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

November 1, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L097 - Thu 1 Nov 1979 / Jeu 1er nov 1979

REMARKS OF MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

TRIBUTES TO DALTON BALES

VISITORS

INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION ON DEPENDENT CONTRACTOR PROVISIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HIGH-SPEED CAR CHASES

INTEREST RATES

JOB CREATION

RECRUITMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS: APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

PHYSICIAN IMMIGRATION

STEPHEN TRUSCOTT

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

BURNING OF PCBS

HUNTING LEGISLATION

PRICING OF BILL COPIES

AMBULANCE SERVICES

LABOUR RELATIONS: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CO-OPERATORS LIFE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION ACT

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

ASSUMPTION CHURCH CEMETERY ACT

HONING CORPORATION LIMITED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

FISCAL PLAN ACT

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

FISCAL PLAN ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MOTIONS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

REMARKS OF MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, on Tuesday night of this week I made some very unfortunate and very objectionable comments in this Legislature. I apologized to this House on Tuesday night and I have since offered my abject apology to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the two members of the New Democratic Party.

As every member of this House is aware, we tend on occasion to get a bit carried away from time to time in the cut and thrust of debate. However, I recognize that there is absolutely no excuse for the type of comment that I made on Tuesday night, and today I want to apologize once more to the individuals involved and to the House in general.

I recognize that my comments have embarrassed my Premier, my party and my colleagues on both sides of this House. I also recognize that some members of the public, specifically those of Italian origin, are especially offended by what I said, and to them I publicly retract any and all comments that they find offensive.

As I said on Tuesday night, I too came to this province as an immigrant and I too have faced over the years certain embarrassments and innuendoes. I admit to this House that while that fact perhaps led me to believe that I would have licence with respect to the odd discriminatory heckle, it should also have reminded me of just how hurtful and harmful such comments can be.

I know that this situation is especially embarrassing to my Premier, who has been so outspoken against racism and discrimination. Each and every member of this House has significant cause to he upset by my conduct. I have apologized as profusely as I can and I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and other members, to accept my apologies and my assurance that under no circumstances will I indulge in this type of misconduct again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night I raised a point of privilege with the Deputy Speaker and asked him to review Hansard to determine whether the remarks of the member for Timiskaming had violated the privileges of members of this House. That has been done, and Hansard shows the full enormity of the violations of privilege by the member for Timiskaming.

I am obliged, distasteful as it is to report those to the House inasmuch as the official Hansard has not been printed but I have been given a copy of the Hansard which went to the printers. It is important for the argument that I am making to you, sir, that the House be aware of exactly what was said.

Before the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) rose to his feet:

“Mr. Havrot: Mama mia”

After the Deputy Speaker said “The member for Dovercourt has up to five minutes.

“Mr. Havrot: You can eat an awful lot of pizza in five minutes if you’re good at it.”

During the member for Dovercourt’s speech:

“Mr. Havrot: Mama mia.

“Mr. Havrot: Capicollo.”

In response to the interjection of an honourable member: “Is this the late show?

“Mr. Havrot: Absolutely not. It’s the Wop show.

“Mr. Havrot: Thatsa my boy.

“Mr. Havrot: Capicollo.

“Mr. Havrot: Atsa nice. Good for Benito Mussolini.”

And, Mr. Speaker, this is the ultimate obscenity that can be hurled against a Canadian citizen who was born in another country:

“Mr. Havrot: If you don’t like it, go back.”

The nature of the incident on Tuesday night was important. It was not an isolated incident. It was not a single epithet hurled in a moment of careless anger. If it was, a personal apology would be sufficient to put an end to the matter forever. But that was not the nature of the incident Tuesday night.

It is clear from Hansard that it was a sustained barrage of racial taunts and racial invectives which began before the member for Dovercourt rose to his feet, continued throughout the entirety of his speech, and indeed continued until the House adjourned some 25 minutes after the adjournment debate began.

I am prepared to accept, on a personal level, the apology of the member for Timiskaming. But that does not address the enormity of what happened on Tuesday night. It is not sufficient that an incident of that nature be passed over simply with an apology without the appropriate disciplinary action of this House.

The member for Timiskaming, I will say, has put to rest a certain amount of confusion as to whether or not he had apologized. While I received a letter of apology from him yesterday afternoon, I read with amazement in the Globe and Mail that he had stated: “The NDP members are making a big thing out of nothing. Mr. McClellan has written to the Premier. If that’s how low the NDP have to stoop for publicity...” It has nothing to do with publicity. It has to do with my dignity as a human being. The member for Timiskaming said in the Globe and Mail article: “get carried away once in a while, so what?”

“So what,” is the challenge to this Legislature, sir. If I, or any member of this House, were “to get carried away,” in the words of the member for Timiskaming, and walk across the floor of this House and physically assault another member, I would expect to receive the full discipline of this House. I would expect the full weight of the House’s sanctions to come against me. I would not expect to get off with an apology. I would expect to be required to apologize but I would also expect to accept the further consequences of my actions.

Unless there is any single member of this assembly who is still unaware of the kind of assault on human dignity that racial taunts and racial invective represent, let me just quote one page from Cardinal Carter’s report on page 20.

“When a person is called a nigger, a queer, a faggot, a Chink, a Paki, usually with the appropriate accompanying adjectives, he has been attacked as surely as if he were struck.”

On Tuesday night, as part of a prolonged barrage of racial taunts and invective, my colleague and I were referred to by the member for Timiskaming as Wops. We have, each of us, been attacked as surely as though we were struck. There must be discipline brought to bear.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I am the grandson of Gesualdo Costabile. I am a member of the Italian community of this province. I am a member of the community that has suffered its share of racial prejudice, and with the members of my community and the members of any minority community which has experienced racial prejudice I carry the pain of that experience inside me.

I say to you, sir, I have an absolute right as a human being to be protected from racial invective in this Legislature. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to insist this kind of reprehensive behaviour cannot simply be passed over with an apology.

I stress again I accept the apology, but I say the incident must be effectively disciplined by the exercise of the ultimate sanction of this House. The integrity of this Legislature and the human dignity of each of its members demand that. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to name the member for Timiskaming and to expel him from this Legislature for such period of time as you, sir, deem appropriate in the circumstances.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to the point of privilege?

Mr. S. Smith: I want to speak very briefly, My Speaker. Most people in this House are in one way or another members of a minority group. Most people in this House have, I think, the very same feelings which have been expressed quite eloquently by the member for Bellwoods. Therefore, I simply want to say, on behalf of people of varied backgrounds, that I want to associate myself with the remarks by the member for Bellwoods.

[2:15]

I would in your consideration, Mr. Speaker, ask you to recognize that whether these are the equivalent of physical blows or not, the business of this House and the respect that we all must hold for one another cannot proceed in any way at all with the repeated comments of the kind that were made by the member for Timiskaming. Although the apology is certainly welcome to members of this House, and must of course be accepted by members of this House, I believe that the apology by itself is insufficient and I simply ask you to take that into consideration when you are ruling on this matter of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the statement made by the member for Timiskaming. I listened very carefully to the observations by the member for Bellwoods, and of course from the Leader of the Opposition.

I sense that the Leader of the Opposition is really saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should make a judgement without perhaps suggesting what that judgement should be, certainly as definitively as the member for Bellwoods.

I was not here on Tuesday evening but it was reported to me, Mr. Speaker, that the acting leader, or the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), accepted on that occasion the apology of the member for Timiskaming; that is what I understood. This was brought to my attention some time during the course of Wednesday morning, I guess it was, Mr. Speaker.

While I had not seen a transcript nor had I listened to the tapes -- and I have become a little bit confused, as apparently there are a series of tapes that don’t always get recorded in Hansard, on which members can be talking to other members and interjections may or may not appear -- but in spite of my not having heard the tape, Mr. Speaker, there was no doubt in my mind that the member for Timiskaming had regrettably made observations which he himself has acknowledged as being offensive and which in my communication to him, as of yesterday, I have said would be seen, from my perspective, as highly offensive.

I also understand, Mr. Speaker, as we all do in this House, that sometimes during the course of debate, and it appears to happen more often in the late evening than in the early afternoon, that members -- and it is not confined to any single party -- have over the years made observations which on careful reflection, had they known they were going to appear in Hansard perhaps would regret having made them.

I made it very clear to the member for Timiskaming, Mr. Speaker, that I could not tolerate or accept, even in the environment in which we do business here, that kind of observation. I asked him to apologize immediately to the two members who were affected by those observations, and my understanding is that that instruction was carried out forthwith.

I have had the assurance of the member for Timiskaming that he does understand how this can be perceived by people outside this Legislature. He has traced for you, Mr. Speaker, his own history in this province. He has made a complete apology to the members of this House.

He is, Mr. Speaker, a member. He is also a human being. He knows he has made a mistake. He knows he has done something that he should not have done. He is doing, before his colleagues on both sides of the House, what any honourable member could do, and I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, he has done all that any member can do.

Mr. Speaker, we say the Lord’s Prayer. We say it here, some of us more regularly than others in terms of being in our place. Interestingly, one of the phrases in that prayer that we say every day relates to forgiveness. It relates to the human quality that I would hope is a part of our being. It relates to a quality that I think is important in any member of this Legislature, and that is our sensitivity to other human beings, whether they be members in this House or elsewhere, that recognizes that none of us are infallible, that we do on occasion say things and do things which are objectionable.

I would say to you with respect, Mr. Speaker, the member for Timiskaming has apologized in a very public way, in a way that I would suspect has not been easy for him, not easy in terms of his family. He has asked very simply that the members of this House accept his apology, sir, and he is saying to you that as a member he has done all he can to express in this public forum his regrets for what was said on Tuesday evening.

So, Mr. Speaker, I leave it to you, sir, in your wisdom, knowing the human frailties that exist, and I say this with respect, for at least most members of this House, to consider whether a member can be asked to do any more.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the very, very unfortunate incident that occurred in this House on Tuesday night and the comments that were attributed to the honourable member for Timiskaming, my deputy, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), who occupied the chair at that time, undertook to go over the transcript, which we did in my office with the director of debates.

I think what appears in the official Hansard is an accurate account of what was said; that was the undertaking that was given to the House and to the honourable member for Bellwoods who raised it.

Under the standing orders, the only power that is vested in a presiding officer is the obligation to name a member if, during the course of debates, he says something or does something that the presiding officer considers to be out of order. The only recourse the presiding officer has is to name that honourable member, and of course there are other actions that can be taken by the presiding officer, on the advice of the House, for a member that persists in contravening the rules of the House.

Under a situation like this there is no power vested in the presiding officer other than to ask the honourable member to resume his seat, or if words have been uttered that are found to be offensive that he ask that they be withdrawn.

As I studied Hansard and the transcript of Hansard on Tuesday night, those words were withdrawn. There was an apology tendered to the House. Since the extent of those utterances have become more obvious, the honourable member for Timiskaming has communicated in written form to the members who allege to have been offended by those remarks. He has done so, and stated here before us all that he does regret having made those remarks, and has done all that is within his power to do to reconcile his actions before the House. I must, therefore, advise all members that there’s no action that can be taken by a presiding officer.

If the House in its wisdom feels, in the light of what has been said, that further action should be taken, that responsibility rests with the House, not with the presiding officer. Both the honourable member for Perth who occupied this chair at the time of the incident and I have taken all the action we are empowered to take under the standing orders.

I would like to say, however, that as a result of the incident and other occurrences in the past which might have been considered borderline -- as you will appreciate it’s absolutely impossible for presiding officers to pick up every comment and react immediately to it -- I have talked this over very carefully and at some length with my deputy and I would like to say to all members of the House that I want to make each and every member of this House aware that I have become increasingly concerned about personal attacks, either as interjections or in the course of the debate.

Members know that intemperate remarks are out of order. I am sure you share my concern that the House should always have the ability to deal with public issues in a strong and in a partisan manner. I also know that you expect issues to be dealt with on the merits of the issue and not by way of personal attack. I will attempt to enforce this rule vigorously and more forthrightly so that the important issues and the important business which are before this House can be dealt with in the high manner which the House itself has the right to expect.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last May I answered a question raised by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) regarding Ipperwash Provincial Park. I wish, at this time, to update my response to that question.

The honourable member’s inquiry pertained to the siting of an entrance road, which was part of the park’s facilities and the possible bad effects this road would have on wet meadow areas containing rare plant species. In May, I pointed out why the road was required and that the road does not pass through a wet meadow, but rather runs along the side of a dune adjacent to the wet meadow and that the habitat for these rare plant species has not been ruined or destroyed.

For his further information on this matter, I wish to advise that life science study work carried out this summer and fall has reaffirmed the presence of the rare plant species, including blue hearts, in the wet meadow adjacent to the entrance road at Ipperwash and in similar wet meadows in nearby Pinery Provincial Park.

The plants in these areas are doing quite well -- I sent the honourable member a photograph. My staff, in consultation with persons with expertise from outside my ministry, has developed a strategy for the ongoing monitoring and protecting of these specific areas. It’s an important task of my ministry to protect significant natural areas in this province, and my staff and I look forward to the continuing co-operation and assistance of interest groups and the general public in this endeavour.

A great deal has already been accomplished, and I can assure the member that efforts will continue towards the preservation of the natural and cultural features of Ontario.

TRIBUTES TO DALTON BALES

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to express on behalf of the government our great shock and sorrow at the death of Dalton Bales, one of the very distinguished members of this House for a number of years. Mr. Bales was a very close friend of many in this Legislature, I think it is fair to state on both sides of this House. He is a person who made a very great contribution to public life in this province, to his own community and to those who had the great fortune of being associated with him.

[2:30]

It is very difficult for me to put into words the personal sense of loss felt by me, and I know a number of us who had known Mr. Bales for many years. I would like to take this occasion to publicly state my appreciation for his service to our province and to express on behalf of this government our profound sympathy to his wife, Iris, and to the members of the family.

To some of those members opposite who might wish to join in paying their respects to the former minister of the crown, I would say the services will be held on Saturday morning. If anyone wishes details of this, Mr. Speaker, my office would be delighted to share the information with them.

I wish very simply to state our province and our communities will miss Dalton Bales. He was a very vigorous, active and enthusiastic sort of person, one who was a great credit to the public life of this province. His loss is regretted by all of us.

Mr. Nixon: It has been correctly stated that Dalton Bales was liked and respected on all sides of this House. When he was appointed Minister of Labour I remember thinking his personality might not lend itself to such really difficult responsibilities, but I was wrong, because his moderation, good judgement and good humour meant he was respected and liked by those he dealt with there; as in his other ministries, and on a personal basis in this House.

He certainly will be missed. I must say I hadn’t spoken to him for a number of weeks, but from time to time I had seen him in this House and on the streets of the city and he was always affable and interested in public affairs as usual, and of course in personal matters as well.

I was shocked to hear of his accidental death. It is a great loss to his family and to the community. The Liberal caucus joins with the statement the Premier has made in sending our respects and condolences to Mrs. Bales arid the family.

Mr. Cassidy: On behalf of the NDP, I want to associate myself and my party with the comments that have been made on the untimely and shocking death of Dalton Bales, both by the Premier and by Mr. Nixon.

Like everyone else who worked in this assembly, I knew Dalton Bales was a politician unlike many other politicians. He was unfailingly courteous, he tended more to be quiet and effective than as noisy and vigorous as some of us have been. His memory will be cherished in the assembly by everyone who knew him for his personal qualities and his contribution to public life in the province.

His reputation relates not just to his service in the Ministries of Labour, of Municipal Affairs where I first knew him, and as Attorney General of this province, but also to his active work prior to 12 years in the provincial House in the borough of North York, with which he was associated during five turbulent years of very rapid growth in establishing a new municipality on the northern fringes of Toronto.

Dalton Bales came from a small rural community, and during the course of his life saw that rural community grow up into what is now the city of North York, with all of the problems with which he had so much to do in terms of seeking solutions, he had deep roots in that community; he had deep roots here in this Legislature, in his political calling and in the province.

Along with the representatives of the other parties, we mourn his passing and extend our condolences to his widow, Iris, and to his children.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind all members and other persons who may wish to express their condolences to the family of the late Dalton Bales QC that to facilitate this a book has been placed in the lobby near the main door of this building. It will be available there until Friday afternoon.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to bring to the attention of all honourable members of the House the presence of four distinguished visitors in the gallery. Two of them are parliamentarians from the Bundestag in West Germany, Dr. Alfred Dregger and Count von Stauffenberg. Along with them in the gallery are Mr. Robert Coates, MP for Cumberland-Colchester in Nova Scotia, and Mr. Jack Ellis, MP for Prince Edward-Hastings in Ontario. Will you please welcome them.

INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION ON DEPENDENT CONTRACTOR PROVISIONS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise members of the House that I have today appointed an industrial inquiry commission, pursuant to

section 34 of the Labour Relations Act. The mandate of the commissioner, Professor S. R. Ellis of Osgoode Hall Law School, will be to inquire into and report to the Minister of Labour concerning the application of the dependent contractor provisions of the Labour Relations Act in the aggregate-producing and road-building industries.

I appointed the commission because of repeated representations made to the ministry by certain employer organizations in the trucking industry, which assert that the dependent contractor provisions of the Labour Relations Act, which came into effect on January 1, 1976 have had consequences to that industry which in their view were not intended by the legislation.

The organizations making those assertions refer to comments said to have been made by the then Minister of Labour to the effect that if practical difficulties, emerged or if the provisions failed to achieve their objectives or created unforeseen problems or hardships in particular industries, they would be reviewed.

The commissioner, Professor Ellis, will be conferring with interested parties from labour and management and will in due course be reporting the results of his investigation to me, at which time I will table his report in the Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HIGH-SPEED CAR CHASES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General may be aware that last night within a few blocks of my home a 16-year-old boy, a good student and well thought of, was killed as an innocent bystander while a passenger in the rear seat of an automobile when that automobile was hit by a police vehicle apparently travelling at very high speed, and apparently in pursuit of another vehicle also, it would seem, going at very high speed in the middle of the city of Burlington.

May I ask the Solicitor General whether he is now prepared to put an end to this kind of killing of innocent bystanders by making it very clear to the police forces in Ontario that they are not to engage in high-speed driving in pursuit of others driving at high speed, with the exception perhaps of the rarest of all circumstances, where the other driver is thought to represent a clear and imminent danger to society or to other lives, so that such chases or pursuits or followings, or whatever they are, simply cease in Ontario?

I would ask also that a proper set of guidelines be issued and enforced and that those who do not abide by those guidelines be properly disciplined, and where necessary charged. When is the Solicitor General going to act on this situation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the Leader of the Opposition, in his own unique fashion, is attempting to take advantage of what is undoubtedly a serious tragedy to mislead the people of this province. With respect to the suggestion that there is no policy with respect to high-speed police chases, even the most rudimentary amount of research would have revealed that the opposite is the case.

In view of the obvious interest of the Legislature in this matter, and in view of the tragedy that occurred a week or two ago, I had intended to make a lengthy statement in relation to the whole matter of high-speed pursuits. I will be doing so within the next several days.

In view of this recent and most lamentable tragedy, I would like to remind members of the House that on June 1, 1976 the Ontario Police Commission disseminated to all chiefs of police a memorandum dealing with the issue of high-speed pursuits by members of police forces. This memorandum was not the first policy that had ever been disseminated, of course, but was a reminder to the forces of their views on the matter, which in their view should be used as a guideline for the establishment of individual force policy.

I am advised that all police forces in this province have had guidelines for some years which do follow the intent of the Ontario Provincial Police guidelines. As members know, the local police commissions do have some authority in this respect as well.

I’m quite prepared at this time to read at length from various memoranda that have gone out to police forces in this province, but I think that may more properly be the subject of a formal ministerial statement. So, subject to the wishes of the House, I’m going to leave this issue at this time; but I simply say that police do have guidelines with respect to high-speed police chases. I can assure the House that police officers generally are very reluctant to engage in these high-speed chases because they themselves are exposed to considerable risk, as well as the members of the public.

Obviously, in each individual case a high degree of judgement must be utilized as to whether or not a high-speed chase is appropriate. All police officers are continuously reminded of this fact.

For us to say to the police forces of this province that they shall not engage in high-speed chases except in the rarest of circumstances is only to invite those who have no respect for the law to engage in the high-speed operation of motor vehicles -- either to escape detection, apprehension or for other reasons -- knowing that the police forces are unlikely to engage in a pursuit. To suggest otherwise represents nothing less than a very simplistic approach to a very difficult problem.

I reiterate that we will be making a lengthy statement to the Legislature, at least by the beginning of next week. The Solicitor General’s estimates will also be debated in the next several weeks, and again I would be very happy to invite the views of all members of this Legislature if they believe that we can improve the guidelines that have been laid down. I welcome their advice in a very difficult and complex matter.

[2:45]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: When the Solicitor General decides to make this statement in the House, will he include the statistics of how many people have been killed and how many injured since the memorandum he refers to of June 1, 1976? Is he aware that there have been repeated requests since that memo for guidelines, with actual enforcement of those guidelines; that the policy minister for the justice field as recently as October 22, 1979 knew nothing of any such guidelines and hoped that the Solicitor General himself might have something to say on his return from having been elsewhere that particular day?

How many people have died? Doesn’t the Solicitor General recognize that this old chestnut about having to be able to have police chases for fear that all the crooks will decide to drive at high speeds just doesn’t hold water? In fact the social benefits of these high-speed pursuits in no way are balanced with the terrible carnage to innocent bystanders, as well as to police persons themselves. When is he going to have the courage to stand up and implement proper guidelines which will be clear to all, and to charge those who do not obey those guidelines?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There are guidelines. I say once again, the Leader of the Opposition in his own simplistic, but I think sometimes irresponsible fashion, is deliberately trying to mislead the people of this province as to what does in fact exist. When is he going to start to show a little responsibility in these areas of law enforcement? I think he really should be a little ashamed of himself because there are guidelines in existence. They have been in existence for some time.

Mr. Breithaupt: The policy secretary didn’t know it.

Mr. S. Smith: The policy secretary didn’t know it. You have a short memory.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will certainly be prepared to share with the members of the Legislature all the available statistics with respect to high-speed chases, such as they are known. I believe that all forces do keep pretty accurate statistics in this respect. I will be quite happy to share these statistics with the Legislature, and to share the guidelines that have been disseminated in this province.

Mr. S. Smith: Point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s not have a point of privilege every time somebody says something. The very thing that the honourable the Solicitor General has engaged in is the very thing that leads to the kind of invective that’s thrown across the floor of this House.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a matter of personal privilege, if I may be permitted to make this observation: the Leader of the Opposition chooses to preface most of his questions with, “If the government had the courage to do this,” and “would stop allowing or tolerating slaughter on the highways.” If he continues to insist in the preface to his questions on including a lot of inaccurate statements and innuendoes, then people like myself might be tempted to engage in what may very well be a rather provocative discussion.

Mr. Nixon: Respond to the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The manner in which he chooses to ask the questions really leaves us very little choice, with the greatest of respect to you, sir.

Mr. Speaker: There is a way of expressing one’s view in a very accurate and precise way without being provocative, and without another member getting up and saying, “Mr. Speaker, rule on this particular word or that particular word.” I think the minister has a sufficient command of the language that he can avoid those incidents.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: On the subject of policy with regard to this unfortunate tragedy, is the minister aware that the police car involved in this accident was travelling in excess of 100 kilometres per hour in a built-up area and that it didn’t have the flasher on; that when questioned on this, the official response was that they don’t use flashers “except for high-speed chases?”

If this was not a high-speed chase, what is?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can only say that I heard of this tragedy only a moment or two before I entered the Legislature this afternoon. I will certainly be receiving a full report with respect to this tragic occurrence, including whether or not a flashing light was used. Certainly that is part of the policy guidelines laid down; the flashing lights are supposed to be used. Certainly if the high-speed chase took place on the city streets, I would say, without knowing any more of the details, flashing lights in my view would be warranted in the circumstances.

In fairness to everybody involved, I should have the benefit of a full report on this particular tragic occurrence before replying further.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the honourable Leader of the Opposition. We have spent 13 minutes on this one.

Mr. S. Smith: I trust, Mr. Speaker, you are not suggesting we had to spend 13 minutes on it.

Mr. Speaker: Not at all, not at all.

Mr. S. Smith: If we could have had an answer to the question instead of some personal invective we might have spent less time on it. It is becoming a bit of a habit, Mr. Speaker.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Treasurer: Today’s report by the Conference Board in Canada suggests Ontario’s economy, according to their predictions, will grow by about 1.8 per cent, which is considerably below the national growth rate of 2.6 per cent. Ontario’s real growth rate will rate, according to them, ninth in Canada, even behind the Maritime provinces.

In view of the fact the manufacturing industries, for whom the high interest rates are increasingly devastating, are centred out as bearing the brunt of the problems of high interest rates in this economic reversal, are you now prepared to go to Ottawa to appear in front of a parliamentary committee -- and that is an idea, by the way, which the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) suggested and the Premier (Mr.

Davis) thought very intriguing -- to make it very plain Ontario stands against the high interest rate policy in view of the devastatingly low growth that seems to be in store for our manufacturing industries?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for anybody’s prognostications. I would say the conference board’s quarterly estimates of the future have been subject to some rather rapid variation and I would suspect at this moment they are underestimating the 1980 economy of this province.

Everyone else’s views are more optimistic than theirs, as are, certainly, the ones we had. That would answer the first part of the member’s question.

In answer to the second part of the question, I am not the least bit enthusiastic about high interest rates. I have said that clearly. I have also said clearly I do recognize when something is in someone else’s domain.

I do believe governments normally deal with ministers rather than with the committees of government, although we have not yet reached a conclusion. I am quite willing to review the suggestion of the member for London Centre to see whether there should or should not be some appearance before the committee, or whether it is appropriate to deal with a minister of the crown.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Can the Treasurer table in this House any studies which have been done detailing the impact of high interest rates on our manufacturing industry and on the provincial economy in general?

I point out to him that on October 25 when asked about that the Treasurer said, “I can’t say that there is any study.” But the next day, in the Treasurer’s absence, the Premier said, “If the members think the Treasurer and his ministry have not already been studying the impact of high interest rates, I just want to tell them they have.”

Which one of these is true, Mr. Speaker? Will the Treasurer tell us whether he has studied the impact of high interest rates or he hasn’t studied the impact of high interest rates? If he hasn’t, why hasn’t he? If he has, would he table the studies? Why does he hesitate to share those studies with the federal government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the question is the definition of the word “study.”

Mr. Nixon: The Premier is wrong.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At any point in time there are staff observations and comments upon the effects of almost any variable on the economic front.

I quoted in Hansard the other day a statement from a speech I had made that, and I think it was the first nine interest rate changes -- there were nine at that point, there are 11 now if I’m not wrong -- had an effect of about 1.25 per cent, I believe, upon the economy. The latest update I saw was 1.4 per cent. I would only suggest that the studies are not comprehensive and exhaustive ones. They are the best suggestions --

An hon. member: Guesstimates.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Guesstimates, I don’t even mind using that word in the economic field.

Mr. S. Smith: Fair enough. Then will you table them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t even mind using that word because I haven’t found any way to be sure. Therefore I simply say that I listen to a bunch of people who guess about the future and I take something of a midway course on all those guesses.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the Treasurer doesn’t ever express any reluctance about expressing a provincial point of view on oil pricing and several other matters that are exclusively in the federal jurisdiction, surely he has an obligation now to understand what this is doing, rather than just standing up oozing concern about the issue and in a non-committal way saying he is sort of against it but not sure.

Surely he has an obligation at this time of impending economic downturn for this province to share those studies with this Legislature, and to represent those views in Ottawa as strongly as he can and not just behind closed doors when he is having a glass of port with the new Minister of Finance. Surely he has a much greater obligation to this province. Will he table those studies and will he forcefully take those views publicly to Ottawa?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will be glad to look at the materials I have and see what might be acceptable or usable. I don’t know how think they are. I don’t feel there is anything secret about them.

Mr. Peterson: As the minister, haven’t you read them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ll be glad to go back and see what’s there and report on the suitability for tabling. I listened to the Minister of Finance as recently as an hour ago. He is in Toronto today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member should have gone to hear it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The word of light was being given for those assembled.

Mr. Kerrio: He’s looking for money.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Would that the honourable member had been there to listen to some of the arguments. As he said, all the pundits are safe to guesstimate what he should do but he has to carry the can.

Mr. Martel: They’re all dead.

Mr. Peterson: You don’t even carry a pop can.

Mr. Kerrio: Was he conscripted for the job or did he volunteer?

Mr. S. Smith: There was more respect for Darcy McKeough than for any of you guys.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Cassidy: I want to return to the Treasurer on the forecast made today by the Conference Board in Canada.

In view of the fact that the conference board expects that our growth rate in Ontario next year will be only half the national growth rate, and in view of the fact that the conference board is predicting manufacturing output in this province will go down next year by 2.4 per cent, since the conference board forecasts are based on a $2 increase in oil prices next year, which is an increase that is at best half what we are likely to have to bear, will the Treasurer say what specific programs the government intends to introduce in order to reverse the predicted decline in manufacturing in this province next year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t believe the conference board is right, that’s number one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And they have been wrong before.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a lot more confidence in next year’s economic future than they have. Their estimates are far below any realistic estimates of what is going to happen in this province next year. We have the potential for trouble. We have programs in place, like the Employment Development Fund, that have created a lot of jobs in the industrial sector this year and we are going to continue with them.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Treasurer has now had seven months to see whether he could create jobs with the Employment Development Fund, will the Treasurer undertake to start using those funds as part of an overall industrial strategy and start rebuilding key sectors of the manufacturing economy of this province, rather than holding back the Employment Development Fund as a kind of pre-election sock that he can spend to try to get votes back in the spring?

Mr. Blundy: You are never going to get them back.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can go to a couple of the ridings represented by the honourable member’s party and I’ll tell him there’s some sock in those ridings. We are pretty well respected in them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There will be some more very shortly that we will be announcing. I will simply tell the honourable member we are going to carry on as we have. One great thing this year, we estimated at the start of the year that $10 billion would be reinvested in Ontario this year. Our current estimate is $14.5 billion will be reinvested in Canadian industry in Ontario this year.

[3:00]

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since 100 jobs are just about to disappear with a bakery merger in Ottawa, since more than 10,000 people across the province are on layoff or have been laid off according to the latest annual returns from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), will the Treasurer not admit there are problems in manufacturing now and that those problems are liable to get worse according to the predicted outcome from this winter? Why will the government not undertake an industrial strategy on a planned basis to start rebuilding our manufacturing sector rather than letting it run down?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In countries where governments of the member’s ilk have had the opportunity to plan they have all gone downhill.

Mr. Warner: You can’t even say it with a straight face.

Mr. Cassidy: I had the pleasure of meeting with my social democratic friend from West Germany the other day and socialist planning works in West Germany. It works very well.

Mr. Speaker: Is this your second question?

Mr. Cassidy: And they have been in office almost as long as this government as well.

RECRUITMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS: APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour which once again relates to the importation of skilled tradesmen and the failure of apprenticeship programs here in Ontario. Is the government aware that Douglas Aircraft is proposing to import approximately 200 skilled tradesmen for its Toronto plant? Will the minister take action to see these high-paying skilled jobs are made available for Ontario workers rather than workers brought in from abroad?

Mr. Kerrio: They went there when Diefenbaker let them go.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I was not aware of it; but had I been aware of it -- and I am sure the member knows this -- the requirements an employer must go through before obtaining permission to allow such a search to take place are really quite intensive and I have been assured, and I accept the fact, that even after those vigorous searches for skilled workers within the country there still is an impossibility at the present time to find sufficient skilled workers.

So under those circumstances it is permitted, on occasion, to find skilled workers outside the country. I want the honourable member to understand that for every skilled worker brought into this country there’s a commitment made by the employer to train workers. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me properly for every skilled worker who has come into this country at least one other has started in a skill training program, and there have been other non-skilled employees who have obtained employment as a result of the arrival of that skilled employee.

But having said all that, I don’t think there’s anybody who argues that we need to have good short- and long-term plans to provide the skilled training for the young people of this province here in this province, and that’s what we are doing now. The efforts going on in the Ministry of Education are quite extensive. At the present time there are over 30 community industrial training councils, and by January I am assured, there willbe double that many. So there’s enthusiasm, there’s involvement and there’s commitment to provide those training facilities in this province for Ontario youth.

Mr. Kerrio: It took a long time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister has stated that for each skilled worker brought into this country there is at least one worker who is taught his skill by the company concerned. Can he then explain why it is that using the facilities of this government for the selective employment service Douglas brought in 30 skilled workers in 1978 and 24 skilled workers in 1979, but today has only 10 apprentices in its entire plant out of a total of 2,000 employees? Why should we now permit Douglas to go abroad looking for workers when their apprenticeship record before 1978 was abysmal and when they have made no appreciable improvement since then?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants the exact details of the arrangements with Douglas, I would refer the question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). But before doing that I want it clearly understood what our commitment is and that is to provide short- and long-term facilities and counselling and labour market information that will allow Ontario youth to be trained in this province for the skills we desperately need. But with regard to the specific arrangements with that company I would refer the question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Conway: My question is to the minister in his second incarnation, minister of manpower.

Since it has been many months since he was created minister of manpower, and since he indicated in his response to the leader of the New Democratic Party that this was a government with enthusiasm, involvement and commitment with respect to finding jobs for the young Ontarians, can he indicate what specific skill training strategies he, as minister of manpower, has initiated on behalf of the young people of Ontario in the months now since he has been made minister of manpower?

Mr. Warner: Name one.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Far be it from me to suggest that the member for Renfrew North is ever wrong about anything. I am an admirer of his and so it would be beneath my dignity to suggest that he ever is wrong. But he well knows that the Ontario Manpower Commission came into being on August 1. It has been diligently and very vigorously evaluating all the existing programs and will shortly be making recommendations

Mr. Peterson: How many young people have you employed?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In addition to that, many things have been going on and much co-ordination has taken place. The employer-sponsored training programs are working, they are becoming more numerous, and I think that is an avenue that offers great promise.

Mr. S. Smith: Promises, promises.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In addition to that, there have been at least two or three new apprenticeship trades in the industrial sector that have been regulated, and several more are being planned. I am sure the member, living as close as he does to Ottawa, will have noted there was a bill introduced in the House of Commons in Ottawa recently which will allow us do make better use of adult occupational training funds. So there is lots of activity going on, and I want to assure the member of that.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: How can the minister say this government is providing short- and long-term programs for apprenticeship in this province when in Metropolitan Toronto at this time there is only one course at Centennial College for auto mechanics and there is only a prospect for one further course next year, in January; and when we know that the apprenticeship program is not attracting a high number of young unemployed in the province?

When will the government come down with a serious plan which will provide a serious apprenticeship program in the province, which by the way was promised a long time ago by his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I didn’t say that short- and long-term strategies were in place; I said they were being developed.

With respect to the question the member asked relating to auto mechanics and the courses in Toronto --

Mr. Warner: It sure is taking a long time.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- I am afraid that is a question the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) will have to answer, and I would refer that to her.

Mr. Sweeney: Given that the countries from which these skilled labourers are being imported have mandatory ratios of apprentices to skilled workers as a condition of operating in those countries, when is the minister going to put in place legislation of that sort in this jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows from the mandate given to the commission, they have been asked to make recommendations about those very matters. Those are the issues that are being evaluated at the present time.

PHYSICIAN IMMIGRATION

Hon. Mr Timbrell: On Tuesday, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) questions concerning the government’s policy towards allowing doctors to immigrate into the country.

Since July 1975, the federal Department of Immigration has restricted entry of physicians into Canada to positions of need for which qualified Canadians are not available. This is done in co-operation with provincial authorities.

In Ontario, the decision concerning need and support for intending physician immigrants is made by the Ministry of Health, and we advise the federal authorities accordingly. The policy in Ontario is to consider these applications on an individual basis. This is done by a committee consisting of representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians, the Ontario Medical Association and the ministry.

Regions designated as medically underserviced are given special consideration. For a number of communities, arrangements have been made to support physicians who are eligible for a licence in the province and who are willing to provide service for an agreed period.

Mr. Speaker, I’m informed there are three practising physicians currently in Durham and one practising outside of that town. However, I understand there is need felt in the community for another general practice physician and that Mrs. Wight, the administrator of the Durham Memorial Hospital, has recently contacted my ministry’s underserviced area program to discuss some form of financial assistance.

Dr. Copeman, the head of the program replied to Mrs. Wight on October 30 and has asked to meet with her to discuss the situation. If the only feasible solution should be special support for an immigrant physician that may well be possible under this policy.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, to the minister: In view of the fact that it’s hard to obtain doctors in rural areas, even in southern Ontario, would he consider, after a community has been trying to obtain a doctor for one year and has failed to do so, putting them on the underserviced area program that he has for northern Ontario with financial assistance?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we do have communities in southern Ontario covered on the underserviced area program. It is about that that Dr. Copeman has written to Mrs. Wight indicating he would like to meet with her.

Mr. McKessock: With financial assistance?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Under the underserviced area program.

Mr. Speaker: I’d like the assistance of honourable members. Some honourable member has sent an inquiry to the ministry to the table, specifically to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson). We don’t know from whence it came. The member didn’t put his name on it. Would he please enlighten the table?

STEPHEN TRUSCOTT

Mr. Stong: In the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice concerning the Stephen Truscott case.

In light of the revelations brought to our attention over the weekend in an

article by Mr. Trent, would the minister give this House his assurance that the matters set out by that author will be thoroughly investigated and that the results of that investigation will be shared with this House so that members can consider appropriate methods of compensation in the event there has been a miscarriage of justice?

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I’d like to ask him if he’s in agreement with this patient information card which is handed out to patients at St. Michael’s and a few other clinics by a group of physicians called, Anaesthesia Services -- they are opted-out physicians charging above the Ontario Health Insurance Plan rate.

Is the minister in agreement with this statement that there is no hospital or government regulation that requires prior notification to the patient of this legal action?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it was drawn to the attention of that particular organization of anaesthetists some time ago, if not months ago, that that does not reflect the position of the Ontario Medical Association. I’m told that that’s been revised accordingly.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: As of noon today that is still their position and practice. In fact as expressed by their office manager, “It is not considered ethical to discuss the billing arrangements with the patient just prior to an operation.”

It was her understanding that the anaesthetists at large had been exempted from the rule that all physicians should notify patients ahead of time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that the physicians are certainly aware of the position of the medical association. They’re also aware, I’m sure, of the facility provided by the medical association to deal with any individual issues here.

It’s clear; the member has been asked repeatedly, I know, to make use of that service, I understand; there is a mechanism there. I can tell the member that I’ve been aware of that for some time, and immediately upon becoming aware we prevailed upon the medical association to make it clear to their members, yet again -- in this case these particular members -- what is involved in the agreement of March. I was told that it had in fact been corrected. I can tell the member that I’ve not had any particular complaints from that hospital.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, could I have a final supplementary on that? The minister is obviously aware of this case. As of noon today the practice persists. They obviously have taken a position directly opposite to the minister’s personal point of view, and perhaps the view of the OMA. What is he going to do about it?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I thought we had, in fact, corrected it. If that’s not the case --

Mr. Swart: Well he told you that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, the member has made a statement, and I have found in cases involving the Wellesley Hospital, the Blind River Hospital and elsewhere --

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

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- sometimes assertions members over there make aren’t entirely accurate.

Mr. Warner: You’re not going to do anything.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will look into it. We were aware of it and thought it had been corrected.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

In view of the Minister of Health’s statements of March 29 that the patient should know in advance if an additional charge is to be made by a physician, and if the patient is not so informed the patient should not be obliged to pay that charge, and in view of the fact that collection agencies are now hounding citizens in Ontario to pay such bills, will the Provincial Secretary for Justice please inform all the collection agencies in the province of Ontario that it is government policy that they are not -- repeat not -- to attempt to collect from any health care consumer a surcharge levied by an opted-out doctor unless that doctor has informed the patient in advance?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, that’s not a question I’m prepared to answer. I would suggest it be dealt with by the Minister of Health.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a supplementary to the super minister who is supposed to be in charge of consumer protection, but who appears to throw consumers to the Minister of Health instead, would he or his subordinate minister, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), at least take some action to make sure that no consumer in the province of Ontario who is caught in such a position will adversely have his credit rating affected by such a thing, when he is simply following the advice of the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health dealt with that the other day and we will be guided by his direction.

BURNING OF PCBS

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a three-part question of the Minister of the Environment.

First, does the minister know as yet the date of the court hearing with respect to the Mississauga bylaw which bans the burning of PCBs? Second, would the minister confirm there won’t be any burning until this legal matter is settled?

Finally, in the light of our discussions over the last six to eight months, and the liaison committees that are in place, and representations by people in the area and ratepayer groups, would the minister ensure that regardless of the two foregoing points, there will be no burn until there has been ample opportunity for discussion with these groups to hear their opinions and expressions with respect to this very important sensitive and controversial issue?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As of yesterday, I wasn’t aware a date had been set to finalize this, but I hope it will be soon. I can inform the member on a day-to-day basis. There is no doubt we will not proceed until that question has been addressed in the courts and finalized.

On the third part of the question, the words “ample time” give me a little difficulty in responding, for this reason: I know we have a liaison committee which has met many times. I have made a commitment that it will continue to meet as I think it is important that it does. However, for it to go on indefinitely might be more than I can promise. Certainly that committee will continue to meet and receive the views of the residents, I think that is awfully important.

As the member knows, I have met with the committee on one or two occasions, and I am prepared to do all of that. I think it is important in the process that we do try to get all that information out. I would say if this should go on for another six or eight months, then that is a time limit beyond which I think discussions would not be fruitful.

Mr. Kennedy: Supplementary: As the minister knows, there are 14 ratepayer groups with an umbrella organization over the whole 14, and we met with Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Carroll.

Would the minister give that group a chance to make a presentation to the minister and his technicians to discuss the matters of storage, transportation and handling, whether the TAAGA 3000 is ready and these concerns that aren’t now known generally to the people in the community? We would like to have them informed before any further action is taken in any direction. This process wouldn’t take eight months provided we can get the co-operation of this group, which I know we can because we have been getting it.

Mr. Wildman: If you already know, why are you asking?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I understand we had some of those items for discussion on an agenda of that committee but they ran out of time -- I think it was near midnight when the committee adjourned -- and they are to reconvene that meeting. As much as it is humanly possible to do so, we will try to give all that information to the committee and to the various ratepayer groups prior to a burn, yes.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary. Is the minister satisfied that with the technology available PCBs can be burned at Mississauga and sufficiently high temperatures attained to do it safely? Does he have that kind of information yet? If he doesn’t when will he share it with the House?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am really pleased that question should come forward, Mr. Speaker. In my personal opinion, from what I have been able to read and be briefed on, there is no doubt it can be done. However, the purpose of the test burn is to share with the people of Ontario precisely that information. We’re not asking for permission to burn PCBs; we’re asking for permission to prove or disprove the safety of burning PCBs, and that will hinge on that test burn.

We believe it’s a terrible significant event in the final solution to this problem. I have to accept the reality of the situation that if it fails -- in other words, if the safety is not proven -- we have a very serious problem. I hope it will prove safe, but we’re conducting the tests strictly on the basis of trying to find out one thing: can they be destroyed permanently and safely? I hope the answer is yes. I think it is.

HUNTING LEGISLATION

Mr. Ruston: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Is the minister considering amending the Game and Fish Act to allow municipalities more autonomy, particularly where local conditions may require shorter seasons or temporary suspension of hunting activities to allow game to regenerate?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in connection with municipalities and game, the only things we’re working on at the moment are revisions in the fees they charge for licences for things like pheasants that they propagate themselves. As the honourable member knows, in many cases, if not all, we consult with the municipalities -- the counties generally -- in terms of season times and we are rarely in disagreement.

If there is a specific area about which the member is concerned, I would be delighted to look into it for him. But without giving it great thought, it would seem to me we could get into a pretty complicated and fragmented operation if different people were setting different seasons all over the province.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister’s regulations now require that a municipality sell at least 200 non-resident licences. If they do not, the municipality is automatically open to everyone. It’s just not feasible in a semi-builtup area and we have many of them in southern Ontario. Would the minister agree?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will pursue it and I will be back.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could confirm or deny statements that have been, made that some of the provincial parks may be opened up for hunting.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can confirm that some have been --

Mr. Conway: That would be like the good old days.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- some are still closed and some are now open for possession of firearms, but not hunting, because of hunting areas nearby.

PRICING OF BILL COPIES

Bills that are sold in the bookstore in the same format as all members receive them are ordered for the bookstore and the government publication centre as additional quantities to the normal legislative printing contracts. As a result, there are no special typesetting or binding requirements for these bills.

However, bills also exist and are sold in what’s called the office consolidation form with covers, marginal references and, if necessary, indices, cautionary notes and other things. These additions and resulting obvious typesetting and binding charges are reflected in the selling price of this office consolidation bill.

The price of a bill is based on a standard scale that relates to the number of pages in the bill, while the price of an office consolidation is based on the cost of producing that consolidation. I should note that these costs do not include any translation costs incurred and thus translation costs are certainly not absorbed by the purchaser of the office consolidation.

Further, the member asked when the regulations for Bill 70 would be available in French. As he is no doubt aware, Bill 70 received third reading on December 15, 1978, and was proclaimed on October 1. The French version of the bill, in its consolidated form, became available in May 1979. The regulations under Bill 70 have only recently been finalized and were published in the Ontario Gazette of September 29, 1979. I can assure the member that the regulations will be and are being translated into French, but I can’t give him a precise date when that translation will be completed. However, in the meantime excerpts from the bill have been produced in several languages for posting in work places.

Mr. M. Davidson: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I don’t know. I looked very closely at those bills and the only thing that I saw that was any different was one had a red cover on which is about a quarter cent piece of cardboard with a little typing on it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member must have misunderstood.

Mr. Kerrio: How about putting it on the Half-Back program?

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Kitchener-Waterloo ambulance strike has now been going on for eight weeks, and given that we now have documented cases of near fatalities -- as a matter of fact the manager of the hospital says it’s only by a healthy dose of good luck that we haven’t had one -- does he have any plan, any action to facilitate a settlement of this strike?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that whatever reports the member has had to make, that kind of a statement is not based on fact.

We are monitoring the situation on a daily basis. Services are available to assist in emergencies from surrounding ambulance services under the terms of the Ambulance Act and all the reports I’ve had to date indicate that the labour-management dispute to date has not inconvenienced -- sorry, there’s no question it would inconvenience some people, especially with transfers -- it has not put at risk the life or limb of any people. We have been able to keep up responses to emergencies. At this time there is no plan to intervene in the dispute.

[3:30]

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given that the operators of the service have indicated they’re going to bring in strikebreakers; and given that the leader of the union there says there’s no way that this will be negotiated -- it’s gone too far -- is the minister not concerned that we’re facing a confrontation situation in the provision of health services that could be very dangerous?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ve had no indication of the kind of things the honourable member says. I suspect that kind of an allegation perhaps does contribute to the kind of situation he’s suggesting we should try to avoid. My concern is that true emergencies be dealt with as well as possible and that the life and limb of any individual in that area is not put at risk. I’m satisfied with the reports I’ve had on a daily basis from my ambulance branch --

Mr. Swart: You’re satisfied with anything in the health field.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that with the assistance of the surrounding ambulance services we are able to continue to meet the emergencies.

There no question that people involved in routine transfers are being inconvenienced. They’re having to make any number of alternative arrangements, through family and friends, taxicabs -- whatever. That’s an unfortunate aspect. In terms of true emergencies, my advice is that we are keeping up with the demands and the needs in that community.

Mr.

Breithaupt: Supplementary: Since the term “healthy dose of luck” is ascribed to the executive director of the hospital and since I have an example of a 91-year-old lady who was very much confused because of the difficulties of the transfers -- and I realize routine transfers are a problem -- would the minister not agree that since eight weeks have gone by now that the strike has been on, and since according to a recent press comment there apparently has not been any further discussion since a 30-minute session on October 4, a month ago, can the minister advise what involvement his ministry would have to encourage negotiation to proceed, with the hope that if the parties are at least discussing their differences there might be the opportunity for settlement?

I’m sure my colleagues in the area --

Mr. Speaker: A little crisper, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- are all deeply concerned.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member will understand that we are, of course, reliant upon the assistance of the Ministry of Labour to keep the parties talking. I’m assured that is happening. They are doing everything possible under their authority to effect that. The member may want to ask the Minister of Labour about the involvement of his ministry.

My responsibility under the Ambulance Act is to ensure that we do have a capacity to meet the true emergencies. Members may be interested to know I'm told that only about 30 per cent of the calls an ambulance service receives are actually emergencies, which is an interesting statistic in itself. Our responsibility is to make sure they are met. Fortunately, as I say, the regular reports I've had are that with the assistance of the surrounding services around the member’s region we are able to do that.

LABOUR RELATIONS: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Given the controversy that’s raged over the last few weeks at York Steel, can the minister tell us why sections 56 and 58 of the Labour Relations Act, which prohibit employer interference with the workers’ right to organize a union of their choice, are disregarded or defied with such impunity?

Is he aware of the deliberate attempt by management to impede and deny the right to organize through anti-union leaflets, anti-union notices -- of which I have some here attached and stapled to employees’ punch cards -- through arrests for petty trespassing of those trying to organize, and through the use of Cavalier Intelligence and Protective Services Limited, Mr. Jack MacDonald’s legions, currently of Radio Shack infamy?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I wasn’t aware of the information the member tells me, but he knows and I know there are avenues for redress within the Labour Relations Act for inappropriate activities.

Mr. Cassidy: They don’t work.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes, they do work. At the present time, as the member knows, in the area of certification there are two criminal charges before the courts. I’d be interested in receiving the information he has.

Mr. Cassidy: So is York Steel.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary: Is the minister also aware of the constant use in the same plant of electronic surveillance upon the workers for 60 hours a week and the presence of security guards as a means of intimidation? Will the minister intervene immediately to end this type of police state at the plant which interferes with the workers’ rights to organize a union of their choice?

Finally, when will the minister be able to introduce legislation to control the electronic surveillance, now that the discussion paper on the subject has been released by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: To date, we have received several responses to the discussion paper, some of which came from members. The comments have been very good comments and have seen the paper as a good review of the problem.

As a result of the review process that is going on, I would expect consideration will be given to legislation because, as the member knows very well, I share his concerns about oppressive surveillance and the dehumanizing aspect it can produce in certain situations.

Mr. Warner: Do something then.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As far as that is concerned, I think we will have to await that review process.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

Mr. Bradley: In the absence of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I will direct this question to the Deputy Premier.

Since a number of employees of firms which have received assistance from the Employment Development Fund have expressed concern that these funds might be used to transfer job opportunities from one area of the province to the other, would the Deputy Premier undertake to request that the Minister of Industry and Tourism table forthwith in the House the agreements between the Employment Development Fund officials and the companies which are receiving the grants to allay these fears that have been expressed to me?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sure my colleague from St. Catharines would understand that I couldn’t make an undertaking such as that. However, I would be very happy to draw his concerns to the attention of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) asked this same question on June 5, 1979, and that the first two words of the answers from the Minister of Industry and Tourism were “very shortly,” would he not agree it would be appropriate for the minister to table these as soon as possible in the House?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am not sure whether the minister was talking about his height or about the answer. However, I will draw that to his attention as well.

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program, $6,815,200; environmental assessment and planning program, $18,978,000; environmental control program, $243,600,000; and waste management program, $13,896,000.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr10,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the office of the provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits, $2,360,000.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

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

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program, $4,972,000; commercial standards program, $11,700,000; technical standards program, $6,748,000; public entertainment standards, $8,703,000; property rights program, $19,855,000; registrar general program, $3,270,000; liquor licence program, $6,838,000; and rent review program, $1,821,000.

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mrs. Campbell from the standing members’ services committee presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption.

Your committee having met to review the provisions of messenger services to members of the Legislative Assembly recommends that the services of the sessional attendants available to each party caucus be maintained throughout the year.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, may I speak briefly to this motion? I would just like to explain that the committee was of the opinion that in view of the fact that more and more members are sitting more and more frequently during the off season, it is important that such services be available to them and any existing services have been found to be inadequate.

On motion by Mrs. Campbell, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CO-OPERATORS LIFE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Lane moved first reading of Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting Co-operators Life Insurance Association.

Motion agreed to.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill 159,

An Act to amend the Family Law Reform Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify that a parent may obtain enforcement of an order for support of a dependent child under

section 27 of the act, I will be taking my private member’s opportunity on November 22, to have the House debate this bill.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the city of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

ASSUMPTION CHURCH CEMETERY ACT

Mr. Bounsall moved first reading of Bill Pr29,

An Act respecting the Assumption Church Cemetery.

Motion agreed to.

HONING CORPORATION LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cunningham moved first reading of Bill Pr23,

An Act to revive Honing Corporation Limited.

Motion agreed to.

[3:45]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the interim answers to questions 308, 311, 316 and 321 and the answers to questions 304, 305, 306, 310, 314, 315, 317, 319, 322 and 323 standing on the Order Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr. Jones moved resolution 32:

That in the opinion of this House the government consider adopting a procedure of payment to suppliers to the government of goods and services of a value of $100 or less whereby the government enclose an executed blank cheque with the purchase order to the supplier.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes and if he wishes to reserve any of it for a response, he can notify the table. The honourable member.

Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to reserve five minutes at the end of my comments and the comments of the others in joining the debate, so as to sum up what I feel to be an important issue and particularly today.

We have all heard, in recent days in this House, comments and concern from all parties as to the effect of interest rates -- to name but one factor that is having a very considerable impact on small business and small merchants, that is making things increasingly difficult for them to carry on their accounts receivable, and the cash flow that’s so vital to them.

So, Mr. Speaker, it caused me to turn to the fact that the operations of government necessitates, as we all know, many small purchases. As an example of that -- March 31, 1978 -- as one looks at the public accounts, one sees that no less than some $248 million were spent on supplies and equipment by individual ministries, some of which were in the $10 million and $20 million range. Of that approximately a half of the million invoice-oriented payments processed annually by this government involved purchases for a few hundred dollars or less. It occurs to me, Mr.

Speaker, that governments have to recommit themselves in today’s climate to promoting the interest of the private sector, and particularly small business.

I am mindful the House has dealt recently with this philosophy, but today in this resolution I would like to put a specific proposal where this government could have what is considered by a lot of small businesses across this whole province to be of considerable assistance to them, particularly in this climate today.

I know that our Premier expressed opinions recently, as we looked into the 1980s at a recent conference that our party held. He said in his remarks, “I want a province where moneys that fuel our economy are left in the hands of the individual wage and salary earner, and in the hands of small businessmen and investors and the farmer, to use as they see fit to build their own lives and thereby to build our province.”

I can only endorse those ideas, and I am certain that philosophy is shared by the great majority of this House. It is in that spirit I propose this resolution today and ask for the support of the House.

This resolution, as it says, is concerned with the payment procedures as they apply to supply contracts of a value of $100 or less. These invoices I was mentioning and the cheques that flow from them tie up a large chunk of time and add to the considerable paper burden we have been trying so hard to reduce in recent years. I am not at all sure it is necessary for this to be the case. Payment by postdated cheque has become a fairly common business practice.

We have all been in the situation where, on the basis of trust, a cheque is issued that leaves the amount blank and that specifies it is not to exceed so many dollars. This is similar in conception to the practice I am proposing today. In fact, it is a procedure to which other jurisdictions in North America and beyond have recently turned. It has been, of course, instituted in many corporations, both large and small, with considerable effect.

I want first to outline briefly our payment procedures as they now exist. The processing of payments is one of the more fragmented of all elements in purchasing, I am speaking in the context of this government, of course. Usually, a single payment will cross several hands and involve actions by the user ministry, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Ministry of Government Services.

When an invoice is received, the ministry staff must first match it with the purchase order. Then they check that the goods have been received, verify the price is as agreed and all conditions have been met. The invoice must then be approved, and all steps must be taken and recorded, and then of course the invoice is sent in most cases, or many cases, to the ministry’s head office which is so often in Toronto.

I would ask the members to remember -- and I am sure most of them realize this -- many of these small purchases will be made at a branch office, at that level. In turn there will be a whole process as they come down through to Toronto, and back and forth across the distance that is part of Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: What happens if the goods are damaged?

Mr. Jones: The ministry head office will assemble the record, all its invoices, possibly recheck them, and then approve the expenditure. This information then, as I say, would be sent to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics where the expenditure is considered in the light of the estimates. The cheque is authorized to be issued, and usually, the Ministry of Government Services does so. Finally, the cheques are mailed and a copy of the remittance is filed.

As you can see from this process, the payment cycle may involve several different people, several mailings, both internal and external, and many different functions.

This procedure is certainly necessary for large invoices. Is it really necessary or desirable for purchases of a few hundred dollars or less?

Mr. Wildman: Yep.

Mr. Jones: The member says, “Yep.” Is that a suspicion of the small businesses that for the most part are involved in these invoices under $100? I don’t think the small businessmen of Sudbury are any different to small business across the whole of this province. They work in an environment of trust and we certainly found that on this side of the House as we worked out programs with them. They have an investment. They are taxpayers, so they are clients as well as suppliers in most cases.

Mr. Wildman: COD.

Mr. Jones: I believe this proposal could help us in these situations to proceed with a greater efficiency.

I don’t wish to have it misunderstood or to imply our government or the public servants who operate within this government do so in an inefficient manner, but I am just saying this government in itself, by its very nature, is large. In fact, it is a multibillion-dollar operation, and as such, I suppose, it makes an easy target for criticism. I do believe we must look at this with some detachment and some kind of perspective, because we are dealing in public funds and we have to have some safeguards in that system.

Someone may charge, and I hear a rumble over there from Sudbury, that the people will cheat on the amount they insert on the blank cheque they receive before they even deliver the goods. But the experience of the many companies using the system I propose is based on trust of the suppliers. It has proved successful. There’s very little likelihood of a person trying to cheat in this system.

Mr. Ziemba: Would you do that?

Mr. Jones: Yes, as a matter as fact we do. In one business where I had the privilege of being part of the founding, as it happens we do indeed issue a blank cheque to expedite small claims in an insurance climate.

I can remember in the select committee that all members did propose one appraisal form, and appraisal centres came from that. Rather than putting people to the inconvenience and expense of going from one body shop to another for appraisals and eventually submitting three and having them checked, one is made up.

Please remember that’s happening across the province. It was demanded by the Legislature that members of that committee cut out a lot of waste and add convenience to the consumers of the province. It’s actually happening now. So of course there are a lot of examples.

I think we would find that most people like to support a system of this nature because they appreciate saving taxpayers’ dollars and their own money on that paperwork. The businessmen that are the suppliers in this case recognize ravings and do support such a case.

People do feel good about being trusted. I hear the members’ giggles. I heard those giggles when we proposed the Ontario Youth Employment Program. It has since gone on to serve, by and large, the small business community of this province.

The members have always claimed, certainly in campaign rhetoric, that they support small business. They are the largest users of that program. It was a big success again this year. Small business and farmers by and large take advantage of that program. It has been a tremendous success with 44,000 young people working under it, 23 per cent of them going on into permanent jobs. It was something addressed in the question period of this Legislature earlier on this afternoon. Those are absolute facts.

That was because we did what we proposed to do in that legislation; we did trust the private sector and didn’t tie it up in red tape as other programs in other areas have. Red tape is detrimental and those other programs weren’t as successful as OYEP.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution embodies this government’s desire for satisfactory customer service of its own customers, and so set an example for the rest of the community. Maintaining working capital in good order is a problem of small business. If we espouse to support them in these particularly troubled times we need specific proposals to assist them.

It is not really necessary that we limit this amount to $100, as stated in this resolution. It may well be that another figure of perhaps $200 is more appropriate and may work better and even serve a broader sense of efficiency.

Mr. Wildman: Like $500,000.

Mr. Jones: But regardless of what this amount is, it is my feeling small business would welcome this proposal, since it goes a long way to satisfying some of their concerns about dealing with government. I hope the members of the opposition party will agree and support this resolution. I think it is justified on the significant savings it would represent in paper alone.

It goes without saying that small business is vital to growth. We have to support and protect its interests. We know small businesses become large businesses. They provide the advantage of interfacing with larger suppliers. We read recently here an

article by John Meyer. As a former proposer of bills and regulations, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) should know of the interest of small businesses.

[4:00]

John Meyer wrote recently in the Metropolitan Toronto Business Journal, the journal of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, September issue, “Small businesses are emerging at an accelerating rate, providing new goods and services and providing more efficient delivery of conventional goods and services.”

In addition he wrote, “They are vital to economic growth as a future replacement for traditional businesses whose time has passed, or as seed-beds for new technology or even as the agencies by which to keep the competition between larger businesses honest.” And we know that to be true, those of us who have been involved in private-sector small business.

I believe we cannot ignore any possible step we might take to promote the viability of our small business enterprises. Many of the important innovations we have come to take for granted arose from those situations where someone was working on his own, or with a few others, possibly trying to develop a promising product line or perfect an invention. There may be some truth to the notion that most of our really creative enterprises tend to be in that area of small business.

It is within the spirit of the foregoing that I believe with all the rapid technology, much of it starting with small business, we have to be watchful and supportive of the small and medium-size enterprises. We have that opportunity, as so many of them interface with government in their purchasing, to stimulate and assist them at this time with the capacity for some innovation of our own, to seize an opportunity to assist them.

This government has a large number of high-calibre programs in operation to help the business community. Many of us are familiar with them. There have been the recent tax initiatives out of the last budget. We managed to change the Venture Investment Corporation Act last year. We have entrepreneur and innovative centres at work, and some advisory capacity from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism working on equity advice, debt capital, et cetera. We have consultation services, overseas trading offices and so forth.

I am today proposing this resolution, which I hope members opposite will support in the spirit in which it is offered. Let us not lose the opportunity. I urge this House to vote for the adoption of this resolution to help cut down our own costs and paperwork and help our suppliers maintain financial viability by sending these payment voucher forms forward with the orders for under $100, without the step of invoice-processing, negotiable upon satisfactory receipt of goods or services so ordered. I believe we would be performing a very real service to a very vital part of our society, namely, our small businesses. So I ask members not to attach suspicion where it ought not to be attached --

Mr. Wildman: Put the question.

Mr. Jones: -- and I urge the House to support the resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has four minutes remaining.

Mr. Jones: Thank you.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if you are aware of the fact, but it is 36 years and 87 days since the Progressive Conservative Party was elected to power in Ontario. And today they bring in a resolution of this calibre. I must say that after 36 years and 87 days I am a little disappointed.

It seems strange we would debate a motion of this type. I am not against paying bills on time or against something that would simplify the paying of bills, but to think a government could be in power so long and have to bring in such a resolution -- I think the member would be doing more good if he were to do something with regard to the way the Workmen’s Compensation Board pays some of its claims. People can be in dire straits and not get a claim through.

The member might even do away with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and save the taxpayers millions of dollars, as the former Treasurer recommended not too long ago. That would be a good resolution.

The government could have supported my resolution of June 21, 1979, for doctors to be paid at least 30 days and not sometimes have them wait 90 days. In Saskatchewan the doctors get paid every 15 days.

Mr. Wildman: Good government in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Ruston: There are a lot of things the government could do, if it wanted to bring in something worthwhile.

This resolution might save a fair amount of paperwork, I’m not worried that the gist of it is satisfactory. The problem I can see with it is if the government sends an order for so many cartons of this and so many cartons of that and it comes to under $100 and the supplier doesn’t have the full amount of the order, does he fill out the cheque for the full amount of what the order is for, or does he just fill out the cheque for the amount he is sending and the rest is on back order?

Mr. Bradley: Government by blank cheque.

Mr. Ruston: That’s a possibility that could very well happen. I understood there are a few places in the global network of the United States and Canada that have a similar method of payment, but this is one of the problems they have run across, the back-ordering and how to handle it. You are trying to save paperwork but if you have a back-order situation it could be you will be spending as much time making sure all the merchandise has been ordered and all the merchandise has been received. There could be some problems.

It just shows it is a tired old government. We have no one to blame but ourselves, all of us in Ontario. We have let them sit over there and they have kept withering away. We can see that the withering is pretty well done, because they’ve lost all their initiative and just don’t know what to do.

The member who brought in this resolution is young and aggressive and is looking for a higher place in that side of government, but I think he’s working for a tired old government that is not going to go very far. If the payment of bills is so bad, as I assume it must be, that he has to bring in this resolution, I must say that things are getting pretty bad.

I would have no objection to supporting the resolution. I was just advised that one of my colleagues wishes to speak on this. I had some remarks here, but I’m going to let him speak.

Mr. Ziemba: I’m amazed that a member of the free-enterprise party, the Conservative Party, would bring in such a resolution. It’s totally irresponsible; not only totally irresponsible, but bad business. This will go down in the history of the Ontario debates as the carte blanche resolution. That is, send out taxpayers’ money with a blank cheque and let the suppliers fill out their own blank cheque.

You talk about $100, and you’re willing to amend that. How high up will you be prepared to amend it? What will be the ceiling you’ll trust suppliers with? Half a million dollars?

Mr. Jones: You don’t trust these small-business suppliers?

Mr. Ziemba: I’m surprised to hear the member for Mississauga North, who is a small business man himself, bring such an irresponsible resolution before this House for consideration.

If he were talking about bringing in something that would help small business, we could support it, as we have in the past. It’s too bad the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) has left the House; he brought forward a small-business bill that all members of the House supported. Whatever happened to that bill? That had some meaning to it, but this legislation is just chicken feed. It’s penny ante; it doesn’t amount to much.

By bringing it in, what the government is admitting to us and to the people out there is that the Tory government is a bad credit risk. It’s so damned slow in paying its bills, it’s become a problem and it’s willing to send out blank cheques to try to get around that. Why doesn’t the government pay its bills on time?

This is going to come as a real jolt to the business community. Up until now there have been rumours about how inefficient the government was and how slow it was in paying its bills, but now it has stood up and admitted it. The government has admitted it is a bad risk.

Mr. Jones: We never said we were a bad risk.

Mr. Ziemba: I’m just flabbergasted that this government has allowed such a resolution to surface. You talk about the public relations out there, Mr. Speaker. People are now going to be very concerned about even dealing with the government.

Mr. Ruston: The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) isn’t even in the House.

Mr. Ziemba: Shame.

Mr. Jones: He’s around.

Mr. Ziemba: Another thing, Mr. Speaker, there are four Tory members. They’re outnumbered.

Mr. Jones: No, they aren’t.

Mr. Ziemba: Obviously it shows that the member’s colleagues are so ashamed of this resolution they can’t even sit around to listen to the debate.

We’ve had all kinds of resolutions or bills about small business go through this House. Every time one of them goes through I get phone calls. I’m sure other members do too. They say, “How does this apply to me? I’ve got a small business, how do I get anything out of this small business development corporation?”

Over the past four years there is not one businessman I could tell that, somehow, this new government bill would apply to them. There wasn’t anything in it for them. It’s all propaganda that comes out of here.

Mr. Jones: Here the member has the figures. It’s 50 per cent of all those who claim it.

Mr. Ziemba: It turns out that the big corporations are using it to buy up smaller businesses and only the people who have the money to speculate are able to take advantage of the $300 tax kickback that goes along with it.

This bill is neither fish nor fowl. It’s not going to help the small businessman. If anything, it’s going to hurt the government because, as I say, it’s an admission that this government is a bad credit risk.

The other bill that we debated last year -- the member for Victoria-Haliburton is back in his place -- was supported by all three parties in the House. I remember the intense lobbying that went on at the time. I had business friends phoning me all hours of the day and night. They were saying, “Please, you’ve got to support this bill. It means so much to us.”

Mr. Wildman: Nothing much has happened with it, though.

Mr. Ziemba: It was such a motherhood bill that we all supported it. We were all so happy to see it pass second reading. Finally, what happened to it? Nothing. It was buried.

What about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business? They sent out propaganda to all businesses, to 60,000 members. They said, “We finally got something through for you small businessmen. Aren’t you happy that you pay your dues every year? Look at this. We supported the member for Victoria-Halliburton’s bill. We got it through.” Whatever happened to that bill? Not a darn thing happened. This government then comes in with this phoney little resolution.

The state of small business is very precarious these days, Mr. Speaker. That’s a shame because there are more jobs created in the small business sector than in any other.

Mr. Jones: That’s what we want to preserve and build on.

Mr. Ziemba: One of the reasons is the high interest rates. No business can survive today borrowing money at 15.5 per cent.

Mr. Wildman: Bring the bill to third reading.

Mr. Ziemba: In the old days, 20 years ago, you could get money reasonably, but ever since then it’s been getting higher and higher. These days the numbers of bankruptcies are going up and I predict that there’s going to be an awful lot of panic selling this Christmas, or shortly after. Businessmen will want to clear their shelves because they can’t hold on to merchandise and because it’s costing them 15.5 per cent to hang on to it.

Mr. Wildman: The Tory government in Ottawa is responsible for that.

Mr. Ziemba: We see a trend that is encouraged by this government towards monopoly control. Look at the corner drugstores. Whatever happened to the corner drugstore? It’s gone the way of the corner grocery store. Their numbers have been cut in half over the past 10 years.

Again, there is a 50 per cent reduction in gas stations. Why is that? We’re told, first of all, that there are economies of scale involved. If you have a self-service station and have a high volume you can cut down on the cost and sell cheaper. You can, for a time, until you squeeze out your competitor and then the prices go back up. Now they’ve squeezed out all the corner gas stations.

I’ve got eight fewer gas stations in my riding -- it’s not a very big riding -- but that is eight fewer gas stations and each one of them employed three or four people. All those jobs are lost and, now, customers have to go to self-serve stations. Most of them don’t bother checking their battery or their oil. Engine repairs are more costly as a result. People aren’t being served well.

And, what has happened to the price of gasoline? It’s gone right through the roof. It’s gone to over a buck a gallon

whereas before a lower price was held out as a carrot to get us to go along with the self-serve gas stations.

I guess this party pushed more than the other two for Sunday closing of stores. It was a real problem back in 1975 because the large chains were open on Sundays. It became a problem both from the customers’ point of view and the workers’ point of view. Neither organized nor unorganized workers liked to work on Sundays. They wanted a day of rest and this government brought in a bill that this and the other parties supported to provide that day of rest. We see that bill being undermined by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Mayor Mel Lastman unfortunately, has gone on record as supporting wide-open Sunday selling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder if the honourable member would relate his remarks to the resolution.

Mr. Ziemba: Yes, you’re absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got all kinds of great ideas for small businessmen.

[4:15]

Mr. Jones: Oh, you have? We hadn’t noticed.

Mr. Ziemba: It’s just sad that we’ve got $200 million for big business, for corporations that don’t need it. They get our money and then they thumb their noses at us. What is the small businessman going to get? A blank cheque for up to $100. As the previous speaker pointed out, what happens when there’s a back-order or perhaps two back-orders, as is often the case? What an incredible backlog of paperwork the member is going to create with his resolution.

What is he going to have? Half a dozen blank cheques going out with each order in case it isn’t filled at the time it is placed? I think this resolution is totally irresponsible. It’s not only bad business practice, but it’s an admission on the part of the government that they are poor payers.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today and to speak in support of the resolution put forth by the member for Mississauga North. I would just question the member for High Park-Swansea. He seems to be opposed to everything that we introduce on this side of the House in support of small business and then he pretends that he’s such a strong supporter of the business community. When we introduce some legislation, they say it isn’t any good and if we don’t introduce anything, the same thing applies.

Mr. Ziemba: What happened to the bill introduced by the member for Victoria-Halliburton? Where is it?

Mr. J. Johnson: I think he should accept the fact that once in a while we come forth with a good idea and support it in principle. This resolution will certainly benefit the small-business community that deals with the government and it may even have an impact beyond that. Every farmer, retailer or manufacturer who deals with government agencies will have some of their accounts, if not all of them, paid in cash instead of 30 or 60 days as is the case now.

This resolution might have an impact beyond government purchases and cash payments. What I mean by this is that perhaps other companies and individuals might follow the example of the government and return to the almost forgotten method of paying accounts with cash. Today our society has developed a philosophy of paying for everything possible on easy-to-obtain but hard-to-repay credit. This resolution is a step back in the right direction -- cash purchases.

I feel I can speak with authority on this resolution, which will be of assistance to the small business community, for several reasons. The first is personal experience. I’ve spent over a quarter of a century in small business and I think I know the problems of small business as well as anyone in this House. When I started in business many years ago, there was very little personal credit. Customers paid their accounts in cash or by cheque and merchants received 30, 60 or 90 days dating.

Mr. Wildman: COD.

Mr. J. Johnson: But today the tables have turned. Customers buy on credit and merchants have a maximum of 30 days dating. They can no longer afford to carry many accounts receivable, especially at the prohibitive interest rates in effect today.

Second, I served as president of my local businessmen’s association and also as president of the chamber of commerce. Through my participation in these two organizations, I know the principles set out in this resolution will be strongly supported by these groups.

Third, having the privilege and honour to represent the great riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, I represent 21 individual municipalities with hundreds of small business enterprises -- farmers, retailers and small industries. I know that they too will welcome this resolution.

I contacted the general manager of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada (Ontario) Incorporated, John Gillespie, and requested his opinion of this resolution. Mr. Gillespie stated that he could speak for his association, which has 4,000 members. He stated quite clearly that he thought it was an excellent resolution and congratulated the member for Mississauga North for presenting this type of legislation.

I'd like to quote from Mr. Gillespie’s letter, if I may, “Speaking on behalf of over 4,000 independent retailers in the province of Ontario, Mr. John Gillespie, president of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada (Ontario) strongly supports the resolution made in the House by Terry Jones, MPP for Mississauga North.

“The principle of enclosing a blank cheque with orders for $100 or less from the provincial government to independent retailers will most certainly be a boon to the smaller businessmen in the area of receivables. This system would assist the retailer in enhancing his cash flow and reducing costly receivables.

“The retail merchants’ association endorses this resolution as a small but important step that the government of Ontario can take in easing the interest burden already unacceptable to the small retailer. With the current cost of borrowing money to cover inventory and receivables, many small businesses and their employees will just not survive.”

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot in this House about the minimum wage. What I like about this resolution is that it serves on behalf of a large and important group of hard-working people who often work 60 and 70 hours a week for less than the minimum wage. I am talking about the self-employed, the men and women who run their own business with no employees, or perhaps two or three people working with them. These people are the backbone of this province’s economy. They deserve every break this government can give them.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this resolution is also in the spirit of the goal of deregulation.

Mr. Wildman: It sure is.

Mr. J. Johnson: This was introduced to this Legislature by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker). I think this government has made significant progress toward that regard and I welcome a further step.

It is my understanding that an extremely high percentage of government purchase orders falls into the classification that would be covered by this resolution and half a million has been mentioned. If this is so, then think of the tremendous amount of paperwork that will be eliminated, not only for the suppliers, but also for the government. The dollars saved in paperwork will likely go a long way to pay for any lost interest to the government for what might be construed as prepayment to the suppliers.

I might just mention that the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) has introduced a private member’s resolution which will be debated in the near future. It deals also with this same problem. I believe it is item 33.

It is a resolution that the government declare an annual small-business week in Ontario; the week to supplement and support the present small business activities that are ongoing throughout the year and to include seminars, information sessions, meeting with government, bankers, business consultants and to discuss other related matters that would assist both existing and potential small business in management, financing, production and marketing, as well as offering assistance towards increasing opportunities for small businesses.

In closing, may I say that in today’s business fieid, with high interest, bureaucratic red tape and paperwork and postal service that is anything but efficient, I personally feel the resolution of the member for Mississauga North is a sign of a return to sanity. It deserves the support of every free enterpriser in this House.

Mr. Eakins: I rise to speak briefly on this to this crowded chamber. I only hope the quorum bells don’t ring before I finish.

I want to commend the honourable member for bringing forth his resolution and providing an opportunity for the members to discuss something which I believe is very important to us all; the need to look into and improve the small business sector of Ontario.

The honourable member has recognized that a problem does exist. I am sure we all agree there, not only for amounts under $100, but also for payments of much larger amounts to suppliers of services.

The introduction of this resolution should very well serve to make the government aware of the need for an all-over review; the need to speed up payments to the small-business sector; and the need to make more opportunities available for the small-business people to be able to bid and receive contracts and subcontracts for goods and services. Improvement in the processing of payment is long overdue.

With this consolidation we must also find a way to make sure many of these suppliers are paid when the contractor goes into bankruptcy and can’t pay the local suppliers and yet a particular ministry has received the goods and services. Such has happened on a number of occasions in my riding. I want to point out that at Bark Lake in Haliburton county a contractor has gone into bankruptcy and many of the local people are waiting for payment for goods and services which they have already supplied.

I don’t think it fair that these people, who have a very limited income and limited opportunities for earning, should have to be left without any assurance they are going to be paid for the service they have already rendered.

Looking into this resolution today, I think this is one area for which we should perhaps say to the honourable member we should be looking at amounts over $100. I agree the resolution gives us the opportunity to put forth these remarks.

Mr. Wildman: Even Leo doesn’t hand out blank cheques.

Mr. Eakins: I would suggest we should look into how we can better treat the people who have given these goods and services to the province of Ontario and to that particular ministry in good faith.

I believe what we require is a small business act for Ontario. The member for High Park-Swansea has spoken in this regard. Certainly, the context of this resolution could form a very valuable part of it.

You’ll recall, Mr. Speaker, it was about two years ago when I introduced that small business act into this House.

Mr. Wildman: It takes a long time to get to third reading.

Mr. Eakins: It was supported very well by all members of the Legislature. I fully appreciate there were some parts of that small business act that needed to be amended. I made those amendments in accordance with the comments made by the members of the House at that time and circulated them to all members. I was very much encouraged by the late Minister of Industry and Tourism who at that time assured me it would come before committee that fall. Unfortunately, this was not able to come about because of the circumstance which we all very much regret.

I just want to pay tribute to the late minister for the interest he gave to the small business act. A few months after the introduction of that act he called together the people who would be involved and interested in it, the various associations which have been mentioned here today -- The Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Retail Merchants Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Ontario, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

When we sat around the table and discussed the merits of that small business act, I think all were generally agreed it was a very good act and it had a great deal of merit. I feel had the small business act come before committee, many of the problems could have been resolved and I believe on an all-party basis there is a very good possibility today we would have had a small business act in Ontario.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And this resolution would be included?

Mr. Eakins: Yes, I was just going to say that, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that. This resolution would form a part of that.

I just want to say I feel the discussion today -- and I appreciate the member’s introducing the resolution -- has given us an opportunity to comment on this. I would hope from this discussion perhaps we might be able to enlarge on the resolution and certainly resolve many of the problems which the small business people are encountering today with slow payments, late payments, and sometimes no payments. I commend the member for Mississauga North for the introduction of this resolution.

[4:30]

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those resolutions that doesn’t mean anything because it doesn’t address the real problem the member wants to tackle. It’s also in a certain way a waste of time for the members of the Legislature.

The member for Mississauga North is trying to tell us that by giving a blank cheque to the small businessmen who are suppliers of the government, we are really trying to solve a problem which is much broader, a problem that has been created and has been developed the 36 years in which the Conservative Party has formed the government of this province. If there are late payments or if there are no payments, as the member for Victoria-Haliburton says, if the small businessmen are suffering because of red tape, that is the result of 37 years of Tory government in Ontario. We do not solve that problem by giving the suppliers of the government a blank cheque.

I think this resolution doesn’t address the real issue, the plight in which small businessmen in the province find themselves. It is because of the hick of a serious policy, because of the lack of a serious commitment of this government towards the small business community of the province.

My colleague, the member for High Park- Swansea, has illustrated quite eloquently why in Ontario the small businessmen are not only suffering but why they are suffering the consequences of the lack of a clear policy on the part of the government. With this resolution, we do not solve the two major problems that small businessmen have. One is the red tape and, as I said, that’s the result of the bureaucracy created by this government -- along with the federal government, to be fair.

Mr. Jones: You just read this resolution again.

Mr. di Santo: It isn’t anybody’s fault if the small businessmen are not paid on time, if the payments are delayed. It’s the fault of this government and with this resolution that problem is not solved.

Above all, it does not solve the most serious problem: This is the government’s purchasing policies which do not favour the small businessmen of Ontario.

Last spring the small business act introduced by the member for Victoria-Haliburton passed second reading and was endorsed by the House. Why is it that the government doesn’t introduce the third reading of the bill if the government is really serious about small business then?

We have been raising in this House question after question about the purchasing policies of the government of Ontario. We raised the case of the microfilm recording company, a Canadian company -- actually an Ontario firm -- which produces documents on microfilm. We brought up in this House that this company, which is a competitor of American and multinational corporations like IBM, is producing products which are cheaper than the competitors’ products, is competitive on the market, and they have asked the provincial government that they be accepted as a bidder.

Today only four ministries are buying products from this company, an Ontario company with research and development in Ontario -- small businessmen, only 22 people. The government of Ontario buys from such small corporations as IBM or 3M at the higher prices.

We raised in this Legislature -- and the member for Mississauga North should know that -- the multimillion dollar resource recovery plan in the Peel region and what happened in that case. The plant was sponsored by nobody else but the Ontario government and Reed Limited. What did the Canadian companies say in that case? That they were not give