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

November 23, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L127 - Thu 23 Nov 1978 / Jeu 23 nov 1978

TREASURER’S STATEMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO ECONOMIC STRATEGY

VENDOR INFORMATION PROGRAM

WINTARIO

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

PC APPEAL FOR FUNDS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASBESTOS WORKERS

OIL AND GAS PRICES

DEATH OF DOUGLAS PHILLIPS

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

TOURISM

LOTTERY GRANTS

TV LIGHTS

NURSING HOME BEDS

AUTO PACT

HYDRO PAYMENTS

DEPARTMENT STORE TAKE-OVER BID

WATER POLLUTION

BOISE CASCADE DISPUTE

REPORT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO LAND CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA ACT

COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON ACT

REGIS COLLEGE ACT

TOWN OF EXETER ACT

SUDBURY YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

CAPUCHINS OF CENTRAL CANADA ACT

THE ROYAL HOTEL (PICTON) LIMITED ACT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

TREASURER’S STATEMENT

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you would undertake, sir, to see whether the privileges of the very esteemed members of this House have been in any way infringed upon by the Treasurer.

I remind you that the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis), in May 1977, issued a statement in which a number of things were said. You may remember the statement yourself, Mr. Speaker. It included a commitment to “100,000 jobs a year during the next decade; 900,000 starts in housing over the next 10 years in Ontario”; and a number of commitments into the next decade, including a commitment to balancing the budget by 1981.

That honourable member did that, and yet the Treasurer yesterday, in a speech he did not deliver but issued to the press, said, “Beyond 1980, no sane man should ever venture a prediction.”

Mr. Nixon: I don’t think you should attack the Premier that way.

Mr. S. Smith: I wonder if this is not an unwarranted and unparliamentary attack on the member for Brampton. I would ask you, in your findings, to keep in mind that depending on what your findings are, sir, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) and myself stand ready to be of service if necessary.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of being a judge of physicians; and I can safely say that, in addressing this group, those comments I made yesterday apply very well.

Mr. Nixon: That’s the second attack on the innocent bystander. At least I think that’s what it was.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Leader of the Opposition would want me to attach as much levity to it as he himself did.

I call on the Treasurer.

Mr. Ruston: He’s going to give that speech now.

Mr. Cunningham: He’s going to tell us he has reduced the civil service by one.

Mr. Speaker: Can we hear the statement, please?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO ECONOMIC STRATEGY

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, beginning next Monday, the first ministers of Canada will meet in Ottawa to discuss the economy. Last February, they and the ministers of finance set specific goals and objectives for Canada’s future and, next week, a review will be made of the progress made so far. As you know, increased job stimulation, reduction of inflation and tighter controls on government spending were at the top of their February list of agreed goals.

Today, as we approach that meeting in Ottawa, I want to review with members of this House some of the steps Ontario has taken already and some of the ways we will proceed to continue our commitment and obligation to the taxpayers of this province.

In keeping with the traditions of this government, I want also to take this opportunity today to outline our basic fiscal position and to provide early notice to the municipalities and school boards of our spending plans for 1979-80.

As members of this House are aware, we have cut taxes in the hospitality industry and in the mining industries. We continue to slow down the growth of public sector spending in the province. We have stimulated new job creation through measures such as the assistance to the Ford Motor Company and the summer employment programs which were expanded this year. All of us have witnessed one of the largest year-over-year increases in the number of employed people ever recorded in the province of Ontario. I am especially pleased that nearly all of these new jobs have been created in the private sector.

In my first statement to this House on October 24, I spoke about these employment gains in Ontario, the strengthening of our economic base and the improvement of our competitive position. I assured the House then, and I want to repeat now, that Ontario will encourage the private sector to create more jobs, because I firmly believe it is only the private sector which is able to create prosperity.

As a government, we will continue to provide an attractive environment for investment. A comparison of the growth rate of almost four per cent in Ontario this year to the growth rate in neighbouring states shows that industry shares our view that Ontario is a stable and dependable place in which to invest and expand.

Certainly other measures will be needed to provide short-term assistance as long as unemployment remains unacceptably high, and I will have more to say about that later.

However, today I want to deal with the issue of constraining public sector growth in Ontario.

For the past three months, I have been working with my colleagues to produce the 1979-80 spending plan. I am confident that every member of this House will appreciate that it is a difficult task because of the many requests for extra funds. However, with the assistance of the other ministers, overall spending growth targets for the next year have been agreed upon. These will continue the trend Ontario has followed since 1975, which I believe is an outstanding achievement and an example for every other government in Canada.

In the year prior to Ontario’s initiation of fiscal restraints (1974-75), year-over-year spending increases were running at almost 25 per cent. In the current year, they will be only about 6.9 per cent. I believe we can be proud of the fact that for the last two years in a row we have kept the growth in spending well below the growth in provincial revenues and gross provincial product.

The fact is that we actually spent less each year than the budget estimates predicted and yet, at lower costs in constant dollars, we were still able to maintain the high level of public services our citizens deserve and expect.

Without a reduction in the rate of government spending growth, any progress towards a balanced budget would be impossible. So I am pleased to say the hardest part of the process is well on target. We have managed to control government spending and we will continue to do so. When my predecessor said he hoped to balance the budget by 1981, he also counted on a growth in our revenues. But as members of this House know, this is the part of the equation which has not lived up to expectations.

Recent federal budgetary moves which will mean a reduction of some $400 million in our revenue next year -- and I’d pause there for a second because even since I talked to the press yesterday I have received a Telex from Ottawa changing some of these figures, so my figures are varying as the inputs change -- have made this target unachievable without massive tax increases. We have yet to learn the actual amount of the reduction and I’m basing the $400 million figure on information I received as recently as yesterday afternoon, by Telex, from Mr. Chretien.

I would stress at this time that we are still committed to a balanced budget and we’re still determined to reach that goal as soon as it is fiscally possible. By continuing our policy of prudent management and assuming an annual growth rate in the range of nine per cent in revenues, Ontario will be able to balance its budget by 1984.

Mr. Peterson: Are we getting a new charter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I turn now to the province’s spending plans for 1979-80. Details are still being finalized within the various ministries of government, but agreement in principle has been reached on the overall rate of increase. My colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), has discussed these important matters with members of the municipal liaison committee and has received several recommendations from them in their resolution of September 15.

The committee, among other things, has recommended that we abandon immediately the revenue-sharing formula known as the Edmonton commitment and that transfers of provincial funds to municipalities in 1979-80 be “commensurate with the rate of growth of provincial expenditures.”

I want to advise the House today that our government is prepared to accept both these recommendations. Spending by the Ontario government ministries for existing programs will be limited to an increase of about five per cent in the years 1979-80. Accordingly, we will increase our transfers to local governments and school boards by an average of five per cent.

In addition, we must meet our fixed obligations such as charges to service the public debt and payments to the teachers and public service superannuation funds, which are guaranteed by this province. These, I estimate, will grow by about 12.9 per cent in the coming year. Thus, the estimated overall growth in expenditures will be about six per cent in total.

From this, it can be seen that our government will keep its own programs well below the anticipated growth rate of inflation in the coming year. Details of the funding of the major items such as hospital budgets, municipal transfer payments and education grants will be made available in the near future by the appropriate ministers.

I want to take this opportunity to stress that we, in this government, are impressed by the spirit of co-operation shown by the municipalities and the school hoards of this province in a time of needed restraint. We appreciate the moral backing of the municipal liaison committee’s stated commitment to share in our efforts to restrain public spending at all levels of government.

No one in this government has ever suggested that restraint is easy, but I believe the co-operation of the municipal leaders of this province is a clear indication of the recognition of their important role as responsible men and women who have an obligation, as we do, to the taxpayers they represent.

I also believe that we have the understanding and support of most citizens, because they know it is their money we’re talking about and theft money we’re using to pay the bills. I believe very strongly that individuals and groups in our society and I would hope every member of this Legislature, understand and accept the fact that demands on government have to be moderated.

Following next week’s first ministers’ meeting on economic matters, our government will be in a better position to appraise and comment on possible new economic initiatives, and my colleague the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and I look forward to reporting back to the House on that.

We want to make any such programs created by the provinces complementary to the efforts of the federal government and we wish to avoid duplication. However, at a time when unemployment is unacceptably high, in spite of the large number of new jobs being created, this government will feel free to act with incentive packages when such a move would be both wise and right.

[2:15]

These will be designed so they do not become a part of continuing programs of ministries, because in this way we will have the needed flexibility to assist in the job-creation efforts in the province at appropriate times, rather than adding to the fixed burden of the government in both good and had cycles of the economy.

I am confident that members of this Legislature will support this government’s efforts to restrain government spending and to proceed in an orderly fashion towards the maintenance of a sound and stable economy and an assurance that the legitimate needs and aspirations of all Ontarians can be fulfilled.

VENDOR INFORMATION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Today I would like to announce to the honourable members the implementation of the vendor information program, a new initiative undertaken by my ministry’s retail sales tax branch as part of our ongoing efforts to improve access and services to taxpayers and the public.

As many will be aware, 18 months ago the Ministry of Revenue introduced a new series of tax bulletins to inform the public about changes in taxing legislation and to provide clear interpretive rulings in those areas where misunderstanding might exist. These bulletins, in conjunction with the technical seminar program and advanced ruling system, form the basis of a comprehensive campaign to convey straightforward unequivocal information to those collecting and remitting tax on behalf of the ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to report today that the tax bulletin program has worked very well. My ministry has been enormously encouraged by the supportive response from the business community and has, as a result, carefully reviewed other means to disseminate information which might be introduced in support of the tax bulletin system.

The vendor information program comes as a major and positive product of this study. The new program comprises two parts. First, a vendor information kit containing a new publication, the vendor information booklet, and companion literature is designed to introduce new retailers to retail sales tax collection procedures.

The second

part is a follow-up program of personalized assistance conducted by trained staff to explain the kit to new vendors and subsequently visit new businesses to answer any further questions in more detail.

We believe this twofold educational approach will be of significant value to new businesses in their first critical years and will effectively respond to many of the new vendors’ concerns before they escalate into problems.

The vendor information kit will be distributed at no charge to the 30,000 new retail businesses expected to register with the retail sales tax branch during the next 12 months cud will also be available on request to 120,000 other small businesses presently dealing with the ministry.

In addition, the vendor information booklet will be made available at all retail sales tax and Northern Affairs offices, the consumer service bureaus of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the small business division of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

The vendor information booklet will also shortly be available in French.

The vendor information program is a significant contribution by the Ministry of Revenue to this government’s commitment to improve customer services which was announced by the Premier earlier this year.

Clearly, taxing statutes must be administered in a way that is thoroughly comprehensible to the businessman collecting retail sales tax on behalf of the government. I believe this new program goes a long way in support of this objective.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the honourable members that during this week and next the retail sales tax branch is staging a public information exhibit in the Macdonald Block. This exhibit is similar to those staged at a number of fall and country fairs throughout the province, as part of the revenue division’s information program. I would encourage the members to take this opportunity to view the exhibit first hand.

WINTARIO

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide this House with a progress report on the Wintario lottery and Wintario grants program, as well as outline a number of new directions we plan to follow.

I believe there will be general consensus in this House that the Wintario grants program since its inception has been overwhelmingly successful as a measure in helping municipalities and voluntary community organizations across Ontario in the development of cultural and recreational facilities and resources.

No fewer than 19,800 projects, large and small, capital and non-capital, have been approved. Since it began in May 1975, over $216 million has been generated by the Ontario Lottery Corporation for the Wintario grants program. Over $139 million has been spent to date and the balance is fully committed to approved capital projects which have not yet been completed.

Wintario has paid one-third or one-half of the cost of over 2,800 capital projects. Because of the matching arrangement, we are an important partner in a half-billion dollar capital construction program. Probably every member in this House has, in various ways and at various times, been instrumental in bringing to a successful conclusion Wintario-aided projects in his or her constituency.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Even in Niagara Falls.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In the capital projects program alone, what we have done is quite remarkable. A substantial number of new facilities have been developed to accommodate recreational activities. These include: 96 new arenas and curling rinks, 24 swimming pools, over 365 different outdoor recreational amenities, 160 community centres and 195 creative playgrounds.

Mr. Sargent: That’s window dressing. We know all about that.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In the cultural area, new building projects include 15 new libraries, 18 art galleries and museums, and more than a dozen theatres.

Mr. Mancini: You are always patting yourself on the back.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Aside from new construction, we have also helped finance a major renewal program for existing buildings. Over 375 arenas, 385 community centres, 60 libraries and 50 theatres, museums and galleries have been renovated.

Mr. Nixon: You didn’t have anything to do with that.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Wintario has also provided total funding for the adaptation of 43 culture and recreation facilities to provide access for the physically handicapped.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members don’t want to hear these statements, our guests want to hear them. Would you please be quiet.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In addition to meeting obvious community recreational and cultural needs through the construction of these facilities, a significant byproduct has been the creation of job opportunities, both in the construction industry and the management of the facilities.

Mr. Makarchuk: You mean the government is creating jobs?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Under the Wintario noncapital grants program, we have increased opportunities for community groups to travel, purchase equipment, host conferences and workshops, undertake media and publicity projects and complete many other worthwhile projects.

It is normal for any social program, and especially one with such wide parameters as Wintario, to take two or three years to mature, for people to fully understand its possibilities for assistance. The Wintario program has been no exception. Its success has been so tremendous that the demand for Wintario funds has grown each year to the point where present demand for funds is approximately double our current revenue. It is obvious that the time has come when we must plan our future program in a way which will achieve the maximum impact on high priority cultural and recreational needs within the anticipated available revenue.

This is not a new and sudden revelation. In October, as members likely know, some changes were made in the Wintario non-capital grants program. Example: travel to invitational events is now limited to within Canada. This was a move felt particularly useful in the light of our international dollar exchange problems. However, this regulation will not affect in any way the opportunities for Ontario athletes to compete in international championships. We are also removing our support for trophies and plaques which have traditionally been funded by the community.

It is, however, in the capital grants part of the program, which accounts for roughly 75 per cent of the total revenue, where we have been paying particular attention to ways and means of adjusting future requests for assistance to anticipated future revenue.

We have considered, and for the time being rejected, for example, the expedient approach of simply reducing our matching portions to all requests without reducing in any way the number of requests through exclusion of certain categories. We have also examined the possibility of insisting that a municipal government contribution of five per cent toward a local non-government project should serve as a prerequisite to any Wintario funding. In fact, this proposal was so widely discussed that it was perceived to be ministry policy.

It was felt this requirement would have the advantage of guaranteeing that any non-government request for capital assistance enjoyed community-wide support and presumably met a recognized community-wide need. However, it could be argued, and indeed has been in this House, that applying the municipal grant as a precondition results in a de facto veto power by our local governments for any Wintario grants going to a non-governmental group. Moreover, many voluntary organizations pride themselves on their independence of the tax base. Therefore, it is believed this potential veto is not acceptable.

After having reviewed a number of ways whereby future requests could be balanced with anticipated revenue, we have concluded that the most equitable and rational approach is to develop a province-wide inventory of all cultural and recreational facilities and programs and carry out a survey of unmet needs. On the basis of such an inventory and study of needs, we will be able to set our priorities and criteria on a local, regional and provincial basis for future capital grants programs. Concurrent with and as part of a province-wide study, we will also encourage local needs studies and will provide Wintario financing for such studies.

In conducting this province-wide review, we will consult with the municipalities and other client groups and interested parties, including members of this House. Effective today, we will defer consideration of all new capital applications until the review has been completed and new priorities and criteria established.

I should stress immediately that this in no manner means that funding under the Wintario program will grind to a halt. As indicated earlier, the non-capital grants applications will be received and processed without interruption on the basis of revised categories issued in October. In addition, applications for capital planning and feasibility studies will continue to be considered.

It is also important to note that all capital applications on which there has been a freeze since August 1 will now move forward and will be processed under the existing criteria as detailed in the 1978 applicants’ guide. In addition, the ministry will accept until December 31, 1978 outstanding capital grant applications for specific projects which have been under detailed discussion with ministry consultants nor will this survey delay the payment of financial commitments made to approved projects in various stages now under way. It is estimated that in this category payments of $100 million will he made in the next few fiscal years.

This time period, during which we will be conducting the survey and establishing priorities and criteria, will also provide the advantage of being able to ascertain more clearly the anticipated revenue from Wintario within the context of recent developments in the lottery field.

Finally, as a further indication that Wintario hats by no means come to an end of a successful journey and, in fact, is only facing a possible change in direction, I would like to assure the House at this time of our intention to proceed shortly on a new HalfBack program. Members will recall that earlier this year non-winning Wintario tickets could be used to reduce the purchase price of Canadian-authored books and Canadian magazines.

That variation of the Half-Back program was successful net only in stimulating the public to support Canadian culture financially, but also in raising the public’s awareness of our culture by focusing a greater attention on Canadian authors. We plan under the new version of Half-Back to provide similar benefits to Canadian films and records.

I hope that my ministry can continue to enjoy the support of members on all sides of this House in planning and implementing the most effective use of the Wintario lottery funds for the cultural and recreational needs of the province.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have a brief statement to inform the honourable members about the signing of a revised agreement between Canada and the United States on the water quality of the Great Lakes which took place yesterday in Ottawa. As most of the members are now aware, the new agreement reaffirms the determination of both countries to restore and enhance the ecosystem of the Great Lakes basin.

I was most pleased to take

part in this brief ceremony on behalf of the province since Ontario is not only the chief Canadian beneficiary to the agreement, but we have shared with Environment Canada a heavy responsibility for implementation of the agreement and contributed substantial effort and resources toward its clean water objectives.

The new Canada-US agreement brings up to date the provisions contained in the original agreement signed in Ottawa in April 1972. That agreement has resulted in much progress towards improvement of Great Lakes water quality. Under its terms, a review was to be undertaken within five years to see how effectively it was working and where improvements could be made. The review was carried out by Canadian and US negotiations with the advice and recommendations of the International Joint Commission and with the involvement of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the eight Great Lakes states and the public in both countries.

The new agreement not only strengthens the 1972 agreement, but calls for various additional programs and measures to meet problems in Great Lakes pollution which have come to light or were not fully understood in the early 1970s.

[2:30]

Significant revision or improvements over the original agreement include programs to strengthen and renew the commitment of both countries to control pollution from municipal and industrial sources, with sources that have been pinpointed to date to be under control by 1983; more effective control of persistent toxic substances and other pollutants; identification of airborne pollutants entering the Great Lakes; identification and control of pollution from agricultural, forestry and other land-use activities; better surveillance and monitoring mechanisms; placing new limits on radioactivity; and provisions aimed at further reducing phosphorus loadings.

With regard to a reduction in phosphorus loadings, I would report at this time that Ontario has met its commitments with regard to installing phosphorus removal facilities at all major municipal sewage works in the province. Several large US cities have not yet kept pace -- Detroit, Toledo, Syracuse, Niagara Falls and Cleveland -- but they intend to have these facilities operating as soon as possible.

Mr. Kerrio: You said that 10 years ago.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That’s them, not us. As members are aware, the Ontario program of water quality surveillance and assessment covers the nearshore waters of the Great Lakes. Cost is shared equally with the federal government under Canada-Ontario agreement.

Following the signing of the new international agreement yesterday, Ontario intends to renegotiate the federal-provincial agreement to take into consideration the new international agreement’s focus on toxic substances and pollution of the lakes from land-use and atmospheric sources.

The valuable role of the IJC in monitoring the implementation of the international agreement will be continued. The commission will send a full report to governments on the progress toward achievement of the general and specific objectives each and every year.

PC APPEAL FOR FUNDS

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: yesterday I was in personal receipt of a letter from William M. Kelly, chairman, PC Fund Ontario.

Mr. Eaton: I hope you contributed.

Mr. MacDonald: I normally don’t get such applause for myself. The letter urged me to mail today a cheque for the support of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: I am touched by this personal consideration from as suspicious a person as the bagman for the Tory party.

Mr. Breithaupt: Auspicious or suspicious?

Mr. Yakabuski: How much are you sending?

Mr. MacDonald: Two questions come to mind. Is the Tory party so rich that it can send this out indiscriminately to everybody in the province, or is it so poor that it requires the assistance of people as long identified with the New Democratic Party as myself?

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: However, in the spirit of the political ecumenism which this letter seems to suggest, I would like to send over to the Premier an application form to join the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Sterling: It is sent to all the Cadillac owners.

Mr. Martel: That is no guarantee he will get in though.

Mr. MacDonald: I would draw to the Premier’s attention that on the back of the application form there is a declaration which states that you must not be a member of any other political party. Assuming that he is qualified, I would be glad to sponsor his membership into the New Democratic Party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member’s party is unlike our own party, where one doesn’t need sponsorship to enter --

Mr. MacDonald: You are right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- where we are totally democratic --

Mr. Foulds: You just have to look at the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) to see that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and where we don’t need to declare that we accept and will abide by the principles, program and constitution of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Martel: You don’t have a program.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are free thinkers. I appreciate this very much. I will certainly assess it very carefully and I know what the result will be.

Mr. MacDonald: So do I know what the result is going to be to this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member should be flattered. The people on this side of the House sense there are those rare occasions when he is beginning to show a little maturity and objective political judgement. When Mr. Kelly asked me the people on the other side of the House who might be willing to contribute, the member for York South was first of the list.

I confess, and we have confessed this before, the Progressive Conservative Party is attempting to broaden its base for financial support.

Mr. MacDonald: Indiscriminately.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On this occasion, we probably have gone a shade too far. We even have purchased the odd subscription list. I will check for the honourable member’s own comfort that this isn’t the Playboy subscription list, that possibly being the reason he was canvassed for support.

I know it was unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker: I suppose we can stand a little levity here from time to time, but the member for York South failed to indicate which, if any, of his privileges has been violated.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my political integrity has been challenged.

Mr. Kerrio: Just endorse the cheque and send it back.

Mr. Breithaupt: They even sent it through the mail.

Mr. Breaugh: The mail is too fast.

Mr. Ashe: It was mailed in June.

Mr. Breithaupt: Last year.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASBESTOS WORKERS

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of reports now before the United States’ House education and labour committee which would appear to indicate the possibility that Canadian Johns-Manville Company Limited and Raybestos-Manhattan may have withheld from workers processing asbestos in this province evidence of the potentially deadly effects of exposure to asbestos?

Mr. Wildman: Are you only getting on to this now?

Mr. Martel: Three years.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister attempt to obtain the documents which have been presented in front of that particular committee, and would he report to this House, in consultation with his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), whether in his view there are any grounds either for the laying of charges or for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to launch a suit against the companies in question, if in fact information known to the companies was withheld negligently from the workers who may have become victims as a consequence?

Mr. Martel: Stop apologizing for them. You mean “deliberately.”

Ms. Gigantes: Criminally negligent.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report that was --

Mr. S. Smith: The word is “negligent.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Carry on.

Mr. S. Smith: Poor Elie, he doesn’t understand what “negligent” means.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The members don’t see each other very often.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank heaven.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am aware of the report in the Globe and Mail this morning, and of course I would be interested in obtaining a copy of that report.

For the member’s own information, he might wish to know the background of what has gone on in Ontario in the past. It might be of interest to know that in 1972, for example, we set our present standard of two fibres per cubic centimetre, which was then the lowest in North America. For 30 years copies of chest x-ray reports on workers in the asbestos area were sent not only to the plant doctor but to the workers as well. For some six years, the general practitioner of each worker has received a copy of the x-ray report.

In addition to that, our special services and research division has recently carried out a study for data-base purposes about asbestos-related disease, having in mind that we may soon want to release a new standard in that area.

I should also like to tell the member that we are already in the process of setting up a list of present and past employees of Johns-Manville so that we can become aware of what kind of exposure they have had. If the exposure has been sufficient, they should be advised and the Workmen’s Compensation Board should be advised of the possibility of a claim.

Regardless of all that, I’m still most interested in what the member has brought up. It was quoted in the paper and I would be interested in seeing what the report down there had to say.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, considering specifically the letter allegedly in the hands of lawyers that indicates Johns-Manville warned Americans about asbestos dangers by means of labelling in 1964 but did not do so in Canada until 1968, does the minister not think there might be grounds for the Workmen’s Compensation Board, on behalf of workers who may have been exposed between the years 1964 and 1968, to actually bring a suit against the company, given the fact that as individual work people they do not have that option apparently, under the law of this province?

Would it not be a good idea to review this matter with a possibility of opening it in a civil action on behalf of those people who were exposed during those particular years?

Ms. Gigantes: Another Dow Chemical.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I indicated an interest in obtaining the information that is before that committee. I have also indicated the existing and past interest of this ministry in the problems related to asbestos, as well as our ongoing studies in an effort to determine what exposure past and present workers have been subjected to. I feel that’s a responsibility we have demonstrated; an ability and a desire to look into and manage the problem. I think that is as good a commitment as I can make today.

Mr. Mackenzie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister will recall that some months ago in this House I asked if it was not time that the government of Ontario instituted, as has been done in the United States, a massive public campaign to locate those workers who worked in asbestos during the war and since.

The answer, as I recall it, was that doctors were on the lookout for people who had a direct relationship or who had worked recently in asbestos where they knew this was the case. I don’t think that is sufficient.

I am wondering if it’s not now time, in view of the rather damning evidence that is appearing, that we initiated a massive campaign, through public notices and so on. to locate all those who worked in asbestos during the war and since the war.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, when the member for Hamilton East refers to contacting doctors, I think he is referring to the federal department’s thought that, through the Canadian Medical Association, they would like to contact physicians through Canada to see if there are any work histories that they may know of with regard to exposure to asbestos. What they are involved in is in the federal area.

What we are involved in is collecting the names of workers, past and present, who have worked in asbestos factories, reviewing any exposure they have had and deciding whether they should be contacted and whether the board should be contacted.

I am always willing to hear opinions and to get advice about it, but I would hesitate to try to start public notices about it and create great anxiety in people’s minds when they may not really have a problem, but I am always ready to discuss that with people.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the Minister of Labour, when looking at information of this kind, also consider the undertaking -- with the ministries of Health and Environment -- of epidemiological studies, not only of those who worked in these plants and their families but also those who lived in the immediate neighbourhoods of plants where much asbestos was being processed, in order to follow up, 20 years later, on the health hazards that may have arisen in those neighbourhoods?

The minister will know from his previous work that such studies have been done in certain chemical industries and that neighbourhood problems have occurred as well. Would he consider proper epidemiological investigation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I referred earlier to the fact that our special studies and services branch had recently carried out a review of current knowledge regarding asbestos-related diseases. One purpose of that study was to enable us to have better information regarding any proposed change in the regulation. But another object was that the study should act as a feasibility study regarding the possibility of a larger epidemiological study.

I do not think I would be prepared at the moment to commit myself to the type of study referred to by the Leader of the Opposition until I have the results of those studies that have been undertaken already. But the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) is here, and I am sure he has heard the honourable member’s remarks and will be discussing them with me.

Mr. Martel: Would the minister not consider a similar approach directed to the sintering plant in Sudbury, where it was necessary for the steelworkers to use their paper to advertise across this country and the United States to try to bring to the attention of those workers who had worked in the sintering plant that it was necessary for them to get in touch with their doctor?

Isn’t that the direction we should be going as a province, to get people who worked in the plants for a particular period of time to go to see their doctors to determine if there are any problems, and isn’t it only by advertising that we can do that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I want to make it very clear that I am not averse to any search to find workers who may have been exposed. Obviously the fact that all these studies have been undertaken and are under way is a demonstration of our desire. Again, I would be prepared to think about and to talk to others about the benefit that might be achieved by publicizing the program. If it was unnecessary, because we were able to get adequate records about past employees, then I would really doubt whether it is necessary. But I am certainly willing to keep that in mind.

[2:45]

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier regarding a statement made by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) on natural gas policy within Canada.

Does the Premier endorse the minister’s apparent view that natural gas pipelines should not be extended past Montreal? If so, does he not believe that by forcing the price of natural gas down by preventing additional exports from Alberta, there might be greater penetration into the Montreal gas market and we might be able, in fact, in places east of Montreal, to supplant the present use of imported, very expensive imported oil and become more dependent upon our own resources?

Why has Ontario not taken a very firm position against the export of natural gas and in favour of supplanting oil with natural gas wherever possible by lowering the price of natural gas and forcing it to be sold here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That really is a question in many parts. I think the province of Ontario really has not objected. We have been asked for points of view on the extension of natural gas pipelines. If memory serves me correctly we have supported the extension to Montreal and the surrounding community. Certainly from our standpoint, if it makes economic sense, if it solves problems, obviously we would prefer to see this Canadian, or Albertan resource -- one has to be careful how one phrases it -- used within this country.

Mrs. Campbell: They are not synonymous.

Mr. S. Smith: A very sad story.

Mr. Mancini: You were right the first time.

Hon Mr. Davis: What do you mean I am right the first time? I am right the second time too, and the third time.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we are really speculating a great deal here if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that: (

a) there is that large a market east of Montreal; and (b), there is sufficient demand for natural gas as a replacement for oil that would in a significant way affect, shall we say the market price of natural gas.

I am no expert in the marketing of natural gas, I don’t pretend to be. Nor can I predict accurately gust how many uses can he made of natural gas that are presently being served by oil. Assuming that gasoline for one’s automobile or the trucking industry, or diesel fuel, are among the major consumer uses of oil -- obviously we are not running automobiles on natural gas yet --

Mr. J. Reed: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I just have to tell the --

Mr. Speaker: Don’t bother; stop.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just want the Leader of the Opposition to understand, and not to misunderstand, I think, what was a pretty logical presentation by the Minister of Energy pointing out some of the practical problems we face.

No one is objecting to the extension of the pipeline from Montreal, but I think it has to be relatively viable economically. I think it has to serve some purpose that is for the general benefit, perhaps not in the first six months or year but certainly at some point in time. I just hope the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t think we are totally inflexible in these matters. The Minister of Energy was trying to give as reasonable a presentation of the position as he could; and I think in terms of logic, et cetera, it made a great deal of sense.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, can the Premier explain why it is that his Minister of Energy meets with the ministers of energy of the other provinces to adopt some kind of common position with which to face the federal government?

Given the fact that in most of the key issues of the day the Premier would certainly understand that we, as a consuming province, have to depend to a great extent upon the power of the federal government to obtain concessions and compromises from the producing province of Alberta, why in heaven’s name would there be a policy of attempting to line, up with Alberta against the feds, when about the only power we have against Alberta to bring them to some Canadian view when it comes to pricing their oil and gas, is the federal power in this regard?

Surely this is a case where we are lining up on the wrong side for the consumers of this province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Leader of the Opposition should be relatively careful in pursuing this. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying the Minister of Energy of this province shouldn’t meet to discuss common problems with ministers of energy or mines from across this country, I really don’t think he means that.

Mr. Nixon: He supported it, and it’s going to result in another dollar a barrel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the former leader of the Liberal Party that his people haven’t really got too good a position on this issue.

Mr. Nixon: Yours seems to change with each conference. Why are you supporting the extra dollar per barrel?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government has battled going to world prices, while his leader and his party has been advocating world price from day one.

Ms. Gigantes: You sold out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They’re extremely vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk does not have the floor.

Mr. S. Smith: If the Premier would tell the truth it would be a lot better.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker. But the Premier is certainly not telling the full story, I can tell you that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have always attempted to do so. If I hadn’t been interrupted by the former leader I would have explained even more of the story.

Mr. S. Smith: You have sided with Alberta and that is dumb.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the Leader of the Opposition is saying he wants to come to the defence of the way the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has handled this whole situation, then let him apologize for him, I’m not going to.

Mr. S. Smith: You decided to apologize for Lougheed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The truth of the matter is that this province resisted price increases.

Some hon. members: Nonsense.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We never agreed to that agreement at all; members opposite were the ones who were promoting higher prices.

Mr. S. Smith: But not above US prices.

Mr. Nixon: You insisted on --

Hon. Mr. Davis: They certainly were.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Look at Hansard in May 1976.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The attempt of the Leader of the Opposition in this province to say that we’re on the side of an oil price increase --

Mr. Nixon: You are.

Mr. Martel: You are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is without question a distortion of the position we have historically taken.

Mr. Cassidy: Hysterically.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary from the honourable member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier not aware that as recently as the end of August his Minister of Energy was saying specifically that Ontario wanted to have support for its position to the agreement, but then two months later was saying that because the agreement existed Ontario felt it had to go along? Why did the government not take any action between June, when the minister was looking for support from the opposition parties, and the energy ministers’ meeting in order to get the federal government to sit down with Alberta and renegotiate, if that was its position?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of Energy explained this, the other day. Apparently the member wasn’t listening or perhaps he wasn’t here.

Mr. Foulds: He did not explain it.

Ms. Gigantes: Does that mean subject to conditions?

Mr. Foulds: Did you talk to Lougheed yourself?

Mr. Makarchuk: Did you talk to Joe Clark?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member is in the process of defending the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the way he went about it, let him be my guest; we’re not. We are saying very simply, that our position on this has been very clear.

Mr. Foulds: It’s not clear.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s very muddled.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I remember so well the debates in 1976 from people across the House and what they said about pricing.

Mr. Nixon: You preferred the notoriety from the beginning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am prepared to state this position again next Monday or Tuesday. I think it’s unfortunate that the leader of the New Democratic Party is attempting to say that this province is in support of crude oil price increases, because we’re not.

Mr. Foulds: Either you are against it or you are for it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Given that the point at issue has to do with the clause in the agreement that states that if the price were to go above the posted price in Chicago that that dollar would not be collected; given that as the point at issue and given the difference of opinion seems to be around the question as to whether to use 92-cent dollars, as was the case when the negotiations took place, or 85-cent dollars that seem to exist today --

Mr. Foulds: Liberal Chretien dollars.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and given the fact that all of us who have favoured an increase in the price of oil have always said it must not go above the American price, why does this government --

Mr. Foulds: Then you are in favour of the increase.

Mr. S. Smith: Why does this government -- and the Premier knows this to be the case -- why does the government take Premier Lougheed’s view on the 85-cent dollar rather than the federal government’s view on a 90-cent dollar? Once you have instituted a price increase you would then suffer greatly if there’s a fluctuation in the dollar, which makes us uncompetitive with the United States of America.

Interjection.

Mr. S. Smith: Why is the government supporting the wrong side of this particular dispute?

Mr. Nixon: You were talked into it before the meeting took place.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, unlike the members opposite who never seem to want to support, or didn’t when we were discussing price in 1976 --

Mr. S. Smith: Your blended price, that was laughed out of court.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- didn’t want to support the concern of the consumer in this province, it’s intriguing to see their sudden interest in this issue. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition there are two issues.

Mr. Nixon: Because you made such a mess of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One is the

interpretation of the existing agreement. If, in terms of that agreement, the feds are successful in maintaining no price increase in January, within the terms of the agreement, God bless.

Mr. S. Smith: Well help them.

Mr. Foulds: How?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are helping them. If it means a renegotiation of the agreement, I am prepared to join the Prime Minister and others in asking the Premier of Alberta to consider it --

Mr. Laughren: You are a little late.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I just wish the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t appear to be defending the way they have done business in Ottawa on this issue. That’s part of the reason we are in this difficulty.

Mr. Bradley: I am for another Kingston conference.

DEATH OF DOUGLAS PHILLIPS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health arising out of the tragic death of Douglas Phillips, the 61-year-old man who was turned away from two hospitals in the east end of Toronto and was subsequently sent to a third on August 24, and who died the next morning. Is the minister perfectly satisfied that this death was not due to cutbacks in the health field? Is the government prepared to review the funding of hospitals in order to ensure that emergency cases like Mr. Phillips are not turned away in future?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let’s start at first principles. It is not acceptable to anyone in government, in the medical profession, or in the administration of health care services of any kind, to turn away a person who is in need of the services available in a particular facility. Secondly, that particular inquest is not complete. It is going on today.

Thirdly, having read the morning press, there are a lot of questions in my mind, so accordingly, I have instructed my assistant deputy minister to send a lawyer to the inquest this afternoon to seek status for the ministry in that inquest to that we may cross-examine and elicit, in the inquest, a number of pieces of information which we think we need.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that at the time Mr. Phillips was turned away from the Centenary Hospital in Scarborough there was a patient in the hospital who could not be moved to a chronic-care facility because the hospital couldn’t find a place to put him, and that had the chronic care facility been available, a bed could have been made available for Mr. Philips and his tragic death might have been avoided?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would point out if the member would look at his research in this morning’s Globe and Mail, later on in the

article it points out that it’s not at all clear who turned him away and all this. That’s the point of the inquest. That’s the point of my sending staff to that Inquest to ask particularly pointed questions.

I would point out to you, later in your research it says when the gentleman went back to Centenary he was, in fact, put into a bed prior to being then transferred to St. Michael’s Hospital. There are a number of unanswered questions which the newspaper

article can’t possibly answer for me, as Minister of Health. That’s why I want our ministry involved in that inquest so we get all of the information out.

Mr. Havrot: Yes, the member should get his facts straight.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, what steps are the minister and the government prepared to take in order to ensure that emergency facilities to accommodate cases like this are available and that, in addition, hospitals like Centenary are capable of coping if they get landed, not just with one coronary patient, but with a number of people because of an accident or some other tragedy which has created the need for a number of beds in a very short period of time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr Speaker, it is standard and expected procedure in any hospital that with the co-operation of the administration and the medical staff, the elective admissions of any hospital will be handled in such a way that the hospital can handle the emergency load.

[3:00]

I think it would be improper for us as politicians, even before an inquest has been completed, even before a number of people who have been referred to in the earlier testimony and in the member’s research have had an opportunity to give their aide, to try to draw any conclusions.

Let me say, though, the member knows the spending on hospitals is, in fact, the largest single expenditure of this government. It accounts for in excess of $2.1 billion in this current fiscal year. I do not feel that members can attribute the restraint in spending, not cutbacks --

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, cutbacks.

Mr. Mackenzie: They are cutbacks.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A cutback to me means you have less than you had before. I don’t see how anyone can call a ministry budget that has gone from $3 billion in 1975 to $4 billion in 1978 a cutback in health spending. That is absolute lunacy.

Mr. Foulds: Your program is absolute lunacy.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Premier about the government’s delay in returning Bill 70, the health and safety bill, for consideration by the Legislature. In view of the fact that Bill 70 received its second reading in this chamber a year ago tomorrow, can the Premier indicate when the Legislature can now expect to have the bill back in the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would think we can expect to see the bill back in the House in the relatively near future.

Mr. Laughren: This session?

Mr. Breaugh: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that we have had promises like that from the former Minister of Labour, and in view of the fact that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) has been telling the resources development committee this week that it is out of his hands, can the Premier undertake that Bill 70 will, in fact, be back in the Legislature in time to be adopted by Christmas so that the long wait from the government’s promise of omnibus health and safety legislation made three years ago can finally come to an end and we can have effective health and safety protection for all of the workers of Ontario?

Mr. Martel: You remember Elliot Lake, Ball?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party in the importance of this bill. After all, it was this government that introduced that bill and took the initiative in this field and it is our intention to move ahead with it. I only wish the leader of the New Democratic Party showed the same interest in protection of tenants and the need to expedite that through the process of this House.

Mr. Martel: We haven’t held it up for a year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, you haven’t held it up yet?

Mr. Martel: Not for three years, yet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. But you are working at it.

Mr. Warner: Try answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party that when I say “the foreseeable future” that’s what I mean.

Mr. Laughren: This session.

Mr. Foulds: And your vision is very short.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is very short. My vision in terms of this being reintroduced is very short. That’s right.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Could the Premier inform the House what particular parts of the bill are causing his government problems, and if we can expect to see the bill in pretty well the same fashion that it left this House, with the amendments that were made in the standing committee?

Mr. Bradley: He’ll have to check with the member for London South (Mr. Walker).

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it would perhaps be a little premature --

Mr. Cassidy: Premature? After a year?

Mr. Foulds: You have had nine months. This is the longest gestation period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to spell out exactly what form it would take. I could become provocative and suggest that if there had been a little consistency across the House, and so on, we might have had this bill through somewhat earlier.

Mr. Foulds: Especially in the form in which the workers need it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I can assure the members opposite that I expect we will see it before Christmas. I expect so.

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. Given that the Minister of Revenue is invoking

section 86 of the Assessment Act, and given that he made a lengthy statement in the House on Tuesday regarding

section 86 and the removal of the freeze on assessments, I wonder whether the minister could indicate to this House what he means when he says, “Even though the use of the new factors will cause a redistribution of grants among municipalities and school boards, I wish to state emphatically that no municipality or school board will receive less grant in 1980 because of the introduction of new factors.

What does this statement mean? Does it mean that in actual or in absolute dollars no municipality will receive any more dollars? Or does it mean that the percentages will remain the same for 1980 and, therefore, if they are getting a five per cent increase in 1979, they will get that same increase in 1980?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Straighten it out, Lorne.

Mr. Foulds: Were they to be 92-cent dollars or 85-cent dollars?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I think the statement is relatively clear. What we are saying is that no municipality will suffer because of the lifting of the freeze of the equalization factors.

Mr. Warner: They all suffer because of this government.

An hon. member: Where’s it going to come from then?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: When we produce the new equalization factors, no municipality will get fewer dollars in grants than it is receiving under the present equalization factors. That is what I am referring to.

An hon. member: Frank’s going to give you more money, eh?

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: In other words the minister may very well be freezing the number of dollars in 1980 for various municipalities at the number they are getting in 1979. That’s the way I understand that statement.

The other indication is that we are told by staff that --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Epp: It’s a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t heard a question yet. You’ve had the floor for more than a minute.

Mr. Epp: Given that the statement was made, how will this affect Metropolitan Toronto both in theory and in practice, since we have been told that in theory they will get fewer dollars but in practice they will get more dollars?

Mr. Laughren: What’s your theory? Do you have a theory?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I don’t recall making that statement. I don’t know where that information came from.

Mr. Nixon: It’s a very good statement.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I would say to the member, in answer to the first part of his question, there is no question that there are some municipalities in this province that are getting a larger share of the provincial grants than others. Some of them may not actually receive any more than they are getting now for a period of time until the adjustments are made through the equalization factors.

I have no knowledge of the other questions the honourable member has asked.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying in his new statement that he is going to be compensating the city of Windsor by way of equalization grant for the loss of revenue over the past three years?

Mr. Foulds: No, he’s not saying that.

Mr. Warner: No, he wouldn’t do that. He said he wasn’t saying that.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that eventually, with the new equalization factors, the city of Windsor will get the proper amount of grants. But we’re not going back. It’s obviously not going to be retroactive.

I also said in my statement that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), along with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), was looking at an interim program to provide some assistance for some of the municipalities that are not receiving the proper amount of grants at the present time.

TOURISM

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Can the minister indicate what steps his ministry has taken to implement the recommendations of the Crapo report on the Wawa-to-Thessalon zone, especially for making Sault Ste. Marie the focal point for attracting tourists to Algoma?

Specially, what commitment has the provincial government made to the completion of the marina for the Sault? Also, is the Pine Street marina as it is being proceeded with at present -- that is, with 26 slips -- adequate to fulfil the requirements of the marina as recommended by Crapo?

Mr. Peterson: Is there a by-election or something?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to get that information for the member and, if he is here tomorrow morning, I will reply in detail.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: In getting that information, will the minister take into account the delay of more than a year in the application for a Wintario grant and the difficulty the municipality has had in matching the funds it received from the federal government --

Mr. Mancini: Reuben, do you hear that?

Mr. Warner: Talk to Roulette Reuben.

Mr. Wildman: Is he ready to recommend to the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) and/or the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) that the provincial government will provide the funds that are needed to complete the marina?

Mr. Laughren: You don’t care about the north, Larry.

Mr. Warner: He doesn’t even know where it is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will try to have a conversation with my colleagues between now and tomorrow morning, but I will give the honourable member all the information I can at that time.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Since taking office, the minister has hardly even discussed the tourism of Ontario. When is he going to give tourism the profile it deserves in the province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The second major speech I made was in Peterborough to the Ontario Motel Association. I think it’s safe to say if the member took a few moments to check with the people who were in attendance, and I’d be happy to show the member the mail we’ve had in response, they were quite pleased With the remarks I made that evening.

I spent extensive time yesterday afternoon with the people from Tourism Ontario who indicated the history of theft relationship with my ministry, my two immediate predecessors, was excellent. I challenged them to indicate to me any place where it might have been inadequate or not up to par. They didn’t give me very many examples of where they weren’t satisfied with theft relationship with our ministry.

I have spent another day in Ottawa fighting very hard --

Mr. Martel: I can see you are full of bruises. I can see a patch over your eye.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to get the federal government to agree to give some emphasis to the tourism industry by way of deregulating the airline industry. Otto Lang didn’t even bother to show up. Perhaps the member might address the same question to his friends. I have spent a lot of time focusing on tourism since I took this job.

LOTTERY GRANTS

Mr. G. Taylor: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Since he has changed the guidelines on Wintario, I received a letter from the Ontario Arts Council suggesting that different organizations deliver theft recommendations for approval of grants to the Ontario Arts Council. Since he has changed the guidelines on Wintario, would he be instructing the Ontario Arts Council to go back to the system where it makes the choice of who gets the grants and not some entrepreneur outside its organization?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will take the question under advisement.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Following the question asked about the grants, can the minister tell us how many thousands of dollars, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, have small communities in Ontario to pay in interest costs because cheques have not been sent out for projects approved by his ministry? He has not sent out the cheques and they’ve had to pay interest costs, which are thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I cannot answer in detail. I don’t know how many thousands of dollars have been spent on interest. But I do know -- and I think the honourable member also knows -- that when a project goes forward the Wintario funds are only matching funds. They wait until the funds are raised locally, and Wintario grants do not match indebtedness. I’ll look into it, but I don’t think it’s something Wintario can do much about.

Mr. Speaker: The Ministry of Labour has the answers to several questions asked earlier.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) recently asked me a question regarding the necessity of an employee who is returning from an injury, able to perform light duties, quitting his job to look for other work and losing his seniority with his employer in order to avoid having his benefits cut to 50 per cent because the employer had no light work for the employee to do.

There was an appeal on that matter yesterday. I have endeavoured to find out the verdict of the adjudicator, but he is en route to Toronto. I’ll try to report to him tomorrow on the final outcome of that.

Mr. Foulds: That is the fastest decision on an appeal we have ever heard.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just this past week, the member for Nickel Belt raised a similar question as it relates to the current strike at Inco in Sudbury, where a worker is willing and able to return to light work but is prevented from doing so by the general work stoppage at the company.

[3:15]

I see no reason why benefit payments under

section 41(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act should be withheld or reduced in the case of workers who co-operate with the board and who are available to accept employment. If the worker fulfils these conditions during the course of the work stoppage at International Nickel there should be no need for him to resign his position with the company; and likewise his benefits should not be reduced.

The board concurs with this point of view, and I would ask that any questions regarding this matter be directed to a Mr. Rourke at the Sudbury office of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Can the minister ensure that cutbacks to 50 per cent pension benefits will not occur for someone who is in a light-work category when there is no light work available in the community, irrespective of whether there is a major work stoppage in the community, and that full benefits will be paid?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think

section 41 is really quite clear, if one refers to it. It indicates that if a worker is available to accept employment, and co-operates with the board in that search, I see no reason why the

section should not apply.

Mr. Martel: Final supplementary: Is the minister aware there are a great number of men who have been released from Downsview who have been advised they can only resume light duty, and that the board has immediately reduced their benefits to zilch, not even 50 per cent? Is the minister prepared to have someone in Toronto look into all those cases? As he knows, I alone have sent him about 10, and my two colleagues from the Sudbury basin have done likewise.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, those were the very items I was referring to in my answer. If the member wishes someone in Toronto to look at them as well as Mr. Rourke in Sudbury, I can arrange for that; but I have been advised that the board concurs with the answer I have given you. If the member wishes someone in Toronto to discuss the cases with him as well, I will be glad to arrange that.

TV LIGHTS

Mr. Peterson: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Would it be possible for you to keep an eye on the cameras, and turn out the lights after they are finished, because --

Mr. Speaker: It is not possible for me to do it, but if the person who is responsible is within earshot, will they please turn the lights off?

Mr. Peterson: I don’t expect you to climb up -- will the last one out please turn the lights off?

NURSING HOME BEDS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware that the report from the Essex County District Health Council indicates that hospitals have many patients awaiting placement in nursing homes, and that the waiting period in the Windsor area for a nursing home bed in approximately four months I ? Would the minister consider increasing the licensed capacity of nursing homes in the area by 100 to overcome the serious need, and in this way reduce the pressure on acute treatment beds in the hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ask and ye shall get.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows the Essex County District Health Council has under consideration a number of functions with respect to rationalization of health services in the county, in particular in the city of Windsor. I have indicated in the past that where a health council can substantiate a need for an increase in the numbers of nursing home beds I am prepared to consider it. I think that health council did produce a report earlier in the year -- I’m not sure whether it was a report or a discussion document -- which was not satisfactory on that issue.

So I would wait until I see that rationalization study completed, which I understand will not be very long, and make a decision then. Certainly where the need can be substantiated we are quite prepared to consider increasing the numbers.

When you have certain capacities in your hospital system you want to be sure that before you start approving more nursing home beds, which after all cost the government on the average about $5,000 a year since most of them are extended care beds, you want to be sure you are getting the best use of the ones you have.

You look at it in the total perspective.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: since the lead time to set up new nursing home beds is quite substantial, would not the minister consider it quite urgent to provide additional nursing home facilities, or at least announce that a certain number could be built at this time and not necessarily reach for the suggested 100?

Mr. Laughren: The Liberals are for restraint and they are not for restraint.

Mr. Martel: It is restraint but not necessarily restraint. It sounds like conscription all over again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what’s so magic about the 100 figure. It may well be that it needs 150, and it may be that it needs only 50.

The fact of the matter is that we have an extensive system of services in Windsor in the hospital system. I recall looking at the budget figures for the last three years; our spending on hospitals in Windsor has gone up 25 per cent in three years.

What I am saying is that we want to make sure we are getting the best use of those facilities before we start talking about building additional new ones.

I grant the honourable member there is a problem we have been discussing with that health council: the need for a placement coordination service in the area. It may well be that the problem can be resolved through better use of existing facilities rather than having to build new ones.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Windsor-Riverside with a final supplementary.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health, wouldn’t it make more sense in Windsor and other communities to put money into home care so that we could take care of our senior citizens before their condition deteriorates to the extent that they have to go into nursing homes and hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As a matter of fact, I would invite the member to examine the programs in his community. He will find there is an extensive home-care program which has been there for a number of years.

Mr. Cooke: It’s not adequate enough.

Mr. Warner: It’s not good enough, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Perhaps what the member meant to refer to was the chronic home-care program. As I have indicated on several previous occasions, both here and in estimates, that program is being expanded gradually across the province as the money is available.

Mr. Warner: It’s too bad the minister didn’t read the report from the select committee on health -- care costs.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the member’s particular area, he will know that I have indicated to the health council and to the hospitals that if they can rationalize the services in that community to find the amounts of money which the Thorne-Riddell report indicated were there, then a chronic home-care program is one of the five new programs for the area which I am prepared to approve for the use of those moneys.

Mr. J. Reed: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No. The member for Simcoe Centre.

Some hon. members: Oh, no.

AUTO PACT

Mr. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism if he will take his seat. Since I missed his first and second major speeches --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. C. Taylor: -- and since I understand that the Reisman report will be delivered shortly, will he have any recommendations or discussions on the Reisman report discussing the auto pact?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I know that the Reisman report was released just a short time ago.

Mr. Breaugh: It is after three o’clock.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously we don’t have a comprehensive analysis done yet. We are pleased to note that Mr. Reisman obviously agreed with a lot of things that this government had been saying for quite some time, with regard to the support of the auto parts industry, for example.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: in the face of that, we thought the House would be entitled to a comprehensive statement, which we will make tomorrow morning.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister assure us that he will table the papers or submissions that went to the Reisman commission from his ministry?

Mr. Cassidy: Tomorrow.

Mr. Laughren: Tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will have a look at the conditions under which they were filed. Unless there was some special condition under which they were filed, I would not have any problem with that. Obviously, it will show that Mr. Reisman reacted positively to a lot of suggestions we made.

Mr. Laughren: Which he didn’t do.

Mr. Swart: There was nothing positive in his statement.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the minister what action he plans on taking concerning the expansion of Canadian parts manufacturers into an area in which they have a specialized skill, in the light of the fact that they could be in a strategic position with the present auto trade pact?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. Obviously we have been concerned about that. This province indicated some time ago that we thought the federal government ought to be setting up a specific auto incentive program. We also indicated our willingness to participate in that program to a very major degree.

Mr. Laughren: There were no strings attached at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One of the major beneficiaries of that type of program, that incentive program, would be the auto parts industry. Mr. Reisman referred to the need for some sort of financial assistance to the industry and to the need to proceed rather immediately on that front.

As I say, this is something we have long been advocating. We will be perhaps speaking about it at the first ministers’ conference on the economy next week, and I will have more to say tomorrow morning about some specifics.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Halton-Burlington with a new question.

Mr. J. Reed: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, the rotation was here Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We are in our proper rotation.

Mr. Kerrio: You should come here more often, Mike.

HYDRO PAYMENTS

Mr. J. Reed: Is the Minister of Energy aware of the rather far-reaching decision that was reported in the Globe and Mail this weak involving the hydro-electric commission of the township of Nepean versus Ontario Hydro? Justice Craig ruled that sums that had been charged by Ontario Hydro under the headings of return on equity and cost of return since 1966 have, in fact, been illegal and have been paid illegally, and that the township of Nepean, which withheld these payments since 1974 in contest of the case, actually now is not obliged to pay those sums. Is the minister aware of that?

Can the minister tell us how many other municipal utilities are being asked to pay these illegal charges and how much money this amounts to?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am afraid I wasn’t aware of that; I will find out about it and certainly report. What day was it?

Mr. J. Reed: Just a point of clarification, it is in Tuesday’s proceedings at Osgoode Hall which are between the horoscope and the death notices.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Which do you read first?

Mr. Ruston: Horoscope.

Mr. J. Reed: I always like to establish that I am still here.

Mr. Speaker: Well you have done that.

Mr. J. Reed: By way of supplementary while I am on my feet, could I ask the minister what action will he take, upon establishing the validity of this decision as reported in the Globe, to change this kind of billing so we are not going to be into a massive financial problem over errors by Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I really wouldn’t want to make any comments until I find out what is going on.

DEPARTMENT STORE TAKE-OVER BID

Mr. Laughren: A question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: In view of the fact that the Foreign Investment Review Agency tells us there is considerable provincial input into the decisions they make, both on new investments and on take-over proposals, would the minister tell us what his recommendations were to the federal agency concerning the Simpson-Sears, Simpsons merger bid, and if that recommendation has changed in view of the Hudson’s Bay bid?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those are among questions that indeed I just asked in the ministry yesterday. I would suspect I might be in a position to at least advise my staff as to what might happen in the near future on that later, not this week but perhaps next week. I’m not sure that in the ordinary course I will be able to indicate to the House what our original recommendation was. If the terms upon which we operate with FIRA permit me to do that I will of course indicate that to you.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: in view of the fact 50 per cent of the acquisition applications FIRA deals with are from Ontario and in view of the fact that 80 per cent are small businesses; and also given the well-documented detrimental effects of the interest and dividend payments that flow out of this country as a result of foreign ownership -- we will have a deficit of about $4 billion this year -- does the minister agree with the review agency’s comments that in 95 per cent of the cases the decisions that are taken by the agency are compatible with the recommendations by the provinces concerned?

Finally, would the minister at least table the guidelines under which the decisions are made as to whether or not any given acquisition or merger is in the best interests of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, I might say I have already indicated at an earlier time that I think one of the problems with FIRA has been the fact they have tended to drift away from their original mandate, which was neither to close the door entirely nor to open the door entirely but to set out proper circumstances under which Canada might properly get maximum benefits from anyone who was allowed into Canada.

[3:30]

That is roughly the sort of thing we look at in terms of the applications that come along. I will see if there are specific guidelines set cut which may be of use to the honourable member. Obviously, in dealing with a difficult area such as this there are rather individual and subjective decisions that you have to make because none of them is going to fit into specific guidelines. Often you are in a situation, for example, where you have to say: “Is it better to have no jobs here than jobs under circumstances which we don’t like too much?”

However, I will see what information I can provide for the member to give him some guidelines on that matter.

WATER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question the member for Hamilton West asked of the Premier (Mr. Davis) last Thursday on a spill and contamination of water in Port Loring, I would advise him that we were aware of that in October 1977, I think October 7, and a great deal of activity followed our notification.

First of all, there were a lot of geological studies carried out. Obviously, in the first instance the affected wells, because they were severely affected, were known. However, subsequent to that more wells were confirmed to be contaminated; and then, of course, we had to establish who was liable. Obviously this was a matter to be settled if necessary in the courts. All during this period of time, I believe the staff of the ministry was being quite co-operative with the residents in assisting them to establish the liability.

Water has been supplied to the residents and now, of course, a new well has been drilled and all that remains to finalize this incident is to determine who shall have the continuing responsibility for that communal well. I expect that will be determined very soon. Obviously it’s not the responsibility of the residents to take liability in this instance, because they were obviously innocent. I think a good solution has now been found.

The member also asked whether or not there is any danger to the health of the residents. We think not. As the member knows, it was a gasoline spill and is easily detected.

Mr. J. Reed: Are you suggesting that gasoline is not dangerous?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Certainly in the most serious cases the contamination was obvious right from the very beginning. Because water has been supplied all during that period of time we feel that no one’s health has been in danger.

Mr. S. Smith: They are using it for cooking.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: However, if that isn’t satisfactory and the residents do wish an examination, I’m prepared to consult with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to see that is done. Given that water was supplied all during that period of time we do believe there is a small likelihood of consumption of the contaminated water.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: does the minister not realize that the spill took place two years ago? Can the ministry say how much was spilled? It’s my understanding it still doesn’t know. Can the minister explain why an order was not issued under

section 17 of the Environmental Protection Act which would insist that the company obviously responsible for the spill clean it up; and how it could have taken a year since the notification of his ministry for this matter to he still dealt with as haphazardly as is the case?

Will the ministry replace the pipes and the water tanks in the homes of the people since they are thoroughly contaminated with gasoline? Is the minister not aware that some of these people are cooking with the water containing gasoline, because even though water was supplied they had to go and carry it in plastic containers a considerable distance every day of the week?

Mr. Foulds: Isn’t that the same question you asked when you asked the original question?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. S. Smith: Finally, does it really bother the minister that these people should happen to want a little bit of fresh water after two years of this? Does it bother the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton)?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. S. Smith: How can it be that the ministry was so slow to act? Can the minister now guarantee that the water will be hooked up by crossing the highway, as it has to do, before the freeze-up occurs there, so they won’t have to wait until the next spring before they are hooked up even to this well, even with the poor tanks they now have?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am really disappointed that the leader of the Liberal Party would infer that there has been no action in this particular case. It was easy to prove, but not in a legal sense, who was responsible and that has to be done. He surely can’t ask the Ministry of the Environment to be held accountable for the slow process of negotiations either inside or outside the courts.

Mr. Warner: We remember Dow Chemical. You did a great job on that one.

Mr. Cunningham: It was sub judice.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What the ministry has been doing -- and I think very well -- is assisting the residents of that area to negotiate with the company. At all times the staff of our ministry has been on the side of the residents and helping them.

That is the difference between the member’s position and ours. We don’t think that every problem is best solved in the courts. We think that good negotiation, when it is clearly stated there is a responsibility and it subsequently has been proven and accepted, is the better way to go.

I don’t see the value of issuing an order on a company when by negotiation they accept that responsibility. Surely that’s a better way for the democratic system to work.

BOISE CASCADE DISPUTE

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to ask my question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious situation existing at the Boise Cascade plant, and being home last night and hearing there were some more problems in the area, has the minister taken any further steps to try to solve this situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, in response to concerns expressed by members from all parties, telegrams from several people and our own ministry’s concerns about the situation in Fort Frances, we did last week convene a meeting of the parties from both sides but unfortunately no agreement was reached. I am aware of the concerns that members from all parties, particularly from that area, still have. In response to that concern, it is our intention to appoint a disputes advisory committee to review the problems in the Fort Frances and Kenora area with regard to Boise Cascade.

I think it might be of interest to members to know I have just received a message that Robert Joyce and Mr. Stephen Lewis have agreed to act as disputes advisory committee members for me.

REPORT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip, from the standing administration of justice committee, reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979:

Law officer of the crown program, $2,890,000; administrative services program, $33,483,000; guardian and trustee services program, $5,459,000; crown legal services program, $14,877,000; legislative counsel services program, $590,000; courts administration program, $70,630,700; administrative tribunals program, $7,566,000.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that in addition to the regular committee schedule, the standing social development committee ait the evening of Monday, November 27 and the evening of Tuesday, November 28 to consider Bill 163.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved first reading of Bill 183,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO LAND CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved first reading of Bill 184,

An Act to amend the Ontario Land Corporation Act 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The amendments to the Planning Act are to try and speed up the process we are presently dealing with; to simplify the real estate transactions affected by subdivision control; and, third, to ensure that the provisions of the act respecting subdivision plans and the subdivision consents are not avoided.

In the matter of the amendments to the land corporation act, it’s more of a housekeeping measure to give the authority to conduct the land through the Ministry of Housing.

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 185,

An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Minister of Natural Resources to direct that a pit or quarry be graded or filled in when it constitutes a danger to the public and is no longer in operation, in order to ensure public safety.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the order of business announced for today, I wonder if I might have the concurrence of the House to call a few third readings in preparation for an attendance on Her Honour tomorrow morning?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 151,

An Act to repeal the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved second reading of Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA ACT

Mr. Johnson, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, moved second reading of Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON ACT

Mr. Johnson, on behalf of Mr. J. A. Taylor, moved second reading of Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting the County of Lennox and Addington.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

[3:45]

REGIS COLLEGE ACT

Mrs. Campbell moved second reading of Bill Pr31,

an Act respecting Regis College.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF EXETER ACT

Mr. Gaunt, on behalf of Mr. Riddell, moved second reading of Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Town of Exeter.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SUDBURY YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Germa moved second reading of Bill Pr43,

an Act respecting Sudbury Young Women’s Christian Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Agreed.

Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Eakins, moved second reading of Bill Pr45,

An Act to revive Reg. Booth and Son Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CAPUCHINS OF CENTRAL CANADA ACT

Mr. Johnson moved second reading of Bill Pr46,

An Act respecting the Capuchins of Central Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THE ROYAL HOTEL (PICTON) LIMITED ACT

Mr. C. Taylor, on behalf of Mr. I. A. Taylor, moved second reading of Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive The Royal Hotel (Picton) Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Samis moved second reading of Bill 171,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act.

Mr. Samis: First of all let me explain to the members of the House, this is a very simple, straightforward bill that would eliminate the ban by I the Ontario legal society on its members to advertise.

In all honesty I find it almost ironic and bizarre that we even have to debate such a bill in 1978, in a so-called democratic society with a so-called free-enterprise system.

I suppose the existence of such a ban at such a late date is partially due to the influence of the small but extremely powerful elite in Canadian society, notably the lawyers, both past and present. I don’t think one has to look very far to determine the influence and the power of that group. Just look across the way, for example, and we see the Premier, whose previous occupation was that of a lawyer. Several of his predecessors likewise were lawyers.

One only has to look at the Premiers of the other provinces; I think 80 per cent of the Premiers of Canada are lawyers .

One only has to look at the Prime Ministers of Canada in the 20th century. I think with only one exception all of them have been lawyers. So there’s no question about the power and the influence of the legal fraternity in our society.

Obviously the possession of such power and influence in society creates strong feelings at times, even in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk --

Mr. Warner: Especially there.

Mr. Samis: -- about the role, the position and the value of the legal profession in society. I was interested to note that our society and our age is not the only one in which some people had some strong feelings about lawyers and their influence in society. In fact, I came across a couple of quotes from ages much, much bygone. Some fellow called Plato referred to lawyers, speaking of them as “small and unrighteous souls.” The poet John Keats said, “I think we may class the lawyer in the national history of monsters.” Thomas More, a saintly soul, if there ever was one, left lawyers out of his Utopia --

Mr. Sterling: Is that why you brought this bill up?

Mr. Samis: -- and Shakespeare made his feelings known in the famous line from Henry IV

part II and I quote: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Rather rough stuff I may say, Mr. Speaker.

But let me emphasize, regardless of how various writers in the past felt, regardless of how I feel personally and regardless of how members of this House may feel about the legal profession, I think it’s important that we all are aware of what’s happening in other jurisdictions in order to give this debate in this Legislature some sense of perspective.

Let’s remember first of all, that in the United States in 1976 the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Bates and Osteen decision, ruled that the ban by the American Bar Association on the rights of a lawyer to advertise violated the first amendment of the American constitution and that case went all the way from Arizona to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It’s important that members consider part of the basis of that ruling and I quote from the Supreme Court decision:

“Advertising, however tasteless and excessive it may sometimes be, is nonetheless dissemination of information as to who is producing and selling what products, for what reason, and for what price. So long as we preserve a predominantly free-enterprise economy, the allocation of our resources in large measure will be made through numerous private and economic decisions. It is a matter of public interest that those decisions in the aggregate be intelligent and well informed. To this end the free flow of commercial information is indispensable.”

As a result of that decision, the ban on advertising by lawyers in the United States is now past history. I should point out that the walls of Jericho have not come tumbling down on the poor legal profession south of the border.

Secondly, I would point out that in the United Kingdom, lawyers are free to advertise their services and their fees as in the United States.

In the province of Manitoba, as a result of a decision made by the Manitoba Bar Society in June of this year, the ban on advertising by lawyers in Manitoba is no longer in existence. Lawyers, in other words, are free to advertise in Manitoba.

Mr. Nixon: Sterling Lyon has done a great job out there.

Mr. Samis: In the province of British Columbia, I would point to the case of Stephens and Jebour, Those two gentlemen are not just humble, nondescript lawyers, one gentleman is the leader of the BC Conservative Party and all there is is one member of course --

Mr. Nixon: That is about as nondescript as you can get.

Mr. Samis: -- and Jebour is the former chairman of the BC legal services commission. Both these gentlemen have taken the Law Society of BC to court over the ban and the enforcement of the ban upon them. That hearing in the BC Supreme Court is on January 8. I should also point out there’s now a referendum under way among the 3,700 members of the Law Society of BC.

The anti-combines legislation of the Dominion of Canada included amendments in 1976 which extended the jurisdiction of that act to services. I would also call members’ attention to the remarks last spring of the former minister, Warren Allmand, about his doubts about the validity of the ban in view of the changes in the legislation. And the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has launched an investigation of the Law Society of BC’s action against Stephens and Jebour.

Belatedly, even the Law Society of Upper Canada has finally set up a committee to consider whether or not there should be changes and whether or not those changes should be implemented in 1979. The key thing is there has been no action as of today.

So on considering this bill, it’s well to remember that what the bill seeks to do, Mr. Speaker, is not unique. It’s not radical. It’s not revolutionary in Canada, in North America or in the Commonwealth. You have then to ask yourself why has the bar opposed the idea of advertising in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Sterling: It has not.

Mr. Samis: If they haven’t done anything, I assume that’s opposition.

The first argument frequently used is that somehow advertising would lower the dignity and the credibility of the profession.

Mr. Germa: My God, how can it go any lower? How low can you go?

Mr. Samis: First of all, let me point out that is purely a value judgement. Let us remember that the banks, the trust companies, the consulting firms, the insurance companies, to name only a few, already advertise and still manage to maintain their dignity alongside their huge profits.

Let us also remember that according to a recent Harris poll in the United States, lawyers were rated at the bottom of the list in a survey ratting confidence in public institutions.

Mr. Germa: How low can you go?

Mr. Samis: Although, Mr. Speaker, I must confess in terms of public confidence they weren’t alone at the bottom. They were joined by politicians and labour leaders.

A Gallup poll in Canada showed that lawyers were not held in such low esteem by the public as theft US counterparts --

Mr. Sterling: We are trying hard, though.

Mr. Samis: -- but it did reveal that 53 per cent of the people were critical of overcharging by lawyers and that 63 per cent of those who used a lawyer said they were never told what the service would cost. I noticed that Hugh Winsor used those same statistics this morning in his column.

The point here, though, is that what lawyers may think of themselves and what they may conceive of as dignity is certainly not shared by what the general public thinks of them and theft profession. Some lawyers say that if we were to allow advertising we would be exposed to all sorts of high-pressure, promotional, Madison Avenue-style ads.

I notice that Jerry Goodis in his speech to the Canadian Bar Association on May 12 gave some examples of what the lawyers have conjured up as what sort of ads we might have to endure. One of them he laid on them and one that I am sure they are all using in theft publications is: “Can’t you just see it now: ‘Tests have shown that J. J. Robinette is able to squeeze 25 per cent higher alimony payments from husbands than the other leading lawyers.’ Or, in case of the husband, ‘Tests have shown that J. J. Robinette’s male clients make 22 to 39 per cent lower alimony payments to their wives?

“Or, if we get down to a level more suited to the home, the current Red Rose Tea commercial might also inspire a legal commercial. Picture a scene where the camera opens on three suspicious-looking characters sitting dejectedly on the cold, stone floor of a Mexican prison cell, chanting, ‘We want Arthur Maloney to represent us.’ The Mexican jail guard says, ‘Arthur Maloney? He’s only available in Canada.’ ‘Pity.’”

However, if we look at those two examples --

Mr. Nixon: Let’s do a few more of those. Mr. Samis: -- and say this is the wave to come, let’s look at where advertising has been in effect and see that really the fears of the lawyers are not substantial.

Let’s take the case of Manitoba. In Manitoba, advertising is now legal. But according to the Manitoba Bar Society they must follow the following regulations: “Lawyers may advertise provided the advertisements are: (1) accurate and not capable of misleading the public.

(2) Must be of a dignified nature, not to bring the member’s profession into disrepute -- “

Mr. Wildman: That must be tough for lawyers.

Mr. Samis: “ --

(3) Does not claim superiority for one advertising member over another.

(4) Fees may be advertised, provided that (

a) there is an accurate statement of the service offered; the precise amount is specified; and it is specified whether or not disbursements are included; and the lawyer must stick to his advertised rate.”

Take another example. In Britain, where we have advertising, there again we have guidelines. I will quote from them: “(

a) A solicitor should not claim superiority for his practice over that of other solicitors. (

b) There should be no inaccuracies or misleading techniques. (

c) Advertisements or ether methods of soliciting should not be of a character which could reasonably be regarded as likely to bring the profession into disrepute.”

Let’s also remember that if this profession is so concerned about its dignity and status in society, surely it can exercise some control over its own members in terms of professionalism and some code of ethics or standards, as they now do. It is not as if we are opening the floodgates to a group of charlatans or exploiters, unruled and unchecked by any ethical or professional standards or considerations.

An hon. member: God forbid.

Mr. Germa: You could have fooled me.

Mr. Warner: They are already there.

Mr. Samis: It is high time that the purchase of legal services in our society be demystified and simplified; and continued opposition to any meaningful change will be seen by the general public as protecting the interests of a small, privileged group, seeking to maintain anachronistic, elitist and monopolistic practices.

[4:00]

Robert Auley, the president of the Canadian Association of Consumers, was quoted in the Financial Times recently as saying, “Lawyers’ failure to advertise is a conspiracy to make silence one more shroud which they can hide behind. Through advertising lawyers could erase public suspicion that they are trying to strengthen their whip hand by remaining silent.”

I quote from Harry Rankin, the new treasurer of the British Columbia law society, who says: “It’s the younger lawyers who want a whirl at it. The older lawyers have already done their advertising through the Vancouver Club, through the banks they have as retainers, through the newspapers, because their names are important. I see no reason why the young guys shouldn’t have a whirl at it as well.”

I quote from William Neilson of the University of Victoria law school and former BC Deputy Minister of Consumer Services:

“Don’t expect a flood of ads, because the inherent conservatism of most lawyers, regardless of whether or not advertising bans are dropped, will mean advertising no more flamboyant than an innocuous box on newspaper business pages. The bar has kept the curtains closed for a long time, making it hard for information on skills and prices to get out, and now they’re embarrassed by it all.”

I also want to point out when we have legalization it doesn’t mean a flood of ads. It doesn’t mean we’re inundated with ads all over the place. Experience shows just the opposite. In the case of the Los Angeles Times when advertising was legalized in the state, their experience was that first there was half a page of ads on any regular basis, then it was reduced to a quarter of a page, then it came down to an eighth of a page. Now, I understand, it’s even less than an eighth of a page.

In San Diego county, out of 3,700 lawyers only 40 advertise on a regular basis. In Manitoba, where advertising is legal on radio and television, no use has been made by lawyers of that option. There’s no flood, there’s no inundation whatsoever.

Another argument they used was: “The quality of services would be lowered if we had advertising.” That is just sheer nonsense. Lawyers are professionals and I have confidence that they would maintain the same standard of service regardless of how the client was obtained. Sure, there may be some unscrupulous types who would lessen the quality of their services to obtain a client, but those people would probably do the same thing whether or not we had advertising.

Mr. Warner: Most of them get elected.

Mr. Samis: Then they tell us advertising means higher fees; in other words, the cost of the advertising will be passed on to the client. There’s a good chance that advertising could reduce the cost of legal services, because it may force firms to become more efficient to compete effectively in a more open market. Let’s keep in mind the experience in the United States and Manitoba which indicates that when it’s legalized the volume of advertising is neither large nor expensive.

The legal society doesn’t have a system for accrediting specialists. If they don’t, they should have one. Secondly, the absence of an accreditation system should not be considered an insurmountable obstacle to legalizing advertising. As Jerry Goodis has pointed out, no lawyer is really an absolute master of the law in its whole sense.

In closing I want to emphasize again that the public has a right to the maximum information possible as to the nature of goods and services available. The legal society’s present virtual total ban on advertising is unacceptable, anachronistic, elitist and monopolistic. It’s not good enough to say we may allow it in the yellow pages and regard that as the best solution possible in 1978. The problems connected with advertising can be overcome, as they have been in other jurisdictions.

Today we have the opportunity to remove the veil of mystery surrounding the legal profession and to assist consumers in the market place. To those who say the bar is already studying it, what we have today is a chance to show the bar that we, representing the people of Ontario, want that ban removed and we are prepared to do it if they’re not.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Cornwall has four minutes. Do you wish to reserve that time for reply?

Mr. Samis: Yes.

Mr. Willlams: Mr. speaker, I have listened with interest this afternoon to the warm remarks that the sponsor of this bill has directed towards the legal profession. I can only conclude from his observations and the approach he’s taken to this subject that there are two reasons that he may have some reservations about the competency of the legal profession or the fact that it may be unduly controlled by the law society. I would suggest he either turns out to be a law school dropout or perhaps he just got some bad legal advice from his own lawyer.

Mr. Samis: Dead wrong.

Mr. Sterling: He’s never been to a lawyer.

Mr. Williams: But in any event, that form of prejudice may prove to be the reason for his particular bias --

Mr. Philip: He was trained by the Jesuits. They are the best lawyers on life.

Mr. Williams: -- toward the profession.

In looking closely at the bill we have before us it gives cause for concern in three particular areas. First and foremost, I think the sponsor of the bill has lost sight of a very important consideration; that is, traditionally, down through the years the government of this province has recognized that professional groups conducting legitimate businesses in this province have been given the opportunity to set up their own self-regulating bodies.

Mr. Wildman: What about teachers?

Mr. Williams: There are many professional organizations that contribute greatly to the economic wellbeing and to the economy of this province. I look to the architects, the pharmacists, the engineers, and the land surveyors. There are many such professional groups that have seen fit to set up their own regulatory bodies so they can discipline themselves and govern the activities of the people within their profession.

The Law Society Act is the example with regard to the legal profession.

Mr. Germa: Self-discipline is no discipline.

Mr. Williams: I think it’s regrettable that the member feels so strongly that legislation should be introduced to override this fundamental principle that has been established whereby responsible business professions and organizations would have this right taken away from them and that legislation would be imposed on them to prevent their own committees and supervisory bodies to continue to regulate the professions. That is a fundamental consideration that has clearly been overlooked by the member.

Mr. Philip: But in free enterprise?

Mr. Williams: I would hope it will continue, so long as this government remains in power, that such honourable professions do have the right and opportunity to continue to police themselves.

Mr. Wildman: I really thought you would support this.

Mr. Williams: There’s no question that this is a recognized and acceptable approach in our society to letting the profession operate in a controlled manner in serving society at large.

Mr. Germa: No. Serving themselves.

Mr. Williams: It would certainly be inappropriate to withdraw these rights and introduce another level of bureaucracy by having government regulate and control the profession, when they do such an admirable job themselves.

The other area that concerns me is the fact that the sponsor of the bill this afternoon has spoken at some length about the other jurisdictions, while tongue-lashing the law society in this province --

Mr. Wildman: He did not.

Mr. Sterling: He certainly did.

Mr. Williams: -- for doing nothing about giving consideration to this matter.

Mr. Samis: I never said it.

Mr. Sterling: You’re all lawyers. That’s what hurts.

Mr. Williams: It’s unfortunate that the member hasn’t informed himself on how actively the law society of this province has been carefully studying the matter.

If he had taken the time to do a little research at home, rather than telling us what’s happening in the United States or in other far corners of the world --

Mr. Wildman: I am going to ask you the same question when you start talking about your bill.

Mr. Williams: -- his debate and argument today might be more relevant to the issue at hand.

I should point out to the member -- and it’s been well publicized; I don’t know why he doesn’t recognize the fact -- the Law Society of Upper Canada has had a committee working on the --

Mr. Samis: I should recognize the fact.

Mr. Williams: -- question of professional competence for some period of time. In recent months they’ve issued a very important public statement on the subject.

Mr. Makarchuk: One of these days they are going to need it.

Mr. Williams: Just for the enlightenment of the member in question, I will point out to him exactly what the special committee has recommended.

Mr. Wildman: Dispense.

Mr. Makarchuk: Dispense.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: I would point out that, while it has not yet proceeded to the point where it has been accepted by the legal profession at large, it is a great step forward.

Mr. Kerrio: You haven’t told us whether you are going to support the bill yet either.

Mr. Williams: What the committee does recommend is essentially two things. First, the committee recommends that a lawyer be permitted, if he so wishes, to publicize areas of law in which he wishes to practise, subject to certain guidelines, which I think the member himself acknowledged existed in Manitoba and in Britain as well.

Mr. Nixon: That can be misleading; that’s the only practical one.

Mr. Williams: In this instance, too, in Ontario it is suggested that a limited degree of advertising would be permitted, with appropriate guidelines being reasonably and responsibly imposed. The guidelines that are being talked about here relate to the question of specialization in the field of law, to which a lawyer would he permitted to advertise this particular area of expertise.

The first recommendation that has been put forward for consideration is the suggestion that the area of practice be limited to the areas of practice as established by a committee of the benchers; so that basic control would continue to be imposed. The lawyer, before publishing and advertising his particular skills, would register with the Law Society of Upper Canada and not proceed with the publication until it had received formal approval.

The lawyer, before publishing, would also have to join a group established by a responsible committee of the law society, wherein be would maintain his membership so long as the publicity continued and he continued to specialize in that particular field of law.

These are not unreasonable considerations and conditions to impose, and it shows an enlightened attitude that the member, in presenting this bill, has obviously been unaware of and oblivious to.

The third consideration, of course, is the fact that the bill is substantially different, in that it recognizes no guidelines or controls, no self-policing by the profession. It simply says that a member of the law society can, in any manner and form that he wishes, advertise his services, his fees and his special area of law. He can conduct his advertising in any manner whatsoever. It can be in the printed form. He can broadcast it over the air waves. He can go on television. He can even fly a blimp over the city, I suppose, and have his name before the people of the area in question.

Mr. Wildman: I thought you were the blimp over the city.

Mr. Williams: But there is absolutely no control over the advertising medium and the manner in which the lawyer would choose to advertise his wares, if I can use that term. Certainly it can be used in a fashion that is indiscreet and degrading, I would suggest, to the profession. So that, too, is a third cause for concern which I think we all have to address ourselves to.

It is because of these three areas of concern that I have to say that I cannot support this bill, because the bill does not take into consideration any of these three concerns. Until such time as the bill can address itself to those matters and recognize that there are reasonable options and alternatives, I suggest that the bill should be voted against.

Mr. Mancini: What about the intent of the bill?

Mr. M. Davidson: What about the principle?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I support the bill with unqualified enthusiasm. I would tell the honourable member who just sat down, that during second reading we are concerned with the principle of the bill. This particular bill has as it principle the removal of the restrictions applied to the legal profession by the Law Society of Upper Canada, which at the present time do not permit them to advertise.

I would suggest, that the arguments put forward by the honourable gentleman who just spoke express objections in detail, many of which may be valid -- they don’t appeal to me, frankly, but there might be validity in them. We could allow the lawyers’ union, if you want to call it that -- the law society -- to bring about certain restrictions they might agree to. Essentially, the only restriction that means anything is the restriction that would mean that the advertising could not be misleading. If the member for Oriole wanted to put something on a blimp over Toronto, it might help his practice.

[4:15]

Mr. Makarchuk: And dangle from it.

Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately, I suppose, I’ve come to be known as the anti-lawyer member for Brant. It doesn’t bother me too much, but I would respond with the classic phrase of all bigots and say some of my best friends are lawyers.

Mr. Williams: You must have got some bad legal advice one day.

Mr. Nixon: I notice in the count-up in the Legislature that there are 23 lawyers, though I could be out one or two. There are almost enough of them to block this singlehanded, but even they wouldn’t have that kind of brass and gall because it’s the will, not only of the people --

Mr. Williams: Don’t be too sure.

Mr. Nixon: -- of the House but of the people of this province that we remove the mystery that has shrouded the legal profession and the practitioners in it for far too long. One of the things that has appalled me is the sort of sacerdotal, inner priesthood, special lodge meeting thing that the lawyers undertake whenever they try to improve their education or whenever they try to improve their practice.

Mr. Williams: The member is more vindictive than the other speaker.

Mr. Sterling: He is misinformed.

Mr. Nixon: The very fact that the governing authority is the Law Society of Upper Canada is appalling. Upper Canada hasn’t existed since 1840 or something like that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: But the law society has.

Mr. Nixon: The lawyers somehow think that it adds to their dignity if the