $1.29 billion to $2.43 billion and almost double the income of participating physicians over the next three years.

Over the past three weeks, the negotiators for the government devised a series of options to alter the framework proposed by Professor Weiler with a one, two or three-year agreement. The outline of this is provided in a letter which I am tabling from Robert Butler, our chief negotiator, to Dr. William Vail of the OMA.

Within this, we proposed a three-year agreement with six increases based on the 1981-82 agreement. These are 11 per cent on April 1, 1982; three per cent on January 1, 1983; eight per cent on April 1, 1983; three per cent on January 1, 1984; six per cent on April 1, 1984; and a final three per cent on January 1, 1985. In other words, for the next three years there will be increases in April and January of respectively 11 and three, eight and three and six and three, for a total of 34 per cent.

This would add an additional $656 million to OHIP payments over three years and, using the methods adopted by Professor Weiler, would raise the after-expense income of an average full-time physician from the present $80,300 to $114,100 when it expires on April 1, 1985.

This was the offer which the council of the Ontario Medical Association considered and rejected yesterday. In doing so, the council recommended to its members a series of actions which the president described to me as the first phase of a plan which the council has to force the government to terms acceptable to the OMA.

Because these actions impact on hospitals and patients using the health care system, I would like to share with the House our response to them.

First, doctors have been asked to discontinue free advice or the renewal of prescriptions by telephone in order to force patients to come to their offices so that they can bill OHIP for an office visit.

As a bargaining tactic, this will be effective only to the extent that doctors wish to inconvenience their patients, and I doubt that very many doctors in Ontario will do this to the elderly, the infirm and the single parents who are the most vulnerable to such action.

With regard to the balance of our population, from the standpoint of ethics, this tactic would seem to suggest that physicians will bring patients back for unnecessary visits and bill OHIP for unnecessary consultations. Such deviation from normal practice will be apparent from billing practices and these will automatically be referred for consideration by the medical review committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Citizens who feel they are being exploited in these negotiations should report their experience to us and to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for ensuring the quality of care and ethics of the medical profession and practice in Ontario.

2:40 p.m.

Second, doctors have been asked to prevent pharmacists from substituting generic drugs for brand-named prescriptions for patients covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan -- that is the elderly and those receiving social assistance.

This proposal would encourage physicians to increase their bargaining power and income by forcing the government to use already scarce tax dollars on interchangeable but more expensive drugs.

As well, it would harm some pharmacists in the event that they were unable to obtain the necessary documentation from physicians to justify a claim for the cost of the more expensive drugs from the government. Thus, both taxpayers and pharmacists will be affected by this action in a way which contributes nothing to the improvement of health care in Ontario.

I should add -- and this is not included in the statement but it is a very key point -- that if this kind of activity continues we will have no choice but to take some action to make appropriate amendments to the Parcost scheme in this province.

Third, physicians will be asked to boycott all hospital committees except those dealing with therapeutic abortion.

The quality of medical care in hospitals depends in varying degrees on the various committees and as a result there is a legal requirement for hospitals to use committees if they are to retain their accreditation or teaching capacity. I have asked the Ontario Hospital Association, along with the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals, to advise me on what steps they are taking to protect the integrity and quality of care of their institutions in the event their committee structure is disrupted. I do not believe that hospitals can ensure patient care without the participation of physicians on these committees and I do not expect many doctors can boycott them.

Fourth, physicians will be asked not to sign the cover sheets of medical information when patients are discharged.

In some cases, the practical effect of this would delay the discharge of patients or the processing of medical records. This could keep healthy patients in hospital while ill patients are denied beds and could make it difficult to obtain access to medical records of patients in emergencies. The College of Physicians and Surgeons has advised me that it will respond directly to any community or hospital affected by this action.

In short, we do not expect, but will not allow, any action which threatens health care or allows the most vulnerable group in our society to be unfairly treated as part of a bargaining technique by any group, no matter how influential or aggressive.

Which now brings me to a resolution of the situation we face today in meeting our obligation to patients and physicians using medicare in Ontario. While we would have preferred to proceed with a negotiated settlement, that is now impossible. The government has an ethical obligation to reimburse both patients and physicians for the medical care provided after our agreement expired yesterday.

We must properly and promptly reimburse patients of non-participating physicians who will be billed at the higher rates adopted today by the Ontario Medical Association. Also, in fairness to the vast majority of physicians who accept the OHIP fee as full payment, we cannot in conscience use the

schedule of benefits as a tool in public bargaining.

May I say -- and this is not contained in the statement but is a key point -- that it was anticipated by some and considered by some that an appropriate tactic at this point would have been to make a lower amendment to the

schedule of benefits in order to in fact set a lower base for future bargaining. I think I must show greater honour to the OHIP

schedule of benefits and its intention and not use it as a bargaining tactic, as our statement says.

Therefore, rather than use today's change to either respond to negotiating tactics or to set the stage for further discussions, we have decided the appropriate thing to do here today is to do as we would ordinarily do, and that is treat the physicians and the patients as we think is right and proper in the circumstances. Accordingly, we will implement our most recent offer in full, effective today.

The OHIP

schedule of benefits will be adjusted upwards by 11 per cent immediately and the subsequent steps will be programmed in on the dates I mentioned earlier; that is, a further three per cent on January 1, 1983; eight per cent on April 1, 1983; three per cent on January 1, 1984; six per cent on April 1, 1984; and three per cent on January 1, 1985.

We have come to this decision after a great deal of thought. We have looked for precedents elsewhere, and we have considered the traditional techniques used in conventional labour relations. Medicare and our relationship with physicians has no parallel. It is unique and must always be based on integrity and trust. Our final offer, we believe, is fair and reasonable. It will give the physicians of Ontario a just remuneration for their contribution to medicare and it will provide over the three years a climate in which we, together with physicians, hospitals and other health care workers, can deal with the many pressures on all parts of that system.

Clearly, the system cannot tolerate the kind of trauma which annual negotiations such as this most recent one produced, and I believe the Ontario Medical Association was well advised in indicating its preference for a longer term.

I am sure the House and the public will recognize the good faith involved in the government implementing in full the offer which we developed after listening very closely to what the profession said and the conclusions which Professor Weiler reached. We also believe this offer is within the financial capacity of the province and will not be seen to be violating any principles of the government's economic determination.

Finally, I think it would be useful to respond briefly with a variety of other figures which have been bandied about in the past 24 hours. The government's final offer is as I have stated and as I have implemented today. The final proposal we have from the OMA is for a staged series of increases over three years, which could raise the present

schedule of benefits by more than 70 per cent by March 31, 1985. Over the three years, this would almost double the average income of full-time physicians from the present $80,300 estimated by Professor Weiler's methodology to $158,300 after deducting the expenses of practice.

In percentage terms the difference between our offer of 34 per cent over three years and their request for 70 per cent is 36 per cent; or in dollars approximately $44,200 more a year between our offer of $114,100 and their request for $158,300 by 1985. That is as we understood the position when the negotiation process expired at midnight last night.

In conclusion, might I say I believe the actions suggested by the OMA are not appropriate in the light of the government's decision to fully implement our final offer.

The public will, I believe, agree that the physicians have been fairly treated. While physicians may have wanted more -- as everyone does -- I feel they have been equitably treated and that "job action" is accordingly inappropriate and unwarranted.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Minister of Health I get no pleasure in hearing the statement he has given us today. What I am concerned about is the Ontario Medical Association's threats in a variety of areas. The minister has dealt with them one by one, but his response seems to be, and I quote, he "doubts that many doctors in Ontario will follow the OMA's recommendations."

He is hoping the doctors will break ranks with the OMA so that a number of the threatened responses -- for example, prescribing drugs or giving medical advice over the phone, bringing additional costs into the system -- will not come about. I gather the minister is appealing to their sense of fair play or the fact that there is no discipline in those ranks.

2:50 p.m.

What is the minister going to do if, in fact, there is discipline in those ranks? What is he going to do to protect those people who will be very much threatened by the action the doctors are suggesting today, as well as the further escalation of action that will come about in various stages?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, by way of responding to that, I should read into the record a letter dictated to me over the phone this morning from Dr. Michael Dixon of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

"Dear Mr. Grossman:

"As a follow-up to our meeting with you and Mr. Scott, I would like to formally record the college's view as to its role and function during the present circumstances. The CPSO is confident that its members will act in a responsible and professional manner during the current dispute with the government.

"However, it is recognized that when steps are taken which could disrupt a complex system such as the one which provides medical services, individuals may be seriously inconvenienced or even harmed unintentionally. As the statutory body responsible for the medical profession in Ontario, the college will be carefully assessing the availability and provision of medical services to ensure that patients are not denied necessary care and treatment.

"The college will respond to hospitals and communities which request an independent assessment of the adequacy of the arrangements which have been made for the provision of essential services should normal services be restricted."

Mr. Peterson: In the event that the OMA plan does go ahead, obviously we are setting the college against the OMA and there is going to be a considerable amount of tension within that profession as we set brother against brother. I gather that is the minister's strategy in this particular matter, to encourage dissension in the medical profession.

What I am concerned about is the power of this government. Is the minister prepared to exercise that power to make sure we do not disrupt the medical profession any further and, more important, to guarantee that every person in this province has access to decent medical care? What instructions is the minister giving to hospital administrators under the Public Hospitals Act to make sure there is no deterioration of services in those hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, may I say that the Ontario Hospital Association has issued a press release today which I had hoped the Leader of the Opposition would have had by now. I will read it for him.

"George Ingram, president of the Ontario Hospital Association, said today that the OHA will be monitoring very closely the effects of the Ontario Medical Association's proposed job actions on hospitals and particularly patient care.

"From the outset of this dispute, hospitals have relied on the professional integrity of the OMA and its members and their assurance that physicians will take no action to prejudice or harm the care of their patients.

"'We are concerned, however, that the situation has escalated to the point of sanctions and the threat of more to come,' said Mr. Ingram. 'Clearly they have potential implications for hospitals. However, apart from the obvious administrative frustrations that hospitals will suffer, it is unclear whether the doctors' actions will affect the care of patients. That situation might vary from hospital to hospital and, in order to maintain an objective overall picture, I am today requesting every hospital to notify the OHA promptly of any significant developments that occur.'" That is Mr. Ingram's statement on behalf of the OHA.

On behalf of the government, I might add that we will also be monitoring that situation very carefully. We are aware that if physicians refuse to serve on medical committees then the hospitals will find that the committees, which they must set up under the legislation of this province, will not be able to function. They will be in violation of the regulations and the hospitals' accreditation will be risked.

I am satisfied at the present time that the OHA is aware of that and will take the appropriate steps within their hospitals to encourage their doctors not to do that.

I still believe that because of the implications to the hospitals of doctors withdrawing their services from the medical committees in the hospitals and because of the other implications for the medical profession, when the medical profession sits back and looks at the implications of some of the job actions, now that the implications have been made very clear, these things will not happen.

By and large, the physicians in hospitals will not want to risk their positions within hospitals by refusing to serve on committees. Above and beyond that, I believe physicians in hospitals will not want to risk patient care by refusing to serve on committees which are very important to the proper handling of patients within those hospitals.

Finally, might I say with some respect to the Leader of the Opposition that, as he has watched this develop over the past couple of weeks, if he will reflect for a moment I know he will realize his suggestion of a moment ago that I am trying to divide up the medical profession -- in his words, "set brother against brother" -- has not at all been the hallmark of what this government has been doing for the past several weeks. There are all sorts of positions this government might have taken which could have had that effect, all sorts of alternatives which would have been much more successful in having that effect, and we chose not to follow any of those alternatives.

Quite frankly, one of my concerns in looking at the option of putting in a 10 per cent increase across the board, our original offer, was that in itself might have had the effect of causing more friction within the Ontario Medical Association. I chose not to do that because I do not want that kind of friction within the OMA. I had hoped that all physicians, whether they are members of the OMA, the OMA council or not members of the OMA at all, will see this to be a fair and equitable situation.

If one suggests that calling on the long, time-honoured system of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to supervise a profession and be the ultimate disciplinary body for the profession pits brother against brother, then with respect one is attacking the very essence upon which the Law Society of Upper Canada deals with lawyers and the CPSO deals with the medical profession.

If the member believes the CPSO should no longer be the disciplinary body for the profession and that government should become the disciplinary body for the profession, then he ought to say that. Otherwise, I suggest with all due respect his suggestion that this government is trying to pit brother against brother by simply looking to the CPSO to exercise its statutory responsibility is rather irresponsible.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the difficulty is that the government has imposed compulsory arbitration and a new contract on a group of workers with no means of enforcing it, so that the rotating strikes which have been scheduled can really proceed as though the minister had not intervened at all.

Aside from that -- and we will probably come back to that -- how does the minister intend to prevent violations of the law? How does he intend to prevent the kind of illegal behaviour that has been threatened by the OMA job action committee? Specifically, does he have and does he intend to make available the power to prosecute people who violate provincial statutes and, in so doing, place patients at risk? Does he also intend to prosecute those who counsel people to violate the law as he did with so much vim and vigour during the hospital workers' strike a little over a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that, the member should look carefully at my statement. I want to find the proper place in my statement because it was not done without the knowledge that concern would be raised. I would refer him to page 8: "In short, we do not expect but will not allow any action which threatens health care or allows the most vulnerable group in our society to be unfairly treated as part of a bargaining technique by any group, no matter how influential or aggressive."

3 p.m.

The words "by any group" mean just that. There is no differentiation in the sense that no group in society ought to be allowed to threaten health care or to treat our patients unfairly. All appropriate steps will be taken.

So that we understand the tenor of what this minister is trying to do, and the House can probably sense it, I prefer, and I think it is important, not to get into a situation where I am exchanging threat for threat with Dr. Reese, for the very reason that I do not believe, as of three o'clock today, any doctor has yet violated his code of ethics or broken the law.

I do not believe there are many doctors, if any, in this province who will violate the law or break their code of ethics. Given that state of affairs, particularly in light of the very fair offer of implementation the government put in today, I do not think it is constructive to the right atmosphere in this province for a minister of the crown, at this stage, to start exchanging threat for threat.

If the member wants to conjure up various alternatives for us and wants to say the government should be doing various things, I can understand that. For those of us who are responsible for the long-term stability of the system, I think it is counterproductive to exchange threat for threat.

I think I made it clear in my statement, which I thought we worded carefully, that we would not tolerate or allow any action that threatens health care. I think that should speak for itself.

Mr. Peterson: Is it not true, when one distils everything the minister said here today in his statement as well as in his responses, that his policy and prayer is that the OMA leadership does not represent the doctors in this province, that he is counting on them breaking ranks, and that is his only solution to the dilemma we are in right now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The internal order and the internal politics of the OMA, to use the Leader of the Opposition's word, are not my concern. My concern is to treat all doctors in this province fairly.

In terms of the internal politics of the OMA, as I said earlier, I might have taken a different position in terms of whether I was going to indicate my view of how the negotiations went and appeal to other doctors to take a different view. I chose not to engage in any of that, because my view is a subjective one, as is Dr. Reese's.

I think it is important that I not allow my subjective views to intervene in the internal workings of the OMA. It is not my responsibility to deal with the internal workings or politics of the OMA but to recognize its official role as being the negotiating party for the profession in negotiating the

schedule of benefits.

I have to look beyond that in this sense: I cannot allow anything that was said over the table, any harsh words spoken over the table or, I might say in all sincerity to the Leader of the Opposition, any of the things that Dr. Reese or others said about this minister or this government over the course of the past three weeks, to interfere with our good and fair judgement with regard to how to treat those doctors.

Consequently, we decided to do what we thought was the fair thing, having listened to their arguments, and look past all the rhetoric or any of the things that have been said over the past couple of weeks by any member of the profession in any way whatsoever. I think that is the proper way for the government to handle the situation.

Mr. Speaker: For the benefit of all members, I realize how important this is, but 15 minutes have been spent on one question. A new question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will go to the Minister of Health again. I realize the very difficult position the minister is in, because on the one hand, on page two of the statement, as I just reiterated, he recognizes the OMA as the sole negotiator on behalf of the physicians of Ontario generally with respect to the

schedule of benefits and then, on the other hand, he hopes they will divide in terms of following their leadership on this matter. Does that not perhaps speak of a breakdown of the system the minister is currently using?

Given that there will probably be visible distress for a number of people over the next few months, particularly the patients, which is a concern of the members of the Liberal Party, does it not perhaps speak of our need for a new system to negotiate these kinds of disputes? Maybe we should be looking at the suggestion of the father of medicare, the former royal commissioner, that we need compulsory arbitration to solve these kinds of matters.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the member's proposition is that the fact-finding process and the deal we have worked out with the OMA should be scuppered and not followed any longer, then I would say --

Mr. Peterson: There is no deal.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition should learn the facts before he reacts like that. The deal I am talking about is this: if the member turns to the last couple of pages of the Weiler report, he will find an agreement, an agreement to negotiate. If he is suggesting that we should no longer recognize the OMA as the bargaining agent for the physicians of Ontario, then I wonder what --

Mr. Peterson: You are the one who is trying to destroy the OMA.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hold on. I wonder who is trying to divide the OMA. The member is saying we should not recognize the OMA as the bargaining agent any more.

Second, I have acknowledged in my statement that the OMA played that role, that we met all the obligations under that agreement with them to negotiate, that they suggested a three-year agreement. and because I share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition that the trauma brought upon the system by this kind of negotiation is too much for the system to bear, we have decided to implement a three-year arrangement.

I hope this will stand for three years and will allow us to deal with other arrangements and, as part of that, perhaps work out with the OMA, in spite of our difficulties, a better system for determining these matters.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the minister is not trying to tell us now that he has a negotiated agreement? What we have here is a unilateral offer on the minister's part and a threat to withdraw services in a variety of ways on their part; it is obvious the system is not working very well. It is also obvious that the OMA felt quite betrayed and very unhappy about the way the government negotiated in so many unilateral moves, bringing in fact-finders at times that they felt were inappropriate. That is a reality too.

They are not happy with the negotiating process. The minister is not very happy with it, obviously, because he was brought to this last resolution of the question. Why is the minister not looking at alternative methods of solving these kinds of disputes which affect every single person in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have never suggested that the negotiation procedure was always going to be successful --

Mr. Laughren: Don't you understand the Liberal position?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are going to get to that. But if members will pause for a moment, they will find once again that there was an agreement to negotiate, which is what I am talking about. That was the sensible thing to do. We agreed upon a certain process. The fact that this process did not end in an agreement for the first time does not necessarily mean that all parts of that process were wrong, nor do I think it means they were all right. In this case, it did not work out and we are going to a three-year arrangement.

Second, may I make it clear that I agree a new procedure or a different one has to be adopted in view of the difficulties this entails. Third, if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting compulsory or binding arbitration, he should stand up and say that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a minute. Just to make it quite clear as to why the Leader of the Opposition probably had some difficulty in saying anything over the past three weeks while this assembly was sitting, perhaps by way of pointing out to this House the difficulty in negotiation, the following kinds of things happen. I think this is very important.

I quote: "The Ministry of Health negotiators have offered the doctors a clearly inadequate increase of just 10 per cent for one year, knowing full well this offer is unfair and unacceptable." That was the Liberals' former Health critic, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne).

The new Health critic says, "'I think the government offer is very reasonable,' said Copps, noting that full-time doctors now earn an average of $83,000 per year." The dates on those were exactly seven days apart.

Interjections.

3:10 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: To clear the record, I do not want to leave the impression with anyone in this House, including the honourable minister, that those statements were made in my position, or my predecessor's position, as the Liberal Health critic.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for myself. Now that I am Minister of Health, I believe in the same things I believed in when I was Minister of Industry and Tourism. The member may have changed her principles, but I understand the members opposite have to change their principles as often as they have to change leaders.

Just to put the full context on the difference between the new Health critic and the old Health critic: two days after the member for London North took his position, the leader of the Liberal Party, who wanted the middle-of-the-road vote in his party, would not say how much they should be paid but suggested it should be more than a 10 per cent increase. That outlines the Liberal Party's various positions and points out how difficult it is to handle negotiations.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has impugned my motives and I would ask --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are brighter than that, for goodness' sake.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: He stood in this House and said that I was changing my principles because I was the Health critic. That is not true, and I ask that he withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I did not hear him say that.

The member for Bellwoods with a supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: If he didn't say it, he should have.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether the procedure that has evolved over the course of the dispute -- and the dispute is by no means over, because the strikes will proceed -- is analogous to the proposals put forward by Mr. Justice Hall in the Hall commission, and specifically this one I will quote:

"My conclusion and recommendation is that when negotiations fail and an impasse occurs, the issues in dispute must be sent to binding arbitration, to an arbitration board consisting of three persons, with an independent chairperson to be named by the chief justice of the relevant province, one nominee from the profession and one from the government."

The minister has imposed compulsory arbitration and a binding three-year contract. The problem is that there is no third party to ensure impartiality and there is no means of resolving the dispute and preventing the strike from occurring on schedule. I ask the minister to accept Mr. Justice Hall's recommendation, which we have supported, and bring in a dispute settlement procedure based on his recommendation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out that 13 weeks ago some members of the party opposite were gleefully rubbing their hands. There were also prosecutions of people, some of whom went to jail, because they were in what are deemed essential services under legislation.

Is there going to be similar legislation brought into this chamber, or changes in the acts now on the statute books? Is it the minister's intention to charge anybody if the essential services to patients are not carried out? What is the minister going to do if doctors start dropping out of the Ontario health insurance plan

schedule in any great numbers and go on the fee-for-service basis themselves?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the statement I made earlier today.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Since the Minister of Health has now guaranteed the doctors an annual income of $114,000 -- in a rather dictatorial fashion, but none the less far beyond what Mr. Justice Hall recommended -- will he go one step further now and outlaw extra billing?

If the minister is willing to unilaterally impose a fee assessment, as he has done, why does he not go the one extra step and eliminate extra billing once and for all and have one-price medicine in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is simply because I believe that as of 3:15 p.m. today -- and I do not want to give the date -- we have a system that has worked in the past and that I continue to believe will work in the future.

Obviously, I cannot put a dollar value on the value of having the opt-out safety valve. I cannot tell him what figures we would be talking about if all the doctors were opted-in. All I can say is that to go the compulsory opting-in route right now would not be productive to the system. It would be bound to cost the system more in the longer term and, in fact, we would end up with a total health care community that was less productive and less happy than it is today.

We have a difficult situation today but, in the emotions of the difficulties that we face at this time and at this hour, I do not think we ought to be carried away and move from a principle and a philosophy that I believe have worked very well in this province for very many years.

Mr. Martel: One out of seven doctors are extra billing. I remind the minister that I am a teacher by profession and, once an agreement is signed with my board, I am not allowed to bill an extra $3 daily per student if I do not like the agreement. Tell me why it is that doctors are allowed this privilege. Why is one doctor out of seven allowed this extra privilege when I know of no one else in society who is allowed to do it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I guess we should refer this question to Mr. Blakeney during the election campaign out west because, as members know, he too allows extra billing. I presume that even people who come from the social democratic part of the political extreme see that there is some value in having the opting-out route.

In point of fact, I do not mind saying to my friend that I find the way the Saskatchewan scheme works, where a physician says, "You, patient, are going to be on the opted-out scheme and you are going to be one of my opted-in patients," to be far less fair than the scheme practised in Ontario. It is far less equitable than we have in Ontario.

I refer the member to some of his colleagues and friends in other provinces for a full and complete answer to that question.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, let us be quite specific. If the doctors follow the OMA's direction, they will be in violation of the Public Hospitals Act. Their hospital privileges are given on condition that they participate on medical committees and fill out medical documents. What specific instructions is the minister giving the public hospitals of this province regarding their power to suspend admitting privileges of doctors who act illegally?

Mr. Speaker: I think that was not a supplementary to the main question. It was a separate question. Do you have a supplementary to the main question?

Mr. Conway: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate very much your care in the application of the rules, and I will be guided by what you have said in relation to my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), but I would hope that when honourable ministers of the crown opposite stray, as they do so happily and so often -- and I cite the Minister of Health's second-to-last answer when he clearly violated every rule of the book as I know it -- you too would apply the whip with some vigour.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would be happy to, but I am sure if you peruse the standing orders you will see a minister may choose to answer a question as he or she sees fit.

The member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Copps: I am going to be asking a new question.

Mr. Speaker: Then the member for Bellwoods with a final supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I understand what is happening here. The minister is imposing arbitration and giving what can only be described as a very generous offer to Ontario's doctors. In return for that, the rotating strikes and job actions will continue as scheduled and extra billing will continue as usual. Is that a correct understanding of the situation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What options does the government have, Mr. Speaker? The member wants to use the words "we imposed compulsory arbitration" or whatever.

Mr. McClellan: That's what you are doing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The government has several options. It could do nothing today and allow a situation where the physicians, in my view, would be underpaid because they would he working into this year on the basis of an old fee

schedule and the patients of opted-out physicians in particular would be unfairly treated. We could allow all that to happen or we could take some action, as is our duty, in my view, so that people are remunerated on an updated

schedule of benefits on April 1, 1982.

We exercised our duty t adjust the

schedule of benefits. Simply, that is what we did. Whether the rotating strikes and everything else will continue is a question I cannot answer. Each and every physician in this province has to answer that question for himself or herself.

Because we have treated them fairly and have taken a step today that does not indicate we are using today's step as a bargaining tool, a tactic, a hammer or anything like that, but just intend to treat them fairly, it is my belief and fervent hope that this reasonable and fair treatment by the government will cause a great deal of that action and threat to disappear. I hope I am not disappointed. It will greatly change my view of the scene.

Mr. Martel: It is interesting the Minister of Health talked about extremes. That is an extreme. It is called dictatorial or dictatorship.

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. In the throne speech, the Treasurer offered little hope to the people in the auto industries, save for the announcement with respect to a possible joint advertising program between the feds and the province. I am sure the minister agrees with me that is not a solution to the problem. Is the minister prepared to tell us what initiatives he is prepared to undertake to put some of those workers back to work in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member gives me credit for writing a throne speech when I would hope it was His Honour who produced those fine words.

I will have an opportunity to bring forward a budget before long, and I am sure that once he has seen my budget he will be the first to stand up and support it.

Mr. Martel: If His Honour wrote the throne speech, I am sure he would not have made the reference to laissez-faire Liberalism that was included.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who do you think put that in?

Mr. Martel: I can assure the Premier it would not have been His Honour.

There are at present some 25,000 workers unemployed either permanently or for an indefinite period of time. The cost to Ontario is probably some $500 million this year.

Is the minister prepared to urge the federal government to pass content legislation that will require companies selling here to provide certain parts creation here?

Will he immediately establish a community adjustment fund to assist municipalities such as Windsor, Chatham and Oshawa?

Finally, will he establish a crown corporation or introduce an automotive investment program that will lead to the development of parts creation here in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I assume the honourable member is asking these questions so that at the weekend meeting in Windsor he may have some fodder from our party to use in his propaganda machine. If it will help him, I will be glad to answer the questions.

Mr. Martel: I hope so.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Am I in favour of Canadian content for Japanese vehicles? Yes. Are we willing to urge that there should be a Canadian content requirement? Yes. I, along with the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), have suggested that to Mr. Lumley.

Mr. Lumley has been to Japan. He has, I think, come home somewhat disillusioned. He was told to wait until there was an agreement with the United States. That agreement has been reached. I would hope that would pave the way for an agreement with Canada. I do not know if it will be restricted to a percentage of the market or total vehicles but most certainly the ultimate objective should be Canadian content in one form or another.

Mr. Martel: What about a crown corporation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The question of a crown corporation is one that comes up with regularity --

Mr. Speaker: That was the second supplementary, with all respect.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, when the Treasurer is considering this array of new programs, will he come up with one that will emphasize not only the Canadian content but also the Canadian ownership of our manufacturing enterprises so that his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade will leave off his consideration to allow the sale of White Farm Equipment in Brantford to American interests? In the long run, that would see the loss of that industry and 1,000 jobs as well as our rights to the manufacture of the axial-flow combine, which was developed by Canadians in Canada, in fact in Brantford.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the note the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is getting may refer to a statement my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade may wish to make on that matter.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, last year the minister's document, the Treasury study on the automobile industry, was leaked. We looked at it and it predicted what he called the worst-case scenario.

Now that most of the projections in that report are coming true, and that document indicated it was time for the provincial government to make certain policy decisions to create the jobs here in the automobile industry, what policy decisions has the Treasurer made and what programs is he prepared to put in place at the provincial level to enable the automobile industry to be restructured to keep jobs here?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade is perhaps more directly involved in some of these matters than I am.

The question of our share of the total passenger and truck market has to remain a key ingredient in any policy to create jobs here. Unless my recollection of the figures is inaccurate, the value of Japanese imports last year was in the range of $1.5 billion and the export to Japan of Canadian parts for automobiles was in the range of $8 million. So one can see there is something of an imbalance in that area.

Obviously, the replacement of $1.5 billion worth of imported steel, labour and components would create many jobs in our country; so I am sure the comments made by my Premier, the Minister of Industry and Trade and others to urge our federal government to see that we do have protective legislation have to be extremely important.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond further to questions raised by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) on Monday regarding health and safety conditions at Wilco Canada Inc. in London.

On February 24, 1982, a thorough investigation of this plant was performed by ministry officials and comprehensive orders were issued to correct the health hazards that were found.

As I mentioned in the Legislature on Monday, representatives of the company and of the Ministry of Labour and others were meeting on the same day. The outcome of that meeting was an undertaking by the company to fulfil its obligations under the lead regulation by April 16, and in the interim the company will be required to provide protective equipment and to institute work practices to ensure that no worker is exposed to health hazards.

3:30 p.m.

I can tell the member that on the basis of present information there appears to me to be a clear need for continuing surveillance of this plant and I have so advised my officials. The ministry is prepared to assist the company to satisfy its undertakings to achieve compliance with the act. At the same time, however, I want to emphasize that the company's operations will be subject to continuing inspection to ensure that the orders issued to date are being observed.

If satisfactory results are not achieved, the director of industrial health and safety has other measures that will be taken if circumstances warrant it, including partial or total closure of the operation and, depending upon legal advice, prosecution if warranted. This is a complex matter and our investigation is continuing.

Mr. Martel: Something bothers me, Mr. Speaker. The lead regulations came in last August and in their totality in November. There must be 25 to 30 contraventions of the act. The Workmen's Compensation Board should have notified the Ministry of Labour sooner. Today's London Free Press indicates that a medical report was sent to the ministry in 1980 warning of the dangers. How long is the minister going to allow companies to ignore the Occupational Health and Safety Act in this province without prosecuting?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe I have answered that question in my statement.

Mr. Martel: In other words, you're not going to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is not correct.

I have the answers to two other questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I think we will proceed with the question period. We have taken quite a bit of time already.

Mr. Sargent: Get the Premier back in here, will you, please?

URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I am glad to see him back so tanned and fit. I have been trying to get a shot at the Premier for a long time on this.

In view of the Premier's ongoing fiscal debauchery and the fact that he personally hurried through this House legislation costing Ontario about $7 billion, for four companies that have already been indicted in federal courts on criminal counts for corrupt practices, for conspiring to fix uranium prices, and that at that time the Premier pushed this through the House on a time deadline at a cost that is 20 times the basic price for uranium, will the Premier tell the House why he personally is not in contempt of this House and the rights of the people of Ontario?

Why will he not take immediate steps to renegotiate these contracts? Further, until this process starts, why will the Premier not immediately block the $650 million up-front loan with no interest for 40 years to Mr. Roman, who is now buying uranium mines with our loan? Why can the Premier not put this in motion immediately to renegotiate these contracts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, the member asked me this identical question, with a little different preface in terms of the rhetoric he used --

Mr. Sargent: I never asked it once.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I think he did on at least three occasions in the last session and the answer is still the same. I can go through the litany, but my recollection is that this contract was not legislated. It was debated here in the House by a committee and executed by Ontario Hydro. If the member wants to get further information, he should read what I said in Hansard some weeks ago when he asked me a similar question.

Mr. Sargent: I have never spoken to the Premier this session at all, or asked questions in the House.

The Premier is the only one who can trigger this. It is $10 billion now, because interest on this loan alone is going to cost us $2 billion. Some people are going to go to the slammer for this --

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: We do not want to see the Premier there. Why can the Premier not stop all the BS? I can enlarge upon that too. He knows it is. Westinghouse in the US was in the same box at $40 a pound, which would have made it bankrupt. They renegotiated through their Supreme Court and they totally cancelled it by a $7-billion or $10-billion decision. There is not a court in the land that would refuse to cancel this contract. I put it to the Premier that we respect him and I think he owes it to the people of Ontario. Because of the terrible things that are happening in my riding, we want some answers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not just sure what the references were to the problems in his riding. I have always been sympathetic to the constituents the honourable member represents, many of whom I have known a lot longer than he has. They have always had access and I always endeavour to help them. I do not know how that relates to the initial question or the early part of his supplementary question.

The member did make some reference to extraneous materials. I would only say, having listened to him over the years in this House, he might be the first to make a contribution to lessen that.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

Mr. J. A. Reed: That was the first supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, indeed. We have been through this several times. The question period consists of a new question, a supplementary, the opposition gets a supplementary and then another new question. The opposition did not have a supplementary so I am recognizing the member for Oshawa with a new question.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier. He has had a chance to look at the impact of the layoffs at General Motors in Oshawa and so have I. Could he now give us some concept of what he will do for people like Joe McCullough, who worked for 25 years at Firestone, lost his job when that plant went under, came into this establishment, went through the committee system, looked at a layoff committee, looked at several options and had virtually all of those things shut down? Can the Premier now provide some hope for people like Joe McCullough about their house, their job and their future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the honourable member has put on the Order Paper -- or is involved in seconding, I am not sure which -- the possibility of a debate as it relates to the automotive industry. I think that is the kind of question or issue that would be properly raised. I would only say to the honourable member --

Mr. Martel: Pretty weak.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Downsview would exercise just a little patience I would be delighted to expand upon it, but I did not want to encroach on the question period.

I would say to the member for Oshawa that I, too, have parts of the auto sector in my own constituency. In fact, I was there on the line this morning. I drove one of the great products of American Motors-Renault off the line. I had in company with me the minister of industry or trade from France, the government of which has some modest interest in Renault, discussing the potential and future of that company and with some degree of optimism in spite of some of the negative comments made by some members with respect to that company.

I would say to the honourable member I think it has been clear in terms of the auto sector that this government has taken a number of initiatives over the past two or three years, some of which his party had rejected and opposed. I think it is fair to state that the auto sector -- we all know this -- does rely to a great extent on the American marketplace.

I am sure we will hear his solution to the auto sector problem this afternoon. That is the nationalization of the industry, moving out the multinationals, which incidentally would not be supported by the bulk of the membership of the United Auto Workers. I think it is abundantly clear to them that the main problem we face at the moment is the problem in the US market. Eighty per cent of the product, 80 per cent of what is happening at General Motors, goes to the United States. The member knows that and I know that.

3:40 p.m.

At the same time, I remain relatively optimistic about the future of the auto sector. I think one of the problems we have been dealing with is the penetration of our market by the importation of Japanese cars. Once again, I repeat that I have no criticism of the quality of the product. I have no criticism at all, but I was interested to find in my discussions this morning that France has a very simple policy. Only three per cent of the market is allowed in from Japan.

I say to myself: "Sure, we are being attacked now by the United States with respect to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and so on. They have been able to negotiate a tougher position with the Japanese on imports."

Mr. Breaugh: I will relay the Premier's answer to Joe McCullough. I do not think it is going to help him a hell of a lot. Perhaps the Premier might now tell us, in a small second attempt to find out, what he is going to do for those people, of whom better than half of those taking this layoff have worked less than 12 weeks in the last year. For many of them those 12 weeks have been all they have had for three or four years. Aside from the malarkey he has just spewed, what do we tell those individuals, those human beings and their families and kids, the government of Ontario is going to do to help them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member may refer to some of what I have said as malarkey, but a lot of what I said is quite consistent with the position of the United Auto Workers as they presented it to Mr. Gray, and to me, in terms of what they think a partial solution to the problem may be. The member can go home to Oshawa if he wants to and tell the UAW that what we are saying about content and importation is malarkey and he can live with that.

Mr. Peterson: I am interested, Mr. Speaker, in seeing the Premier's position evolve on this whole question of the automotive industry. A couple of years ago he was out to ban the Lada. That was all we ever heard out of him then. Two or three months ago he started to take a tough line with the federal government with respect to importation. Then, because it was an obvious, easy out for him to find someone to blame, he could come here everyday and castigate the feds.

Mr. Speaker: And now to the supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: My question of the Premier is this: He knows, I know, all of his internal documents show that even if the automotive industry comes back to a reasonable degree of health it will not employ the people it did previously. We have to take corrective action here in Ontario in other kinds of industries. I want to know what he is going to do about those people who will never go back to the automotive industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to provoke the Leader of the Opposition by reminding him of his party's opposition to those things we have done over the years to stimulate the auto sector. But I recall what his former leader said, when the member was sitting there as finance critic, about the movement of the 1981 inventory last fall. The member was sitting there opposed to it. The UAW was in favour of it. It worked. It helped the dealerships in this province.

I can recall very vividly the member's opposition to many of the initiatives we took with respect to the auto sector. I can recall his opposition to Ford, to Chrysler, to many things we have done to give some stability to the auto sector of this province. I know it came home to haunt his party in the last election, and if he keeps it up it will come home to haunt him if he manages to survive until the next election.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, in as friendly a fashion as I can, he should look at what we are doing in terms of technology, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, of which he was critical, and the positive potential impacts of this in terms of employment opportunities in Ontario. He can hold up his fingers in a big zero. That will be his batting record when he finishes his three years in office around this building. As a final word of advice, I would say if that is his starting line in the front bench, I have visions of him making some substitutions before too many weeks go by.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of the House, I would like to ask if we could revert to statements. My colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade has a statement on White Farm Equipment in Brantford. I think the House would be quite interested in hearing it if we could have that permission.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that we revert to statements?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House a proposed resolution to the problems of White Farm Equipment in Brantford. As the members know, my ministry signed an agreement in April last year to provide a $2 million loan and a $3 million guarantee to White Farm Equipment to reopen that plant.

This new Canadian company is now 50 per cent owned by Linamar Machine of Guelph and 50 per cent by TIC Investment Corp. of Dallas. TIC is the sole owner of White Farm Equipment in the United States. In the agreement reached a year ago, White Canada undertook to Ontario to maintain 1,200 jobs after 1983, to buy Canadian, to provide a training program for employees and to make future expansions in Ontario. It made similar agreements with Ottawa.

Since its start one year ago. White has faced a major and continuing problem -- how to finance its dealer inventory, given present high interest rates. The present situation is a direct result of its failure to solve that problem.

The province and the federal government have been negotiating continuously over the past five months with the present owners and the various institutions that have financed White Canada in an attempt to resolve this problem.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), and I stress this, has played a valuable

part in these discussions. I am very pleased with the role he has taken in them. I am now pleased to report that an agreement was signed last night. First, TIC Investments has agreed to purchase the shares of Linamar Machine and to guarantee the financing of the dealer inventory.

In addition, TIC Investments has reaffirmed that White Canada will continue to honour the spirit and the letter of its commitments to Ontario and to Canada regarding employment, Canadian purchasing, training and future expansion in Ontario.

The proposed agreement basically is identical to that already agreed to by Ontario and Canada last year, with only minor amendments. Ontario supports this initiative that will restore the 750 White Farm jobs in Brantford as soon as the federal government accepts the changes. I have indicated the province's support to my federal colleague, the Honourable Herb Gray, and I urge him also to support those minor changes necessary to get White Farm Equipment in Brantford operating as soon as possible.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONCLUDED)

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it was a complicated negotiating procedure and it was not solely a question of a loan that would have been extended to the American company. The question was whether the same kind of provision would be extended to the Canadian company and, indeed, whether the Canadian company was prepared to be involved in it. That simply was not going to fly in the whole process. It was not going to work. The member has to understand the complications of the negotiations. Then I think he would fully appreciate the nature of the problems they were beset with.

In spite of the assurances he refers to, there is the chance White Farm Equipment may be closed down within a few months. The rights to that combine may be taken away to the United States and the patents which were developed with Canadian expertise and financing will be lost to us forever.

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Why are the members opposite banging the table for that? Are they all opposed to supporting jobs? That is exactly what it is all about.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that this government has buckled under to a power play by TIC Investment of Dallas to ensure the foreign ownership of this company and it is now asking the federal government to agree to it too? Does the minister not think he should be doing something to protect Canadian ownership in this industry in this country?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, what does the member mean, saying something like that? This government has saved 750 jobs, as the member for Brantford can tell the members.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I seem to be somewhat happier about the outcome of this than a number of members, but I would like to ask the minister --

Mr. Roy: You are all Tories, that is obvious.

Mr. Gillies: Albert, your plane is leaving soon. In view of the $15 million investment in this company by both the governments of Canada and of Ontario, could the minister tell the House what steps could be taken now to ensure this company will not eventually be repatriated to the United States by the new American owner?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has asked that very question, because there was an imputation raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that would have suggested that kind of repatriation happening. I just do not see how that is going to happen.

When we consider they would have to pay back millions and millions of dollars immediately and there is no capacity in the states to do that now, and when we consider they would have to build an entirely new enterprise, it just practically would not happen. The member knows that and he should not be saying that. He should watch what he is saying.

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN WORK PLACE

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is the minister aware that Fleet Industries of Fort Erie is one of the 10 companies receiving his ministry's 1981 industrial achievement award for outstanding performance in the fields of employment, production and marketing over a three-year period? And is he aware that in the same three years the Ontario Human Rights Commission found Fleet Industries guilty of grossly discriminating against women in its hiring and promotion practices?

Is he aware this honoured corporate citizen has steadfastly refused to provide any compensation or redress to the women who were discriminated against and has also refused to have affirmative action hiring and promotion programs?

Will the minister revise the rules for judging industrial achievement in this province so that any company that discriminates against women or violates any other part of the Human Rights Code, is automatically declared ineligible for this award?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Of course, those awards were made before I arrived in the ministry, but the net effect is the same. We measured the achievement of the firm in terms of its sales progress, in terms of its accomplishments and in terms of its employment.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Wrye: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday last the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) promised an answer today to questions that were raised on Monday regarding Dominion Auto Accessories Ltd. in Windsor, and we did not receive that answer. I wonder if we could get that answer.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that was my fault. He did have the answer, but because of the length of time question period was taking and because of the interest in other matters, I cut him off. I presume he has those answers and will perhaps table them for the benefit of all members.

Mr. Wrye: Perhaps we could revert to statements and have the matter dealt with by means of a statement at least.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is a question of reverting to statements; it is a matter of reverting to oral questions.

Mr. Stokes: No, he can handle it as a ministerial statement if the House agrees.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to handle it as a statement? Is it the pleasure of the House that we revert to statements?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SEVERANCE PAY

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a question concerning the Dominion Auto Accessories Ltd. plant in Windsor. The member noted correctly that the workers in that plant had not received severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, and went on to suggest that this indicated an inadequacy or loophole in the legislation.

The facts, as I understand them, are these: Two years ago, well before the enactment of the severance pay provisions of the act, the company employed approximately 150 persons. In the intervening period, the work force has fallen at irregular intervals in apparent response to progressively weakening markets. However, from last July to the date of closure on March 19, I am advised there were only 46 persons employed. I have no evidence in my possession to indicate that the reduction in the work force was deliberately phased for the purpose of avoiding statutory obligations.

The severance pay provisions of the act, which became fully effective on July 3, 1981, apply to full or partial plant closures where 50 or more employees are terminated in a six-month period. The purpose of introducing a six-month period was precisely to prevent the abuse to which my friend's question alludes; namely, the abrupt phase-out of business over a short period so that the number of employees at final phase-out is below the number needed to qualify for severance pay.

Without the stipulation of a six-month period in the statute, the potential abuses are obvious. One may argue that the six-month period should be longer or that severance pay should be paid regardless of the size of the work force. However, these and similar arguments were made when the legislation was before the House last year, but they did not prevail.

If I were persuaded that the act as it now stands did not carry out the intention of the House, or that the procedures as presently drafted were capable of improper circumvention or, indeed, that it appeared the present provisions would result in unanticipated inequities, then I would be prepared to consider amendments. However, as I have said, I am not satisfied in this particular case that there was a deliberate attempt to avoid the statutory obligation.

If my friend, or the member for Windsor-Sandwich, has evidence to the contrary, I would be pleased to discuss the matter further with them.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate, I know we ran out of time, but the one aspect the minister did not respond to is the fact that nonunion employees are getting $3,000 worth of severance pay,

whereas the union employees have been cut out.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is not a point of order.

4 p.m.

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

Mr. J. A. Taylor from the select committee on pensions presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 30(h), I have a short statement.

The Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario was constituted in April 1977. The commission met periodically during the next three years and in 1980 it produced its 10-volume report.

The select committee on pensions was established in 1981 to review the royal commission's report, but the select committee's task was not simply to endorse the royal commission's 163 proposals for pension reform. From the beginning, the select committee believed that it had a responsibility to offer constructive criticism of the royal commission's report and to make practical and affordable pension reform suggestions of its own where appropriate.

The royal commission's recommendations were organized into five chapters, and the select committee followed the same sequence of topics and proposals. The first group of recommendations in the royal commission's report dealt with a government retirement income program. The second group dealt with Ontario's relationship with the Canada pension plan. Parts three and four considered employment pension plans in the private and public sectors of Ontario's economy. The fifth and last group of recommendations dealt with special retirement concerns.

Government retirement income programs: The government in Canada provides retirement income benefits through federal programs such as old age security (OAS) and the guaranteed income supplement GIS) and through provincial programs such as Ontario guaranteed annual income system (Gains). The royal commission and the select committee recognized that these programs require immediate attention to improve benefits, particularly for single pensioners.

The select committee endorsed the principle of the royal commission's proposal for a standard of retirement income adequacy, and the select committee recommended that it be linked to the average industrial wage (AIW). For single retirees, the select committee recommended that they receive not less than 60 per cent of the benefit that couples receive.

The select committee and the royal commission diverged in their recommendations on government retirement income programs in one major area. The royal commission made a series of recommendations to eliminate some and limit other universal programs. The royal commission proposed allocating money and services on a strict need basis.

The select committee agreed that those who are most in need should receive highest priority for money and services, but the select committee also saw value in continuing the current universal programs. So the select committee's recommendations with respect to government retirement income programs reflect an approach that tries to balance the urgent needs of some retirees with the universal requirements of all pensioners.

Ontario and the Canada pension plan: The Canada pension plan (CPP) came into being on January 1, 1966, with the aim of providing paid workers with a basic employment pension of up to 25 per cent of the AIW. Since then, CPP has become more than just an employment pension plan. It provides disability pensions and survivor benefits. Some groups in Canada have also come to regard CPP as an appropriate vehicle to provide retirement incomes for persons who are not part of the paid labour force.

Issues concerning CPP include the level of benefits the plan provides, the persons for whom it provides pensions, the plan's cost to participants and taxpayers because it is not fully funded, and its investment strategy. At the moment there are those who argue for an expanded CPP which would include paid and unpaid workers. The royal commission's proposals reflect those of another concerned group which wants to limit further expansion of CPP to control its costs. On these CPP issues the select committee endorsed the royal commission's recommendations.

The select committee carefully examined CPP and proposals to expand it and the committee was persuaded that the cost of CPP, as it is currently structured, will be difficult to bear in the near future. An expansion would create costs that would be unacceptably high. As it is, premiums will have to rise, as was planned from the beginning of CPP. But if the royal commission's funding and investment proposals --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox is talking about a matter of great importance. As I understand it, when a select committee report is put before the House, normally the intention is that the chairman may make a brief statement about its contents and then move the adjournment of the debate on the report so that all members, at a time that is convenient to those particularly interested in the matter, may proceed with an orderly debate.

I would certainly regret if the member's important information were to be lost because certain members who will want to participate on the pension debate are not here. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that normally a motion for an adjournment on a matter like this is in order so that all members of the House can participate at a more suitable time.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member for Prince Edward-Lennox has just about finished his explanation and will proceed with the motion for adjournment.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If I may reply to my friend, I am sure he is well intentioned, but I thought this précis or thumbnail sketch might be of assistance to all members of the Legislature. The report is a fairly lengthy one and covers a very complicated subject, and I thought it might be of assistance to have this statement with the report.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox that these matters can and probably will come up during debate, and I ask him to be as brief as possible in finishing off his remarks.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I have said that the royal commission's proposal reflects some of those concerned groups that want to limit further expansion of CPP to control its costs. On these CPP issues the select committee endorsed the royal commission's recommendations.

The select committee carefully examined CPP and proposals to expand it and the committee was persuaded that the costs of CPP, as it is currently structured, will be difficult to bear in the near future. An expansion would create costs that would be unacceptably high. As it is, premiums will have to rise, as was planned from the beginning of CPP. But if the royal commission's funding and investment proposals, which the select committee endorsed, are acted upon, the premium deduction should not rise above a peak level of nine per cent in the year 2030.

In the area of benefits, the select committee endorsed the royal commission's proposal to institute immediately the child-rearing dropout provision and to make survivor benefits not less than 60 per cent. The committee also endorsed proposals to limit CPP to paid workers and not to alter the goal of providing a pension benefit greater than 25 per cent of the AIW.

Employment pension plans: The royal commission identified a number of issues concerning employment pension plans. The chief was that upwards of 1.5 million Ontario workers are not members of registered employment pension plans or holders of registered retirement savings plans. As a result of the belief that private pension --

Mr. Speaker: I am sure, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) pointed out, this is very interesting and very important. However, with all respect, I think the member for Prince Edward-Lennox is bringing out material that more properly would be dealt with in debate. I ask the honourable member for his indulgence and to please move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is okay. I am happy to oblige the Speaker.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a dissenting report, and I think that should be covered in any statement that is presented to the House to make it complete.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) that there is no provision for, and there is indeed no such thing as, a dissenting report. Now, having said that, I know the member for Prince Edward-Lennox will want to wind up his remarks.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask your further indulgence. I was trying to be accommodating and helpful to all members of the House, and I will be happy to distribute my statement.

On motion by Mr. J. A. Taylor, the debate was adjourned.

4:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Baetz moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Walker, first reading of Bill 41,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, seconded by Mr. Brandt, first reading of Bill Pr16,

An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to.

JOHN F. MCCLENNAN (BLOOR) LIMITED ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill Pr15,

An Act to revive John F. McClennan (Bloor) Limited.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF BARRIE ACT

Mr. McLean moved, seconded by Mr. J. A. Taylor, first reading of Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the City of Barrie.

Motion agreed to.

373800 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. J. M. Johnson, first reading of Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting 373800 Ontario Limited.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SUSPEND ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Breaugh moved, seconded by Mr. Cooke, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the acute and critical situation in Oshawa resulting from General Motors' indefinite layoff of 1,750 workers, the equally critical situation in Windsor with the announced shutdown of the Ford engine plant, other layoffs in the automotive sector around the province and the failure of this government to introduce programs that would begin to address this very compelling problem.

Mr. Speaker: I want to advise all honourable members that this notice of motion was received in time and does indeed comply with standing order 34(a). I will be pleased to listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House may be set aside.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to put this business before the House this afternoon. It seems that no matter where one goes in Ontario, but particularly those communities that have some connection to the automotive industry, and roughly one in every six jobs is related directly or indirectly to that industrial sector, the picture is the same. On various occasions we have debated legislation and we have talked about plant shutdowns, but at some point in time it is important that this Legislature calls a halt to the process.

In the throne speech we looked for some commitment on the part of the government to end the decline in the automotive industry, and it was not there. We have repeatedly raised the issue, both in human terms and in economic terms, in the Legislature. There has seemingly been no result of all this. If one goes to most automotive towns and talks to people who work in the locals and who work in the plants, in many of them close to half of the membership of once very active locals is no longer employed.

In my own community, particularly hard hit in the past four or five years were plant shutdowns and layoffs all related to the automotive industry. We have brought those in one by one. The end result is the kind of thing that happened.

I tried to get the Premier (Mr. Davis) to respond to the situation that one individual is in, a guy by the name of Joe McCullough. Joe is perhaps a good example of many people out of many plants like Firestone Canada Inc., Houdaille Industries of Canada Ltd., Malleable Iron Co., Pedlar Industrial Inc., Fittings Inc. and Sklar Furniture Ltd., which is a furniture company adjacent to us. They are all just ordinary workers, human beings who have done what the world expects a worker to do: to work, do a good job and do it for a lengthy period of time, 25 and 30 years for some of them.

They anticipated they would have what most of us consider to be normal amenities of life, a chance to live a reasonable and decent existence, a roof over their heads and their children being able to receive a better education than they did.

It seems to me that this whole emergence of a decline in the automotive sector has brought about for each of those individuals a crisis in their lives, an emergency. And it is not a statistical emergency. It is not something that should be left to the experts. It is not something that should be studied and redefined. It is something that cries out for this Legislature to do something about it. That is my frustration. The Legislature here seems to be aware of what the problem is and yet seems unable to come to grips with it.

In my own community we have not had a good week in Oshawa, that is for sure. I cannot remember a week when more disasters hit one community, but it is there. Seventeen hundred and fifty people have lost their jobs on indefinite layoff. Of that 1,750, the majority are people who came out of other plants, who have managed to get about 12 weeks of work in the past year, who are not going to draw from the supplementary unemployment benefits fund to which the United Auto Workers and the company contributes, who are not going to get Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits for very long and who are not exactly people who can pack up and move somewhere else; they are stuck.

The impact on my community is going to be dramatic. We are one of the few in the country that, because it has that dramatic impact, puts the situation of the automotive industry in our community on the front page of the city's budget book. We know now, with this kind of a layoff, that our people are not going to be able to pay their property taxes this year. Many of them are going to have trouble with foreclosures. Many of them are going to need some kind of assistance. We are looking for this government, for this Legislature, at least to address those problems.

4:20 p.m.

That is what I hope to get out of this debate this afternoon. I want the members of this Legislature to attempt to deal with a problem that is serious in its nature, a crisis in a sense. I know you will have some sympathy for the recent layoff notice in Oshawa, Mr. Speaker, because when I go to the gates at General Motors and talk to the brothers and sisters as they go into work, I see buses coming in from Peterborough, Belleville, Trenton and all over eastern Ontario. This dramatic layoff will have a critical effect in my community, and it will spread throughout the whole region of Durham and the rest of eastern Ontario.

If you add that to what has been happening in automotive communities across Ontario and, in fact, across the country, you have what amounts to an economic crisis, that is true, but it is also a personal and social crisis for people who have done no more than society expected them to do: spent their lives in industrial places making things the way other people told them to make them. It is neither fair nor reasonable, in my view, for them to have their lives ruined, to have their living taken away from them without this Legislature at least looking at that problem this afternoon.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I support the resolution. We hope that all members of the House will agree that the dislocation of so many thousands of working people is a matter of urgent public importance which, up until this point, has not been dealt with effectively or in any concentrated way by the members of this House either in debate or in response to government policy.

I draw the attention of the House to Hansard of Monday this week, March 29, in which my leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), asked a question of the Premier as follows:

"I am sure the Premier is aware of the layoffs announced last week; just to refresh his memory, there were 1,750 people laid off at General Motors, 1,150 at Great Lakes Forest Products, 925 at White Farm Equipment, 140 further layoffs at de Havilland, 150 further layoffs at Algoma Steel, 140 layoffs at Umex Mines and 120 layoffs at Armco Canada Ltd."

The concern in this matter is one that is felt by members on both sides of the House. I am sure the member for Oshawa, in his resolution, does not intend to restrict the discussion to only those dislocations that have occurred in Oshawa and Windsor. While those are extremely important and are ones that have not been dealt with effectively by the government here at Queen's Park, I hope it will be possible for those of us who are trying to cope with layoffs in our own communities to be able to speak about the matter as well.

It is certainly to be hoped, however, that the government of this province will not simply look at the acceptance of this resolution as another excuse to goof off from its responsibilities here in the House. I look forward to the chief government whip being in his place, as he always is during these debates, but if we are going to take it seriously, as we must when we are dealing with a matter of this urgency, surely it is the responsibility of the government members, including the Premier if at all possible, to be in the House so they can hear the arguments put forward and respond to them with their own plans.

I hope the members of the government will be here. If they cannot all be here, then at least there should be a substantial representation. I urge all members of the House not only to approve the setting aside of the ordinary business but also to be here with their attention and to participate on behalf of so many of our citizens who are affected by the situation described in the resolution put forward by the member for Oshawa.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any government in Canada has been more interested in working out and trying to solve the problem in the automobile industry than this government. Of the 11 governments that represent the people across this country, I do not think there is any other government that has taken a more direct stand and got directly involved in advocacy of the resolution of the problems besetting us in this industry.

We have met with the industrial parts people and with manufacturers and labour. Indeed, we have presented a strong and determined position that is in concert with the United Automobile Workers, with the auto parts manufacturers and with the automobile manufacturers. We have all presented this case strongly as a united front to the federal government.

Mr. Cassidy: You ignored the industry all these years.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That is not quite right. The member for Ottawa Centre knows better than that. We have not heard from him for a while and it is better not to.

We have participated in a variety of automobile-involved matters. I am thinking of the Perkins-Chrysler diesel engine plant. We are trying to be very much a part of that, encouraging the ultimate deal. We have had continuous funding through the Ontario Development Corporation for auto parts investment projects. There was a commitment to Chrysler some time ago. Of course, there was the commitment to Ford several years ago in 1978 that saw the creation of many jobs.

I do not think there has been anyone more determined than the Premier, my predecessor in this ministry, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and myself in trying to get the problem solved as best we can within the provincial framework. We recognize the situation is very difficult. We recognize that in this province there are some 3,300 employees who are on indefinite layoffs. We realize the pain and suffering that must go through the mind of anyone beset with this kind of situation.

When the Oshawa plant layoffs finally take effect, when that second shift ultimately takes effect, there will be some 5,000 people who will be eliminated from jobs. This is very disturbing, although I have to say that while the figures have reached those proportions, they are substantially below the 11,700 people we had laid off in the automobile industry in July 1980; so there has been a substantial change.

Conditions in the industry are much worse in the United States. While it is not much of a salvation in terms of the Ontario situation to point to the American situation, it is far worse there. Given that 80 per cent of our total production goes to the American market, given the sales figures they have had in the United States, and given the kinds of layoffs they have had there, exceeding 253,000 -- which exceed last year's figure, by the way -- at least we are not in the same straits they seem to be in.

The American automobile industry has certainly been experiencing difficulties since 1979. With the fuel price increases, the cost of the vehicles and the redesign that has been involved, the cost has been phenomenal. It has certainly taken its toll.

We can say many things about this industry, Mr. Speaker, and should you decide to allow a debate to go forward this afternoon, I look forward to having the business of the House set aside and to presenting more of our views and our position.

We are prepared to support setting aside the business of today to discuss this rather important issue. I note, though, it was just a year ago, April 10, 1980, that another emergency debate was held on the automobile industry. One has to question the word "emergency," but there is no doubt that this is of concern to everyone in this House. It has no political side. It has no politics in it. All of us here have the same concern. Everybody should keep that in mind. We are looking for solutions.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully and with great interest to the comments of the members of all three parties. There is no doubt that this is a matter of great concern. There appears to be unanimous consent as to the degree of seriousness of the concern. I therefore put the question to the House. I find the motion in order. Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Legislature has decided to allow this debate to proceed. I want to indicate, though, that in our opinion the government's response to the crisis in the auto industry has been very weak, and that is being kind.

4:30 p.m.

A prime example of the weakness of this government's response is the Premier's (Mr. Davis) speech to the first ministers' conference on the economy held in February of this year. Out of 11 pages on the economy, he made the following comments about the auto industry:

"In particular, governments should co-operate in the implementation of a national automotive parts program which would allow this critical industry to restructure to meet its competition.

"While that restructuring is taking place, Ontario would urge the federal government to increase substantially the Canadian content in vehicles imported from offshore. Surely some degree of domestic control within the automotive industry, an employer of thousands, is as worthy a goal as Canadian content is on our airwaves."

Those are comments that no one would disagree with, but what has this government done to accomplish this? Out of an 11-page speech by the Premier on the national economy, he spent two small paragraphs talking about the most important sector, the most important aspect of our manufacturing sector here in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Who was it who forced the meeting with Lumley? Who was it?