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

April 23, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L028 - Mon 23 Apr 1979 / Lun 23 avr 1979

ESTIMATES

ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HISTORY OF LEGISLATURE

ITALIAN CANADIAN BENEVOLENT CORPORATION

SHORTAGE OF SKILLED WORKERS

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

ORAL QUESTIONS

REED PAPER COMPANY

COMMISSION PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

FOOD PRICES

JOB CREATION

OHC TRANSFERS

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

USE OF CREDIT CARDS

GASOLINE CONTAMINATION

LIBRARY GRANTS

PUBLIC HOUSING

PROVINCIAL BORROWING

PETITION

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

INCO LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

PORTUGUESE CLUB OF LONDON INCORPORATED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONCLUDED)

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: Pauline M. McGibbon, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1980, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, April 23, 1979.

ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is April 24; and on April 24 for the last 63 years, we and the Armenian Canadians who make up the population of this province and this country have celebrated Armenian Remembrance Day.

April 24, 1915, marked the beginning of one of the most tragic and saddest times in the history of mankind in the 20th century. It represented the beginning of the persecution of the Armenians who were living in Turkey by the Turkish government; this persecution went on for a number of years and resulted in at least a million and a half people being slaughtered. The significant thing is that this was the first genocide of the 20th century, the forerunner to the holocaust instituted by Adolph Hitler in Nazi Germany.

It therefore is not just another day to remember from one of the many groups that make up the multicultural fabric of this province. It is a special day for all of us who believe in and love freedom, justice and the protection of the dignity of man and the right of every human being to live a happy, peaceful and successful life. This was denied to millions beginning on April 24, 1915.

Many of the descendants of that massacre, many of the Armenians whose mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and relatives who perished in that genocide came to this country -- starting in the early 1920s -- and many --

Mrs. Campbell: And some of the survivors.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and some of the survivors, as my friend from St. George reminds me. Yes, some of the lucky survivors came here along with many of the relatives and friends. They have carved out a very meaningful life for themselves in this province, and that life has extended to taking

part in all the affairs of this province, and they’ve made a very rich contribution. I think we also acknowledge that.

I’ve had the privilege over the years, as have many of the other members of this House -- the member for St. George, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith), the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) and others -- to attend the special ceremonies that remember Armenian Memorial Day. I think that’s important because, as was pointed out yesterday in that ceremony, we have to remember this event. It’s not just a day for the Armenians, it’s a day for all of us to remember because of the very horrendous events it put into motion.

Therefore, as part of that remembrance, the remembrance of why the day is observed, that day is recorded in a book the Ministry of Culture and Recreation put out called “Days to Remember” as one of the significant days, among many, that are celebrated by many of the citizens of this province. It also will be found on a new multicultural calendar that will go into all the schools next year.

April 24 will be marked as Armenian Memorial Day so that all the children, no matter where they come from or what their background, will know that on April 24 a horrendous event occurred, something quite unlike anything that had ever occurred before in this century, and something that we should never forget occurred so that it may never happen again.

While we remember it here, it’s very regrettable that this event goes unacknowledged and unrepented in the country where it occurred. I think that’s the tragedy. Turkey refuses to acknowledge hardly that it ever occurred, and it is certainly unrepentant of it, very unlike the present attitude of the government of West Germany towards those terrible and horrendous events that occurred in its country.

So I think, while remembering and learning from what happened then, as part of the process and because it’s something very close and dear to the hearts of the Armenian people who live in this province, we must protest to that government that they not take the attitude they do towards this event.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I am very pleased to draw the attention of the House to this very important day which is occurring tomorrow, and to state the reasons for it, and to state our full support of the principle and spirit of the resolution that appears on the order paper.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, some may ask why it is, given the multicultural mosaic of our country and our province, the time of the Legislature should be taken to discuss historical grievances that may go back to the former homelands of many Canadians whose origins go back to other countries. It could be asked whether it is reasonable for each grievance to be taking up the time of legislators. But this is different. A million and a half persons were slaughtered, and “genocide” became a term that had a meaning all too real for the world community.

Orphanages were taken and divided: Those which housed Armenian children were told to let the children starve, because young Armenians grow up to be adult Armenians. Women and children were indiscriminately butchered. Men were shot. A forced march of a million people towards the desert occurred in which very few survived at all. Tens of thousands of corpses lined the roads. Yet the western world, knowing full well this had happened, found itself powerless to deal with the nation that had perpetrated this atrocity.

Because of that, in 1939 when Hitler outlined to his associates the plan by which he would eventually slaughter six million Jews and Poles and others, he was told he could never get away with it. He said, “Of course I can. Who now remembers the extermination of the Armenians?”

If the world had remembered, if the world had taken action then to stop the slaughter and had remembered the slaughter afterwards, the 20th century might be written for future centuries to look back on as a difficult time, rather than the bloodiest time in the history of mankind.

Over and above that, Turkey still does not accept that the massacre occurred. Two million Armenians lived in Turkey; they were reduced to a population of 100,000. Turkey today says the genocide did not occur, yet there is incontrovertible evidence by eyewitnesses, even from their German allies at the time who were themselves horrified at what had happened. There is incontrovertible evidence, and it has taken five years of fighting at the United Nations to get one sentence about the Armenian genocide included in a corning declaration on human rights. It has taken five years of struggle for one sentence.

We have an obligation to impress upon the people of Turkey that their government must acknowledge, as the German government has done, that it happened, that those who perpetrated it were to blame, and that to take their place in the annals of decency among nations they must accept responsibility does lie on Turkish soil, with governments of Turkey. That’s why the resolution was put forward. That’s why I was so pleased to hear my friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, speak in favour of this concept. That’s why the time of legislators and all persons throughout the world should be directed to this event, so it may never be forgotten.

[2:15]

Mr. Cassidy: It may seem unusual for this Legislature to be talking about events which occurred halfway around the world and a lifetime ago, but the meaning of the events that took place in Armenia back in 1915, and before that as well, should still be very vivid for us. In recalling them, we may be doing a service, not just for the Armenian community, but also for the many communities which make up this multicultural land of ours here in Canada.

I share the concerns expressed both by the spokesman for the government and by the leader of the Liberal Party. We will be supporting the resolution which is put forward, asking not just that there be a commemoration of the genocide that took place, but also asking for specific action from the Parliament of Canada.

People should know that the treatment which was meted out to the Armenian people was not just a one-time affair which took place in the heat and passion of a great world war in 1915, but that the persecution had gone on for generations before that. The dividing up of the Armenian homeland began as many as four or five centuries ago. Like other nations which have experienced the same kind of treatment, it got to such a point that as long ago as at the time of the Congress of Berlin in 1878 efforts were made to try and prevent any further outrages taking place.

In 1894, more than a lifetime ago, the Armenians suffered an orgy of killing and brutalization which shocked the most hardened observers of what was then a very harsh rule from Constantinople. By 1915, even the British, who had been silent up until then, were shocked into protest at the treatment of the Armenians by the British government’s then friends in the country of Turkey.

Two-thirds of the population of Armenia perished. The rest were scattered to the winds to live in various parts of the Middle East, to come to this country, to come to the United States and to come to every corner of the world. More tragic still is the fact that even since that act of genocide the Armenians have suffered the problems of being a persecuted people constantly on the move. There are Armenians today who are being compelled to leave Iran in the wake of the recent Islamic revolution there, a revolution which has led to them as Christians being unwanted and therefore subjected to persecution.

In this country, we were not able to intervene actively at the time of the original outrages that took place in Turkey. We did, however, take a substantial number of Armenian orphans. They settled in Georgetown. It is a tribute to the people of that time that we were at least that open-minded, that we were prepared to step in in an humanitarian way in order to help Armenians in their spread around the world. That was the foundation of the Armenian community which is now active here and whose people are now productive in our country.

I want to salute the dedication of these people to their new land, their hard work and their commitment to Canada as well as to the memory of their homeland. I want to underline our commitment as a party, not just to multiculturalism and to giving scope for Armenians and people from dozens of other lands who have found a new homeland here, but also our concern for Armenians and any other peoples around the world who are separated from their homelands and now find it well nigh impossible ever to return.

Almost everyone in this House has some personal experience or is not so old as to not have had some friends or relatives who had personal experience of the Second World War and of the holocaust. It gives us pause, however, to know that this was not just an isolated event, but that genocide occurred before and, presumably, unless we are vigilant could occur again. I’m very troubled to hear that among young people who are today’s students in our universities and colleges, too many of them are not genuinely aware of what that meant, whether it was for the Jewish people in Germany and in eastern Europe during the Second World War or whether it was for Armenians back in 1915.

So in commemorating the genocide and offering our support for the resolution the Leader of the Opposition has put forward, I want to do so with a spirit of saying that we as Canadians cannot condone this kind of genocide wherever it occurs or wherever it may be threatened in the world. One of our goals in creating a civilized world order should be to ensure that no such genocide will ever occur again.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HISTORY OF LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of the honourable members a new book by Professor Eric Arthur, entitled, “From Front Street to Queen’s Park.”

The book is the history of the Legislature of Ontario and the buildings in which the work of the Legislature is carried out from 1792, when Governor John Graves Simcoe first set foot on Upper Canada’s soil, to 1893, when the present Legislature was opened to the public. A special

chapter describing Ontario’s art collection has been written by Miss Fern Bayer, an employee of the Ministry of Government Services, who has been responsible for the great improvements in the display of the pictures in this building which members will be aware of.

The book is now on sale to the general public in bookstores and is in stock in the Ontario government bookstore. The retail price is $22.50. I wish to advise members that I have arranged for a supply of these books with a bound-in presentation page which are available to members at $20 per copy. Arrangements to purchase these books should be made through the office of the director of administration of the Legislative Assembly.

Being aware of the keen interest you have always taken in this building and the great interest of all members, I take great pleasure in presenting a copy of the book to you, Mr. Speaker, and a complimentary copy --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- is being sent to each member of the Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: Give him control of the building and you can have the book back.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In the years to come, it will serve as a reminder of the years spent working in this building in the service of the people of Ontario.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery are Professor Eric Arthur, his daughter, Mrs. Leach, and Miss Fern Bayer, the people who are responsible for this fine book.

Mr. Riddell: Are you mentioned in the book too?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Members will have to read it to really find out. I would suggest the honourable members will sit up burning the midnight oil tonight to read it.

ITALIAN CANADIAN BENEVOLENT CORPORATION

Hon. Mr. Henderson: During the estimates debate last Friday, I was asked by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) and the member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo) to table documents relating to the purchase and subsequent resale to the Italian Canadian Benevolent Corporation of certain properties at 3044 Dufferin Street and Lawrence Avenue. I have secured copies of the various pertinent documents and I now wish to table those with the following explanation.

The documents cover the agreement-to-purchase negotiations with George B. Heenan Limited and the various deeds and quit claims which applied to that purchase. Included is the current lease by which the Italian Canadian Benevolent Corporation occupies the property. Also included are letters covering the agreement of the Italian Canadian Benevolent Corporation to purchase from the government, together with the deeds and mortgage.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention the covenant in the deed which reads as follows: “The grantee covenants with the grantor that the said lands and premises shall not be used for any purpose other than for the purpose of providing community service for a period of not less than 25 years from the date of registration of this instrument and, further, that during the said period the said lands and premises will not be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of to any organization other than a community services organization with the approval in writing of the grantor.

Should the grantor not approve of any such proposed sale, lease or otherwise disposal of the said property and should the grantee not be prepared to withdraw from the same, then the grantor shall have the right to repurchase the said property at the price paid by the grantee for the said property.”

I have supplied 10 copies of these documents so that one copy each can be provided for the use of the leaders of the two opposition parties, the two opposition critics and the three honourable members who raised questions during the estimates, and three copies for the Clerk.

I hope the material I am now tabling meets the undertaking I gave to the committee of supply on Friday.

SHORTAGE OF SKILLED WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that questions were raised in this House last week about the recruitment of skilled workers abroad for job vacancies here in Ontario. As this recruitment is done by my ministry, I thought I would clarify some background and provide some facts and figures concerning our selective placement service. This branch, I might add, is one that has been considered vital by both industry and the work force in this province.

For the past three years it has been evident that Canada, like many countries, is facing gaps in its match of skills. These gaps are the result of several circumstances.

While my colleagues the Ministers of Education (Miss Stephenson) and Labour (Mr. Elgie) have both spoken at length about the education and labour force elements of this problem, from the industrial side it is clear that the energy crisis and others have forced us to move faster into a high-technology situation than earlier anticipated.

Over the past few years, there have been considerable losses in jobs in the semi-skilled and unskilled categories and considerable increase in products in the high-technology areas such as the telecommunications, aerospace and automotive industries. This is a development that is widespread, not only in Ontario but also throughout Canada and the United States, I would point out to my friends.

Mrs. Campbell: Not in Britain, not in Japan, not in France.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In fact, companies in various areas of the United States have been advertising extensively for skilled workers from Canada and other countries, often with successful results. It was recently announced, for example, that the US government has given permission to American employers to bring in approximately 2,000 skilled persons from outside that country to meet US skilled job requirements.

Having anticipated these problems, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, through the selective placement service, began four years ago to attempt to fill these gaps of skilled workers while at the same time promoting the expansion of the government’s apprenticeship and industrial training programs.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Settle down; it’s a long day.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, it’s a long day when the minister speaks.

An hon. member: How is the minister’s cold?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will get the member a new seat, John; relax.

Mr. Nixon: The member for St. George is getting to the minister a bit.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have lived with her too long -- if my friend knows what I mean. His caucus knows what I mean. Our program provides for a full range of services including --

An hon. member: Withdraw.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you talking to me or her?

Our program provides for a full range of services, including ascertaining specific areas where certain skills can be found; advising on and placing international advertisements; arranging interviewing programs; expediting immigration documentation; and prospective employees and immigrants with updated information on Ontario.

This program is now used by Ontario employers who need their gaps in skilled job areas filled for the short term.

The whole point of the program is it not only enables the industry to carry on rather than relocate or raid other small industries, but it directly creates employment for the unskilled and semi-skilled whose jobs feed or rely upon the services of these skilled employees.

For the year ending 1978, 1,026 skilled and technical immigrants were brought into Ontario under the selective placement service program. Their arrival resulted in the creation of 7,800 new jobs, including 1,100 jobs in industrial and apprenticeship training.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this program. Without it large manufacturing industries, which are now expanding, are in many cases left with three choices:

1. To decide not to proceed with their expansion;

2. To ship out their tooling and manufacturing work to the US;

3. To proceed with expansion and attract skilled workers from smaller Canadian manufacturers who cannot match their higher wages and benefits.

Obviously, none of the above alternatives will be good for our industries or for our workers.

The selective placement service has worked closely with both unions and companies in an attempt to provide options to reduced operations or to raiding. This has proved to be very successful, especially in the Windsor area where skilled trades are at a premium.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this importing of skilled labour is done under strict control.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not the issue.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Employers who use the skill search program are required to establish industrial and apprenticeship training within theft companies.

Mr. S. Smith: Why do we need them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those who do not establish such programs are refused additional requests under our selective placement service --

Mrs. Campbell: And additional money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and are restricted from importing skilled labour by the federal authorities. Our ministry follows up with the employers to audit the apprenticeship training within these companies.

Mrs. Campbell: How long have you been in office?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Over 80 per cent of the Ontario employers who used the skill search program in 1978 now have in-house skill and apprenticeship training.

I want to deal specifically for a moment with questions concerning General Motors raised last week.

On March 8, 1979, General Motors representatives met with officials of my ministry to discuss skilled labour shortages. The company’s operation in Windsor is one of manufacturing transmissions and has planned for an expansion of 1,500 employees, of whom 270 will be in the highly-skilled metal cutting trades. At the present time, over 80 per cent of skilled tradesmen in the metal cutting industry are over 40 years of age. The majority of them were trained outside Canada and became available through past immigration policies.

General Motors’ expansion of its transmission operations in Windsor will mean an increase in employees from 1,250 now to 2,750 by April 1981. The total expansion will require 270 skilled tradesmen with only 95 being recruited outside Canada.

As always, before beginning any recruitment for General Motors, representatives from my ministry consulted with the Employment and Immigration Commission and with the Ministries of Colleges and Universities and Labour to ensure the company’s skilled labour recruitment was justified. As a result, the various provincial and federal agencies involved agreed that in order to meet its planned expansion, General Motors be allowed to recruit 95 skilled employees from Europe.

General Motors has already demonstrated co-operation concerning apprenticeship training and now has an apprenticeship training program. Recent arrangements with the Ministry of Education will include a further 111 apprentices in this program. By April 1981 there will be 137 apprentices in General Motors’ training program. The recruitment of 95 skilled workers will allow General Motors to implement its expansion program and will also provide skilled instructors for the company’s apprenticeship training programs.

It should be noted that when General Motors found it necessary to seek 95 skilled workers outside Canada, the company discussed the hiring of this additional labour force with their own union local 1973. Two union representatives sit on the company’s hiring committee. In addition, the international union in Oshawa was also informed about the company’s plans and agreed with their actions.

To summarize, it is important to put our selective placement service in perspective. This service simply fills gaps where we do not have skilled workers to match jobs and ensures that expansion will take place to create employment for Canadians. I think it is important to note that out of 200,000 registered skilled jobs in Ontario we only have to follow this route to fill about 1,000 job vacancies per year.

While my colleagues and I work to expand our programs to better meet long-term situations our province, like many jurisdictions throughout the world, faces short-term job match problems. Without finding skilled workers quickly, we will be short of the necessary people to train our Canadian work force over the next generation. As well, we will face the immediate loss of some manufacturing opportunities which may seek other jurisdictions which either have or, I might emphasize, are willing to acquire the skilled workers needed.

Mr. Martel: Where have you been all along?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At the moment, through the selective placement service, we are able to co-ordinate the needs of large firms and, hopefully, we are able to fill those needs rather than to have a competition for skilled workers which might be fatal for some smaller firms.

May I conclude by emphasizing that this program is by no means an alternative to encouraging our young people to undertake apprenticeship training programs. Rather, it is a short-term supplement, in some cases, to permit that very training to continue.

No matter how successful we are towards this goal, and we believe we will be, we, like most other jurisdictions, will face short-term job match gaps. In order to protect our work force and our industry, we will continue to try and solve this problem.

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification: This morning on the radio the Minister of Education stated that I had given incorrect information last week when I gave figures to indicate a drop in the number of active apprentices in certain trades between April of last year and February of this year.

I have taken the opportunity to check the figures. They came to us from the director of the industrial training branch -- from his office in her ministry -- and they show specifically that the number of steamfitters is down from 610 last year to 606 this year; the number of electricians taking apprentices is down from 4,202 to 4,033; the number of millwrights down from 349 to 131 this year; and the number of mould makers down from 202 last year to 167.

These are the figures that I gave in the House last week; they are accurate according to the figures we have from the minister’s own ministry, and, therefore, it has to follow that the minister gave inaccurate information for the public of Ontario this morning.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the figures which the honourable leader of the third party has provided do not match the figures provided by the industrial training branch and all other sources of information we have. I do not know where he is getting his figures, but we are checking and double checking his sources because they do not seem to comply with any of the figures we have.

Mr. Nixon: One of you will have to resign.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Indeed, with regard to the numbers he is talking about for millwrights, specifically industrial, the decrease is four over one year, from 524 to 520. I have no idea where he is getting his figures, but I shall check and be sure to report to this House.

Mr. Warner: Totally inaccurate.

Mr. Cassidy: Completely inaccurate.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you resign and get it over with? You really should.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker; last Friday in this Legislature the Minister of Education made a statement that my information that I presented in this Legislature was completely erroneous when referring to recommendations that the Ontario Council of University Affairs had made to the government. I had stated that for the last two years the government had rejected the recommendations on funding. The minister said, “That, of course, is entirely erroneous.”

I would like to point out that in 1978-79 OCUA recommended that the government fund universities $757,800,000; they received $745,000,000. For 1979-80 OCUA recommended $995,000,000 which included tuition, and the government gave $981,000,000. Clearly my information was correct and the minister was wrong again.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it would be more appropriate if the honourable member were to reread his entire statement, which was not related only to funding recommendations from OCUA, but was related to a number of other issues as well, including the development of a formula for funding, which is the formula which has been accepted by the ministry. That is entirely truthful and factual and that was the portion of the statement to which I was referring specifically.

Mr. Breaugh: Go back to China.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REED PAPER COMPANY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism in the absence of the Treasurer.

Can the minister confirm the

article which appeared in the Toronto Star on Saturday, indicating that the Allan committee has recommended against a grant of $26 million to Reed Limited on the basis of the alleged non-viability of the Dryden operation? Can the minister, in particular, tell us whether any financial information was given to Mr. Allan’s committee by the company or by others which was not given to the resources development committee that has recently been discussing very much related topics?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I can’t.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You are right on top of everything, aren’t you?

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is the minister saying he can’t confirm that the Allan committee has rejected the application or that he can’t confirm whether it had additional information or both?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Both for now. It shouldn’t be too much longer, I think, until we may have more to say on the first.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a further supplementary, may I ask the minister whether the Allan committee report will be tabled with the resources development committee? If it contains no new information, then there is no problem of confidentiality with regard to the company. If it doesn’t contain new information, then at least a different construction has been put on it than that made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), who has expressed the opinion that the matter is viable and that they could clean up by a certain date.

Given that the resources development committee is about to make a decision on this matter, would the minister be sure that the Allan committee report is made available to that committee as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course I can’t. The Allan committee, as the Leader of the Opposition calls it, is a committee which is reporting to the Employment Development Fund board, which is essentially operating as a committee of cabinet.

Mrs. Campbell: You are mad because you are not the leader of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just think about it. Documents are filed with the government on many occasions. For example, a lot of small firms that file documents with ODC in seeking loans do so under rules of confidentiality. They wouldn’t want to see their records handed over by me, nor could I do so, to a committee of the assembly.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course you could.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it is a very relevant question for the committee to put. Indeed, I would be pleased to put it to Reed on behalf of the committee, saying, “Would you be willing to ensure that everything filed with the Allan committee or with the Employment Development Fund is available to the resources development committee?” Obviously, I am not at liberty to turn over anything under the current circumstances.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary question:

Would the minister table with the House all of the criteria on which decisions on grants from the EDF will be made? Further, will he assure us that no information has been withheld from the committee, based on information he has, which would allow the committee to determine whether or not such a grant should he approved?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the last part of that question is asking whether I would compare the information, advice and position taken by Reed in front of the resources development committee to the position taken by Reed in its application to the EDF. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Laughren: The information you have.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated earlier, I will be happy to put to Reed the question of whether they might make all the information they made available to the EDF available to the resources development committee. I really can’t do anything outside of that.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if I may finish with a further supplementary, since Reed did put a very large amount of financial information at the disposal of the resources development committee and presumably put either the same information or somewhat different information to Mr. Allan and his colleagues, would the minister not see the importance of letting the resources committee have Mr. Allan’s opinion on the basis for his committee’s opinion even if the information is the same, given that the construction put on that information by Mr.

Allan and his committee seems diametrically opposed to the construction put on the same information by the Minister of the Environment? Under these circumstances, would the minister not agree the committee would be better served, at a very important point, by having the basis of the opinion of Mr. Allan and his colleagues?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I really don’t see how the Leader of the Opposition can suggest the

interpretation put on that information -- the conclusions of the Allan committee as it were -- varies dramatically and completely with that of the Minister of the Environment. The Allan committee is charged with a lot different considerations and wider considerations than is the EDF. When the EDF is considering the application, we have a lot more things to look at.

Just to name one -- and I’m not saying this happens to be one which applies to Reed -- but as an example we would be considering sourcing machinery in Ontario. That is not the same sort of consideration, obviously, that the Minister of the Environment would face as he looks at the situation.

It was made clear in the appendix to the budget that economic viability is a major part of the conclusions drawn by the EDF, and the fact that an application may not ultimately be approved doesn’t mean the economic viability of the entire project is not there. It may simply mean we don’t think the leverage created for our contribution is sufficient. It may mean, on the other hand, that we conclude it ought to go ahead and can go ahead without government assistance.

So economic viability isn’t the be-all and end-all of the operation. It is an important component, but there are lots of other things that could happen to impact on the decision of the EDF. This is entirely consistent with the position taken by various members of the opposition with regard to the various elements that we should consider, far afield from economic viability.

COMMISSION PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll ask a different question because we’ll have a chance, I’m sure, to come back to this matter.

Is the Attorney General aware of comments of the provincial auditor with respect to the use of private sector legal counsel by royal commissions?

I quote from the auditor’s memo dated February 19, 1979: “The manual of administration, 50.8, in reference to commissions, requires that billings from private sector legal counsel for amounts in excess of $1,000 be submitted to the Ministry of the Attorney General for review and approval before payment. The billings on file at the commission offices did not bear such approval.” He is referring to the Hartt commission billings.

This is not the first time the provincial auditor has commented on this subject. The comments are very similar to those he made on the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning. To the knowledge of the Attorney General, how is it that these funds for legal counsel are expended without his authorization?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are to authorize the payment of these amounts. I’d have to look at any individual situation to see what had happened in that instance, if there was a payment made by another ministry without seeking our authorization. There might be a valid explanation; there might not be. But I would like to have the specifics as to the accounts to which the auditor refers and attempt to inform the Legislature to the best of my ability as to why this authorization was not sought.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the details are now available to the public accounts committee, and I’m sure can easily be transmitted to the Attorney General, and in view of the continuing litany of these habits of expenditure without proper accounting authority which seems to go on in royal commissions, will the Attorney General make a statement to the Legislature as to how those happened without his approval? Secondly, could he advise as to precisely what action he is taking to make sure this doesn’t keep on happening?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ll be quite happy to look at this matter. We do try to monitor it as we go along and report back to the Legislature.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the Attorney General as well perhaps examine the kind of work that was done by these very costly and high-priced lawyers for the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning and the Hartt commission to determine whether or not people within his own ministry could have provided the advice at their salary level out of his budget, rather than paying what I consider to be exorbitant prices to lawyers to these royal commissions?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’d like to make a general comment in response to the honourable member’s question. I think there is a great deal of very expert legal assistance available within the ranks of government. I can say that opposition members in the majority of the select committees are very reluctant to utilize these resources and often will go outside the government. Speaking very personally, my own view is that there are resources that are sometimes under-utilized within the government service. I would like to see members on all sides of the House support the greater utilization of these resources.

Mr. J. Reed: Things must be pretty tough.

Mr. Ruston: I thought you were cutting back.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Taking the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, for example, I’m not suggesting a committee such as that has not been well served by the quality of expertise that has been made available to it, Obviously, on occasion there is a high degree of specialization required if a committee is going to be assisted.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We’re talking about royal commissions, not select committees. That’s a different issue,

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I just wanted to make that general observation.

Mr. Nixon: They are your babies and nobody else’s. You pass the order in council. They are your royal commissions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You initiated some of them.

Mr. Nixon: Not enough of them, just one or two, mind you.

I have a supplementary. Since the question deals specifically with royal commissions appointed by order in council and since the payments were made without the authority of the Attorney General, would he consider having the bills taxed by the Law Society of Upper Canada, since they seem to be so large and since they were unauthorized by the employer?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Ministry of the Attorney General is not responsible for the administration of all royal commissions.

Mr. Nixon: The auditor says you are.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the Hartt commission is an example where, quite clearly, we were not involved.

Mr. Nixon: It requires your approval.

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Education. In directing this question to the minister, I want to stress that the figures I will be using come from the industrial training branch of her ministry, which is where the figures we used last week came from.

Mr. Warner: She’ll probably still say they’re wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: They are from the director’s office, for that matter. I hope the minister will be prepared to accept them.

How can the minister claim that Ontario’s apprenticeship programs are adequate when over the course of the last five years we have seen the creation of only 7,800 extra positions for apprentices, while unemployment among workers under 25 has gone up by 73,000 and the total number of workers under 25 in the labour force has gone up by 236,000? Is the minister aware that the rate of growth of apprenticeships in Ontario over that five-year period has only been half as great as the rate of growth of unemployment among young workers? Do she and the government consider that to be an adequate response to our needs for skilled workers and for youth employment?

Mr. Swart: She probably does.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question is no. The answer to the penultimate question is that I am aware of those figures. The answer to the first question is that I have never suggested they were adequate figures or that our apprenticeship program and our employer-sponsored training programs were adequate to meet the needs of today.

Mr. Warner: Admit you’re a failure. What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have spent much of the time in my role as Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities, in conjunction with the efforts which were made by my predecessor in this area and with my colleagues in the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism --

Mr. Warner: You should be retrained.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- developing programs to increase the availability of training opportunities for young people. We have, as I said earlier, a major role to fulfil in the modification of attitudes in order to ensure that more young people will consider these career choices as optimal for them.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister has now repudiated the work of her predecessors in providing for adequate apprenticeship in the province and since she has now indicated clearly that in 35 years this government has not managed to put in place an adequate program of apprenticeships in Ontario, can the minister say when there will be an adequate apprenticeship program in order to ensure there is none of this recruitment of skilled workers from outside the country? In particular, can she assure us there will be adequate numbers of skilled workers from Ontario or from Canada available in order to fill the 500 positions being opened in the Ford engine plant at Windsor?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I never cease to be amazed at the capacity of the leader of the third party to distort statements into something totally different and to ignore facts in the pursuit of political activity. I do not have a crystal ball, nor do I support the concept of totalitarianism, which seems to be the policy of the members opposite.

Recognizing the fact we have not been able to meet the needs of industry in this province, we are working diligently in the direction of informing, providing information and helping young people to develop the capacity to move in that direction.

Mr. Cassidy: A point of privilege. I consider my privileges and the privileges of this House have been breached by the minister’s use of the word “totalitarianism” and that it should be withdrawn.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, I could not hear what the honourable member was saying. He suggested his privileges were breached, but I am not sure what breached them.

Mr. Warner: Withdraw the remark or resign.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary to the minister’s answer relating to attitudes: Has she given any consideration to the fact many of our young people are interested in the apprenticeship programs, provided they understand they can continue in the development of those skills through colleges or through polytechnical education? Has she considered that aspect in the attitude of our young people?

Hon.

Miss Stephenson: This is very clearly an absolute necessity to consider, because indeed the program we feel is most appropriate for most young people to pursue is the development of a certain level of skills immediately following their graduation from secondary school, with the vocational training that is available within the secondary school providing credits in their apprenticeship program for that program; the development of a medium level of skills; and the pursuit of further skills through the community college system or through the modular education program which may in fact be provided right within industry, developed in conjunction with the community college or with the polytechnical institute,

We are looking at all aspects, because we believe one of the problems in the past has been the rigidity of the program. That rigidity must be overcome if we are to meet, not only the needs of industry, but also the needs of our young people who may not have the aspirations to go beyond a certain level at the time they begin an apprenticeship program, but develop that kind of aspiration as a result of years of experience.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that a number of people at present working at a skilled or semi-skilled level wish to pursue further their education at this time. We are trying to develop right now through community colleges and, indeed, through universities, the capacity to increase their knowledge so that they can move on to other levels of occupation as well.

Mr. Cassidy: As a supplementary: I want to reiterate to the minister the rate of employment among young people has been rising by twice the rate of increase in apprenticeship positions in Ontario over the course of the last five years. When will the minister stop trying to blame young people for failing to take apprenticeships and start ensuring the rate of growth in apprenticeships is rising by at least as much as the rate of growth in unemployment and it is hoped by a lot more?

[3:00]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is yet another example of the distortion of statements which I have made, I have said specifically that it seemed to me at this point it was totally unproductive to assign blame to any one group. We all share the blame, including the members of this Legislature and the members of government. Parents, young people, teachers, industry, trade unions, all of us share the blame.

I really don’t think we’re going to get anywhere by assigning blame to one group or to another group. The thing we need now is the co-operation and the concern of all the groups involved so that we can proceed with the development of the kinds of programs which are going to meet the needs of our young people and the needs of employment within our industries.

Mr. S. Smith: How can the minister continue to deny responsibility for the shocking state of affairs where jobs are going begging while the unemployed youth are finding themselves dispirited? In particular, what happened at Stelco? How is it that Stelco has been able to be planning the Nanticoke expansion for so long, finally found itself in a position with its new plant built and had to change its production methods and plans because, although it pays a top dollar, it couldn’t get the skilled workers even there in the golden horseshoe and in the Nanticoke plant? We knew the thing was being planned for years.

Why couldn’t the government have worked together with Stelco to make sure that these skilled workers would be there instead of potential workers being unemployed young people, dispirited as they are?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is reciting now precisely what oar intent and our actions are devised to pursue at this time and in the future. We are not alone. Every jurisdiction in Canada faces the same problem and so does the United States. I have said before that we all share blame in this area. To assign it all to government is entirely unrealistic and I think self-defeating at this point.

[Later (3:14):]

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Kitchener, the member for Ottawa Centre got up and accused the Minister of Labour of saying something that was a breach of his privileges --

Mrs. Campbell: It was the Minister of Education; not the Minister of Labour.

Mr. S. Smith: The former Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, sorry; the Minister of Education. She asked what the honourable member was taking exception to, and it was the use of the word “totalitarianism,” and attributed that to a particular party in this House. I do not think anybody involved in the parliamentary process should be accused of that, and I think the honourable minister should withdraw it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “totalitarianism,” and use the words “centralized authoritarianism” instead, if that is acceptable.

[Reverting (3:03):]

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the fact that the withdrawal of the federal subsidy added 3.2 cents to the cost of a loaf of bread, can the minister explain why the cost of bread has gone up by at least seven cents since the beginning of the year, and can he tell this House when the government will act to provide the monitoring of food prices that the minister has promised for months and which was promised in the throne speech at the beginning of March?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, at the particular time that the federal government decided to withdraw the subsidy on milled grain there was an argument between the minister in charge of the wheat board in Ottawa, Mr. Lang, who pegged the price of five cents going into a loaf of bread, and some other people who gave a lower figure. At the same time, it must be recognized that the bread industries said there was a production increase that had been coming for some time, and if I do recall, the leader of the third party at that time was profoundly upset because the figure mentioned for the price of a loaf of bread in projections was 13 cents. The seven cents is composed of five cents --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s all right, is it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, you asked me a question; I told you five cents was accountable as far as the minister in Ottawa in charge of the wheat board was concerned, who knows something about wheat. That was five cents. The other two was a production increase which the industry announced at the time. The industry at that time had projected even higher costs and so far only that relatively small amount has been put forward. If the member is going to suggest to me that I’m in a position to tell the federal government as of this day what subsidies to put on and what subsidies to take off, then obviously he is looking forward to a very great day on May 23, and it won’t be with his party.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister says the 17 per cent increase in the price of bread and bread products over the course of the past year isn't a very big one, is the minister aware of the fact that the price of flour has increased by 25 per cent over the course of the last three months, which is double what it would be with the withdrawal of the subsidy, and will he tell the House when will we get the provincial monitoring of food prices and explanation of why food prices are going up, which has been repeatedly promised and never delivered by this government?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, let’s answer the second one first. I said in December of this year, much to the consternation of the leader of the third party, that we would begin monitoring food prices. It seems to me the formal announcement of that program was made in the speech from the throne. It will be very, very, very soon; in fact a lot sooner than the leader of the third party would like.

Mr. Warner: Today? Tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The reason for it, Mr. Speaker, is we are not adopting the federal system. We are not doing surveys. We are not relying upon the CPI. We are bringing in an Ontario system that won’t reflect percentages, that won’t be weighted in terms of the season, that won’t reflect other Canadian averages, but will reflect 39 centres across this province, not just Toronto. It has taken us some weeks to provide a proper base for that.

I didn’t recall the member saying 17 per cent on bread; I recall him saying seven cents and I didn’t say that I regarded it as a very little amount. The member asked for an explanation and I gave it to him.

In terms of the price of flour, if memory serves me correctly, flour has gone up a little bit more than the amount the member gives and I am not very happy with the very sharp price increases. These increases were triggered by the removal of the federal subsidy in December 1978. As a matter of fact, regarding the member and his 25 per cent, in the month of December alone, flour moved up 42 per cent with the removal of that subsidy. Since then it has remained relatively unchanged in the first three months of this year. There’s no question that the very sharp increase in December in the price of flour has led to increases of between 10 and 14 per cent in prices of products that use flour.

Obviously the amount that the price of flour went up very sharply in December was not accounted for only by removal of the subsidy. Flour manufacturers at that time, or flour producers at that time, obviously decided that the removal of the federal subsidy had freed the price and therefore they would go into catch-up.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the proven effect of corporate concentration and vertical integration in artificially inflating the price of food, is the minister not concerned that in a great many stores in southwestern Ontario, specifically the Zehr’s chain, seven out of the eight brands of bread on the supermarket shelves are made by George Weston’s subsidiary, and that Weston’s also owns the companies that produce the flour, the milk and the sugar, the distribution companies that handle them as well as the supermarkets that sell them? Does he not agree the consumers are paying very dearly for this kind of near monopoly control in the food industry?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t agree with the last concept. I would suggest to the honourable member that there is a very detailed report on the degree of the concentration of corporate ownership in this country. It was done on a national level; it was done in Ottawa.

Mr. Laughren: They endorse the concentration, is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am just saying that people studied it for a long time, Mr. Speaker, and they did not exactly come to the conclusions as expressed by the member.

The question that was asked of me was, did I agree with certain aspects of the impact of the concentration of ownership in the food industry. I am saying to the member who asked the question that I do not, and that furthermore there was a very exhaustive study commissioned by the federal government in this regard and I think it somewhat backs my position.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that on March 13, 1979, I directed a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) relating to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ report towards a nickel policy of creating new industry and employment in the Sudbury basin? Can the minister inform the Legislature if his ministry is involved in job-creating programs and if any present studies are being carried out by his ministry or other ministries concerning the present lengthy Inco strike as it relates to any conditions of social or economic hardship in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, about a month or a month and a half ago, I asked members of the research branch to carry out such studies to give me some information on the impact of the strike in Sudbury, and I expect that information to be available shortly to me.

OHC TRANSFERS

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the Minister of Housing’s advisory committee on community sponsored housing has expressed its opposition to the recent Ontario Housing Corporation policy, can the minister explain why his ministry will not allow tenants from OHC units to transfer to nonprofit co-ops unless they meet OHC criteria for internal movement within OHC and unless they have been involved within the co-op development for a year? Additionally, is it not the case that the nonprofit co-ops will not be able to fill their rent-geared-to-income units if OHC tenants are not allowed to transfer easily?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring to the fact that under our policy in OHC, made by the board of directors, if a tenant is to leave OHC under our rent-geared-to-income program, and not under the rent supplement program, it is correct that we have not entertained that type of transfer from one public ownership to another where there is subsidy by the government. The fact is, if the tenant wishes to leave and become a resident of a co-op or nonprofit housing unit at something less than market rent, there is no objection to that whatsoever.

We have explained the position very clearly to the organization here in the city of Toronto that requested information and we have said we are prepared to meet with them if they think the regulation is not workable. We have not heard back from them at this point.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; there are two parts to my supplementary. First, does the minister not recognize that co-op housing is a different kind of housing and that some OHC tenants may prefer it, and therefore is it not unfair to apply the same criteria for internal movement? Second, given the lengthy waiting lists for OHC accommodation, why is the minister not making it easier for some OHC tenants to transfer to co-ops if they wish to do so and thereby make room for new OHC tenants?

Just to reply to what he said, people have repeatedly asked the minister for a meeting to discuss this and for him to change the regulation but he has not responded.

Hon. Ms. Bennett: Regarding the last remark, Mr. Speaker, I most definitely have responded to the organizations in writing as to the position of the government and requesting them to give me their points of view on the subject of the policy.

Let me go one step further in relation to the co-ops and the nonprofits: While we recognize they work somewhat differently from Ontario Housing Corporation, the eligible people coming into Ontario Housing would qualify in the rent supplement program within the nonprofit and co-op housing. Instead of moving tenants out of OHC units and into the nonprofit and co-op units, and then redoing the units at OHC, the wise and most logical step would I be to take them off the waiting lists and place them in the co-ops and the nonprofits.

Very clearly we have also had the situation where we have been requested in some communities for transfers from OHC accommodation to fill up nonprofits and co-ops so they can put themselves in a break-even position, while at the same time the waiting list in the community was not sufficient even to look after the vacancies to be created in OHC. So we would be creating a double-negative situation for the taxpayers of this province.

Ms. Dukszta: Does the minister recognize that the people who live in OHC units should have the same rights as the people who are on their waiting lists in terms of transfer to the co-ops, which in some sense gives a greater opportunity for them to have their own place than when they are living in OHC units?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We are not talking about them having their own place. We are talking about continuing to have a provincial government subsidy on the rent programs; that is what we are talking about.

[3:15]

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education with respect to

section 34 of the Education Act and its application to children with a variety of learning disabilities, particularly autistic children. Can the minister advise if she has now had the opportunity to review the brief sent in to her on February 21 by the Waterloo county

chapter of the Ontario Society for Autistic Children? If so, can she advise if the promises made in the speech from the throne just a year before on that same date will be kept so that

section 34 will not be used to compromise possibly the facilities available for autistic children, and the

section will be amended so as to allay the concerns the parents have that this

section may be used to the disadvantage of these children?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the brief of the Waterloo

chapter of parents of autistic children has most certainly been received and perused with great care. That specific

section is being examined in the light of their concerns. The response to their concerns will be a part of the package which is brought forward in terms of special education modifications. We are most certainly acutely aware of the concerns which have been expressed by that group.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Can I take it from the minister that the package which is proposed will see amendments to the Education Act, at least, introduced in this portion of the session for further consideration by the House?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have asked for and are receiving at this time responses from various groups -- from school boards, from trustee councils, the teachers’ federation and others -- about the proposals we have made and those are being collated at this time. We look to the kinds of responses we are getting in order to help us design the most appropriate legislation and regulations to go along with it.

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of the Environment. It relates to the lead contamination in the vicinity of the Canada Metal Company Limited plant and it is in two parts. I am grateful to the minister for his letters of April 3 and March 19 last, but quite obviously there has been a breakdown in in-plant vigilance.

The first part of my question is: what is the ministry going to do to make certain there is monitoring equipment inside the plant and vigilance in the plant to assure that monitoring equipment is working properly?

My second question arises out of the matter that was reported in the Globe and Mail, which I thought was finally ended and to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in the minister’s absence last Friday. What is the extent and degree, to the knowledge of his ministry, of the present soil contamination in the area surrounding that plant which he commonly refers to as the community area, having regard to the soil removal program instituted and completed there in 1977?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With regard to the first portion of that question, Mr. Speaker, I would wish to advise the honourable member we have a written commitment from the industry in question to increase its monitoring and to supervise the system much more effectively. That is a written commitment. I could be wrong in the amount of money that is required, but I think it is $100,000 they have committed themselves to spend on this program. I can assure the honourable member we are insisting not only that the money be spent but that we will be making, on a regular basis, in-plant inspections to see the equipment is working and functioning properly.

Given that there have been occasions in the not too distant past where the levels were above what we think they should have been, I think we have every reason, and the member has every right, to expect that we will inspect the plant frequently and certainly insist that those standards be maintained.

With regard to the soil -- and I am not sure I understood that question in its full detail -- which will perhaps have to be removed if it exceeds the confirmed measurements, that we will do. I am not quite sure whether that was the commitment the member expected from me at this time relative to the removal of the soil.

I understand that a lot of soil was removed. Frankly, we are not 100 per cent sure whether it was incomplete at that time, or whether it has been since. We are trying to confirm what the analysis will prove. I think whether it was one or the other is not nearly as important as that we will take on the responsibility to remove the soil wherever it shows to be in excess of the criteria.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is really again in two parts. Will the minister instruct the plant that if there is any failure of its in-plant monitoring equipment, the plant is immediately to cease operations until that is repaired? Second, will the minister have tests made of the soil of the 49 properties, and an additional 49 properties -- the 49 where the soil was replaced in the summer of 1977, and 49 other properties -- in order to find out whether or not the new soil is now contaminated, and the extent and degree of contamination in the properties where the soil has never been replaced?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes. There is no question that we will insist that the new soil, as well as the old soil, be re-examined. That is part of the process that is going on right now. I can give the member an unqualified “yes” on that question.

With regard to the first part of the member’s question, if there is a complete breakdown, certainly we will insist that they desist in their operation until such time as it can be effectively improved. If there is a variation in the operation, then it becomes, I think, a matter of degree. If it becomes significant, yes, we would do the same thing. However, we do bow there will be some variation, and that variation becomes somewhat subjective.

We hope it will be below average on all occasions. I doubt if we can always come to that position; I wish we could. That is certainly the long-term goal, and when the new equipment is put in and is properly functioning, then I think there will be no problem coming to that goal. In the interval, I know we will insist on the proper functioning of the equipment. If there is a breakdown, we will expect the company to act accordingly.

They have to stay within certain limits, certain means, and many days they are below that. If they go above it, then I would think, if it happens frequently, they should obviously shut down. If it is on a very infrequent basis, and provided, as they have been in the past, they go well below the normal mean for a month, then there is quite a different decision that should, I think reasonably, be made.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I could direct to the Premier (Mr. Davis), I guess. In view of the fact that people involved in major sports in this country always feel the politician should keep his or her nose out of sports, I am a little reluctant to ask this question. But I am concerned, as are so many other Leaf fans across this province. The Leafs went down last night and there are those who feel --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not of urgent public importance.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Ruston: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the recent refusal of Metropolitan General Hospital to admit a patient on April 6? When the patient was returned on April 9, he was admitted. However, seven days later the family was informed by the hospital and doctor they had waited too long to bring the patient in and there was very little hope of his recovery.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member was good enough to give me a copy of a letter he had on this subject. Since receiving it 45 minutes ago, I have instructed the area team to check into the situation.

I think the point needs to be made that not everyone who arrives at the emergency entrance of any hospital is admitted. It is a matter of medical judgement as to whether the person should be admitted or detained for observation. I will ensure this is looked into and I will get back to the member with the details of the result of that investigation.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that when there are no beds available in these hospitals that has some effect on a doctor’s judgement of whether or not to admit someone to an emergency room? This is the second case that’s been raised from Windsor in this Legislature. There are others. I’m getting five a week; one a day. Do we have to bring a lot of horror stories in front of this Legislature to get the minister to act? I’ve made the minister aware of the problems in Windsor. Why doesn’t he open up some more beds and make the active-treatment beds available?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is trying to have it both ways. He was complaining at one point that in some hospitals at certain times people were being contained in emergency before a bed was available in a room. That would seem to indicate to me that in those cases the doctor has determined they should not be sent home, that they should not be allowed to leave the hospital but rather should be retained in the hospital.

It’s interesting to look at the Windsor situation. There, though the rationalization process, we are in fact opening up more beds in the chronic field. The numbers will probably increase in the future, as studies that are currently under way by the local health council of chronic-bed and nursing-home-bed needs are completed.

In point of fact, the member may know we’ve discussed the question of the rationalization in that community. The current rationalization proposals are freeing up considerable sums of money for new programs such as the CAT scanner at Hotel Dieu Hospital, the neo-natal unit, chronic home care and so forth. The difference in beds overall is only 24, but it’s a question of how they’re going to be used appropriately to meet the health-care needs of that community. That’s most important.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, would the minister, in investigating this, look into the reason why the patient was transferred to Ford Hospital in Detroit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there’s also the possibility -- based on what the honourable member has told me and what I’ve seen in this letter -- one physician has made one judgement and another has made a different judgement. That happens. The system does depend on the application of sound medical judgement. I will check into that as well.

[Later (3:33):]

Mr. Makarchuk: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Would the minister impose on the bureaucrats in his department and tell them to resolve the continuing dispute between his ministry and the Brantford General Hospital as to whether certain beds were closed or were not closed? As the minister knows, the hospital claims the beds were closed. His ministry has imposed a penalty on them and, as a result of the penalty, the hospital intends to lay off more than 30 people starting tomorrow and will close a certain wing. Would he get on to Dr. Dyer and a few of the others and resolve this situation soon?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the answer to that situation lies in the letter I sent to the health council about a month ago indicating through them to the hospital that when they have come up with a rationalization plan agreed on by the health council and the local hospitals, that up to -- I think the figure was $384,000 would be added back into the budgets. That, I would think, is a strong incentive to get on with the rationalization of the hospital services.

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary: Is the minister aware the $384,000 penalty imposed by his ministry was imposed on the hospital for supposedly keeping open beds? The argument is the beds were closed; the hospital claims the beds were closed. His officials claim the beds were there and were operating. Would he resolve that particular issue in which case the hospital would have the funding it requires to continue?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think, Mr. Speaker, they’re all part of the same issue and all part of the same resolution.

[Reverting (3:29):]

USE OF CREDIT CARDS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. On February 23 the minister announced he was directing the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to prepare regulations forbidding the use of credit cards in doctors’ offices. May I ask the minister, will that be cash or Chargex from now on?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I did not direct the College of Physicians and Surgeons to create the regulations. I indicated I was referring the matter to them and would discuss it with them. I expect I’ll do so when I see them next.

I saw them recently -- and it was on the agenda -- but the meeting went on, and that item wasn’t covered. I expect it to be covered some time in May or June.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I recognize the Globe is sometimes wrong, but the minister is quoted as saying:

“The minister said of his request made by letter yesterday that if not acted upon he will use the authority given to him in the act to order the college to do it.” Has he changed his position again?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think I should discuss the matter with the college.

I may say on this particular subject I’m very impressed by the reaction to this particular situation and how many of our fellow citizens don’t agree with me on that subject.

[3:30]

GASOLINE CONTAMINATION

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, dealing with the situation in Port Loring with respect to gasoline leaks from storage tanks. Can the minister tell us whether or not his ministry has yet located new leaks from the gasoline storage tanks of Buchanan’s garage in Port Loring which continue to contaminate the wells in that area? Why is it that it was the Argyle fire department which had to tell the ministry fresh gasoline was again flowing into local wells? Was the ministry not monitoring the situation as the minister told us they were doing back in November?

Does the minister not have an obligation to make sure this situation is not a continuing problem?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think there is a little bit of an overstatement in that question, Mr. Speaker. I believe there’s one unused well -- that’s my information today -- that has some contamination. I don’t think it’s quite legitimate to say it’s pouring in. If we can redress those two phrases then we can get to, I think, what is significant here.

Yes, there is some contamination still going on from the large tank owned by the gas station. We are having it dug up to find out the source, since that’s where I understand it’s coming from. We think it should be dug up and we’ll find that source.

I think it’s perhaps a bit unfair to say the leak is contaminating all of the wells in the area. I may have to tell the member tomorrow it’s more than one well but, as of noon today, we’re sure of one. I doubt if there are large numbers.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr. Bradley: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. In the light of the fact that municipal councils at the present time are wrestling with their budgets and are finding it difficult to meet the cost of library services, taking into consideration other cutbacks that have taken place, is the minister in the process of reviewing, in the light of representations made to him, the per capita grants to municipalities for library purposes with a view to increasing it even a small amount?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the formula. I would not like to promise, at this point, that it should be changed, certainly not changed upwards. I would like to bring to the attention of the member opposite an

article written by my counterpart in the province of Quebec in which he pointed out the provincial government grants to the libraries here in Ontario were, by all odds, the best in the country.

While we are prepared at all times to review the formula, I think we should not leave the impression here that, in fact, the libraries are falling badly behind or this province is not doing its share in financing libraries.

Mr. Bradley: A supplementary: Recognizing that the minister is proud of the record of his particular ministry in this funding, would he not agree the ministry should at least try to keep up, not necessarily with the rate of inflation, but not allow the portion of library costs it is assuming to fall behind each year because it merely stays with a population formula as opposed to raising the per capita rate itself? In other words, the proportion the ministry is paying in total library services is declining each year because it only goes up because of population.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That is an aspect of the formula we’re looking at. But, as I said, I cannot guarantee we will be amending the formula upwards. We’re certainly aware of the point that has been made.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Given the fact that limited dividend housing projects in Metro Toronto are suffering operating deficits; and given the fact the federal government, not known for flexibility, has agreed, subject to provincial involvement, to assume 50 per cent of those operating deficits on the accepted rent-geared-to-income formula, is the minister still unwilling to participate, thereby ensuring that some 10,000 senior citizens and others on fixed incomes in Metro will face enormous rises in their rents this year?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it’s not a matter of the ministry not being ready to cooperate. Back a few months ago my ministry had a meeting with the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto and with the federal government as well. We came to a decision that we should establish a committee to review the entire proceedings of publicly supported housing in the Metropolitan Toronto region.

It is my understanding that three executive members of Metropolitan Toronto, appointed by the chairman, are on the committee, and three representatives from the Ministry of Housing, and that they have had a number of meetings. The latest report I had, which was just late last week, was that they had been proceeding in a very favourable way. I understood the funding we had been giving to Metropolitan Toronto on an ad hoc basis over the last three years was conditional on the fact that we had some way of rationalizing the managing and directing of public housing in this area of the province.

That’s exactly what the committee’s challenge is at this moment: to rationalize its operation and report back to loth the chairman and myself by the end of June of the current year. That will enable us, we hope, to rationalize the operation and indeed continue to afford the subsidy the province has extended over the last three years on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: Does the minister intend, however, at this point to respond to the Metro chairman’s challenge, if you will, to come up with a solution quickly and not allow senior citizens to be caught in a fight between two Tory groups in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I know of one Tory group; I’m not quite sure of the second one the member happens to be speaking of at this moment.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The chairman seems sometimes to have at least some support from the government of this province; on other occasions, I wonder.

I have indicated clearly that Mr. Godfrey and I have agreed that this committee should review the entire problem and report back to us in June. Regardless of at what point we agree on a formula -- it may be tomorrow -- the flow of funding would only take place in December of the current year. There is no problem in the chairman saying there is a cash-flow situation that is being impeded by the provincial government. The fact is that regardless of when the agreement is reached, the cash flow takes place in the month of December of each year.

PROVINCIAL BORROWING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer confirm at this point whether on February 1, when there was a repayment of the German Deutschmark loan, it cost at face value about $9 million to repay a portion of the loan outstanding that really was only equivalent to $4 million? Would he agree with those numbers, that this year we lost $5 million on that one transaction?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’d have to check the actual figures. There is every possibility the member is correct because of the change in the relative values of the currency.

Mr. Peterson: Due to the fact that we have -- and probably when he checks it he will agree with me -- hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of exposure because of the revaluation of various currencies in the world, not only the province but also including Ontario Hydro -- but the province also which is not excluded from having borrowed in foreign currencies -- what is the Treasurer’s plan to cut down the liability or the exposure of the taxpayers of Ontario when it comes to refinancing or repaying these loans?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will have to get the member an actual figure, but I believe the foreign currency loans of the province, including Hydro, are less than two per cent of the outstanding provincially funded debt.

Mr. Nixon: That big? That’s like three cents per person per day.

Mr. S. Smith: What’s $5 million?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: Has the Treasurer had any conversations with his friends and counterparts in the province of Alberta with a view to either Hydro or the province itself borrowing money from that province, in which case the exchange rate does not change and the government doesn’t put itself at risk?

Mr. S. Smith: Not yet anyway.

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, Ontario Hydro borrowed, I think, $300 million last week in Canada. Ontario Hydro’s credit rating is so good that we don’t have to go to Alberta to get it. There are many willing lenders right here in Canada so that we can get it very quickly. It was all subscribed very quickly in the marketplace. The Bank of Canada, through its practice -- and I am not arguing today whether it is right or wrong -- of maintaining a differential in the rates in Canada and the States, has traditionally forced many borrowers into the US market.

I might say, for example, that currency overhang problems look very good when one looks at the borrowings we made in the States lately. We have come from an 83-cent dollar to an 87-cent dollar on $300 million.

Mr. Peterson: That’s federal leadership.

PETITION

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTE

Mr. G. I. Miller: In view of the impasse between the Haldimand Board of Education and the secondary school teachers of Haldimand, I would like to present a petition which reads as follows:

We, the undersigned, as ratepayers, concerned parents and interested citizens, petition the board of trustees for education in Haldimand county, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Education to terminate the present impasse in Haldimand county and negotiate a settlement. If this is not possible by May 1, 1979, the Legislature of Ontario must step in and legislate the teachers back to their classrooms and appoint a compulsory arbitrator to draw up a contract.

I would like to present these petitions now, one to the Premier and one to the Minister of Education. I would also like to point out that copies have been sent to the Education Relations Commission, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and the Haldimand Board of Education.

I believe the petition indicates the feelings of the voters and ratepayers of Haldimand county and of the 2,860 students whose future education and jobs are at stake.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

INCO LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 66,

An Act to acquire the Assets of Inco Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of the bill is to vest the title and control of the assets situate in Ontario of Inco Limited in a crown corporation, the Ontario Nickel Corporation. If compensation cannot be agreed upon, provision is made for arbitration.

The objects of the Ontario Nickel Corporation include the task of operating and maintaining the assets of Inco Limited so as to provide employment and other economic benefits to the province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Shades of potash.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the March 29 report of the standing procedural affairs committee regarding change in order of estimates.

Mr. Breaugh: Just for the information of the members of the House, Mr. Speaker, this has been published on the Order Paper for some time. It calls for a slight alteration in the way matters are dealt with in the House. Without changing the standing orders of the House, the report offers two suggestions when there are changes that are required in the order of estimates.

First, as always, there’s the opportunity to seek unanimous consent. If that is not forthcoming, then it is possible simply to prepare a motion and put it on the Order Paper. That would require a simple majority of the House.

It is my understanding this has agreement on all sides.

Motion agreed to.

[3:45]

PORTUGUESE CLUB OF LONDON INCORPORATED ACT

Mr. Peterson moved second reading of Bill Pr2,

An Act to revive Portuguese Club of London Incorporated.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the next order, I wish to table the answers to questions 116, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 and 136 standing on the Notice Paper.

House in committee of the whole.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONCLUDED)

On vote 504, supply and services program:

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to raise a question regarding vote 504, supply and services program. It relates to minor projects that cost less than $200,000 and it relates to the Fort Erie unmanned travel information centre. Can I have an explanation of what is meant by “unmanned”? Does this relate to a computerized information centre? Can you explain that to me, sir?

You’ll find that on page 38 of your design and construction program, 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Unmanned means exactly what it says -- it’s just a place to visit. Unmanned means there’s no one there. It’s a place to visit and pick up information.

Mr. Haggerty: What you’re telling me then is that this new centre will be open and there will be no person there at all? Nobody to inform tourists coming into this area? At Fort Erie, the largest port of entry into Canada?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Second largest.

Mr. Haggerty: Second largest, no; it’s not the second largest.

Surely, the minister must be going to have some personnel in there to give out information?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, in response to the honourable member, this centre will be manned in the busy season of the year. In the off-travel months, it will just be available for one to go in and pick up literature. But again, that part of the program comes under the Minister of Tourism and Industry. I think you should go into more detail on the manning during those estimates. Our

part is only to supply the building.

Mr. Haggerty: I thank you for that explanation. In other words it’s going to be manned at peak tourist periods of the year -- say from April until October or something like that. The rest of the year it will be open and if anybody wants to drop in to pick up information it will be available.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I wouldn’t want to confirm April. As the honourable member knows there are not that many tourists in April -- but during the usual tourist season, I understand the Minister of Industry and Tourism will man it.

In other words, if a company is being investigated by the employment standards brands of the Ministry of Labour, does the Ministry of Government Services still let those contracts to that company or does it cease?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, we take the low tender. There is no discrimination against anyone. We take the low tender, but we enter the clause in that they must pay a fair wage as set out by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Grande: On the second part of that question, if there is an investigation by the Ministry of Labour into that particular company and the Ministry of Labour is investigating it, whatever the reasons might be, for unfair treatment of its employees -- in other words, a violation against the Employment Standards Act -- does the ministry still give a contract or allow this company to do work for this government? That’s what the question is.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: At the time of renewing a contract -- let’s say it has been a two- or three- or five-year contract -- when we come to renew it we inquire of the Ministry of Labour to see if there are any breaches of the labour code and ethics. If there are, we reserve the right to penalize that company for a period of time, depending on the seriousness of the breach of the act.

Mr. Grande: Is that a policy and is that policy written down anywhere, or is it just a verbal thing with the company?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It’s in our procedural manual, and our own staff hold a meeting and a hearing with the contractor involved, whoever it might be. They have authority to do that.

Mr. Grande: Given that particular bit of information that the minister has given, is the minister aware that on June 6, 1977, a company by the name of Globe Envelopes was being investigated by the Ministry of Labour’s employment standards officers and during that period of time Globe Envelopes had done at least $35,000 worth of business with the government?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, we would have to admit that we are not aware of the claim that the member brings forth. Globe Envelopes do supply us. They certainly have tendered and have been the low tenderer and have received orders from us. I felt that the honourable member -- and I am speaking off the cuff here -- was referring to contracts that we might have for janitorial services or something of that nature. That is what I felt that you were referring to, and it was to tenders of that nature I was responding to you on.

Mr. Grande: Doesn’t it follow that particular policy in your procedural manual? Doesn’t it follow that if a company is being investigated under that particular act you then penalize that company for an order which Government Services has placed with that company? Why does it work in one set of circumstances and does not work in another set of circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, just to reinforce what I said earlier, I was thinking of construction, janitorial and contracts of that nature. For the ordinary tender, like this company’s to supply envelopes, our staff doesn’t have the right to be selective without bringing it to the attention of the minister.

General procedure does not permit them the right to be selective.

Mr. Grande: May I make a comment then, Mr. Chairman? In future, before orders are placed with particular companies the Ministry of Government Services, should make sure to find out from the Ministry of Labour whether some of these companies are under investigation by the employment standards branch. If they are under investigation, for whatever purpose and whatever reason, I would hope that the ministry would agree with me that the order should be placed with another company and certainly not with a company that is in violation of the law of Ontario. I don’t know whether the minister wants to respond to that. I hope he does and does make that commitment.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the honourable member that there is a private bill by the Liberal Party before this House of this nature, whereby they are suggesting until court action is taken just because a person is charged does not mean he is guilty. I believe it was debated last week while I was out of the House.

I cannot give the honourable member today the assurance that he is requesting, but I will assure him :that we will look at it. I can’t give him a free hand that we will do it, but I can assure him we will look at the possibilities.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, will you allow me just a few very brief words regarding the statement the minister made in the Legislature today?

Mr. Chairman: I believe that referred to a previous vote that was passed.

Mr. Grande: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: We are now on vote 504.

Mr. Grande: I will only take two seconds, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I cannot allow it right now. I would have to say that there is a certain length of time for these estimates. If the other votes are passed and there is still time remaining, I think it would be in order at that time. However, I just can’t accept it at the moment.

Mr. Lupusella: On a point of order, if I might. It seems that on Friday there was a proposal which was made to the Chairman of this committee which involved material pertaining to the particular transaction on which the minister today made a public statement. It was my personal proposal, which was accepted by the Chairman. I am not sure if you were sitting at that time, but it seems there was general acceptance to go back to the same vote to raise questions pertaining to this particular transaction between the government and the Italian Canadian Benevolent Corporation. I hope you will take our concern into consideration just to develop two comments which won’t take very long.

Mr. Chairman: I certainly recall the member suggesting that the information be presented particularly to the critics. The chair at no time, to my knowledge, stated that one

section would be stood down which, in other words, means that you could discuss it further. I would again like to suggest that if these other items can be covered quickly, there would certainly be no reason why it couldn’t be discussed if there is time remaining.

Mr. Young: On this point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it was pretty thoroughly understood in the House that this matter would be left until the minister would make his statement with the understanding that we could go back briefly to discuss it, if we wished, at that point. I was labouring under that impression and I think the minister understood it that way -- namely, that he would make a statement and then it could be discussed, if necessary.

It is likely we have taken more time on this point than would have been taken by the member who wanted to speak. I would urge that this matter be allowed because that certainly was the understanding of the House at the time.

[4:00]

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for a moment or two. It might relieve the minds of the members concerned. I felt I would possibly have to respond to this. I also have two other responses here for the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) and I will take this opportunity.

Members are concerned about the information I filed today over the 25-year period. I have since spoken to the Attorney General --

Mr. Chairman: Order. I was asked whether the committee could refer back to the other. I just have to ask the committee what is their desire? Do they wish to revert?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I would respond this way. Actually this item is not in our estimates if you are going to stick to the votes. It was in the estimates of two years ago. There is nothing in our present estimates respecting this. But, even if you have to add two or three minutes onto my estimates, I think we should spend a few minutes on this.

Mr. Chairman: What is the wish of the committee?

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I would have no objections if we could limit the time on this particular item. I do not have too many more items -- a few on vote 504 and a couple on 505. I do not know about the member for Yorkview, but I would be agreeable if we could limit it maybe to seven minutes.

Mr. Chairman: We have 36 minutes left for the balance of the estimates. Is it the wish of the committee that 10 minutes be put to this?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Five minutes.

Mr. Ruston: Six minutes.

Mr. Chairman: Is the committee unanimous with six minutes?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It might be helpful to the honourable members -- since I spoke to them over there I spoke to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) with respect to their concern about the 25 years. The Attorney General informed me that this is a benevolent organization. If they make any profit it must go back to benevolence or to charity. That protects your concerns about private individuals making money on this piece of property. We have protected it as such for 25 years, and they are chartered.

If you noticed, the Attorney General did remain for a few minutes so he could respond to it, but he thought it had been passed. It is a benevolent organization and as such any money they have must go to benevolence or charity.

Mr. Lupusella: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share the concern expressed by the minister. By the way, I would like to convey my appreciation for the step which was taken by the minister, in co-operation with the Solicitor General, to incorporate within such transaction the concern which was expressed by us in relation to the piece of land.

About the 25-year item which is incorporated in this particular transaction: Even though I agree with the minister about the profits which might derive from this piece of land, let’s say the corporation decides some day to sell this piece of land. If the corporation exists, then the point raised by the minister is very well taken into consideration. In other words, the profits which might derive from this piece of land should, of course, go to the corporation itself because it is a benevolent corporation, so there is no particular dispute or disagreement between the minister and us, on this side of the House, if the corporation in 25 years, in fact, exists.

Our particular concern in raising this problem was -- and again I would like to emphasize that I am talking in very hypothetical terms -- let’s say the corporation goes bankrupt -- which, of course, I hope it won’t. We greatly support the project, we greatly support projects which are developed on behalf of the community through such corporations. But, again, my concern is based on the fact that any corporation -- and I think a benevolent corporation is not greatly different from a regular corporation -- might go bankrupt.

I would like to hear from the minister what will happen in connection with this piece of land in the event that the corporation goes bankrupt. Perhaps the minister could satisfy me by giving me legal assurance that the land will be utilized again for the benefit of the community as a whole. I don’t want to emphasize the same principle, but we greatly support the principle of the community project. Perhaps the minister can tell us what will happen to this piece of land. I hope he has had an opportunity to discuss this point with the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, in order to assist the honourable member, it is my understanding that if the company should go bankrupt, as the member has suggested might happen --

Mr. Lupusella: I am talking about a hypothetical situation.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: All right; let’s say the company goes bankrupt. It would automatically go into receivership; the trustee appointed to sell the property would have to refer back to the particular clause in the deed and offer the property to us. This is more or less a first mortgage on the property; it’s the first claim against the property, whether the company goes into receivership or not.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I am quite satisfied with the minister’s reply. Again, I would like to take the opportunity to thank him for taking the steps that we were requesting last Friday.

Mr. Grande: Have the six minutes elapsed?

Mr. Chairman: It is 4:07 p.m.; so six minutes have elapsed.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, last Friday the member for Essex North requested some information, which I agreed to furnish today, on tender 3111 for courier service, which contract was awarded to Purolator. My colleague asked for the amounts of the tenders, which were as follows:

(1) Purolator Courier Limited, Toronto, $329,382;

(2) CN Rapidex, Toronto, $388,746.45;

(3) Kingsway Courier, Toronto, $489,636;

(4) BDC Limited, Mississauga, $503,834 --

Mr. Chairman, this will take me two or three minutes. Does the honourable member want it all read into the record? If he does, I’ll be happy to do so.

Mr. Ruston: Maybe it would be just as well to put it in the record.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: To continue:

(5) JG Courier, Toronto, $882,180;

(6) Swift Sure Courier, Oakville, $1,257,954.

Toronto service: Purolator Courier Ltd., Toronto; rate (a), single delivery, 50-pound maximum, $3; rate (b), combined pickup and delivery, $5.

No. 2: Swift Sure, Oakville; rate (a), single delivery, 25-pound maximum, $3.50; rate (b), combined pickup and delivery, $4.75.

No. 3: JG Courier, Toronto; rate (a), single delivery, $6.50; rate (b), combined pickup and delivery, $9.

No. 4: Kingsway Courier, Toronto; rate (a), single delivery, $6.50; rate (b), combined pickup and delivery, $13.

No. 5: BDC Limited, Mississauga, rate, single and combined delivery rate $18 per hour or 35 cents per highway mile.

No. 6: Atripco Delivery, Toronto, rate (a), single delivery $2.25 to $9.35; rate (b), combined delivery, $4.50 to $18.75.

The award to Purolator was considered in the context of the government policy of Canadian preference. The company quoted 100 per cent Canadian content in the courier services offered under the terms of the tender. If the honourable member wishes, I shall read a letter received from the company’s senior vice-president confirming the 100 per cent Canadian content quoted by the company. That appears to be satisfactory.

I will provide an answer today to the member for Essex North in reply to his question on Friday about the number of gasoline credit cards issued to civil servants and the control of illegal uses of gas for private purposes.

The following is the list as of April 20, 1979 of the number of cards we have issued: Agriculture and Food, 416; Attorney General, 26; Colleges and Universities, one; Community and Social Services, 267; Consumer and Commercial Relations, 24; Correctional Services, 101; Culture and Recreation, 48; Education, nine; Environment, 304; Government Services, 321; Health, 255; Housing, 43; Industry and Tourism, 15; Labour, 238; Northern Affairs, 134; Office of the Premier, including cabinet office, Provincial Secretaries for Social Development, Justice and Resources Development, 29; Office of the Provincial Auditor, One; Ontario Lottery Corporation, 20; Ontario Place, two; Ontario Science Centre, 10; Revenue, 134; Solicitor General, 14; Transportation and Communications, 4,195; Treasury and Economics, 85; and Workmen’s Compensation Board, 12.

Internal audit has a specimen one and Security Credit System has a specimen one.

The credit card can be used for gasoline and oil purchases and for lubrication and certain emergency services only. It is clearly marked “For Government Vehicles Only.” It’s imprinted with a ministry name in all cases. The imprinted account number is tied back to the ministry concerned, which is billed directly by the oil companies. The Ministry of Government Services pays only for the gas, et cetera, used in its own vehicles.

Most of these are vehicles attached to our property management branch offices in different parts of the province or to our vehicle repair and trucking operation under this vote. Each ministry is responsible for the control of the issuance of cards and for the verification and approval of accounts submitted by the oil companies. In the Ministry of Government Services, the responsible supervisor or manager must approve all invoices.

Mr. Ruston: My thanks to the minister for that information. Where would telephone tie lines to cities come under in the vote?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Supply and administration.

Mr. Ruston: I asked about a year ago in the estimates if the ministry had given any consideration to having such lines into the town of Leamington, which encompasses a fairly large population in a telephone exchange area. I wonder if anyone can tell me whether they have studied that and whether the cost would merit having a tie line in there.

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I made a mistake in informing the member it was vote 504. It’s really 505. Could we go through 504 and my staff will be ready to answer his question just as soon as we get to the next vote?

Mr. Swart: I think, Mr. Chairman, it’s appropriate under this vote to ask a question about the installation of speakers in our offices here in the legislative building. Since I came into this Legislature some three and a half years ago I’ve been concerned that we have no way in our offices of keeping track of what is taking place in the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member referring to direct communication from here to his office?

Mr. Swart: Yes, in the legislative offices.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t believe that comes under this vote.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It’s the next vote but I’d gladly answer.

Mr. Chairman: I thought this came under the Speaker’s authority.

Mr. Swart: I’m in your hands, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to play it safe.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to the member. That is right. We would consult with the Speaker before any such equipment was installed. But, I might point out, it is my understanding that the Premier and ministers within this building, the leader of the official opposition, and his deputy are the only members, as far as I’m aware, that have them. We, as the government, would like to discourage speakers inside the members’ offices. We think it snakes for better attendance in the House.

Mr. Nixon: You can see how well it works.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, just on a point of order, are we permitted to deal with this? Did I not have the floor and may I proceed to motivate this?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It’s in the next vote.

Mr. Chairman: I always felt this was in the Legislative Assembly vote. I hope I’m correct in that. I think it’s been taken to the Board of Internal Economy.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If I might correct you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I’d be glad if you would.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I think you’re correct except that the funds would have to come out of this ministry. The Speaker would have the say; let’s not kid ourselves. It’s under his jurisdiction, but the money would have to come out of this ministry to do it.

Mr. Chairman: It’s under the next vote then.

Mr. Swart: I’m not asking for a two-way system, Mr. Chairman, but I do think there are real advantages to having speakers in our offices, if we request them, to carry the debates that are taking place in the House. I know the arguments against it and I am going to deal with them in just a couple of seconds.

Mr. Chairman: Before the member continues, maybe I should put the vote for 504.

Mr. Young: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if this is part of members’ services but may I ask the minister a couple of questions? He mentioned Purolator services a few minutes ago and the contract that was let there. What is the basis? Does he pay so much for a year of service laid down to certain specifications? Is it a piecemeal payment How is it done?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I missed something. Would the member repeat it?

Mr. Young: The contract is let for the service which Purolator gives the ministry. Does this mean that all of a certain type of parcel-letter communication is carried for the full duration of the contract, or is the total amount that he mentioned, the global amount, an overall amount which includes certain items, certain distances? How is the contract let?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I should clarify this. The member will note that I suggested $329,382. We estimate what the work will consist of and, based on that amount of work, they tender that that will be the amount of money. Then the tender consists of what I read later on: “Purolator rate (

a) single delivery, 50-pound maximum, $3.” In estimating we use the other figure: “Rate (b), combined pick-up and delivery, $5.” That’s really on each individual, but when you combine the estimated cost of all these for the year it amounts to the other. When they make the tender they are expecting to get that much work throughout the year.

Mr. Young: This is for service demanded during the year. You pay equal rates above that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We pay individually, as needed.

Mr. Young: A question arose in my mind the other day when a member from the government side was complaining to me that he had had a parcel delivered to his office by Purolator from downstairs on the first floor or the basement or somewhere like that. Does Purolator do that kind of delivery within the building?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Not that I’m aware of.

Mr. Young: Perhaps this is a matter we can talk about personally later on. But that sort of service is not done? That gentleman was very angry when he spoke to me about it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Not to my knowledge. He might dig up something, but that’s why I say “not to our knowledge,” if I might answer that way. then.

The member for Yorkview on vote 504.

Mr. Young: We have certain things in this vote -- collection services are here, where you collect bad debts. That, of course, is a tough one for this ministry because I understand all the uncollectable bills from the rest of the government are dumped on you. That may present a little bit of difficulty for you.

Could I ask about that? Two aspects: One, what kind of techniques do you use on the really tough ones? When it comes to a place where you find it almost impossible to collect, when a guy says, “Go to blazes,” what do you do at that point?

The other question I wanted to ask, and I might as well ask it while I’m on my feet, is what has happened with respect to the collection of the overpayment of the housing grants that we had here in this House some time ago before one of the elections? Do you remember? We did make home buyers’ grants and some of them were paid improperly and we were taking steps to collect those. What luck have we had on them?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I don’t have the information with me -- my staff has it -- on the latter question. But if I might respond this way to the first question, the budget estimate of this particular branch is $205,000. We have 14 man-years in it and unclassified staff of two man-years. The goal is to provide a complete and cost-effective central collection service to all ministries for the collection of debts owed to the Ontario government when collection efforts by the ministries have been exhausted; to provide effective leadership and expert technical support and operation activities within the special services branch.

The function of this activity provides: (1) central collection services for ministries and agencies of the Ontario government; (2) the minister’s support and direction for a special service branch of the ministry.

Significant issues: Use of private collection agencies: A six-month experiment has been undertaken using a private collection agency allocated approximately 350 accounts. The experiment has been moderately successful financially and, as a result of specific guidelines, no complaints have been experienced.

Consultants’ study: The study, scheduled for completion by March 31, 1979, it was completed a month ago -- is investigating means by which performance can be improved, possibly through mechanization of the support system through which a larger percentage of staff resources can be allocated to collections. A review of the potential greater use of this service by one or more of the additional major programs is also included in the terms of reference of the consultants.

To give you some help, the dollar value of accounts outstanding at year’s end was, in 1975, $4,225,000; in 1976, $4,705,000; in 1977-78, $5 million; in 1978-79, $5.5 million; in 1979-80, $6.2 million.

Dollar value of collections: 1975-76, $1,136,300; 1976-77, $1,375,000; 1977-78, $1,507,000; 1978-79, $1,400,000; 1979-80, $1,615,000 (estimated).

The other figures, just to reread the dollar value of accounts outstanding: In 1975 it was $4,225,000 and to jump up to 1979-80 $6.2 million.

Our staff is always ready to listen to anything reasonable. If they go out to someone who says, “Next month we can give you so much,” they are always ready to negotiate.

Mr. Young: There has been some satisfaction, then, with the private agencies you have hired to do this. I don’t want to rush this because there is still a question over here to be answered and I don’t want to take the rest of the time, so I will leave the rest of the things I had in deference to my fellow worker.

The thing that concerns me is a report or two which tells me some of these private agencies have very tough methods to finally get the pound of flesh or whatever it may be. I wonder whether that kind of thing is countenanced by the ministry if it comes to a finalization of this particular effort.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We have used one agency and they have not used tough, bully-like tactics. We have not had complaints back about the tactics being used. If any member does have complaints, we want to know about them.

We would suggest to you, if it does turn out as we think it will, we will no doubt use this route more often. We will step up the use of this collection agency.

Mr. Young: You will drop your own staff and go to the private agency?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, if we can reduce our staff, we will.

Mr. Young: You think that is more efficient?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I only point out to you our amounts have increased from 1975, $1,136,000, to $1,615,000, so there are more parcels to deal with, there is more work. But if the staff is not needed, we won’t be keeping them.

Vote 504 agreed to.

On vote 505, communications and computer services program:

Mr. Ruston: Under 505, on computers, I have a letter here from the Salvation Army public relations officer from Hamilton with regard to computer cards and the price of them. Just to give you an idea, they had to go to the United States to purchase them. One of the reasons for this was that computer costs are just 20 per cent of the cost in Canada. For example, computer cards which are $4.61 per thousand in the US would cost $18.20 in Canada.

You have a large computer there and I realize it is used for other ministries -- your own figures are only $150,000, but your total for the computer I think is around $22 million. Of course you charge that to other ministries. Do you have any figures on something like that? It is amazing, if that is the case, that these computer cards would be so much.

[4:30]

Also, we were asking a few minutes ago regarding tie-line telephone systems for people who are far from access to them. I am thinking now of the member for Essex South who is forced to have a very high expense for telephone through long distance charges. Of course, it is reflected in the annual report filed on all members. It is a little misleading because a member from the city of Windsor has no long distance calls to speak of. Maybe on occasion, when the lines are not available, he has to use it, but that’s not too often.

The member for Essex South has a population within the Leamington exchange of probably 25,000 people, and the exchanges that would come into Leamington would probably bring it up to 40,000 or more. I’m wondering if there has been any consideration given to that as well.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Firstly, if I might respond to the honourable member on the computer cards, we are not paying $18 a thousand. Again, we pick the cheapest tender and we do apply the 10 per cent factor to the Canadian tender if there’s an American tender as well. If we get a tender from an American firm at $4.61 and we look at the $18 one, I can assure you the $4.61 tender will get the job. We certainly take the cheapest tender and these cards are tendered.

With respect to the phone line to Leamington: A year ago we took a survey of all the long-distance calls from all government agencies, which included the member for Essex South. It was cheaper to pay the long-distance calls than the cost of the tie-line. We will again take a survey in the next two months and if the economics tell us it’s cheaper to put in the tie-line, we will so do.

I think I can understand the problem of the member for Essex South, as we are from similar ridings only with different political beliefs. I try to tell them they have their own belief there -- yes, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) realizes that, much to our sorrow. We are spread out over a large area. I don’t have a tie-line to about half of my riding. It does make our long-distance calls dear but it is still cheaper for the government of Ontario.

We will take a survey of that area within the next two months.

Mr. Ruston: Do you have any figures on what you may have paid for computer cards? Do you have that readily available?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, we don’t have it here.

Mr. Ruston: Perhaps it could be furnished to me at a later date.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Okay.

Mr. Swart: I’m going to make this very brief.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Just a further response to the member for Essex South: We have 12 lines into Windsor.

Mr. Swart: I was asking the minister if he would give consideration to allocating sufficient funds to have speakers put in our offices here in the Legislature. It’s important that we know where bills are at. There aren’t any of us who don’t on some occasion have responsibilities for a bill here in the Legislature. We may miss it or almost miss it because other bills go much more quickly or much more slowly than we had expected. It’s important we know what’s taking place in the Legislature. It’s also important on occasion th