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

June 5, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L066 - Thu 5 Jun 1980 / Jeu 5 jun 1980

RIDING ASSOCIATION DINNER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

APPOINTMENT OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

SATELLITE EARTH STATIONS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

THREE SCHOOLS

WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

GRANT TO RACING CAR DRIVER

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

CABINET COMMITTEE ON RACE RELATIONS

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

POLICE SERVICES REPORT

SCHOOL BUSES

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARINGS

CONSOLIDATED COMPUTER INC.

OTTAWA QUEENSWAY REPAIRS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

NIAGARA REGION HEALTH UNIT STRIKE

FIRESTONE PLANT CLOSURE

THREE SCHOOLS

ABITIBI-PRICE STUDY

ALGONQUIN PARK MASTER PLAN REVIEW

TRANSPORT OF PLUTONIUM

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

NORTH AMERICAN CAR SALES

BRANTFORD DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

SCHEDULE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OTTAWA-CARLETON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

QUEEN’S PARK DESIGNATION ACT

GO-CART TRACK REGULATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

CROWN EMPL0YEES COLLETIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYEMENT STANDARDS DECLARATORY ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

EMPLOYEMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC SERVANTS POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

RIDING ASSOCIATION DINNER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a short point of privilege: I was obviously concerned this morning to read in the early edition of the toronto star the suggestion that the very successful dinner put on last evening by the st. Andrew-st. Patrick progressive conservative association was cast in that

article as having raised money for “general funds for grossman’s expenses.” Would that were the case, but i must assure my colleagues in the legislature that the dinner was conducted pursuant to the election finances reform act and of course all funds were payable to and for the sole use of the st. Andrew-st. Patrick progressive conservative association.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

APPOINTMENT OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my personal pleasure with the federal government’s selection of a Lieutenant Governor for our province.

I have known John Black Aird for more than 20 years and, while we have differed on occasion in political terms, I have always admired him for his commitment and dedication to the public good. Mr. Aird’s interests, experience and knowledge are extremely varied and widespread, touching upon the social, economic and cultural aspects of this province, and I think will serve him well in the important duty of representing Her Majesty in Ontario.

There will be more fitting occasions for all of us to express our deep-felt respect, admiration and affection for the great lady whom Mr. Aird will succeed as Lieutenant Governor, but I believe I would be remiss in my duties if I did not allude to something that Mr. Aird has already mentioned himself -- the challenge of succeeding someone who has indeed captured the hearts and minds of people across this province because of her outstanding dedication, grace and commitment.

Throughout her tenure, the Honourable Pauline McGibbon has displayed a deep understanding of the importance of her role and a very warm and genuine affection for the Queen and other members of the royal family whom she has so ably represented.

Over the years, we in this province have been fortunate in the choice of Lieutenant Governors and I know Mr. Aird will be a worthy successor in this tradition. Mr. Aird’s service to this country has always been outstanding and I know he considers his new appointment to be another way to continue that spirit of loyalty and dedication.

As one who has always taken a deep and abiding interest in the polities and legal framework of this nation, he is, I know, especially pleased to serve in public life at this particular time as thoughtful Canadians everywhere commit themselves to the reframing of our constitution and the rededication of our love for this country and its future.

On behalf of the government of this province, I take this opportunity to extend very sincere congratulations to Mr. Aird on the announcement of his appointment, and my sincere best wishes as he prepares to begin his new role this coming fall.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the official opposition, we most certainly want to associate ourselves with the words of the Premier and the sentiments expressed by him. John Aird is a person who has served this country extremely well in a good many capacities, as the Premier has noted, and I know we in Ontario are very fortunate to have had a succession of dedicated, outstanding people to represent Her Majesty in this province.

I think the person who is at present Lieutenant Governor is an absolutely outstanding example, one which will be virtually impossible for anyone, even someone as talented as Mr. Aird, to exceed, although one hopes that with effort he will match it. Her contribution has been a singular one and she is held in high esteem by every Ontarian, particularly by those who have had occasion to see the tireless way in which she has handled the task assigned to her.

We are particularly happy, of course, that Mr. Aird is a person who has not only contributed greatly in many fields in Canada, in business, the military and others, but has also shown excellent political judgement. I am sure the Premier will agree. I may say that these of us on this side, particularly yours truly, look forward to the opportunity of advising him once he takes his new position.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, we in this party also welcome the announcement and welcome Mr. Aird to his new duties. As always loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, we will extend the co-operation that this party is noted for to the new Lieutenant Governor.

Frankly, I do not know Mr. Aird as well as do the two previous speakers. However, I am sure we will get to know Mr. Aird perhaps better than the two other parties in the future.

I would like to say a word on behalf of the New Democratic Party in honour of the person Mr. Aird will succeed. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone in this province or in this Legislature that the Honourable Pauline McGibbon has fulfilled the office with a dedication and distinction that few could have expected and few, even Mr. Aird, will exceed.

2:10 p.m.

SATELLITE EARTH STATIONS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Snow: Last week the chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced his intention to commence prosecutions, where evidence and circumstances warrant it, against unauthorized earth stations being used to receive television programs from United States satellites.

I need not point out to members of this House how serious such a move would be. As you in particular know, Mr. Speaker, many communities throughout the northern part of our province are today employing the latest in technology to reduce the isolation that has plagued them for years. Residents of these communities would not accept lightly any move to turn off these earth stations which are bringing in a wide range of television stations. The people of the north stated this clearly to the CRTC at a public hearing in Geraldton which you, Mr. Speaker, had the good fortune to attend.

I share the concern of our northern residents who are no less Canadian and no less law-abiding than the average Ontarian. Residents of the north have been forced to resort to nontraditional means in order to gain access to a range of television signals that my own constituents take for granted. The disparities in television service in Canada are great and technology exists today to redress this imbalance.

In March I submitted to a specially constituted CRTC committee, on which Ontario is represented, a proposal designed to alleviate the problems faced by northern Ontarians. This proposal, if accepted, would see a range of Canadian television stations distributed via satellite throughout the country. I am pleased with the support this proposal has received, including your own, Mr. Speaker. A decision is expected in mid-June and I am hopeful that a range of attractive Canadian television stations could be made available by the fall.

I would be pleased if residents of northern Ontario would choose to watch Canadian television stations and I have every reason to expect they would choose to do so if Canadian stations were available.

My message today to the CRTC and the federal government is simple, and I would hope that all members of this House would join me in this expression of views. It is this: Hands off the earth stations in northern Ontario; concentrate on ensuring the availability of attractive Canadian signals and the problem will resolve itself. The people of the north have been waiting for television for a long time and some have taken action to get it. Don’t ask these people to give it up and to go back to waiting for policy makers, regulators and, I might say, politicians to solve this problem.

I respectfully urge the CRTC and the federal government to take these words to heart and not to interrupt the reception that northerners have been eagerly awaiting for so long.

THREE SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, in the last several weeks there has been a good deal of public discussion about the fate of Three Schools in Toronto. Unfortunately, much of this public discussion has been surrounded by confusion and misunderstanding.

As honourable members know, Three Schools has been providing alternative art education in Toronto for a generation. In recognition of this contribution, Ontario taxpayers from every part of the province have provided substantial financial support to this Toronto school through the provincial government.

In 1973-74, the government granted Three Schools $40,000 for operating purposes. In 1974-75, the government provided a core grant of $46,000. Above and beyond that, in that year it provided a special supplementary grant of $70,000 so that Three Schools could retire its debt. In each year since, the increase in the province’s core operating grant to Three Schools has never gone below nine per cent and, in fact, has averaged out at 17 per cent. In the school’s current fiscal year, which ends August 31, the core operating grant is $100,000. This means Three Schools is getting from the province 30 per cent of every dollar it spends.

That is a significant contribution, especially when it is compared to the 10.3 per cent that is granted to the Toronto School of Art, the 13.8 per cent granted to the Ottawa School of Art and the 15.9 per cent granted to Arts’ Sake Incorporated school. Besides these other alternative art schools, the taxpayer also supports full- and part-time art courses in universities, community colleges and programs sponsored by boards of education. No matter how you look at it, I would suggest the record demonstrates that the people of Ontario, through this government, have been extraordinarily sensitive to the needs and wishes of Three Schools.

As far as the coming year is concerned, I have indicated to Three Schools that the provincial core operating grant will be about $105,000. Three Schools has said publicly that this is simply not enough, that it needs $180,000 from the province, an increase of 80 per cent, or it will close down tomorrow. Given the evidence, I cannot in all good conscience raise the provincial core operating grant to Three Schools. Every arts organization in this province is facing a very tight financial situation. My ministry gets hundreds of compelling and legitimate requests for support every year.

My task is to strike a reasonable and equitable balance among these requests. In the case of Three Schools, I believe the balance is eminently appropriate.

I would suggest Three Schools has two avenues beyond closing. It can tailor its program to fit its income, and it can try to raise more money in the nongovernment sector by soliciting gifts and raising fees. This year the funds it raised privately accounted for nine per cent of its budget. The Toronto School of Art raised 24.5 per cent of its budget privately and Arts’ Sake Inc. raised 32.7 per cent of its budget privately.

So there is clearly an active interest among private individuals and organizations in tangibly supporting alternative art education generally. In the case of Three Schools specifically, there is articulate evidence of broad public support. If it can somehow translate that sentiment into hard cash, it will go a long way to relieving the financial pressure it faces.

Three Schools clearly needs some time to mount its new fund-raising initiatives. To give it that time, and to avoid a precipitous closing of Three Schools tomorrow, I am prepared to discuss interim financing arrangements with it. These one-time-only arrangements would be designed to give Three Schools the time either to increase its revenues from other sources or, failing that, to adapt its programs accordingly.

The governments of Canada and Metropolitan Toronto could well have money for Three Schools. There is also striking potential in raising fees by an amount that would not place an onerous burden on students. An increase in fees of only 25 cents per student per week, for instance, would generate an extra $45,000 a year for Three Schools.

My objectives are clear. First, I must ensure we sustain the integrity of the arts support program that all the taxpayers of Ontario finance through their provincial government. Second, I want to do everything appropriate I can to ensure that Three Schools remains open. I have already advised Mr. Sim, the director of Three Schools, of my intentions to discuss interim financing with the school, and I look forward to meeting with its officials. I am confident that solutions to the Three Schools problems can be found.

WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I know you do not have a statement from me today, but there is something here I would like to read. It is not exactly a statement, so I hope this is the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: Just call it a statement.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, all of us on occasion have, in our good fortune to serve as members, the opportunity to meet fascinating people in that role. In this last week we have had an opportunity to meet with the founder of Men of Trees, a worldwide movement. Indeed, he presented a lecture here for us in the Queen’s Park complex. He is a gentleman of -- I think he would accept -- advanced years, but one of the most fascinating persons I have ever met.

Just five minutes ago, I had the great pleasure and privilege of joining with him and planting a tree outside your office, Mr. Speaker. When you return, you will be able to see that tree.

He truly is a magnificent person. When one considers the tremendous good that man has done and the great vigour with which he still leads his life, one cannot help but be impressed. Today I signed with him this declaration on World Environment Day. Interestingly enough, it is labelled “A Personal Declaration” and he was the first to sign it. May I read it to you?

2:20 p.m.

“Today, June 5, 1980, World Environment Day, I declare my recognition of the urgency of regaining a balance between humanity’s activities on earth and the delicate equilibrium of the natural ecosystem.”

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There are times when I think this House deserves no partisan politics. The honour of this man, of what this man has done around the world, can never he in doubt. May I continue, Mr. Speaker? The Leader of the Opposition just can’t ever be civil. It is really sad.

“The survival of humanity and the welfare of future generations depend on a healthy environment. As a citizen of the world, I pledge to take immediate action, individually and together with others, to improve my own awareness of the state of our environment and to contribute to the improvement of my individual and immediate environment.

“I will inspire other people through personal example to respect the animals, the plants, the trees, the wildlife, people of all backgrounds, and the energies controlling nature.

“As we gather here today, old and young, civil servants and members of the public, but forming a family, let us secure, at least, a bright future for our children as we have had so far.”

That is signed by Dr. Richard St. Barbe Baker, OBE, LDD, LLD, silviculturist, one of the world’s great environmentalists.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GRANT TO RACING CAR DRIVER

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism having to do with the grant made for Mr. Maurice Carter to have his Camaro in Le Mans.

The minister justifies this by saying, “It is the first Canadian-owned and Canadian-built car to be invited to Le Mans.”

I ask the minister how he can make that statement in view of the fact that another Canadian car had previously been invited to Le Mans and will be racing there this year under a Mr. Doug Rowe? No government funds are being used by that Canadian car; they got their own sponsors to pay for it.

Furthermore, Mr. Rowe’s entire team is Canadian,

whereas Mr. Carter’s team has some Americans; and the engine designed in Concord, Ontario, to be used in Mr. Carter’s Camaro, which the minister feels is such a marvellous example, is the same engine, designed in the same place, which will be used in the Corvette, Canadian-designed and Canadian-built, to be used by the other team to which I am referring.

Finally this other team, without government funds, is planning to travel to Le Mans using Canadian airlines

whereas Mr. Carter’s team has taken the ministry’s money and booked themselves on Air France.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I know the matter of Maurice Carter consumes a lot of the Leader of the Opposition’s time. I know it troubles him a great deal to see the people he beat have more success in their fields of endeavour than he is having in his.

However, may I make this point: This country badly needs some recognition internationally for the fine work its people do in the automotive sector. These engines, as the Leader o the Opposition has acknowledged himself, are not only being used by this car but are being used by racing cars throughout the world, including Americans who have bought some of the engines.

We have an opportunity now to see a car, built uniquely in Ontario, race under Canadian colours rather than seeing Americans come in and buy the car, as they were about to do, and race it under the Stars and Stripes of the United States.

In spite of the fact that he happens to rankle the Leader of the Opposition a great deal, Mr. Maurice Carter is driving a Canadian vehicle. He could have found that vehicle owned and driven by Americans, covered with the Stars and Stripes, and I, for one, am prepared to put $15,000 up to ensure not only that it runs under Canadian colours but also that is advertises Ontario, Canada.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps, I am as proud of Ontario, Canada, as the Americans are of their jurisdictions, and I am prepared to have $15,000 of the taxpayers money invested to boast about the great things that the Canadian automotive industry can do. It will do that. It will race at Le Mans. I suspect Mr. Maurice Carter may do better against the Le Mans drivers than he did against the Leader of the Opposition, but I am proud that our vehicle will be driven at Le Mans.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister explain how it is that he assured the people who questioned him on this matter that it was the first Canadian-owned and Canadian-built car to be invited to Le Mans when, in fact, it was not? Could the minister explain why the tickets, are on Air France instead of a Canadian-owned airline?

If the minister is so concerned about the matter of making sure that the Canadian ear is not under the Stars and Stripes, is lie not aware that this other ear -- which Mr. Carter most well know about, because it was in Wheelspin News of May 1 of this year -- is being sponsored by Canadians?

Mr. Roy: Didn’t the minister know that?

Mr. S. Smith: He reads it. The team comes from across Canada, with drivers from Ontario, Quebec and western Canada, and the car has a maple leaf on it two feet square. The main reason the car is going is there are Canadian backers who want to see a car like that from Canada, and who did not come to the government with their hands out, the way the minister’s friend did.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say that the other car was successful in getting enough private backing to make the trip. The fact is this particular vehicle did not have enough backing to make the trip.

The question the Leader of the Opposition must ask himself is whether he would be happier if the car were racing under American colours than under those of Ontario, Canada. That is the fact.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, when he gets his next issue of Wheelspin News, can cheek and see whether Americans were prepared to buy the vehicle.

While I am on my feet, I think I should address another part of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day on this subject, when he commented that it was hard to explain to the mentally retarded and the handicapped of this province how we could be spending $15,000 on this vehicle.

I say to him that some of the questions he raises today are legitimate questions. I feel we can defend them, but they are legitimate questions. The point I wish to make is that it is surely the height of political hypocrisy to put the disabled in a position of believing that this vehicle is running instead of giving the money to those people. It was one of the lowest levels I have seen here in a long time.

I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition saying to us: “Don’t spend $200,000 on opening a new Ministry of Industry and Tourism office in Hamilton. Spend that $200,000 instead on the crippled and disabled.”

Mr. S. Smith: We didn’t know the minister had opened it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member was invited, but he was home studying Wheelspin News that day.

A lot of the Leader of the Opposition’s constituents are using that office. However, whether or not he was invited, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to stand up today and say, “Close the Ministry of Industry and Tourism office in Hamilton and spend the $200,000 on the crippled and disabled.”

It was absolutely one of the lowest levels I have ever seen the Leader of the Opposition fall to, and that’s tough to do.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, as the other member of this not terribly exclusive club our friend Mr. Carter has run against unsuccessfully, I would like to ask the minister whether this is not yet one more case of Tory patronage that has come to political light. Does he not think it is about time that he, as a minister on behalf of the government, struck a blow against the patronage system by taking that $15,000 grant back and spending it on something socially useful, like settling that strike in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, the member is quite free to suggest that other expenditures out of that same division of the ministry, which include the office in Hamilton, for example, ought to be withdrawn.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sure, it’s different, isn’t it? Sure, it ought to be withdrawn in favour of something the member deems to be socially useful.

May I say to the honourable member that if he is able to drive at Daytona himself and do as well as Mr. Carter did -- perhaps win by more than the honourable member won his seat by last time -- and if he gets invited to Le Mans, then I pledge this afternoon that we will be willing to sponsor his vehicle at Le Mans next year. I bet he would take it too.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is looking for an area where he could cut costs and use the money for the disabled, maybe he could cut some of the costs of his own radio advertising and stop advertising himself, along with some other members of the Conservative Party, and use that money for the disabled.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would address a question to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). It is my understanding that Bill 5, the bill regarding the Toronto Island homes, is to he reintroduced and brought up for debate again. It is also my understanding, from a story in today’s Globe and Mail, that some eviction writs for some island residents are actually prepared and the eviction process is set to begin in less than a month.

May I ask the Premier whether this means his government has failed to heed the advice given it by the local member representing the island residents? Does he intend to proceed if his bill is defeated, as it would appear from the will of this House as expressed by resolution and as expressed publicly by both the New Democratic Party and ourselves that the bill will be defeated? Is it his intention to go ahead with the dismantling of the island community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand from our House leader, who is also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that there was some discussion that this bill would be called -- and I am looking at the member from so many communities -- there was some thought of calling this bill next Monday evening but, because one or two of the participants may not be here, it may not be called on that specific occasion. Once again, my understanding, which I am sure is understood by the member’s House leader, is that the bill will be called.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary question, if I might ask the Premier --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just wondered if the member has had conversations with his House leader.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, he told me the bill was going to be called.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why ask the question then?

Mr. S. Smith: I said in view of the fact that the government was planning to call the bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. The Leader of the Opposition asked if we were going to call it.

Mr. S. Smith: No. I did not ask that. If the Premier checks Hansard, he will see that I did not. The question I asked was, since the government was intending to call the bill, according to what the House leader has told us, and since eviction notices have been prepared, does the Premier plan to go ahead since he must surely know that the bill, in the form in which it was presented to us in the past, is not going to be accepted. He must surely be aware that the local member, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) wants to see that community preserved.

Mr. Nixon: That is the hardball game.

Mr. S. Smith: What I have to ask the Premier is whether his pitching hardball in cabinet has been a total failure, whether he is going to simply depend upon that bill and, after that, when it fails, whether he is going to allow the people of the community there to be evicted and the community destroyed? I am asking him whether he has anything else to offer by way of continuing that island community, as this House requested him to do in a resolution some time ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one way of resolving the problem, of course, would be for the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his position, as he has done on so many other issues, and give some consideration to supporting the passage of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a supplementary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if I may. Given the fact that the minister had a clear understanding that the bill would not pass in the House and that he delayed its introduction to allow Metropolitan Toronto council to try to come to grips with this matter, has he been involved in the negotiations at the Metro council level and has he indicated whether he would be willing to participate financially to assist the transfer of the properties to the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, yes, I have indicated to the mayor of Toronto that we would not be interested -- and I emphasize “not” -- in participating financially. In other words, they suggested that Toronto buy Ward’s and Algonquin islands from Metro and that the cost be paid by the province. I indicated to the mayor that we would not pay the cost if Toronto were to buy those lands from Metro.

I indicated to the mayor that, if Metropolitan Toronto council voted to sell those lands to Toronto, I would make the necessary legislative arrangements, bring it before cabinet and our caucus, and, if it were approved, bring in a bill. But Metro council has to take action.

As my friend knows, Metropolitan Toronto council on one occasion already has turned down that particular request. Although another proposition is before them, I gather it is not very likely to be voted upon in the near future -- if I believe the stories I read in the newspaper and what I bear. I have not been talking directly with anyone about it.

I would point out to the members of this House that the bill before this House, Bill 5, is a very legitimate compromise to this whole situation. If the members of this House want to save the homes of those people now living on the islands and allow them to live there in perpetuity -- and I emphasize that “to live there in perpetuity” -- they can pass this bill. If they pass this bill, nobody will be evicted.

The honourable member is not willing to pass this bill. He would rather see the people on the island evicted. The honourable member should get down to business and show where he wants to stand.

Mr. S. Smith: Acknowledging it is the government’s undoubted right to present whatever bill it wishes to the House and to wait to see how that bill is treated, surely the government recognizes that this bill, which we understand and believe would provide for the slow death of that community, is unacceptable to the elected majority of this House. The elected majority has already stated it wants the island as part of the city of Toronto. By just sitting there and suggesting that somehow or other we are willing to let those people be evicted unless we accept this slow-death bill, the minister is using those people in a way that is most unfortunate and, I can assure him, is not going to work.

I am asking the minister whether he has another solution to maintain that island community. Why does he not accept the will of the House and leave those people in peace?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think this should be turned around: The Leader of the Opposition is using the people of Metropolitan Toronto in a most unfortunate manner.

The people of Metropolitan Toronto represented by their council, have said they want to have a park on the island. They have started to develop that park. Many people have left already, their homes having been demolished to make way for that park.

At this particular time there are people living on Wards and Algonquin islands who have said they want to remain on those islands. They want to remain there and to stay in their homes. We have looked for a way to provide for that. People living there now can stay in their homes. They are not going to be displaced in their lifetime. The honourable member is saying that is not enough.

I say to the honourable member, the people of Metropolitan Toronto ultimately want a park on that island. If he believes in what the elected people of Metro want, that is what they want, but they are willing to see the people who now live on the island stay there until they are ready to leave. That is a very proper compromise. If the Leader of the Opposition is not willing to accept that, then I say to him that if any evictions occur they are on his head, not ours.

2:40 p.m.

CABINET COMMITTEE ON RACE RELATIONS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. I am sure the Premier remembers the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) on November 22, 1979, in which a number of initiatives with regard to the relief in racial tensions were announced; it is now six months since that announcement. Could the Premier tell the House why the cabinet committee that was announced at that time, with a wide range in terms of reference, has met only one time in that six months and has been engaged, to our knowledge, only in an inaugural organizational meeting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the minister made several points in that statement. I do not recall them all in specific terms. I think it is fair to state that individual ministers not only have been making statements in relation to this issue but they have also been very actively involved in finding solutions. I myself have met with two or three groups in regard to this specific issue.

I have made it quite clear, as has the Minister of Labour, that amendments will be introduced to the Ontario Human Rights Code which are relevant to this concern. I can assure the honourable member that this has a very high priority, that individual ministries and all of us, as individuals, are working diligently to assist in the diminution of this particular situation.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Premier inform the House why this particular committee with its terms of reference, which include “generally to direct and co-ordinate the programs and policies of the government of Ontario on all matters involving race relations,” has met only once if the government is so concerned?

Second, can the Premier also tell us why the race relations division that was announced in that statement has not yet been set up?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to the second part of the question, it is in the process.

Regarding government activities, we do structure committees. In my view this committee will be helpful over a period of time but we do, as a cabinet, deal with these issues.

When a minister comes in with a proposal or a situation, one does not call a cabinet meeting to discuss it. I said to the honourable member that one aspect of this is part of the Ontario Human Rights Code. That is not a question just for a committee of cabinet; it is a question for the total cabinet to consider, which we have been in the process of doing.

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Labour about asbestos. Can the minister explain the connection between his statement in answer to a question from my colleague from York South (Mr. MacDonald), which indicated that the use of the optical microscope is the only practical method of checking the testing and the statement made this morning by the head of the occupational health and safety group of the Ontario Research Foundation, Dr. Fred Hopton, which says: “An awful lot of companies are using optical microscopes rather than electron microscopes to test samples and their results mean nothing”?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker. I am sure the member has made a personal, thorough, comparative study of the relative value of optical microscopes as opposed to electron microscopes, which would have led him to the inevitable conclusion that there are very few electron microscopes and that the time involved in using electron microscopy to do air samples is quite incredible and would be most difficult.

For the time being at least, this ministry and governments of most nations I know of have decided that optical microscopy is the only practical present way of dealing with problems of a great magnitude. We will continue to do that unless and until the time arises when electron microscopy is available to a greater degree than it is now.

As I told the member before, the occupational health and safety laboratory being established on Resources Road will have one electron microscope, but he knows and I know that would have very limited application in terms of any mass assessment of air.

Mr. Foulds: If the minister had been a member prior to 1975, he would know that I have undertaken a fairly thorough study of both kinds of microscope, because of the importance of the issue in my own riding.

But would the minister not agree that it is far more urgent to get additional electron microscopes and to do the testing? Even the source that he cited, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-Occupational Safety and Health Administration report, indicated that it was necessary to have supplement try examination by electron microscope: “However, the committee recognizes the lack of specificity in this method [the optical method] and recommends the use of supplementary methods such as electron microscopy.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would suggest to the member, perhaps that is why we are purchasing one for the new occupational health and safety laboratory.

POLICE SERVICES REPORT

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), I would like to address my question to the Premier.

On July 20, 1977, by order in council the Premier appointed Emil K. Pukacz, a respected, retired public servant, to look into policing and other services in Ontario. On October 28, 1978, Mr. Pukacz reported to this government. Since it is now a year and a half, can the Premier indicate to this House when that report will be presented officially to the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is an undertaking or otherwise to present officially a report to the House. I will certainly check into the status of that report for the honourable member and have word for him tomorrow morning at 10:05.

Mr. Eakins: Can the Premier indicate whether that report will be the basis for bringing in much-needed police reforms in Ontario, not only in the per capita cost of policing but also in the use of police in our court system, the transportation of prisoners, et cetera?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want the public to misunderstand. As I recall the report, it is directed more to the financial and administrative side. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of policing.

Mr. Nixon: Rural areas are paying too much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know. In the rural areas of -- what are the constituencies the member represents?

Mr. Nixon: The Premier should put his mind to it.

Mr. Eakins: The report did make recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have some idea of some of the recommendations. I just want it clearly understood that they relate basically to the utilization of personnel. They do not relate to the effectiveness of the law and order that is provided so well in so many parts of this province, both by the Ontario Provincial Police and the municipal forces, whom apparently the members over there do not intend to support.

SCHOOL BUSES

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that a tentative conclusion arising from the police investigation of a school bus accident in Ancaster last Saturday is that the force required to hold a loaded school bus on a hill when the motor has stalled is such that many drivers simply may not have the strength to do it?

Does the minister not agree that all school buses should have braking systems designed so that all drivers have the strength to hold the bus safely on a hill or to bring it safely to a halt, whether or not the motor is running?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the incident the honourable member refers to. I will look into the matter and get back to him.

Mr. Isaacs: While the minister is looking into it, perhaps he would investigate thoroughly the whole matter of the braking systems on school buses so that the public of this province can be satisfied that buses can be brought safely to a halt. Perhaps he would table the results of that investigation in the House.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will look into the matter. The actual standards for the construction of motor vehicles manufactured or sold in Canada come under the Canada Motor Vehicle Act. The standards for school buses are also under the federal act. If we feel there are any shortcomings in those, I will make our views known to the federal minister.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARINGS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Can the minister tell me why an appeal on a decision made by the Niagara Escarpment Commission must continue after the appellant has withdrawn his objection? Can he tell me why they would go through with an appeal when nobody is objecting and pay the cost of having a is hearing officer travel to Owen Sound and have the Niagara Escarpment Commission staff and the applicant attend, when no one is objecting?

Can this costly formality be stopped? It not only costs the government but also inconveniences every one involved. Worst of all, it holds up the applicant for a month or two longer. This seems to me to be something worse than red tape. I am wondering whether it is some new form of blue tape.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, once an appeal is lodged with the Niagara Escarpment Commission and it goes to the hearing officer, unless there is some legal indication that one has withdrawn his position, as have all others who might have entered an appeal at the same time, then it must continue.

If all appeals are withdrawn and there is a general common understanding, the appeal or the hearing can be discontinued on a report from the hearing officer to the minister. The file must be closed with some degree of certainty by the hearing officer, at least indicating this is the action that has taken place.

If the member wishes to give me the specific case, I will look at it and find out exactly why it proceeded down the road. It could very well be that the notification had gone out and others were not prepared to withdraw their position.

Mr. McKessock: I was told it was the minister’s decision to carry on this useless exercise and that the decision would be given me within two days of the hearing because the Niagara Escarpment Commission had approved the application and now there were no objectors, because he had withdrawn. In view of this and the fact that two weeks after the hearing we still have not heard from the hearing officer, will the minister have another look into this to save many dollars and allow the applicant to proceed with his house much more quickly?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think I have answered the first part of the question. But obviously if there has been a hearing and the hearing has proceeded, whether there have been people there to put their case forward or not, the minister is not in a position to start indicating what the decision will be until he has the report back from the hearing officer.

As soon as the report comes to my office, we will try to process it as quickly as possible. We have the understanding from the municipality what they would like, what the hearing officer has said, what the Niagara Escarpment Commission has said and, many times, what the local member has to say about is as well.

CONSOLIDATED COMPUTER INC.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Given the current reports of recurring financial difficulties at the firm of Consolidated Computer Inc., can the minister provide the Legislature with a report on the current status of the government’s 16 per cent equity holdings in the firm? In particular, can he provide us with an account of how that public interest is being exercised through the management of CCI so as to ensure maximum financial success, employment potential and technological capability in this important enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get that for the member at 10:06 tomorrow morning; if not, on Monday.

Ms. Gigantes: As he makes his attempt to round up information, will the minister also try to provide us with information to explain to this House what is implied by the Fijutsu connection in the ownership and control of Consolidated Computer Inc., and can he offer assurance that the Fijutsu interest is not one in which global product mandating by huge international corporations is working to the disadvantage of a company in which the public of Ontario and the public of Canada have a substantial equity interest and which currently employs 225 workers in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sure.

OTTAWA QUEENSWAY REPAIRS

Mr. Roy: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Is he aware of the absolute chaos that his repair crews are causing in the Ottawa area in repairing the Ottawa Queensway by blocking off ramps, closing down all but one lane and having traffic tie- ups that last three or four hours? Why is it, when his officials are involved in the repair of the only major east-west artery in the city of Ottawa, that they do not do this work on weekends or in the evenings? Why do they insist on doing it at peak traffic hours?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting to have a question like that from the honourable member, because I recall a year or so ago that same honourable member was standing with a report in his hand talking about the immediate need for certain repairs to the Ottawa Queensway. Unfortunately, we could not do that resurfacing during January, February and March and off-peak periods such as that.

It is also very interesting that the regional chairman of Ottawa-Carleton is always publicly and privately complaining that there is not enough highway work being done in the Ottawa-Carleton area and, when we do take action to do some work in the area, one of the honourable members representing that area is opposed to the work.

As I have had to explain in this House many times, there is a lot of that type of work we have to d in daylight hours. It is just impossible for it to be done in some other period of the week or the day and not have the job spread over the whole summer.

Mr. Roy: It is quite true that I told the minister last year that the Queensway was extremely dangerous when it was wet and to repair it like pronto. I did not tell him to do it during peak hours.

One of the excuses given by the minister’s officials is that repairing at night would contravene the anti-noise bylaw. Is the minister aware of a statement by the mayor of Ottawa that that’s a lot of bull; that it is not so?

One of the other excuses is that the ministry would have to pay shift differential. Is the minister aware that, by doing it at peaks hours, he is wasting energy? He has thousands o cars lined up. He is frustrating the populace of Ottawa and, if he keeps doing that, even the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) is going to have a hard time getting elected in that area.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I was not aware that the mayor of Ottawa said that was a lot of bull, but of course I do not know as much about bull as the honourable member who has just been speaking.

Again, I have to say I understand the frustrations of the travelling public when roadwork of any type has to be done which interferes with the traffic. Unfortunately, no one anywhere in the world, to my knowledge, has found a way of doing it without interrupting the traffic.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Could the minister tell me whether or not he supports the following statement made by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) in his speech to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce on May 13 in which he said, speaking about energy in Ontario, “But of all of the initiatives we can and must take in this province, I personally place the greatest emphasis on conservation”?

3 p.m.

Then, referring to a poll he had taken, he said: “It is also interesting to note that many -- in fact, about two thirds of those surveyed -- feel that industry and government are not doing their fair share to conserve energy. Whether that perception is correct or not does not change the way people think. So you and I are here today as representatives of business and government and have a significant leadership role to play, to show by example, if you will, what can and what is being done.”

Mr. Speaker: I believe the question has been asked.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is to do with a decision made yesterday in the standing committee on general government under the leadership of the minister’s parliamentary assistant. The minister in effect voted against a motion put forward by the city of Toronto council which would have required energy-use statements to be filed with the city by developers and would have been a major energy conservation promotion initiative.

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not sure what the question is, but if my friend is asking whether I agree with what the general government committee did, my answer to that would be yes. I agree with the majority decision of the members of the general government committee.

I agree with what my colleague the Minister of Energy said in his speech. Certainly, energy conservation is one of the great challenges facing government and industry today. But I do not think this motion is an answer to that problem.

I think one of the other great challenges to all of us here today is to undo a little bit of the red tape that we keep tying around everybody who wants to help move this economy ahead. All we do is impose more and more red tape. Certainly I have great confidence that those people in the development industry are probably ahead of government. They are building energy-conserving projects and do not have to be required by legislation to file plans before they get certain municipal approvals. I think that would he a step backwards.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It would seem to me that the minister has the same misunderstanding of the legislation as does his parliamentary assistant. Does that mean the minister will not support the Ministry of Energy, which had only one problem with that, and it was not to do with red tape; it was to do with the ministry’s enforcement ability? Does that mean he will not, with the Ministry of Energy, introduce enabling legislation to allow municipalities, such as the city of Toronto, to have that kind of promotional project in the works?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not have any legislation in mind to provide municipalities with that power.

NIAGARA REGION HEALTH UNIT STRIKE

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister is likely aware, the strike of Niagara Regional Health Unit employees -- 53 health inspectors, nursing assistants and clerical staff -- has been going on now for two weeks in the Niagara region. Could the minister report to the House what initiatives his ministry has taken to bring about a settlement in this strike? It is obviously going to affect the people of the Niagara region rather substantially. Could he tell us what new initiatives are planned by his ministry in the days ahead?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to take that as notice and report on what stage mediation is at.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister is looking into the aspect as it relates to the Ministry of Labour, would he also consult with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to determine whether or not the jobs that would normally be done by those employees on strike are being carried out adequately and that the health of the people of the Niagara region is not endangered?

FIRESTONE PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the closure of Firestone Canada Inc. in Whitby. In about six weeks there will be about 850 employees out of a job. Has the Ministry of Labour intervened in any way to see that they get a decent pension settlement such as fellow workers in the United States have received?

Is the minister participating, either on behalf of those people who are members of the local of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America in that plant or even the salaried employees, both of which groups have similar problems in getting a decent pension settlement from Firestone and are anxious to know whether his ministry will intervene in any way?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have met with both representatives of the employees and of the employer to discuss the situation and have been assured that management was prepared to co-operate in whatever way seemed reasonable.

Just the other day I signed an authorization for our portion of a manpower adjustment committee. If the member is suggesting there are some other endeavours that might be considered, I would be glad to meet with the company again and have further discussions with it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak not about the manpower retraining program or job relocation, but specifically about those people who will be in an age bracket where it will be extremely difficult to place them and whose prime concern now is a decent pension. Will the minister intervene on behalf of those employees, both members of the local and those who are salaried employees, to see that those who need a decent pension get one, as their counterparts in the United States plants already have?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to meet with the company again to review the status in that area.

THREE SCHOOLS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Culture and Recreation: In view of what is found on page six of his statement today, and I quote, “ ... there is articulate evidence of broad public support for ... ” Three Schools, and in view of the fact that it is demonstrable that there is absolutely no public support for giving $15,000 to the friends of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), would the minister not reconsider now, rather than starving these people off as it is apparent he is going to do?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we will begin discussions with the director of Three Schools to work out a solution for it while it can find new sources of funding. That proposal meets with its consent. Three Schools sees it as a real solution. I don’t know whether or not I have to take any further specific steps at this time in terms of promising a certain amount of money. The next step is to work out an interim financial arrangement with Three Schools.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Why is the minister’s strategy always to bring these people to the brink, as he has done in this situation, and to play brinkmanship politics and put them on the line the way he has? Why isn’t the minister working ahead on some of these kinds of problems to prevent the kind of embarrassment and emotional turmoil he has put all these people through over the past couple of months?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t knew how many different ways, shapes and forms I can use to convince the member for London Centre that it is not our fault that this school is in this condition at this time. We are the government which has stood by its side while the member’s kissing brethren from Ottawa cut it off last year. They cut it off while our support went up 17 per cent every year. If the member wants to talk to anybody about giving the school more instant funds, let him go talk to Ottawa as a starter.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the management committee funded by the minister found Three Schools was underfunded by 50 per cent, would the minister consider a 50 per cent raise in its grant as interim financing for this year only until it can sort out a new financial arrangement?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared today, at this hour, to say how much we are going to help the school. It would be premature. I have said we will begin negotiations with it. I have also said we will do what needs to be done so Three Schools does not have to close its doors in any kind of precipitous way. That is all I am ready to say here today.

ABITIBI-PRICE STUDY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. I wonder whether the minister could indicate to this House what involvement, if any, his ministry has had with the study that is now being carried out by Robb Ogilvie Associates for Abitibi-Price Inc. in relation to White River and the attempts to stabilize the work force in that community to assure there will not be the continuation of the tremendous turnovers they have had at the mill operation and in the woods operation since they first went into production. If the minister has had any involvement, could he indicate what that has been?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I will check with my staff on our ministry’s involvement in that particular study.

Mr. Wildman: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? In doing that, I would hope the minister would also check with other ministries of his government to determine whether or not the provincial government is prepared to make a commitment that it will provide additional funding, as well as the municipality and the various people from the private sector, to try to provide the housing and amenities needed in that community to help stabilize the work force.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will look into those points also.

ALGONQUIN PARK MASTER PLAN REVIEW

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that we were promised some many months ago that the Ontario Provincial Parks Council review of the Algonquin Park master plan would be available not later than March 31, 1980, and that along with that the recommendations of the Ministry of Natural Resources would also be available, can the minister explain on June 5 what possible reason there is for the delay that has kept this very important material from the public domain? Can those of us who have a particular interest in that material expect it before the millennium?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, it was a very lengthy report and it took some time to give a response to it. I believe the report is at the printer at present and the millennium is approaching fast.

Mr. Conway: Can the minister then he more specific, because there are a lot of people across this province very interested to know when that material is going to come forward? Can lie indicate in a supplementary response to members of the House when he now expects that material to come forward and what precisely his intentions are going to be with respect to having public hearings and moving legislatively, if that is his intention, to incorporate any or all of the recommendations the government intends to put forward?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t recall any recommendations or suggestions that would require any legislative changes. I will try to find out for tomorrow morning when I can actually put it in the member’s hot little hands.

TRANSPORT OF PLUTONIUM

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Can the minister confirm that 30 pounds of French plutonium arrived by air at Mirabel airport on May 7, was transported with a Quebec Police Force helicopter escort across the river to Hawkesbury and sent by regular highway routes through Ontario municipalities to the facilities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that, but I will be glad to get information relative to that.

Ms. Gigantes: Does the Minister of Energy consider it satisfactory that that kind of shipment should be made in circumstances where local authorities knew neither of such a shipment nor how to cope with it in case there were an accident? Can he explain why such a shipment is being transported in Ontario and for what purposes?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can only add that I will include answers to all of those questions following my inquiry. If such is the case, I will be glad to provide the member with whatever information I can obtain on that subject.

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the vocational rehabilitation branch has advised applicants for funding for children with learning disabilities that they will not get answers to their applications until some time in July? These applications go back a couple of months.

Does the minister not appreciate that the schools to which the children may be going will be all filled up by then and that the schools from which the children are coming will be closed and records will not be available? Can the minister tell me why they would make them wait that long?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the specific time that might be required to review fully each application. I do know that it sometimes takes longer because of the amount of information that is required to be collected. Sometimes that does not accompany the initial application. Information is required from the school boards where the children are attending at present. Sometimes additional assessments are needed from a medical doctor or a psychologist. All this can take varying periods of time.

The one thing we do not have any control over is when the people make the initial application. If the people applied as recently as a month or two ago and the applications in question happen to be complex and require this additional information, there is not much I can do about it in terms of determining when people make the decision to apply.

Mr. Sweeney: The information that has been given to me is that the applications were made several months ago, and they were complete, but they were simply told they would have to wait for an answer. If the minister’s investigation bears that out, and that is what I am asking him to find out, is there any way these people could be given sufficient assistance to get into a school that otherwise might be closed to them?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will certainly check to see whether there is any cause for an inordinate delay. I will encourage the staff to speed up the process as much as possible. I thought the member had said earlier, though, that the applications had been made a couple of months ago, which is why I premised my remarks on the assumption that he had been correct.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that a number of applications of the kind referred to by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot were held up because of internal confusion within the ministry as a result of the Mekler decision which we have discussed on previous occasions? Can he assure us there is no backlog of decisions because of continuing confusion with respect to the implications of the Mekler decision?

Is the minister aware that his officials, as recently as last week, were still communicating to people using the language of the Mekler decision to deny applications for vocational rehabilitation assistance for children with learning disabilities? I would be pleased to go over a particular case with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure in what sense people might use the language of the Mekler decision. The Mekler decision does stand, but I have also clarified both in the House and, prior to that, with my staff, the policy of the ministry with respect to the Mekler decision. That was done very early as soon as we saw what was happening, as far as the board was concerned.

To make it clear with respect to the Mekler type of case, policy of the ministry is that we would interpret an educational goal as being a pre-vocational goal so that it would come under act. I would appreciate it if the member would give me the information he was referring to in the specific case. It may be that some of the field staff, for example, have not yet fully absorbed my policy

interpretation, for some reason or other. I will try to hasten that process as well.

NORTH AMERICAN CAR SALES

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Following his meeting of about three weeks ago with a number of the mayors of auto manufacturing cities in Ontario, will the Premier and this government aid with the funding and staffing of the promotion of the very excellent Windsor-produced program. “Buy the cars your neighbours help to build,” so that it can be expanded to all of the major population centres in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we had a very excellent meeting with the mayors of those municipalities, including the mayor of the great city of Brampton, who was one of the participants. As I recall the discussions, we canvassed this idea and two or three others.

I informed the mayors then that we thought, in terms of the general direction they were going, it was a very significant campaign and was one, in a personal sense, we would have no limitation in supporting. We were not prepared to commit ourselves in terms of financing, say, of the Windsor centre, but perhaps the Ministry of Industry and Tourism could include some aspects of this in its own promotion campaigns.

I believe there has been some communication between the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the committee, the name of which I have forgotten. I have not had an updated report in the last couple of days from the mayors of those municipalities, but I will find out where the matter stands.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the Premier aware that the program in Windsor was run with moneys raised locally, and there is not the money available to run it much longer or to expand it to other cities? In the first months of that program there was a 25 per cent increase in sales of North American vehicles in the Windsor area. Does the Premier not agree that this is one of the best ways, by increasing sales of North American vehicles built here, of returning laid-off auto workers to full employment?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly think it is one of the ways. I made it quite clear that day that we were in support of this kind of approach. In fact -- and I am just going by memory again -- I believe I communicated with the governor of the state of Michigan. The mayor of Windsor and the other mayors asked me to get in touch with one or two other state governors, which I did, to explain the purpose of the campaign.

Whether they are going to assist in it, quite frankly I cannot tell the honourable member, but I will inquire. I have not heard about it for two or three days, but I will get as much up-to-date information as I can.

BRANTFORD DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Now that the private bill regarding the downtown development in the city of Brantford has been defeated, unfortunately, has the minister been in touch with any of the Brantford officials about, first, extending the deadline for the commitment he made to support the downtown revitalization, and, second, assisting the city in getting a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board without delay, so that in this way there is a possibility that the present development plan can go forward?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in touch with the Brantford officials. I have had a call from the development company which was assigned the responsibility for the downtown revitalization by the city of Brantford.

I think the member is aware of the fact that the termination date is August 31. I would imagine the city of Brantford is assessing the situation at this time, and I have no doubt the city will be in touch with us, first, to extend the deadline, and, second, to see if we will have a talk with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to see whether we can advance the application before the municipal board.

Mr. Nixon: Since the termination date depends on the minister’s policy in making the $6 million available -- or whatever the sum is; approximately $6 million -- could he not take the initiative and indicate to the city of Brantford that he is prepared to be flexible on that date, depending on when the municipal board hearing is held? Would he indicate, in response to the developer who has called him, that he is very anxious that this go ahead, even if it is delayed a few months because it is now necessary to go through the normal procedure?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That has already been communicated to the developer. Obviously, with an OMB hearing required as a result of the actions of individuals in that community, the time it takes to go to the municipal board has to be taken into account. It was not the minister’s intention or the ministry’s intention to terminate the agreement because of the need for on OMB hearing. The date will be extended in keeping with the time it takes to get an OMB hearing, an OMB decision and even an appeal against that derision.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Watson, on behalf of Mr. Cureatz, from the standing committee on general government, presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13, An Art to revive Can-Con Enterprises and Explorations Limited;

Bill Pr19, An Art respecting the City of Stratford;

Bill Pr29, An Art respecting the Town of Grimsby.

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

Bill Pr14, An Art respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr27, An Art respecting the City of Hamilton.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the City of Stratford.

Report adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Williams from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee’s first report.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the report that is being submitted today is the fifth in a series of reports that have been submitted by the regulations committee through 1978 and 1979 and the first part of this year.

The highlights of the report before us today are fourfold. First, the report highlights the number and type of regulations that have been brought forward to the Legislature over the past year. The report also indicates that the committee now is in a position of being current with its review of the regulations. Through the vetting of the regulations by counsel for the committee, Mr. Lachlan MacTavish, the regulations are current to the end of 1979.

It is also interesting to note that of the 301 regulations that were brought forward during the last quarter of 1979, the committee has seen fit to cite only eight of those regulations as being, in some way, irregular or deserving of comment by the committee. These are highlighted in

chapter three of the report.

The committee has been addressing itself to other types of optional procedures that could be used in the regulatory process, one of which is the procedure known commonly as “notice and comment.” That is a procedure that provides for advance notice of proposed regulations followed by an opportunity for interested persons to make representations with regard to them. Later in the spring or summer the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy will be making its report and this committee will be considering the whole matter of notice and comment further in light of the recommendations in that report.

Finally, in keeping with that area of interest, the committee, as it points out in its concluding chapter, five, will be generally considering other ways and means of improving existing procedures to assist persons aggrieved by regulations already in place to air their grievances.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like again to thank Mr. MacTavish for his efforts in assisting the committee throughout our deliberations, as well as Mr. A. S. Forsyth, the clerk of the committee. With those few brief comments I table this report for the Legislature.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expense of the Ministry of Correctional Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Administrative services program, $6,556,800; institutional program, $115,899,000; community program, $23,507,000.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that following the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Health at the standing committee on social development, the remaining estimates referred to this committee be considered in the following order: Social Development policy, followed by Community and Social Services.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the hours allocated for the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be reduced by four hours.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OTTAWA-CARLETON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of Bill 92,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in certain area municipalities and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Motion agreed to.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of Bill 93,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, these bills are for the restructuring of municipal hydro-electric commissions in Ottawa-Carleton and Hamilton-Wentworth. Both are based no the principles of the Hogg committee report as tabled in the Legislature in February 1975 and are substantially similar to the previous seven restructuring acts.

Discussions have been held with members of the local study teams during the preparation of these bills. Perhaps this is the appropriate opportunity to express the appreciation of the government for the work done by the local groups in both the Ottawa-Carleton and Hamilton-Wentworth regions. Act.

QUEEN’S PARK DESIGNATION ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill 94,

An Act respecting the Use of Expression “Queen’s Park.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of the term “Queen’s Park” for commercial purposes.

GO-CART TRACK REGULATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. M. Davidson moved first reading of Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Cart Tracks. Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the regulation of go-kart tracks in Ontario. The bill requires every person who proposes to operate a go-kart track in Ontario to obtain a licence from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The bill provides regulation-making authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish safety standards relating to go-karts and the operation of go-kart tracks.

The bill further provides for the appointment of inspectors to ensure that go-kart track operators are complying with the act and the regulations attached thereto.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has 22 bills he wants to introduce, which is going to take considerable time. Is there the unanimous consent of the House to permit him to move them all at once? He will give the motion once for first reading of them all, and then he can give a brief explanation following that.

Mr. Nixon: Of all 22?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Is it unanimously agreed? I think that will be the quickest way of doing it.\

Agreed.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 97,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 98,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

CROWN EMPL0YEES COLLETIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYEMENT STANDARDS DECLARATORY ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 102,

An Act to declare the Application of certain Parts of the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 104,

An Act to provide for the Employment of Disabled Persons Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYEMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 105,

An Act to declare the Application of certain Parts of the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SERVANTS POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 106,

An Act to provide Political Rights for Public Servants.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 108,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 110,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 117,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the bills cover the following areas: a compulsory union checkoff; a first-contract settlement bill providing for the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have the authority to settle a first contract; quicker and easier certification procedures allowing an automatic certification after a 50 per cent plus one vote and a vote within seven days; an anti-strikebreaking bill which prohibits employers from using or hiring anyone to do the work of an employee who is on a legal strike. Successor rights: preserves the collective bargaining rights of employees in a business that is relocated.

Amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act repeal those sections of the act that exclude a wide variety of management rights from being the subject of collective bargaining.

Domestic servants: allows domestic servants to be covered under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Permits agricultural employees who work in an industry or factory setting to become members of a trade union.

Provides a mechanism for providing employment opportunities for disabled persons.

Establishes standards relating to the installation and operation of electronic surveillance equipment systems in places of employment.

Ensures that public servants shall be entitled to exercise all rights to engage in the democratic political processes.

Reduces the standard work week in Ontario from 48 hours to 40 and requires overtime rates for work done in excess of 40 hours.

Vacation standards: extends the existing employment standards provisions beyond the two weeks for 12 months of service to provide an adequate four- and five-week vacation after a period of time.

Termination notices: provides for increased time for notice provisions and layoffs.

Conditions of employment: prohibits employers from requiring employees engaged in the preparation or service of food or drink to perform their duties while nude or partially nude.

Extension of collective bargaining rights: allows employees to exercise managerial functions, to join or establish a union for collective bargaining purposes.

Amendments to the Employment Standards Act which ensure that the crown is bound by all sections of the act.

Certification hearings: clarifies status of employer at certification hearings so that the proceedings cannot be muddied.

Leave of absence: requires an employer to provide a leave of absence to any employee who has been elected to provincial or municipal office.

Protection of employees: protects the employment of an employee who attempts to enforce the provisions of any act, or who testifies or otherwise participates in a proceeding or hearing under any act or court of law.

Protection of term employees: extends the application of

part XII of the Employment Standards Act to term employees who are laid off or terminated during or as the result of a strike or lockout.

Finally, repeals legislation which does not allow the inclusion of security guards in a collective bargaining unit.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 154 and 181 and the interim answers to questions 174 and 176 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 2550.)

3:40 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mr. Kennedy moved resolution 8:

That the government declare an annual Small Business Week in Ontario for the purpose of informing the public of the key role of small business in our economy as employer, producer, taxpayer; to promote better understanding of the dependencies between small business, big business, government and the public;

The week to supplement and support the present small business activities that are ongoing throughout the year and to include seminars, information sessions, meetings 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 business;

That associated with this week there be developed a journal that would summarize all programs and assistance available to small business and be capable of easy updating;

That there be developed a universally recognized symbol that would aid in coordinating the roles of these participants and in disseminating information among them;

The government to launch the week through a forum sponsored in co-operation with big business, such as banks, industry and the news media, and also at this initial forum there be established a medium for the ongoing annual Small Business Weeks.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of private members’ bills and resolutions in support of small business is a fairly frequent event in this house. In fact, the appearance of such bills or resolutions occurs so regularly that they no longer arouse much controversy or even excite any special comment. Members might well ask why I am introducing yet another small business resolution.

Just because a number of members have tried to help small business in the past does not necessarily mean they have been uniformly successful, and just because members from both sides of the House have acknowledged the vital role it plays in our economy does not necessarily mean those members have actually done anything useful for the small business they set out to help.

In other words, despite the routine gush of sentiment from this House in favour of small business, I have difficulty naming specific, concrete examples of what the Legislature, as opposed to the government, has done for small business. Certainly small businesses still face all sorts of problems and handicaps that hinder their efficient and profitable operation, despite our best efforts.

With all due modesty, I think I can say this resolution is taking a different approach. I believe it helps solve a specific problem facing small business, the problem of information to, from and about small business. My resolution helps bridge this information gap without creating any new problems for the small businessman. Finally, I hope and trust that the many advantages I can see in this resolution will be seen by all members.

Traditionally, at this point in a speech on small business, one throws in a few statistics to demonstrate the importance of small business: the size and value of its contribution to the economy, its record on job creation and so on. We have all heard various statistics of this kind. It is probably even safe to say that we will hear more of them before this debate ends; so I will not trouble members with one more statistical exercise. Suffice to say that we are all aware of the vital position of small business.

Small business, taken in the aggregate, is in fact huge business. It adapts quickly to change in the business environment. It is flexible. It can solve all sorts of problems that larger enterprises, ossified by their own huge bureaucracies, cannot begin to deal with.

Perhaps the most important thing about small business is that it is ubiquitous. We find small businesses everywhere. They are not vertically integrated. They are not concentrated in a few metropolitan areas. They do not require, in most instances, huge amounts of capital. They do involve hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of people right across the province. They are the backbone of economic activity in our smaller towns and villages. They help reduce economic regional disparities by flourishing in all sorts of places where big business could not even hope to survive; and we are thankful for that.

What then are the major problems for our smaller concerns? The first thing on the mind of every businessman I know is the problem of finances, and small businesses are no exception to the rule. But right after finances, small business’s major problem is something that I referred to earlier as the information gap. I might also have labelled it “lack of knowledge.”

Small businesses face this information gap precisely because they are small. They often depend on one person or a handful of people for decision making. Obviously these few people cannot hope to be experts at everything, and yet all-round expertise is exactly what they must try to develop if the business is to prosper.

Lots of people are interested in going into business for themselves. Studies show they can generally be divided into two types. One consists of people who are sales-oriented, with little background in finance, accounting, law or administration. The other group of people is strong in some or most of these areas, but probably weak in selling. Weakness in any area could spell failure and often does.

Naturally, a small business cannot afford to hire experts in each of these fields the way a large corporation can. However, from the point of view of a small businessman, the information is out there somewhere. Other small businesses have overcome similar problems. Chambers of commerce have information; bankers can explain finance; marketing experts can add some creative thinking. There are many examples. In other words, the small businessman’s real problem is not that the information is not available, but that it is all over the place and relatively difficult to get at. Perhaps even more of a hindrance is that collecting and digesting such information can be very time-consuming.

Here we are coming to the point of the resolution. I hope my suggestion for an annual Small Business Week in Ontario is not taken as simply glorifying the ideals and strength of smaller enterprises. I see a very functional purpose for a Small Business Week. It is no coincidence that words like information, understanding, discussion, cooperation, forum and seminar recur over and over in the resolution, for ideas of information and understanding go right to the heart of the matter.

I foresee Small Business Week as a fabulous learning experience for small businessmen all across Ontario. It could be of tremendous value in helping them to bridge that information gap. They could learn about many skills and services which would help their companies prosper.

Small Business Week, too, would dovetail neatly with the excellent programs of our Ministry of Industry and Tourism that have been previously announced, such as the small business development policy for Ontario and others. However, even the ministry itself bumps into this information gap. In fact, Industry and Tourism made 13,000 calls and sponsored business seminars in many small towns last year, plus numerous one-on-one counselling sessions with Ontario enterprises.

Clearly an annual Small Business Week would be an excellent opportunity for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to get its point across to many small businessmen. Government would not be the only organization with a pitch to make during a Small Business Week. Any group or person with information to help small business or service to sell would literally jump at the chance of a guaranteed audience.

If any member has any doubts as to whether a Small Business Week would be filling a need, he only has to look at the phenomenal success of the small business exposition held at the Royal York last year. One commentator said: “Sponsored by the 65,000-member International Entrepreneurs’ Association, Expo is the largest small business show held in Toronto in more than a decade and it is the show’s first appearance in Canada. On display are new products, franchises, distributorships, dealerships and 160 startup manuals, in addition to the 75 hours of instruction and lectures from the experts.”

I do not see any reason why a Small Business Week would not stimulate such expositions or shows in town and cities right across Ontario. Why not?

Another important point about such a week is that it would help other groups to learn about small businesses. For example, bankers could look more favourably on smaller enterprises. Governments could discover what impact their policies were having on small business and how these could be improved. The public at large would have an opportunity to learn about small business and about the important contribution business has made in the quality of life in Ontario.

In my opinion, the great advantage offered by such a week is that the whole thing is voluntary. It will not require more form-filling or dealing with mind-numbing bureaucracy. The small businessman can participate or not as he sees fit. We can safely leave that decision to his own initiative and good sense. lf the Small Business Week is as useful to him as I think it is, then he will go. If not, he will not attend such functions and stay home.

3:50 p.m.

The voluntary approach is in contrast to that taken by my friend from Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins). I am pleased he is on the list to speak and I look forward to his comments. I know he can recall that small business bill he introduced two and a half or three years ago, because it was debated at this time.

In fact, I was surprised by the tenor of the bill put forward by the member. I know his heart was in the right place on this; he wanted to help small business, but this would have added a tremendous burden of government paperwork which already oppresses business. That is one of the complaints we continue to hear.

We were not particularly surprised to hear the NDP position advocating more and more government involvement. Free enterprise, for my friends across the way is about as dirty a word as profit.

In other words, the small business act that was proposed would have completely contradicted this government’s commitment to get off the backs of business. While it does not surprise me that New Democrats would support increased regulation of small business, I am rather surprised that the Liberals endorsed that specific bill.

It was a good thing that it died on the Order Paper, though, as I said, I understand and appreciate the intent and support, just in the principle.

There is a philosophical contrast between that bill and my resolution. It could not be greater. I want to believe, and I happen to believe, that small business wants less government, not more. The small business sector does not want a vast array of burdensome government programs so much as better information on what is already available.

My proposed annual Small Business Week fills a need felt by small businessmen all across Ontario. It will help them bridge the information gap so they can run their companies more efficiently and more profitably. It takes advantage of the small businessman’s initiative and drive but does not add to the unnecessarily great load of paperwork and regulation that small business must already grapple with.

I hope the members in this House will see fit to endorse and pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve three minutes.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, because of my interest in small business, to rise and speak on this resolution.

Initially I want to compliment the member for introducing this resolution in the House. I feel it is one that I can support. I think it is time we gave some annual profile to the small business community of this province and of this country, and this is one way of doing that.

However, I want to refer to some of the remarks of my honourable friend and point out that it was on October 20, 1977, that I introduced my private member’s bill into the Legislature,

An Act respecting Small Business in Ontario. I want to say to the member that it was the first time in any jurisdiction in Canada, provincially or federally, that a small business act had been introduced into any legislature or parliament.

I also want to say to the member, when he stated it was a good job that it died on the Order Paper, it was supported in principle by all members of the Tory party except one. That is the purpose of a private member’s bill: to support it in principle, go to a committee and then iron out the difficulties.

Following the debate that day, I made some amendments which were sent to every member in this House. Following that, the late minister, who was the Minister of Industry and Tourism at that time, had a meeting in his office with all the representatives of the small business community across this province, and all generally agreed that it was a very good bill. Present at the meeting were representatives of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, the Retail Merchants Association of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as well as the minister’s staff.

I believe that was one of the positive steps towards dealing with private members’ resolutions that come before this House. If more ministers would do that, instead of burying them and not letting them live because someone in the opposition might get credit, we would have more progress in this House. I pay tribute to the approach that was taken. I felt a very positive effect from that meeting.

I feel it was a good bill and as a result, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism has moved to publish a pamphlet of whom to contact in Ontario if one wants to do business with the provincial government. It is a good pamphlet. It just came out in the last couple of weeks. I have sent many of them out to my constituents. I feel that has come about as a direct result of the private member’s bill.

I support the resolution; I think the best way to give profile and priority to small business in this province is for this government to have the will and the initiative to pass a small business act for this province, as have countries such as Germany, Japan and the United States.

One of the strengths of their economies has been the fact that they have seen fit to have very strong small business acts. Certainly the United States has a very strong small business act. I tell the honourable member, if he is wondering what is happening there, he should call the small business people in Washington and he will find they are most co-operative and most helpful.

I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the small businesses of this province and of this country, for the great potential of small business has been clearly demonstrated. Small business is flexible, is able to adapt quickly to changes in the market, and possesses great capacity for technological and other innovations.

However, small business has been neglected by government in this country. Its importance has been diminished by comparison with large corporations. For example, it is not heavily favoured for subcontracting, as in the case of Japan, Germany and the United States, where governments have fostered and supported the growth and development of small business.

While at present in Canada we have a very widespread small business sector, typical of any large country with a comparatively small population, it has not been able to date to develop even a small percentage of its full potential. I believe we must move as quickly as possible to give increased emphasis and impetus to the small business sector, because it is uniquely adapted to cope with the kinds of economic conditions that prevail. Our sagging economy needs assistance from every sector of the business community, and small business can make a considerable impact on our current, critical unemployment situation.

If we are to have any hope of reducing today’s tragically high unemployment and of strengthening our economy by meeting the challenges of today’s competitive market, we must drastically readjust our ideas and our priorities. Many of our current economic problems are caused by an inability to adjust to the new realities, by carrying over into the 1970s and 1980s the practices and ideas of the more prosperous and more buoyant 1960s. An even greater challenge faces us in the 1980s.

About three years ago, the European Economic Community released a study of small and medium-sized businesses which indicated that the small-firm sector could play an important role in the reduction of alienation and social tensions. The study maintained, “Since small and medium-sized undertakings are so important for job stability and the maintenance of industrial peace, all social legislation should be geared towards maintaining independent businesses.”

Small business contributes the young blood of new ideas and products to our economy. It plays a vital role in the process of innovation. In our memory, it is extraordinary how many new products and new processes were introduced by aggressive entrepreneurs or small business firms. Examples include automatic transmissions, the ballpoint pen, the catalytic cracking of petroleum, the helicopter, high-fidelity recording, frozen foods, wash-and-dry clothing -- the list is long and very impressive.

Obviously not all innovations of entrepreneurs succeed. Indeed many of them fail, as are bound to in such hazardous situations. But this brash willingness to risk failure is itself one of the major merits of our system of free enterprise.

4:00 p.m.

I want to close with a few remarks and say that if this province and this country are to survive and prosper, we desperately need to benefit from the talents and skills of all our young people. We cannot risk losing great numbers of Ontarians to other provinces and other countries because there are no career opportunities at home.

I believe an enriched apprenticeship program is one way of increasing our skilled labour force and preventing a brain and talent drain out of this province. Yet how many small businesses have gone to the trouble and expense of training many of our young people only to lose them shortly after? I do not profess to have the solution to this kind of dilemma, but I wonder if it is not time that we reviewed the benefits we are paying out today and dealt with that in cooperation with an apprenticeship program.

We also need to promote business-oriented programs in our schools to help develop broader understanding of the free enterprise system and how, in our business society, it is the means through which individuals find their livelihood, find their access to social status, to community and individual achievement and to satisfaction. We need practical business education programs to help build the gap between the world of work and the classroom, demonstrating the dynamics of the free enterprise system as it functions in the highly competitive world.

Finally, as legislators, we must accept the responsibility to ensure a business climate in which we can grow, develop and thrive, and in which small and large companies alike are allowed to develop, to function and to prosper and, above all, with as little government intervention as possible. That is our hope for the 1980s.

I support the honourable member’s resolution. I commend him for introducing it. I only hope that the government, in spite of any problem it might have with a small business act, would accept it, resolve it, change it, but let Ontario have its own small business act. Let Ontario lead Canada.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to take

part in this debate regarding the resolution relating to small businesses.

It appears obvious to me there must be an election in the offing. The government has discovered the environment; it has discovered labour. The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) has discovered that there are problems in the health service. There seems to be some image-polishing going on, because small business is not exactly satisfied with what the Tory government has been doing for them in Ontario. So in typical Tory fashion they give us a resolution. They are all for small business, against sin and for motherhood. They should have thrown it all in.

It is the usual window-dressing that goes on before an election to create the image that the Conservative Party cares about something. But it does not. I do not think small business is going to get sucked in by this kind of a resolution.

There is no question that the member did mention some of the problems that are faced by small business. The matter of obtaining money and credit is very important to small businesses. I agree with the member who raised that subject, but when one raises that same problem with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to see what the province can do to ensure that small business gets credit, or is in the position to borrow the money it needs to expand and grow, they do absolutely nothing. They say, “You can go to the bank.”

If one talks to most of the small businessmen in this country or in this province one will find not that they are fed up with our banks. There is nobody they hate more, or are more against, than the banks in this province or in this country. This is for the simple reason that they have difficulty in obtaining money from them and when they do get money from the banks they have to sign away their worldly possessions, their family and everybody else. The bank, before it lends money, is absolutely sure in almost 100 per cent of the cases it is going to get the money back no matter what happens to the small businessman.

What we have been suggesting the government should do is develop the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It should get the legislation through the federal House to give it the same powers that chartered banks have. Then it should make it a lending institution that will operate on the basis of the needs of the people and not the needs of the corporate sector, or the needs of just maximizing one’s profit. In a situation like that there would be competition in the money-lending sector and the businessman would have some alternative. This would apply particularly to the small businessman; not the large corporations.

The large corporations have no problems; it is the small people. But at least the small businessman would have somewhere else to go than to that monopoly of banks that control the credit that is available to him.

I want to touch on some other points. Legislation should be introduced by this government to ensure that the small businessman would be able to buy goods at wholesale prices, the same prices that major corporations like Eaton’s or Simpson’s pay their suppliers. There should not be that kind of discrimination by the wholesalers against the small businessman. They sell goods at one price to a major retailer and at another price to a small businessman. He finds himself at a big disadvantage when eventually he sells his goods, because his markup is lower. He is certainly not going to make as much, and the others can sell at a lower price than he can.

Those are some of the things that can and should be done by legislation. We should consider seriously the possibility that the small businessman, particularly the retail merchant or the grocer, should be able to sell beer. Right now we have bowed to the wishes of the Carlings and the Labatts and the Molsons, and we permit major corporations to have the sole right to distribute beer in this province. In other provinces -- Quebec, for example -- the small merchants can do it. It provides some additional income for the merchants, and it provides some stability to their operations. That is an example of an area where they could go.

As another example, there should be some assurance to the small businessman when he is selling to a major corporation that he has at least the same right of access. What one finds in operation these days with major corporations is an old boys’ network hanging out there. They buy from each other and they buy from certain suppliers where they have some share or interest, or there is a cross-connection between the various boards of directors. Consequently, the small businessman or the independent man who wants to go in there to try to sell them supplies, goads or services, probably at lower rates than they buy within themselves, is shut out because of this old boys’ network.

There should be great concern on the part of this government to streamline the Ontario Municipal Board hearings operation. We had a good example here last Tuesday of how, despite the fact that there were two major corporations involved, because of the ponderous system in place right now, many small businesses in Brantford are going to suffer as a result of the actions of this particular government.

I would like some of the members who voted against that bill to visit Brantford, because the people there are ready to tar and feather them. We are not going to run them down the railways, but we will slide them down the Grand River, down to the mouth where they belong. That would have provided a lot of economic activity for small businesses in Brantford. The members here knocked it out and destroyed it.

The other thing I would like them to do is go and talk to some of the small businessmen and merchants in downtown Brantford, as I have, or to the people who have been working on this. They will tell the members that, no matter what route they take now, the merchants will be in a worse position next spring than they were two or three days ago.

Some of the concerns the city has are the fact that they have to go this route and the fact that government refuses to bring in some type of legislation or to streamline the procedures so that small or large businesses can move or act or react when they want to expand or build. They do not want to have to go through a lengthy rigmarole without being sure exactly what the results would be. No business can operate under those circumstances.

4:10 p.m.

The other point is that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure we have a healthy economy in all aspects. I can assure the government -- and I am sure no one in the government party would argue with the point -- that when you have a healthy economy, large business thrives but small business thrives also. No matter what kind of gimmicks are used, window dressings and whatever else, if the economy is sick the first people to get it on the back of the neck are the small businessmen.

We do not see General Motors going under; nor do we see Ford going under. General Motors, as an example, had lived through depressions and everything else and has made a profit every year no matter what.

Mr. Kerrio: Chrysler is going under.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, Chrysler is not going under. But there are small businessmen who go under because the economy is sick.

This government is doing nothing in terms of trying to develop the economy, coming up with an industrial strategy, providing the kind of economic environment where business can thrive whether it is large or small. There was a paean here to free enterprise: The unseen hand of the market system is going to resolve this. What bloody nonsense!

There is not one healthy economy in the western world. If you look at western Europe, where governments are actively involved, you will find that where economies are healthy and governments believe there should be room for private enterprise, they also believe there should be room for government direction and involvement in the economy.

When you compare the economies of those countries in terms of the inflation rate and the employment rate, with the so-called free economies of other western countries like Canada and the United States, you will find that the free enterprisers are the worst performers of anybody in the economic sense; but we still come out here and give this ode to a mythology.

I suggest it is about time the government grew up economically and saw what the real world is up to. Adam Smith has been dead for a few hundred years -- not exactly that long, but for a long time. The government should forget him and start looking at how other economies operate and why they are successful; it should start applying those kinds of rules and get involved to make sure the economy works.

The unseen hand of the marketplace has not worked. It is not going to work. If the government is going to depend on it, it is going to find it totally useless in terms of the effects it will have on society to ensure a good life for the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ruston): The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Makarchuk: I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that part of the problem is that the biggest enemy small business has is big business. The other two parties are tied to the large businesses. As long as they are tied to the large businesses, nothing of value is going to happen to small business.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to join in support of the resolution moved by my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). I am quite certain one of the many factors that caused him to bring this resolution to the House today is his direct exposure to the hundreds of working and dedicated small businessmen whom we share as constituents in the city of Mississauga.

For my part, before coming to public life I was very active in small business, having been involved in the founding of some three or four. As a person coming from that background, I have brought to public life some very strong convictions that, as speakers before me have said, the government must support small business today as perhaps never before.

I had hoped we could avoid any excessive cynicism in this debate, and to some extent we did. I compliment the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) for one or two or three things. First, I would thank him for his comments of today in support of my colleague’s resolution, but I also recall that a few weeks ago he and his colleague from Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) supported a resolution I proposed in this House that had to do with assisting small businessmen.

I believe the member for Mississauga South is very sincere in his desire to bring attention to the contribution made to our economy by small business, and that is what this resolution is all about. If a Small Business Week were to be declared in Ontario, I join with the member in believing that a long list of innovative initiatives could he introduced by government to assist small business. We are aware that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism has recently accomplished some new programs to assist small business.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton shared with us one of them, which he feels was perhaps prompted, and no doubt was, by his introduction of it in the House some time ago. He is sharing it with his constituency.

There are others initiatives. We have some new financial assistance programs. One is the paying of 75 per cent of the cost, to a maximum of $7,500 for a firm, for financial assistance specifically to small business. We have another program, to assist in research, which will pay 90 per cent, as the brochure says, of “the tab at the lab.” These are programs that have been brought in by the minister of this government as a specific response and an assist to small business.

The government has also committed itself to a marketing government division in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, to help small business sell to government. Its purpose will be to help them identify specific marketing opportunities and to meet the purchasing requirements of provincial ministries and their agencies.

I mention these things because they are indicative of the value which this government has placed on the role of the small businessman. This resolution is a natural progression in the government’s record of concern. Quite clearly, the question of follow-up is essential, should the government choose to undertake this program. It is for this reason that I am particularly happy to see that the member has included in his resolution such suggestions as the one for a universally recognized symbol. I believe that would, in a very genuine way, aid in the success of such a week and in the dissemination of information as it would go forward in that week.

As a part of my work at the Ontario Youth Secretariat, last year we sponsored the first Ontario Career Week. It was a program that had considerable effectiveness in bringing professionals in the career guidance community together, drawing attention to the career resources that are available in the province. While that program was limited in scope, we are going to sponsor it again this year on a more expanded basis. Here we did use a logo, as the member suggests we do, and it was of considerable assistance as we brought forward, focused attention on, and disseminated some very helpful information.

One of the key factors in the success of such a week would be a logo, along with many of the other suggestions embodied in the resolution. It has been well thought out by the member.

As to the development of a journal that would summarize all the programs and the assistance available to small businesses in Ontario, I think all members here would find such a document very useful in dealing with our constituents, I would imagine that such a document would be just one part of several types of information already available. Some of the more recent ones, such as the recently published document on a small business development policy for Ontario, would complement that and give us that focus.

As we speak to the concerns of small businesses and particularly to a proposal such as this one, to assist them, it is important to be mindful that there are more than 240,000 small businesses in Ontario and that they comprise 97 per cent of all the business enterprises in this province. Cumulatively, they account for 23 per cent of the total sales and provide 40 per cent of the total employment, which was alluded to by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

The member also referred to the fact that they hold the greatest potential for the employment, not particularly of young people, but of people new to the labour force. The government has demonstrated that in programs that have particularly assisted small business, such as the Ontario Youth Employment Program, which we are about to see launched again this year. It involves some 40,000 young people working in the private sector, through government assistance of $1.25 an hour. It is a very real help to small business, as well as to the farming community and other parts of our business community.

4:20 p.m.

Coming back to the principle of this bill, I think the main thing is that such a week would highlight a great deal of the government assistance which my colleague mentioned at the outset. It would stress that it is available. All too often the small businessman is preoccupied with all the other complexities of doing business these days. This would let him know he could have the assistance and would focus attention on just which programs are there to assist him.

I was disappointed, to say the least, by the comments by the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk). He did not quite come back to the purpose that was intended by the mover of this resolution: to set aside a week. There are examples where this government has participated in and taken leadership in such observances. Next year we have the International Year of Disabled Persons coming up, so designated by the United Nations. We have had the Month of the Family. We had the International Year of the Child. We have set aside time to focus and bring people’s attention to a particular aspect of our society and give it the proper attention.

I did not like the cynicism; I did not like him trotting out again the bogyman that the old boys’ clubs control everything and that we want to set small business against big business. That is not so. Small businesses,