Hansard Transcripts 1981-Oct-20 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Swan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) accused me of misleading the House. Although he withdrew that remark he left the accusation of wrong figures for the price of milk.

I would like to table with the Clerk of the House, and send a copy to the minister, a letter from the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, dated October 6 of this year and signed by Mr. Peter Gould, which totally confirms my figures. It has tables on the price of milk, and it shows that jug milk prices in Toronto -- and the same figures apply to Barrie -- increased 36 per cent in the last two years and more than 50 per cent in the last three years -- not 20 per cent in four years, as the minister stated.

In correcting the record I might also point out that from 1977 to 1980 is three years, not four years.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look forward to reading and studying the letter the honourable member has. It appears to be information different from what I happen to have, so we will look at it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STORAGE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks in this week's committee I promised that within two weeks I would begin announcing approved projects under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development storage and packing program. Only a week has passed since then and I am very happy to announce the first three approvals.

On Friday, October 16, I signed agreements with a producer and two packers. The producer is a Norfolk vegetable grower. He wants to store cabbages so that he can market his crop during the winter. The BILD grant he received last Friday will help him build 2,500 storage bins for cabbages. As a result, he will be able to replace some of the produce that is normally imported into Ontario during the winter. The total cost of his project is $225,000. The BILD grant will cover one third of that cost.

A large-scale apple packer from Grey county received a grant to increase the size of his controlled atmosphere storage. He will also renovate his packing facilities. He will be able to store apples longer, and market a higher quality product later in the season. The total cost of this project is $172,000; again, BILD is covering one third of the cost.

A packer in Bradford had his eye on the export market. He got a BILD grant to help pay for a new kind of potato and onion packing equipment. It will also help pay for an onion-drying and conditioning room. With this new equipment, he will have a higher quality packaged product to take into the export market. BILD gave him $45,000 towards the cost of installing this equipment.

Mr. Speaker, these are just the first three such agreements. I expect to he signing many more. To date, 125 producers and packers have submitted proposals for a wide range of projects. There is a total of $20 million in this part of the BILD program. It will make a very large contribution to expanding Ontario's fruit and vegetable industry.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to table the sixth annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped.

The council, which was established in 1975, has been effective and persuasive in reaching both the public and the government. This week the council will conduct a public forum in London, one in a series of public meetings across Ontario. These public sessions do much to promote awareness of the concerns and perhaps even more important, of the capabilities of handicapped persons.

Jack Longman, the chairman, is not in the Legislature today because he is busy getting ready for the London meeting, but Bob Waterhouse, who is the staff liaison person between my office and the council, is in the Speaker's gallery. It is with great pleasure that I share some items about these two quite remarkable men.

On October 3, Jack Longman received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Windsor and on Friday of this week the University of Waterloo will confer a similar degree on Robert Lambert Waterhouse. I know that members join me in saluting them and the universities that have marked the International Year of Disabled Persons in such an admirable way.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that members will find copies of the report in their mail boxes.

TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF 1971 ELECTION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might take this opportunity to say a few words. This is not in terms of a formal opening statement so I do not have any copies of it but I wanted to remind the older members and the more recently elected members of this House that tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of the first election of 17 of our colleagues, who are now sitting here as members. Of course, they will well remember the date October 21, 1971.

Needless to say, October 21, 1971, was also the date of the first election of the Premier and his Progressive Conservative government. After 10 years we are still going strong.

2:10 p.m.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This seems to have stimulated a little attention, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to remind the members that the 17 --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Of course, these statements are to be noncontroversial. But my friend says, "It is a pity you cannot govern the province." The people of Ontario on three successive occasions since then have said they think we can govern this province.

Of the 17 MPPs from the class of 1971 still here, 13 are on the government side, three are in the third party and one is in the official opposition. I would like to mention who they are. On the government side there is Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Birch, Mr. Drea, Mr. Eaton, Mr. Lane, Mr. Leluk, Mr. F. S. Miller, Mrs. Scrivener, Mr. J. A. Taylor, Mr. Timbrell and Mr. Wiseman. There were two who took a slight vacation during that 10 years: Mr. Walker and yourself, Mr. Speaker, were away for the 1975-77 period, but the voters sent you back here subsequently and we are happy you are still here.

On the opposition side we have in the Liberal Party from the class of 1971 Mr. Albert Roy. I hope I have not overlooked any other of his colleagues. I think he is alone as a group of one. In the New Democratic Party we have Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Foulds and Mr. Laughren, a group of three.

Mr. Speaker, I knew that you would not begrudge this short period of time in the House for those of us who are perhaps a little more veteran and the newer members all to join together in wishing the class of 1971 success and much more prosperity.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr. Wells.

Mr. Smith: We did note the reference to your vacation, Mr. Speaker. He stuck that one in -- very unkind.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, noting the absence of a few ministers from the class of 1971 and several subsequent classes, I will ask the Minister of Energy whether he could answer the question the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was unable to answer yesterday. The minister will recall that the Treasurer of Ontario did not answer the question although presumably he gave his approval by way of cabinet solidarity to the expenditure of $650 million Ontario does not have and has to borrow to buy an Alberta oil company. Would the Minister of Energy be able to answer the question as to how this is going to do what the Premier (Mr. Davis) said it would do: that is, in some way, ensure a secure supply of oil for Ontario?

Hon Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad to be asked that question. I think it has been quite obvious in the preceding question periods that the Leader of the Opposition has not really wanted this answered. I do not find anywhere where that party stands on this issue. Is the member in favour of this acquisition or not?

Mr. Smith: We are dead set against it. It is the dumbest waste of money since Pickering land assembly.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is fine. Let the record show that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Otherwise, I take it the member agrees to some features.

Let us take a look at why we did this. We on this side of the House felt it was about time the people of this province got where the action was. We realized, under the circumstances, we had to make our contribution to the Canadianization of this company. The company is a very good candidate for this process, almost completely foreign-owned, with very large holdings in the west that would not be explored or developed without the incentive grants this Canadianization process will enable.

We think this province, depending as it does on hydrocarbons for 65 per cent of its energy needs, should be there at the table getting the information it needs to develop an intelligent energy policy and to be part of the Canadianization process of this industry. We are very pleased to be part of this. Some day the member will regret his interjection of a few moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, the Minister of Energy suggests this government wants to be where the action is. Presumably by that he means out in Alberta where the oil is. Unfortunately, 30,000 of our young people are leaving for where the action is every year, because we are not supporting the industries that are in decline in Ontario. Instead we are supporting industries elsewhere.

May I ask the Minister of Energy --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is it true that in that commercial you made --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry, the Premier wants to help his minister. Believe me, he needs the Premier's help. I recognize that, but let him try to answer the question. He should just give him a chance to answer the question himself.

Mr. Speaker: Will you proceed with the question, please?

Mr. Smith: The Premier should not be nervous. His answer may not be as bad as usual. Give him a chance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really don't --

Mr. Smith: Would the Minister of Energy kindly answer the question I asked -- how this deal is going to ensure a secure supply of oil for Ontario? I see some hints being given by the Premier. He has very little confidence in the minister's ability to answer the question. He has a number of clues to give him. He really wants to answer the question himself. I feel badly not having asked him the question, honestly. He cannot contain himself. He wants to answer the question. He should be patient. Someone will ask him a question in the next few days. I will ask the Minister of Energy again how this ensures a secure supply of oil for Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Actually, there is no mystery about our exchange. We wanted to know on this side if the Leader of the Opposition really did tell a film crew during the last election campaign that if he became Premier, he would carry his own bags around.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I can get back to the question, I think what we are really trying to emphasize, as far as the people of this province are concerned, is that we are acting as a catalyst in the Canadianization of this company by making this significant development. The member should look at the holdings of this company, and the development that will occur because of the incentive grants that will be available once the Canadianization process is complete.

Once he realizes the economic spinoffs of development in that part of Canada -- because we are still talking about Canada when we talk about those developments -- and realizes that at least one third of the value of these megaprojects will accrue to the benefit of Ontario, and to the development of the resources that are there because of this, he will see it was a very wise decision on the part of this government to be involved in this acquisition.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the minister is sincere about wanting to maximize the benefits for Ontario in including in that some of the write-offs and so on, does he not think it is incumbent on the province to get the other 26 per cent that is floating out there and have total control?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, Mr. Speaker, I think it was a very deliberate decision on our part that we would not acquire control. We made a significant investment to take a very important first step in the Canadianization process and that will encourage other Canadian involvement for the acquisition of the remaining 26 per cent. Once that objective was reached we would have access to those very generous incentive grants. It would then be possible to develop the land holdings with which this company has some experience.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. J.A. Reed: The minister has skirted and touched almost every other subject except the question asked by my leader -- that is, how is the security of supply enhanced? The minister has touched on the subject of possible economic gains in Alberta. He did not mention that the Premier (Mr. Davis) had told a press conference last week that all the money was going out of Canada; he did not mention that the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. J.A. Reed: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. He said in the press conference there would be no new industry created. Now I ask the question once again -- it is the original question that was asked and not answered: How is Ontario's energy security enhanced by this purchase?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As we all know, the target for this country is crude oil self-sufficiency within 10 years. There are several ways to reach that target. One way is to increase the supply of hydrocarbons. Through the national energy program there are built-in incentives to encourage exploration and further development including the synthetic oils.

This company has extensive holdings and we are part of this. In order to help them accomplish Canadianization and to develop that source, it should be obvious even to the honourable critic of the official opposition that this makes a very significant contribution towards the acquisition of increased supply.

METRO POLICE COMPLAINTS PROJECT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am torn between asking whether the Tory caucus is going to give the disabled their human rights or to ask a question on the police bill. I will ask the Solicitor General on the latter.

A month ago, in Bill 68, the Solicitor General was prepared to have the public complaints commissioner commence an investigation at the outset -- at least in certain exceptional circumstances which would have been left to his discretion. During a series of public hearings virtually everybody said that if anything the discretion should be greater for the public commissioner. Virtually nobody said that discretion should be curtailed. But now the Solicitor General is not content to allow the police commissioner to have even that amount of discretion he was prepared to let him have a month ago.

Can the Solicitor General explain why he has changed his mind on this fundamental policy matter in the course of a month?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We have not changed our minds about anything. There has been no change of policy. Some amendments were made to the legislation after a number of delegations were heard. I think the section the Leader of the Opposition is referring to was amended at the suggestion of one delegation. We have taken another look at it and I discussed it with the complaints commissioner. We will be proposing a further amendment to that section this evening. Certainly it was not anybody's intention to limit the public commissioner's discretion.

I am saddened by the Leader of the Opposition, who has said on a number of occasions this is really good legislation -- legislation that is in the interest of all citizens. I wish he would stop playing petty politics with this important legislation.

Mr. Smith: Last fall, the Solicitor General, by means of private communication, indicated clearly he would be prepared to give the police commissioner the right to commence his own investigation rather than have to wait for 30 days. He then changed his mind overnight and took away that possibility, killing the bill in the spring. In September, he was willing to give back the right to commence an investigation, not just on grounds that the police were unduly delaying but on grounds that he felt it was in the public interest.

A month later, he again took it away. Now he tells us he is prepared to give it back again. Would the Solicitor General explain what is happening in his ministry, admit that Mr. Linden would probably not serve under the bill as emasculated as it was under the most recent amendments and admit that someone else in the ministry slipped through that last amendment, probably without the Solicitor General even knowing about it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: All I can say is the Leader of the Opposition is talking absolute nonsense. We will be debating this legislation tonight. I would be very happy if he would participate in this debate and I would be happy to discuss this section and any other sections at length.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Like other members of the committee who heard the delegations concerning that bill, I heard delegation after delegation from the visible minority groups in this city come before the committee and plead that there be an independent investigation from the very beginning.

If anybody is playing politics with this bill, it is the Solicitor General. Since it is the consensus, I believe, that the groups which would have the most to gain from an independent investigation under this act would be those visible minorities, why has the Solicitor General determined that he does not intend to listen to them whatsoever?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in my view this legislation is the most progressive legislation that has been developed on this topic anywhere. If the opposition would cease attempting to distort that fact, I think the Legislature would be proud to pass this important legislation which will serve the whole community. I am confident the legislation does and will enjoy the confidence of the great majority of the community.

Mr. Laughren: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe the Solicitor General has any right to stand in his place and accuse me or other members of the opposition of distortion because that is attributing motives and is simply not true. I was merely interpreting what the delegations who came before the committee requested. They requested that clearly and explicitly, and for the minister to accuse us of distortion is simply unfair.

Mr. Smith: Would the Solicitor General admit that the most recent amendment he announced would strip the public complaints commissioner of any right to commence an investigation on his own unless the police had unduly delayed -- in other words, effectively muzzle him for 30 days? Would the Solicitor General tell us whether he is prepared to accept that the public complaints commissioner can start an investigation on his own if he deems it in the public interest according to the new amendment he is going to present? Would he be kind enough to tell us Mr. Linden's view of the amendment as presented by the Solicitor General on his last occasion?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the Leader of the Opposition would take the trouble to read the legislation, he would note the commissioner is given the responsibility to monitor the handling of the complaint from day one. It was the understanding that the initial investigation would be done by the Metropolitan Police Force unless there was undue delay or any other impropriety -- I have forgotten the exact wording and I do not have the bill in front of me -- in relation to the initial investigation which would require that 30-day period to be abrogated in the public interest.

That is the intention of the legislation. That is what Mr. Linden has always understood would be the legislation. Given the opportunity he is going to do an excellent job.

2:30 p.m.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds).

[Applause.]

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I appreciate the applause coming from the other side.

Mr. Speaker: The member has friends all over the place.

Mr. Foulds: I think that just lost me a few dozen delegates.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), I would like to put a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Can the minister explain why, as a matter of policy, the Ministry of Community and Social Services is continuing to force the parents of severely retarded children in schedule I and schedule II facilities to pay user fees through the special needs and special services agreements? Ontario is the only province that is instituting such user fees, and these user fees are actually causing a reduction of Canada assistance plan funds from the federal government. Why is her government forcing parents like Janice Rennie in my riding and 1,300 other parents across this province to subsidize the federal government in order to save the ministry a few dollars?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, this policy was developed in consultation with the parents of the mentally retarded children. A great deal of discussion went on for months with regard to this policy. Before it was implemented with the federal government there was an understanding that it was approved by the parents of those children. If there are exceptional cases where distress is caused by the user fee policy that will be addressed. But it was never the intention to force it upon anyone. It was done only after months of consultation with parents and with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister then explain why her government, through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, engaged in a program of calculated deception of the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and the parents of such children, by saying the user fees were necessary to get access to federal funds? That is simply not true according to Mr. R. Yzerman of the CAP directorate. Also, according to her own co-ordinator of the special needs program, the administrative costs of assessing the fees appear to be greater than the income she will receive from such people.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: To begin with, I take great exception to the way that question was phrased. No deception was intended and no deception was practised. I have already indicated to the member that policy had to have the total approval of the association before we implemented it. We did have that consultation which went on for months before the program was implemented.

I am not aware of the statements the member has mentioned today. We have not had that kind of response in my office nor, I assume, in the minister's office.

Mr. Wildman: That is not correct.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I take exception to that.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister should get her facts straight.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I have my facts straight. I think perhaps the member should get his straight.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister explain why at least 25 per cent of the parents of such children have not yet signed agreements, in spite of the incredible pressure put on them and the incredible guilt trip her government has laid on them?

Does she really believe a sentence like this, on page six of a seven-page letter to one of the parents, does not mislead them? It says, "You can see by generating cost-sharing dollars we have accessed several million dollars to be spent on developmentally handicapped children which would not be available without this initiative."

That is simply not true. Both her ministry and the federal government admit that they need not charge user fees, and the fact that no other province charges such user fees indicates that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development did not need to charge them to get access to the federal funds.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I will ask the minister to have an updated report and to present it. But I hope this is not the kind of question we are going to have in the leadership convention. I hope this is not the kind of thing the members are going to drag up, because there was total agreement with the Ontario association that this program would be implemented to make it possible to develop more community services and that more money would be forthcoming through the Canada assistance plan to do this. This is exactly the direction we have been going.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the minister and other members that this is exactly the kind of question that will be coming from this party now and in the future, no matter who the leader is.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Premier (Mr. Davis) in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

In view of the forecast by Clayton Research Associates that Ontario next year will experience the lowest volume of housing starts since 1952, and in view of the startling figures of layoffs in northern Ontario lumber and sawmill towns because of high interest rates and low housing starts, what steps do the Premier and his Treasurer, while he is still a member of the cabinet, plan to take to stave off unemployment in northern Ontario towns that are facing these layoffs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the problem of the construction industry, primarily residential and to a certain extent commercial, is directly related to the problem of interest rates. I go a little bit by the press that perhaps some partial --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want me to read what I read in the Globe and Mail about the Liberals' significant meeting in northern Ontario where 30 people came out to their major policy conference and where the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) put his foot in his stack or whatever?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Premier please address himself to the question from the member for Port Arthur?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. They were interrupting me.

Mr. Breithaupt: Exactly what I meant. Exactly what I meant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not going to quarrel with what the member said. I am delighted to know he is trying to create the steady, solid appearance of the Premier of the province. That is delightful.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Do you want any order in this place, or don't you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that --

Mr. Laughren: Why don't you go and sit in the Speaker's chair?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I was being interrupted. This is what the members opposite do all the time: interrupt.

Mr. Speaker, to reply to the question, without interruption from the Liberal Party --

Mr. MacDonald: Ignore the interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now the member for York South is interrupting me.

Mr. MacDonald: Right; get back to your answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The question of the construction industry was a matter that we, as Premiers, discussed yesterday. In our communiqué to the Prime Minister we urged the setting of dates for a first ministers' meeting to deal in general terms with economic issues, but we specified the construction industry, which is primarily residential or housing, along with the farm community, fishing, et cetera, because I think the Treasurer would say, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) would say, and I certainly say from my own knowledge and of my own constituency, that the question of housing relates very directly to the question of interest rates. The members know the point of view expressed by the Treasurer on interest rates, which he has given them time and time again.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Premier tell me what steps his ministry will take to avoid or stave off the unemployment that is facing many of these one-industry towns in northern Ontario?

In particular, will he tell me what steps his ministry is taking to reverse unemployment in places like Longlac, where Weldwood of Canada Limited is laying off 19 per cent of its employees and Kimberly-Clark is laying off 35 per cent of its employees; in Hearst, where Levesque Lumber (Hearst) Ltd. is laying off 70 per cent of its sawmill employees and the Gosselin Lumber Company Limited is laying off 24 per cent of its employees; and in Dubreuilville, where the Dubreuil Brothers Limited, unfortunately, have to lay off 23 per cent of their employees?

That is a startling number of employees to be laid off in those small northern Ontario towns. I want to find out what steps are planned by the Premier, by his Treasurer and by his Minister of Industry and Tourism to get those people back to work and provide them with employment.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The concern expressed by the honourable member is one that the government shares, because in the construction industry the impact of lack of residential starts is not confined just to the communities he mentioned or to that particular industry. It also has an impact on the white goods industry and others that relate to the development of new housing accommodation.

I repeat, the basic problem relates to the question of interest rates. Once again, I am not going to speculate, because I have no way of knowing, other than what I have read in the press as to the possibility -- and I say it is a possibility, because I am really not privy to any information -- that perhaps a part of this problem may be addressed in the now fairly imminent federal budget.

We will continue to press the government of Canada with respect to the interest rate policy. We have made it abundantly clear that we --

Mr. Foulds: Why don't you use the Province of Ontario Savings Office?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say to the honourable member that this government cannot get involved in a massive general program of interest subsidization.

Mr. Laughren: In anything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Subsidization.

Mr. Laughren: I didn't say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, that is a significant part of the problem in the house construction industry.

Mr. Foulds: Why not? You got into nationalization a couple of days ago.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, surely the Premier is also aware that the housing crisis is affecting southern Ontario and, in the riding of Essex South alone, Conklin Lumber has closed its operations in Kingsville, Harrow and La Salle, throwing the people who were working at those yards out of work.

Surely now is the time to implement the program he promised in 1975. I say to the Premier, if he can find $600 million to buy into some kind of energy company, surely he can find money to put these people back to work and to keep people in their homes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member has been in direct communication with whoever is his federal member, or at least very close to it -- in fact, there are two of them, Mr. Gray and Mr. Whelan -- and probably with Mr. McGuigan. I know he had meetings with all three of them, indicating to them his concern with respect to federal financial policies. I am sure his meetings with them have been productive and we will see some results of his input to those three Ontario Liberal cabinet ministers when the federal budget comes down in a few weeks.

Mr. Mancini: Did you or did you not promise relief?

Hon. Mr. Davis: When did you last meet with them?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma has the floor.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the Premier's responses that, despite the comments made by representatives of management in some of those lumber mills in the north this week that the whole industry will shut down if interest rates remain as high they are now, this government is remaining a spectator in the whole process and is not interested in becoming involved if the federal government will not take the initiatives that are necessary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government is concerned, not just about that particular part of the industry but also about many others who are affected. We have made our position clear on interest rates time and again, and we will continue to press those positions.

TORONTO ICTS LINE

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister explain the discrepancy in the projected costs of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation's waterfront transit proposal, which was estimated in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program to be $90 million and now, according to a Toronto Transit Commission staff report, will be almost double, somewhere in the area of $170 million, of which Ontario's share is $153 million?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to explain to the honourable member, as obviously he cannot read, that the BILD program proposes to supply $90 million towards the first $100 million of the cost of an intermediate-capacity transit system lakefront program. That commitment was made in the BILD announcement, and that commitment stands today.

As for his estimate of what the total ICTS program for the lakefront might cost, first of all, I have not seen a report from the TTC. I am not aware that one exists; if it does, I am sure it is in many phases. The cost depends on whether the service goes from Bathurst Street to Yonge Street or whether it goes from Highway 27 to the eastern end of Scarborough. There can be a great difference in cost depending on where the terminations of the system might be between those points.

Mr. Cunningham: I do not know why the minister is always the last one to know about these particular problems but, given that according to the TTC staff they have a report that indicates the project is almost going to double in cost, can the minister advise us what kind of effect that will have on the Vancouver project or the Hamilton project? Are the capital estimates for those two proposals, albeit they are very expensive, going to double as well?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First, the ICTS project for the lakeshore has nothing to do with the Vancouver project or the Hamilton project, and if the honourable member had any common sense he would bloody well know that.

I really do not know what appointment he is talking about. As late as last week I met with the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, the mayor of the city of Toronto and representatives of the TTC and the city. It has only been a week, or no more than 10 days, since my last meeting with those people to discuss this matter, and there was no mention at that meeting of any report, nor was I presented with any report or any estimates like those that the honourable member is talking about; so I suggest he concocted the whole thing.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is at variance with the rules to have any member of the House suggest that a member has concocted a story. In fact, the information for this story comes from a CBC report which was on the radio this morning. I ask the minister to withdraw that aspersion.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest that the honourable member could concoct such a story; so I withdraw the remark.

Mr. Smith: Since the TTC report makes it clear that they expect the cost to be more than $170 million for something we thought was being estimated at around $90 million, will the minister tell us what his estimates were of the total cost of running the line to the CNE? What was the estimate that he was working on? He must have had some estimate in mind. If there is a discrepancy between his estimate and the present TTC estimate, what is the reason for that discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not aware of any TTC estimate because, first, the committee that has been working on this matter, which is a committee made up of representatives of Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Toronto, the TTC and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, has not come to a conclusion at this moment as to where the terminuses of such a lakeshore route should be, nor do I expect it will for some period of time.

Without knowing the length of the route, as I mentioned in my answer to the previous question from the back-bencher, no reasonable estimate can he made as to what the estimated cost would be.

Mr. Smith: Was the minister starting a project with no idea of the cost?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I said in answer to the honourable member's question previously, the BILD proposal was for a special funding of 90 per cent, $90 million out of the first $100-million cost for the first stage of an ICTS lakeshore proposal. It is a proposal that has to be a very high-priority one, taking into consideration recent developments and the proposed development on the waterfront. Unless a transportation strategy is put into place on the waterfront, I think it would be very difficult to carry forward with the development plans that are in place down there. The BILD announcement proposed a $90-million up-front commitment to that project.

2:50 p.m.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

In view of the fact that our auto deficit with the United States is $2.6 billion for the first six months of 1981, up 29 per cent; our deficit with Japan is now at $776 million, up 120 per cent over 1980; the St. Thomas plant which produces small cars -- the first of which was driven off in the middle of the election by the Premier with such great pride -- has been on layoff since the middle of August and is not expected to go back until late this year; we have significant continuing layoffs at Chrysler Corporation and Ford; and we continue to have several plant closures in the auto parts sector, does the minister really expect the people of Ontario to consider his $9.2-million grant to Volkswagen and the automotive parts technology centre an adequate response to the crisis in the automobile industry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I just present the facts in perspective with regard to the St. Thomas assembly plant? Notwithstanding the layoffs to which the honourable member referred, and which obviously are due to the poor state of sales in the North American market, Ford will be recalling some 3,252 workers to the St. Thomas assembly plant in the first week in November. The member knew that when he asked the question. So the St. Thomas plant, at which the Premier participated by driving off the first new automobile recently, will be pumping along at fairly full production in a couple of weeks.

Secondly, I say to the honourable member that he knows, as does everyone else, that the problem in the North American industry is a strict matter of sales and that, in turn, is largely a function of interest rates.

Mr. Smith: The deficit is not a consequence of that. It's your policy that's the cause.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) can tell Mr. Gray when he sees him, or the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) can tell him when he sees him.

May I say to the honourable member that he knows the problem is sales and that what any jurisdiction, state or province, ought to be doing now is to do everything it can to restructure so that it can take maximum advantage of an upward swing in the market, which we expect in 1982.

When one looks at the initiatives this province has mounted, of which the member has discussed two, there is the Volkswagen plant, which I know the member heartily supports -- oh, the member does not support that? The member's party is opposed to the grant to Volkswagen? I do not want to put the member on the spot by having to take a position.

Mr. Cooke: You know our position.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me say, we have the Volkswagen parts plant, which we played a major role in landing for this province, and we have the auto parts technical centre, which the member and all his colleagues are fighting hard to get in their own municipalities.

In addition, we have SITEV America, which the member himself pointed out in this assembly was an important initiative for Ontario to take, and he complimented us on that initiative. SITEV America recently announced it was going to stay in Ontario this coming year in spite of the fact that Michigan tried very hard to lure SITEV to Michigan -- in fact, it had announcements prepared announcing that SITEV was moving to Michigan -- and in spite of the fact that its very good governor came here to try to lure SITEV America out of this jurisdiction.

When one adds to that the exceptional support we have provided to the auto parts sector through both the employment development fund and the Ontario Development Corporation, the promotion of the duty remission program throughout the world, the extensive discussions we have had with the AMC people which will result in extensive new investment in Brampton -- shall I continue? Does the member want the whole list or what?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Keep on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Premier suggests I keep on.

I refer the member to this: Last year he asked me for proof that the boasting we were involved in with regard to how we had succeeded in helping to restructure the auto parts industry in this province was accurate. The member asked that we table the information. We tabled the information; it stands on the record. The leader of the New Democratic Party tried once to show it was inaccurate; he flunked.

The bottom line of it is that, in a period in which the North American automobile industry has been going through a very difficult time, there is no other jurisdiction that can boast 67 major new openings or expansions in the auto parts sector in the past 24 months, creating some -- I have the figure; I do not want to be accused by the member's leader of not being accurate -- creating or ensuring some 6,000 jobs and with a capital investment in that period of time of about $170 million in that one sector alone.

The member knows very well those figures are accurate, and there is no other jurisdiction that can boast the kind of restructuring in the automobile sector that we have seen in this province.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will understand the bottom line is that the deficit with the United States is up 29 per cent and that the deficit with Japan is up 120 per cent. There is potential for many thousands of new jobs. If the auto pact were working the way it should be working and if we had a government that had guts to bring in content legislation, we would have thousands more jobs.

The minister says sales are the problem. Is he aware that the sale of imported cars in Canada increased 49.1 per cent in the first eight months of 1981 and that, since the agreement was signed by Herb Gray, from April 1 to the end of July -- the first four months of the agreement -- imports have risen 70 per cent in Canada at a time when they were supposed to be restricted to six per cent, if I remember correctly?

Taking those statistics into consideration, along with the comment of Mr. Bennett, the outgoing president of the Ford Motor Company, that our auto industry stands to lose thousands of jobs because of the lack of tariff restrictions, does the minister not agree that he should be putting together a package for the federal government to convince them to bring in content legislation to make sure we have adequate numbers of jobs in the auto parts sector and so that we do not have to bribe the foreign corporations to set up or source auto parts from our province?

Hon Mr. Grossman: First, if the member is asking me to defend the deal the federal government made with Japan, then he failed to note that I was among the first to say the deal was not a real one, was no protection at all and did not even measure up --

Mr. Cooke: What is the minister proposing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why does my friend not be quiet and listen? I said it did not even measure up to the degree of protection the Americans succeeded in negotiating from Japan.

I said, secondly, that the federal government was being quite weak in not insisting with the Americans that they be part of the negotiations with the Japanese, because it is the historical situation in which the Japanese only needed respond --

Mr. Smith: The minister is in and out of bed so quickly he is going to break the springs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that at least the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) knows something about the auto industry. He should take it easy; at least we can discuss it with some intelligence. The leader is not going to help this one along.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister please address himself to the question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With regard to pressuring for content legislation, as the members may be aware, this minister was calling for 100 per cent Canadian value added in a revised auto pact some two years ago. That, of course, includes the targets we should be aiming at in the content requirements we ought to be seeking from the others. That is the position this government had long before the federal government moved up to the 85 per cent level, where it now is in the case of Volkswagen.

In fairness to those who were in charge of the negotiations in Ottawa and who were very helpful in entering a duty remission program which allowed Volkswagen to come to Barrie, the bottom line is that negotiations are often very tough; but we have been clear in saying that our goals ought to be balanced trade and 100 per cent CVA on the Canadian side, and we have been clear in saying we have not got an adequate deal as a country from either the Americans or the Japanese.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

With respect to the Hyde Park dump, which we debated last week, and the frightening threat this poses to the upper river, the minister stated that to intervene it is critically important that it be done on the basis of very sound scientific information. His ministry has not intervened in the Hyde Park dump case, yet scientific information does exist on which his ministry should have intervened.

I wonder whether the minister or his staff is aware of an affidavit, a copy of which I have here, signed by Dr. Douglas Hallett, Canada's foremost expert on dioxin, in which he stated before the judicial committee in Buffalo:

"In conclusion, either the TCDD, the most toxic form of dioxin, and other hazardous chemicals must be removed and enclosed in an impervious container and maintained indefinitely in a fashion similar to radioactive wastes or, better, destroyed through available incinerators or kilns which have been checked or proven to destroy these dioxins and organochlorine contaminants from this site."

Faced with that kind of evidence, what were the ministry's people doing at those hearings if they did not bring this evidence back to the minister that such people of that calibre were questioning the integrity of that dump?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the specific affidavit, although I am well aware that there are differences of opinion among experts of that calibre as to whether it is a safe procedure to recommend that the material on that site be moved to some alternative location.

There are people who are probably as equally renowned as the individual the member has cited who express concern that attempting to move that material may create a greater hazard than exists at the present time and who say the safest approach might be to put in a well-installed and secure containment with appropriate collection systems on that site.

I am not taking a position that one is better than the other, because I do not know how one could do that as a layman when the experts in the field themselves do not agree.

I can only hope that, as a result of the hearing process that is under way there now, there will be a very full and fair examination of the alternatives and that ultimately the decision will be on the side of the safest possible approach to minimize, if it is not possible to entirely eliminate, any hazard that may be associated with that site.

Mr. Kerrio: It appears that to convince the minister we have to bring two affidavits on a particular subject and not one. This leads me to say that, in addition to that affidavit, we have another affidavit, dated June 29, by Mr. Grant Anderson. As he well knows, Mr. Anderson is the hydrogeologist responsible for determining the safety and suitability of the South Cayuga site; so that should set him up as someone the minister would accept. Mr. Anderson states:

"These toxic chemicals were detected 50 feet below the rock surface on a well drilled over 500 feet northwest of the site. This indicates the chemicals have already moved 50 feet from the rock surface and are moving through the rock to the Niagara River."

Based on such scientific information, what conceivable justification is there for the Ministry of the Environment to have not intervened yet in any meaningful way with our friends on the American side who have asked us on many occasions to make representation there? I think these two affidavits are ample proof that the minister should be there and doing something to protect the integrity of that whole river and the whole Great Lakes system.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We were there. If the member wants to get into an exchange of affidavits, I can get him affidavits on both sides of that issue from equally competent scientists.

Mr. Kerrio: You said you did not have any evidence.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. I did not say we had no evidence. I said if we were to participate as interveners, it was important, on the basis of a very soundly based scientific position, that we be able to recommend a particular course of action.

Mr. Smith: That affidavit sounds pretty scientific to me.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Sure. That is one affidavit. But there are two affidavits and they are not making precisely the same recommendations. If the member would be perfectly honest, and since he has some scientific training, he should be able to distinguish between those two.

Mr. Smith: That scares the hell out of me, frankly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All right. I am not suggesting --

Mr. Smith: Well, intervene.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wish I could ask questions once in a while, because I would like to know what he would like to --

Mr. Speaker: The minister is replying to a question from the member for Niagara Falls, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the honourable doctor wanted to intervene, I would like to know what he would be recommending.

When there is a division in the scientific community, would he go to New York state on the basis of one affidavit and wave it, saying, "This is what you should do"? They are well aware of that. That evidence is before the hearing. But there are also contrary opinions in the scientific community. It is not simply a matter of saying on the basis of one or two affidavits, or one on one side and two on the other, that therefore we know the best answer. That surely is what we hope will come out of that process.

There is intervention on the part of a group from Canada. We have offered the best scientific resources we have available to that group. To the best of my knowledge, they have not chosen to take advantage of it yet. We will be meeting shortly with representatives of New York state to discuss that and other issues relating to the river and to acid rain as well.

The point we must bear in mind is that it is not simply a matter of grabbing on to some particular opinion, albeit one that is committed to an affidavit, and assuming that is the be-all and end-all in terms of a very complex scientific problem. I could produce an affidavit for the honourable member from an equally competent scientist, who would say the worst thing one could do is disturb that stuff right now and what one ought to do is get on with the job of putting in containment systems there now. How would the member argue against that? He is not in a better position than any other layman to make that kind of determination.

Mr. Foulds: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I will ask the minister a question he can answer with a simple "yes" or "no." Has the minister asked the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to investigate the possibility of laying charges against any pollutants under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909? I understand there is an act of the Canadian Parliament and an American act that endorses that treaty. Has the minister asked the Attorney General to investigate the possibility of laying charges under that act for the transfer of pollution across the border?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have not specifically asked the Attorney General that question, although I do have several employees of the Attorney General seconded to my ministry, who compose the legal services branch of my ministry. They are law officers of the crown employed by the Attorney General. My legal staff in the ministry have been requested to explore all possible avenues open to us in order to take legal action, which would include that.

TORONTO EMERGENCY HOUSING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. It regards the matter of emergency housing I raised yesterday, for which I agree the Minister of Community and Social Services has some responsibility.

Today my question is especially in regard to interval houses and emergency shelters for women. Would the minister not agree that the present per diem system, which is different across all the municipalities of Ontario, is totally inadequate? It is forcing interval houses like those in Lanark to consider closing down and causing major deficits for those in the city of Toronto, and is the major cause of a lack of needed expansion in that area. Should the minister not be moving towards a base grant formula? When is the minister going to do that and what is she doing at the moment to ensure that we have adequate emergency shelter for battered women in this society?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the Ministry of Community and Social Services is addressing that particular issue. I hope in the not-too-distant future we will have some of the answers. The question at the moment is one of financing.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the minister was not here yesterday to know the extent and seriousness of this problem. I wish she would read the papers to understand how dire straits are. People are being turned away from all the shelters in this city. Does the minister not believe it is wrong for the government to leave it up to the municipalities to set standards for those shelters and not provide the kind of assistance that is needed for battered women in this society, in order to take into account such things as day care for their kids, lawyers, job-seeking opportunities and that sort of thing, instead of letting these interval houses flounder, as they are doing at the moment?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe local municipalities are quite competent to look after some of those issues. I do not believe in establishing policies based on reported stories in the newspaper.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In our deliberations in the justice committee on the inquiry into Ontario Housing Corporation, and in the light of the recommendations of that report, defeated by the government, which suggested that Ontario Housing be expanded so that the empty-nesters not be thrown out on the streets the way Ontario Housing is doing and so that poor people, who are not at present covered under the mandate of Ontario Housing, would be covered, is the minister, in cooperation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), prepared to see that mandate of Ontario Housing expanded so that those people have adequate housing and are not out on the streets in this province?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the minister of housing is quite aware of the problem that exists with some of those whose families have grown and left, but there are also many other families on waiting lists who have a number of children and who do require housing.

I think sometimes the honourable member forgets that those people who have had the advantage of raising a family and receiving assistance in doing so should be quite grateful for that. Perhaps he forgets they should make room for those who have new families who are coming along and have a greater need for that type of housing and assistance.

USE OF FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE COURTS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney General what is the delay over designation under the Judicature Act of the use of both official languages in our civil courts?

The Attorney General will recall it was back in 1978 that he, the former member for Lakeshore and I sat down and devised a system we felt was reasonable. It would allow the Attorney General in due time to designate areas of the province for the use of both official languages in the civil courts. That law has been proclaimed since 1978 and the Attorney General has not made any designation for civil courts. In my opinion he has enough judges, personnel, pleaders -- all the necessary requirements -- to allow the use of both languages in those areas, so what is the delay?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I know the honourable member appreciates this is a complex and very important issue. We are very close to designating some areas within the next several weeks. Our very excellent French-language co-ordinator, Etienne Saint-Aubin, was very seriously ill for some months, but we had a meeting with the chief justices and the chief judge of the county court last week to work out some of the final details. I hope to announce this very shortly.

I appreciate the member's interest in the matter.

Mr. Roy: I appreciate that Mr. Saint-Aubin was sick over the summer holidays but it has been three years now since the law was proclaimed. Would the Attorney General advise whether he has been receiving adequate cooperation from the judges? My information is that there was some reluctance on the part of some of the judiciary in proceeding with that.

I am advised as well -- and would the Attorney General confirm this -- that some of the judges and some of his officials are allowing pleadings to take place in the French language although there is no jurisdiction to allow them. Would the Attorney General proceed with the designation and legislate the practice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There are judges who have a significant capacity as far as the French language is concerned who are a little apprehensive. It is one thing to speak French well and another thing to plead in French; even something more to judge in the French language. So there has been some apprehension on the part of some of the judges simply because they want to do it well. But the co-operation of the chief justices, the chief judges and senior judges has been excellent.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A week ago the Premier (Mr. Davis) made a statement announcing the government's intention to purchase 25 per cent of Suncor. Since that time, I understand you have been trying to elicit from him a compendium of information that will be laid on the table, as is required by rule 26(c). Can you report to the House, in the Premier's presence, what success or lack of success you have had in that connection?

Mr. Speaker: I am surprised the compendium has not been made available, but quite obviously the Premier has taken note of it.

Mr. Nixon: What do we have to do to get the information?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure it will appear --

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps the Premier would indicate what his reasons are by standing up and telling the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to provide as much information as I can. If the honourable member is expecting a series of confidential interministerial or government memoranda --

Mr. Nixon: Just give us the information you used to make the decision.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could tell the member that verbally but I will try to get him some amount of documentation. It was a complex issue but the decision was relatively simple. We decided to buy 25 per cent of Suncor. I will get the member whatever information I can in terms of documentation. I just forewarn the member there is not a heap or a pile of papers with respect to it.

Mr. Nixon: Whatever the Premier had available to him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It may be Mr. Mel Hurtig's speech to the member's annual meeting in Hamilton.

Mr. Foulds: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are two points I would like to make. Why was it possible for the Premier to provide those glossy brochures to everybody in the media studio at four o'clock that day but it was not possible for him to supply them to members of the Legislature before that and it has not been possible subsequent to that? Secondly, is that all the documentation he had on which to make the decision? Was there not, as my question number 145 indicates, further consideration by cabinet? Was there not further documentation as there was in the case of Project Wellesley when Ontario Hydro was considering taking over the uranium mines?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was just discussing it with the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). I understand that what was distributed to the press was made available to the honourable members in their boxes downstairs or wherever.

Some hon. members: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If it was not done, we can make sure the members get it. That is the Minister of Energy's understanding.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to say that the day the Premier made the announcement, he made it clear the information would be made available that same day.

Mr. Nixon: He said to come to the press conference.

Mr. Speaker: No, he did not.

Mr. Peterson: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have a massive expenditure of taxpayers' funds. At this point, at least, there is no indication it will come before the House for review because the Ontario Energy Corporation has the power to borrow this money without legislative scrutiny. It is a very serious amount of money.

We have not had access to either the Price Waterhouse or the McLeod Young Weir study which valued these assets on behalf of the Ontario government. There is this massive expenditure and great amounts of money, I assume, spent in consultants' fees. Surely the taxpayers and this Legislature should have an opportunity to scrutinize those documents to make sure the taxpayer is getting full value for those expenditures.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Premier has taken note of the members' concerns and will make the information available.

Mr. Smith: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, this is deteriorating into a debate.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly there is. We have heard the different points of view.

Mr. Smith: There has been a week for him to comply --

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Mr. Smith: -- and all you are telling us is that he will some day. That isn't your decision to tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just point out there is a basic standing order in this House that when the Speaker is on his feet everybody else will resume their seats. The Premier has made it very clear this information will be made available.

Mr. Smith: He has had a week.

Mr. Speaker: All right, he has had a week. I have not seen it. Apparently he was under the impression the information had been distributed. He has undertaken to do that again. I am not sure what the information is. The members have made it very clear what the information is they want.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House --

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly right. I am on my feet so sit down. I caution the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) that I will not put up with any more. That is a contravention of the rules. That goes for other members too.

Mr. Smith: This is the biggest deal in five years and the Premier cannot give us the information he bases it on. If he is going to be able to ask us whether we are in favour or against, how can we even say if we have not seen it?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a new point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A new point of order; the member for Sudbury East.

3:20 p.m.

METRO POLICE COMPLAINTS PROJECT

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) indicated he was going to have an amendment to the legislation to be considered tonight.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have all had the opportunity in question period to ask questions. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is raising a point of order.

Mr. Martel: Standing rule 58 says that he should provide, if time permits, the amendments for the opposition. Is the Attorney General prepared to provide those amendments now, or is he just going to try to pop them on the committee at eight o'clock tonight?

IRWIN TOY DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to a question of personal privilege raised yesterday. I understand that in my absence yesterday a member of the third party indicated I may have misled the House in an answer I made to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) on Friday, October 16, in response to her question about Irwin Toy. I have read the response I made on that occasion in which I indicated that to my knowledge there had been no accusations or charges made before the labour relations board of any unfair labour practice. Now I would like to clarify the matter.

On July 9, an unfair labour practice complaint was filed, but on August 5, both parties -- labour and management -- requested that matter be adjourned sine die. It is no longer an active matter before the board, and therefore there is at present no matter before the board. If anyone in this House was misled about any active matter relating to an unfair labour practice being before the board, then I apologize, but there is at present no matter before the board. It has been adjourned sine die.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Laughren and Mr. Stokes be substituted for Mr. Renwick and Mr. R. F. Johnston, and on the standing committee on the administration of justice, Mr. Renwick and Mr. Swart be substituted for Mr. Laughren and Mr. Philip.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, moved first reading of Bill 151, An Act to amend the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing for first reading an amendment to the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act. Since 1976 when this bill was first passed, there have been no major changes, although there have been substantial changes in the financial community which we feel it is time to address. The original act established a $50-million fund for the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation, and in the intervening years that amount has lost its significance. We therefore intend to allow for a guarantee as a protection for consumers, pending the increase of the original fund --

Mr. Roy: Speak up.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Maybe he could turn up the juice up there. In recent months, the financial capability of credit unions and their leagues has diminished, particularly with respect to their ability to compete with chartered banks for the consumer's dollars. The ministry's financial institutions division has been meeting with the credit union industry and with OSDIC in an effort to develop appropriate solutions. These groups have indicated their support for the government position, and we would like to express our appreciation to them for their valuable input.

By way of background, there are about 1,000 credit unions in Ontario. I want to make it very clear that most of them are operating soundly and with no need of financial assistance in any form. We fully expect that their financial health will continue. However, to provide some short-term assurance to OSDIC that members' needs and obligations will be met, the bill extends the powers of OSDIC to obtain guarantees from the government of Ontario in the fulfilment of its objective of insuring the deposits of the two million members of credit unions in Ontario.

In addition, the bill will enable OSDIC to take under direction a league that might be in unsound financial condition or not carrying on operations in accordance with sound business and financial practices. There is at present no such power under the act with respect to the leagues, but there is a similar power with respect to individual credit unions. The act also enables the Lieutenant Governor in Council to replace league directors on the OSDIC board, which is in part a representative board with directors nominated by the leagues. This might happen where, for example, a league was taken under direction.

The power for the government to guarantee OSDIC's obligations to insure members' individual deposits is our commitment to the credit union movement and is in line with similar initiatives taken by five other provinces. The power to assume direction of a league is a logical extension of the powers with regard to individual credit unions and appropriate protection, given the kind of government guarantee that could be forthcoming.

CITY OF KANATA ACT

Mr. Mitchell moved, seconded by Mr. Watson, first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Kanata.

Motion agreed to.

GLOBAL NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED TRUST ACT

Mr. Williams, on behalf of Mr. Rotenberg, moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, first reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Trusteeship of the Balance Share Warrant of Global Natural Resources Limited.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the orders of the day, I would like to bring to the attention of all members that, pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) and the matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m. tonight.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

IDEA CORPORATION ACT

Consideration of Bill 47, An Act to establish a Corporation to Promote Innovation Development for Employment Advancement.

Mr. Chairman: Does the parliamentary assistant have any opening comments?

Mr. Jones: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. The other day when we had second reading of this bill, honourable members will recall we mentioned the fact there were minor amendments intended to improve the bill. Today I have four. If I may, I would move that section 4(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor --

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jones, wait. We will have to see if there is any further general discussion before we get into sections.

All right. Would any member like to speak on any specific section of Bill 47?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are having some difficulty hearing other members.

Mr. Renwick: I would like to speak on a section before the one to which the parliamentary assistant is addressing his comments: section 4.

Mr. Chairman: Section 4. Is there any discussion any members would like to partake in on any sections up to and including section 4 -- not including section 4?

On section 1:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak a little bit later, particularly when we come to section 11 of the bill, and also with respect to section 10 of the bill on matters relating to industrial property.

I am not satisfied that that definition of industrial property as contained in section 1(d) of the bill is adequate to cover what is commonly known as knowhow or additional information other than that which can be classified as property. I wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant if he has any sense of where this definition of industrial property was taken from, who drafted it and what its ambit is.

Mr. Chairman: Might I ask the member for Riverdale if that was section 1(d)? Is that the section you are referring to?

Mr. Renwick: It is in section 1 of the bill.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of work in this area under the IDEA Corporation leading up to the legislation for IDEA. I would be anxious to hear what suggestions the honourable member has for improving the wording. I can tell him that the legislative staff of Treasury and the legal department went through this, as I understand it, with a fine-toothed comb. They have been through it again more recently, leading up to the amendments. So I can tell you --

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jones, we are having difficulty hearing you down at the table for some reason. Maybe you could just speak a little louder.

Mr. Jones: Okay. I think probably --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: We are in committee of the whole House, though, so the rules for committee of the whole House do apply.

Mr. Conway: Rules do not apply if the Premier (Mr. Davis) does not know them.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jones has the floor.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I will move over here and speak from this mike. It seems to be on.

My comment to the member was merely that the wording in this section was the product of many weeks of preparation in the bill and it was recently redone. It was a result of the legal services of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, and it has been given considerable review by legal counsel. They felt these were generally accepted legal definitions. Since the amendments we are bringing forward today were yet again the product of reassessment, I can only suggest that it has had quite a bit of review and review yet again.

On another matter of comment by the member, I think he touched on section 11(3). I do not know if he has that, but there is an amendment under 11(3), incidentally; whether he has a copy of that I am not sure.

But concerning the wording, I can only tell the member that it is a result of the legal services of Treasury and Economics.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to pursue it. I get quite concerned when the government brings in bills such as this and then expects us, in a very technical and specific world of knowhow, to be faced with having to ask questions about a basic and fundamental definition in the bill.

I draw the parliamentary assistant's attention to the reference in section 10(2)(c) of the bill which speaks about industrial property but then goes on in a much broader framework to refer to other items. It says the corporation will have power to: "acquire, develop and deal in industrial property, licences, inventions and processes..." There is nothing in the definition of industrial property which talks about licences, inventions and processes, or else there is a confusion between the definition of licences, inventions and processes, or the commonly known word "knowhow" -- which is involved in technological knowhow.

I think the definition of industrial property, which is the key to what the bill is about, is defective in its definition. The flaw in the definition is reflected in the language of the objectives set out in section 10(2) of the bill. I do not know whether the parliamentary assistant will stand the bill down in order to make certain that is the best possible definition the ministry is able to obtain. I do not know whether they consulted outside. I do not believe the government has experts in the field of industrial property in the employ of the government. It is a very specialized and technical field and the whole basis of this bill depends a great deal upon the adequacy of that definition.

I do not intend to pursue it further and give my suggestions about what it should be. I am not an expert in that field myself, but the very fact that in a subsequent section of the bill you have seen fit to elaborate industrial property in a way which is not in my judgement covered by the original definition would indicate to me the definition is therefore defective.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Just prior to your rising, since it is indicated you are amending section 4(3), would it be useful for clarification to carry subsections 1 and 2 of section 4? Shall 4(1) and 4(2) carry?

Sections 4(1) and 4(2) agreed to.

On section 4(3):

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jones moves that section 4(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall designate one of the directors as chairman of the board and another of the directors as president and chief executive officer of the corporation."

Mr. Jones: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, it is felt that a full-time president is the best way to go in order to free the chairman to work with the other directors and have full duties as a director.

Mr. Nixon: I am interested the ministry did not consider this possibility before now. I wonder if the assistant can explain to the House what he thought would happen if we were not prepared to have the Lieutenant Governor designate the leadership of the corporation?

There is another thing that concerns me about resurrecting retreads from either this House or from your own party who would go into a job like this with a substantial emolument and a lot of perquisites -- particularly into a position which could very well be supported on a per diem basis rather than a full yearly salary of $60,000 or $70,000, plus car and driver, plus, plus, plus.

3:40 p.m.

My first question is: What did you think you were going to do as far as the leadership of the corporation is concerned before this amendment came in? Can you assure us you are contemplating the appointment of people with some knowledge and experience in the area in which this corporation will be acting and not just providing another cosy sinecure for your armies of supplicant friends?

Mr. Jones: I appreciate the comments of the member. I can reassure him that the quality and calibre of the people who are proposed to become directors of this corporation, as was brought out in the debate on second reading, are to be drawn from sections of industry that would touch upon the new technology field and from our post-secondary institutions. Potentially, they would be drawn from as wide a base as would be needed to satisfy the main intent of the IDEA Corporation, which is that linkage process between the universities and the other post-secondary institutions, labour, government and industry.

Mr. Nixon: That sounds like your definition of a defeated candidate.

Mr. Jones: No, I think someone raised the concern during second reading that somehow or other it was to be yet another proposal for alternatives to PAs or something. I think they were just making light on that occasion because, while there is a reference to that in the bill, that was merely not to preclude that situation as the legislation was drawn, although it certainly was not a thought.

I appreciate what the member is saying. As we launch IDEA Corporation, the individuals have to be of a calibre who would be actively involved and who would have the entrepreneurial spirit that is the thrust of IDEA Corporation. The government will be taking the member's comments very much to heart. They have to be high-calibre individuals drawn from the vital sections of those four main areas of our economy and others who have been involved in the high tech area.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: I see no further discussion of subsections (4), (5) and (6). Shall they carry?

Sections 4(4) to 4(6), inclusive, agreed to.

On section 4(7):

Mr. Jones moves that section 4(7) of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Peterson: Can we have an explanation as to why you brought in that amendment? Why should the Lieutenant Governor in Council not have the power to dismiss a director?

Mr. Jones: I appreciate the question by the Liberal critic. The main reason probably is that it is more a matter of style. We are proposing to have an IDEA Corporation in which the directors are able to be innovative. I know in the debate the other evening that was one of the chief concerns --

Mr. Peterson: Is this like tenure in the universities?

Mr. Jones: No, I would think it is making this corporation in its design more like the Ontario Energy Corporation, the Ontario Housing Corporation and the Ontario Universities' Capital Aid Corporation. From the very outset the people in the corporation know they have a certain amount of independence rather than having the Lieutenant Governor in Council there with a guillotine which can all of a sudden go snap.

I know the three years for time of service was designed into the bill with the intention of giving sufficient time so people could have continuity. I would say this amendment flows from that same thinking.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 9 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"9(1) The corporation may indemnify a director or officer of the corporation, a former director or officer of the corporation and his heirs and legal representatives against all costs, charges and expenses, including an amount paid to settle an action or satisfy a judgement reasonably incurred by him in respect of any civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding to which he is made a party by reason of being or having been a director or officer of such corporation, if (a) he acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation, and (b) in the case of a criminal or administrative action or proceeding that is enforced by a monetary penalty, he had reasonable grounds for believing that his conduct was lawful.

"(2) The corporation may, with the approval of the court, indemnify a person referred to in subsection 1 in respect of an action by or on behalf of the corporation to procure a judgement in its favour to which he is made a party by reason of being or having been a director or officer of the corporation against all costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by him in connection with such action if he fulfils the conditions set out in clauses (a) and (b) of subsection 1.

"(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a person referred to in subsection 1 is entitled to indemnity from the corporation in respect of all costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by him in connection with the defence of any civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding to which he is made a party by reason of being or having been a director or officer of the corporation, if the person seeking indemnity (a) was substantially successful on the merits in his defence of the action or proceeding, and (b) fulfils the conditions set out in clauses (a) and (b) of subsection 1.

"(4) A corporation may purchase and maintain insurance for the benefit of any person referred to in subsection 1 against any liability incurred by him in his capacity as a director or officer of the corporation, except where the liability relates to his failure to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interest of the corporation.

"(5) A corporation or a person referred to in subsection 1 may apply to the court for an order approving an indemnity under this section, and the court may so order and make any further order it thinks fit.

"(6) Upon an application under subsection 5, the court may order notice to be given to any interested person. Such person is entitled to appear and be heard in person or by counsel."

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I regret the untidiness of the form of the amendment I have put before you, but I did not have a chance to have it transcribed in a clean copy. I simply want to say that later on today we will be dealing with the clause in Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act. It sets out probably as good a clause concerning indemnification of directors as exists anywhere in the province. The clause in this bill with respect to the indemnification of directors in section 9 is inadequate, to say the least.

I do not want to go on at any length about this amendment. The whole question for a long time has been a vexed one about the circumstances and terms and conditions under which a director or officer of a corporation is entitled to be indemnified at the expense of the corporation for claims against the corporation. There have been any number of versions of that clause in order to make certain that a director or officer is not entitled to indemnity unless he acted honestly and in good faith, and in the best interest of the corporation, and, in the case of criminal or other similar action, that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his conduct was lawful.

The clauses are an elaboration of that fundamental principle. As we will be debating later on today the Act to revise the Business Corporations Act, I thought it just made common sense that the IDEA Corporation should incorporate the best language possible with respect to that kind of indemnification. All I have done is to take section 135 of Bill 6, with appropriate wording amendments to make it fit the situation. I recommend to the House that it be substituted for section 9 of the bill as it now stands.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I am attracted to the amendment proposed by the member for Riverdale, and I would support it on behalf of our party. It seems to me it outlines more fully the concept of responsibility we want to impose to protect anyone acting in good faith. But, at the same time, as I understand the amendment, the honourable member does still impose an onus and does not establish an absolute indemnity in all cases if there be mala fides or bad faith. I think an enlightened amendment to this bill would help it substantially, particularly as it is a crown or public corporation, and I very strongly support it.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I respect the legal judgement, as always, of the member who moved the motion. However. I would ask both him and the member from London Centre (Mr. Peterson) to reflect for a moment that the concept of the IDEA Corporation is so different from others we might be comparing it with, and certainly from the normal corporation of the day. I appreciate his comments, and I suppose I would agree with them in almost every case but IDEA.

I just ask the two speakers to consider that, whereas in normal corporations perhaps, to use a crude term, the buck is one of the main lures to attract the high-calibre persons wanted, the type of person envisaged for the duties of directorship in the IDEA Corporation would more likely be a person attracted for reasons of public spirit. He would probably be wanting to contribute a very specialized background, coming, as the members say, from this diverse breakdown, not only of the broad groupings of labour, industry and government, but with very specialized skills and that entrepreneurial instinct we know must happen in this field. As we read the objects and the powers of the corporation, I think we know we need a unique individual.

The amendment as proposed tends to lay down the condition of whether he has acted honestly, in good faith and so on -- probably it is more like the traditional indemnification clauses in corporations, but the indemnification in the IDEA Corporation is admittedly, I suppose, broader. This was done intentionally in the drafting because of the recognition of the uniqueness of the IDEA Corporation and of the fact that we will be attracting very high-calibre, unique people and not attracting them in the usual dollars-and-cents way.

Also, I suppose as we think about the IDEA Corporation being in the field of research and development, seeking at new horizons, we were anxious that those people who would be nominated to serve should have the broadest possible indemnification clause in the legislation that creates the IDEA Corporation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief comment. If the parliamentary assistant believes in some way what is good for every other corporation in the province is not adequate or is too stringent for a corporation of this nature which is being devised by the government for promotional purposes, that it is therefore in some exceptional category -- so be it. I am not going to argue with him. The facts of the matter are just not so.

The second thing is that one does not, out of the goodness of one's heart, invite people to be directors of the corporation and then say to them they have some lesser obligation to the firm than directors of any other corporation have, just because the corporation is engaged in serving the public interest.

It seems obvious to me that while there are many people who provide public service, this does not mean they should not take on a job as a director or an officer of such a corporation as this unless they are prepared to give their best skill, judgement, attention and bona fides to the business of the corporation.

Also I find it very difficult to believe that later on today or in the course of this session, the government is going to say to every other corporation in the province that because it has devised this corporation for the promotion of their governmental purposes, somehow or other different standards should apply. I think it is quite inappropriate and quite unwise for the government to reject the amendment.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I am more and more convinced that this clause is absolutely necessary. An absolute indemnification is most dangerous in a company of this type -- a company that is going to be involved in a multiplicity of investments. We have to make sure they are at arm's length, that there are no potential conflicts of interest. It is going to be far-reaching, I assume, in its influence -- the kind of company that maybe takes a piece of this or a share of that or gives a loan here or there.

We have seen situations before -- and I do not want to paint a great black picture at this point -- where the old-boy network or the influence network works, where one person who happens to be a member of the same club, the same party or something or other, tends to use that influence to persuade others in a political sense to invest or participate in his particular action.

Those things are realities. The parliamentary assistant knows it and I know it. If we allow an absolute indemnification for that potential kind of non-arm's length transaction or conflict of interest -- there are other kinds of legislation that would be offered in some of these cases. But I think the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) makes a very fine point about the standard of service we expect from people who contribute to the public service. His amendment would not dissuade one responsible director from being a member of the board.

Frankly, I think if anybody looked at that clause and was not prepared to be a director because that absolute indemnity was not there we would not want him on the board anyway. I think it is a responsible amendment that ties in with the other amendments this afternoon. I very much think it should be included.

4 p.m.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to persuade the members that the IDEA Corporation is something unique and different from anything ever created in the --

Mr. Peterson: It is not that different from the SBDCs.

Mr. Jones: I know. But the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) still has the Sylvester thing on his mind. This is an entirely different situation. These people -- drawn from that broad base -- are high-calibre people, people at the top of their respective fields. They could not help but say to this why should I enter into something as unique as the research and development field in this fast-changing world if this indemnification is not in there. I suppose we might prohibit the participation of someone.

We do have a difference of opinion on that. If they are going to serve we felt they should have the broadest possible indemnification because of the uniqueness of it. I do not suppose we are going to change each other's thoughts on that.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 9 agreed to.

On Section 10:

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions with regard to 10(2)(b)

Mr. Chairman: The member for Algoma is questioning 10(2). Again, it is useful for myself and for clarification to carry the previous subsection. If there is no further discussion on 10(1)(a), (b) or (c), shall that subsection carry?

Section 10(1) agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: I would hope the parliamentary assistant could clarify what is meant by the terms "promote and develop co-operation in research" among these various institutions. Specifically, there are the questions I raised during the second reading debate with regard to universities and research centres.

The question that seems to be nagging us is that of pure scientific research as opposed to applied research. That is, what relationship is there between the two? What emphasis is going to be placed on assisting the universities and other research centres to carry out research which may not immediately appear to have quick application? Technological advancement is dependent upon what is sometimes considered to be esoteric research, research that may or may not have immediate obvious application.

There is some concern among the research community about the approach being taken by this government. The Council of Ontario Universities made a proposal to the government in February 1980 for the establishment of an Ontario research council, but this is what is being proposed instead of that kind of an idea. There is some concern there may be a lot of money provided for research into a better mousetrap but not research, for instance, into astronomy or something like that, which may or may not have an immediate application in the industrial world.

Mr. Jones: It is true, and I suppose it is appropriate to review it under that section, that probably the central purpose -- I think it came up, and I hope it did, in the debate the other night -- of the IDEA Corporation is to develop that linkage between various individuals, as well as such groups as universities or other post-secondary institutions, at all stages of the innovation process. By trying to be the entrepreneurial linkage, there certainly is no intention in the policy design of the IDEA Corporation to preclude pure research or to restrict to applied research. Rather, as that linkage responsibility of the IDEA Corporation would be taking place, we would see decisions taken with the focus certainly on R and D.

I suppose it is natural that in marriages between private-sector groups their focus would tend to be on those things that could stimulate the economy and have a practical application. But there is no exclusion of university needs except, I suppose, in so far as the nature of decisions taken by the directors of the corporation has that main central purpose of being the link between post-secondary bodies on one hand and the private sector on the other, or, for that matter, individuals.

It is natural to see them working on improvements in the production process of certain industries, whether it be to reduce the cost or to help us compete in industrial markets around the world. But I certainly have not heard of any restriction, nor do I know of any, in the policy that took place as to how best that funding would be used. It might flow through from the IDEA Corporation to post-secondary.

I have certainly heard, and I expect it would be very much a part of the process, as we were debating the other evening, one university saying it is having good luck with some of the programs where private sectors are given grants for specific research work. Sometimes they are having problems with the physical plant, sometimes with support staff, whether it be secretarial or because a dean in a university is doing administrative work and not being freed up for some of his scientific work.

I think we can expect to see those types of decisions being made relative to the needs in that particular institution. We are talking about universities and post-secondary. That is very much the type of freedom we want to see the IDEA Corporation have and use as it works with the universities in that example. We are not out to shackle. That is one of the reasons the IDEA Corporation wanted to have the flexibility we are building into it.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the parliamentary assistant is saying and I hope I have not given the impression I am in some way opposed to the kind of practical research he has given examples of -- obviously not. But I am sure he would agree that in many cases today the technological innovations we have benefited from are, in the long run, the result of research that only a few years ago, in many cases, did not appear to have any practical application. Without that kind of research ongoing, we are not likely to have the kind of technological advancements we are all hoping will be brought about and that we will have more of in this province.

Specifically, I would like to know if there is the possibility under this particular legislation that the IDEA Corporation would provide funding to assist in the upgrading of labs -- for instance, in the universities, with the purchase of equipment and so on. Because of inadequate funding from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities over the last few years, we have found our labs are in such a state that in many cases they could not carry on the kind of research projects the scientists would like to be able to do, simply because they do not have the up-to-date equipment.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Jones: Briefly, I am sure the honourable member and I are not going to agree on all of his comments because, as I say, the needs tend to vary, judging by the dialogue I have had with people in our post-secondary institutions. They tend to vary. Sometimes they are a hard service by nature, sometimes they are a support service by nature, and often I suppose they could be referred to as a soft service by nature.

In the administrative decisions that will be taken by the IDEA Corporation and the nature of the people who will serve in its direction, I would think they would be out to serve the one end we have all talked about: the innovation, the R and D and the ability to deliver in the fast-changing technological era we are living in.

Whether it be in the upgrading of the actual equipment within a scientific laboratory, within a post-secondary educational system or wherever that need for improvement may take place, there certainly is no prohibition intended for the funds that would be flowing into those institutions.

Quite the contrary; just to set the members' curiosity to rest on that point, that would be one of the very valid uses of those funds and would be deemed to be going to meet the need, if that is the need at that particular institution.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to another dimension of the problem raised by my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I have been concerned for some considerable period of time about what happens to the research and development work that is done at the universities in large measure through the use of public funds, and what protection there is in the various universities in the province that are engaged in various aspects of research and development, to make certain that the information, knowledge, patents, inventions and other industrial property that are developed with public funds remain in the public domain.

This is the first time we have had an opportunity to address that question in a way that will ensure there is no encroachment upon either academic independence or freedom in the province. I want to emphasize what my colleague has said: We are supporting the bill; we are supporting the role of the government as a promoter of research and development in a highly technological society so that we can be in a position to have as alert, alive and creative an intellectual atmosphere in those fields as is conceivably possible, fields in which this government, up to now, has been significantly devoid of concern or interest.

The specific provision that bothers me is the protection the public domain is going to have when one of the principal objects of the corporation is to bring together the research capacities of the public sector with the commercial and industrial sector. The commercial and industrial sector is, of course, a private sector. I think the parliamentary assistant -- indeed, every member -- would have difficulty in gainsaying the suggestion that the great bulk of the funds and facilities that are available at the universities in this province are from public funds.

I would like to know what policies this government has in mind to make certain that co-operation between the public and private sectors for the promotion of research and development is carried out in such a way that the public interest is fully protected.

I assume, as a very simple proposition, that there should not be any development in the university which does not fall within the public domain. I assume and respect that if it is done within the commercial and industrial sector of the province, it falls within the private domain.

In subsection 3 of this section of the bill, the government is specifically precluding itself from participating directly in research and development; its sole role is that of a promoter. In a colloquial way, the government thus can say that the academia and the industrial and commercial sector can each scratch each other's back to make certain that technological development and research work are carried on adequately and properly.

I am very much concerned that we will see intruding into Canada -- if they have not already done so, and I do not presume to have any special knowledge about it -- the kinds of connections between institutions of learning and the private sector that have taken place in the United States. Let me use a large but important distinction that happened when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology entered into an agreement for a research and development project of a magnitude that is quite likely not even envisaged in the province by the IDEA Corporation. I will pose the problem that arose in that specific case.

MIT has a guide to research agreements with industrial sponsors. It entered into an agreement with Exxon Corporation. Let me contrast the two provisions. With respect to patents, the guide states: "The institute ... retains title to inventions made under its sponsored programs with the understanding that it will license them in the public interest under an active patent management program in which licensing of industrial research sponsors is an important part. Both the institute and the inventor share in the proceeds of royalty-bearing licences."

Let me emphasize that particular portion of the quotation I have just read: It will license them in the public interest under an active patent management program. Yet in the actual agreement that was entered into between MIT and Exxon, this is the provision: "Exxon and its affiliates hold an irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence under all sole and joint contract patents without accounting to MIT."

There we have an example of a direct divergence between the policy of MIT with respect to the public domain, into which the results of its intellectual efforts fall, and what happened to that institution's guide when it entered into an industrial sponsorship with Exxon.

Let me deal with another area, not so much even in the esoteric world of an actual patented invention, but just in the availability to the public of the knowledge and information that come out of the public institutions of learning in the province. Again I quote from the same guide for MIT with respect to publications and copyrights:

"The institute's research activities are conducted as an integral part of the total educational program, and much of it forms the basis for articles in professional journals, seminar reports, presentations of professional society meetings and student dissertations and theses. The institute cannot, therefore, undertake research or studies, the scientific results of which cannot be published or otherwise disseminated or which cannot be published without the sponsor's prior approval."

Because of the demands of the kinds of relationships that were entered into when it made the agreement with Exxon, the following is the provision that appeared in that agreement --

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: I want to bring to the member's attention the point that I think we have allowed some leeway in terms of discussion of this subsection. I am hoping that in the fullness of time you will come around specifically to discussing the subsection.

Mr. Renwick: I will when I have completed my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

When we are talking about the objects of a corporation such as this, which state that it is going to "bring together the research capacities of the public sector with the commercial and industrial sector"; when we have a provision that it will "promote and improve the capacity of universities to respond to the skill requirements of high-technology industries"; when there is a further provision that states it will "promote and develop co-operation in research and its applications among corporations, governments, universities, research centres and individuals," and when it further provides that it will "acquire, develop and deal in industrial property, licences, inventions and processes," and at the same time it has precluded itself from engaging in that, it is very germane for this House to know under this specific section of the bill whether the public interest will be protected.

That is the point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The difficulty I had was that you were going afield with other comparisons.

Mr. Renwick: I was not going afield. I think you may have dozed off for a moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: No. I was awake.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps you were not following the thread of my argument, which perhaps becomes entangled on occasion but which most people can understand; if not, they can perhaps read about it at some later time.

In any event, I want to contrast what happened at MIT when it entered into the agreement with Exxon with respect to the availability in the public field of the information that resulted from the research and development. The actual agreement with Exxon stated:

"MIT is encouraged to freely publish and openly disseminate the results of the research -- subject, however, to prior review (and possible delay in publication of up to 90 days) in order to ensure adequate patent protection for MIT and MIT/Exxon contract inventions. Exxon has the right to review proposed publications prior to submittal for publication and to notify MIT whether the proposed publication contains patentable subject matter on which Exxon recommends the filing of patent applications."

I use that example to illustrate the point I want to make, that as the years go on there will be a multiplicity of arrangements that the IDEA Corporation will be entering into with the universities and other educational institutions of the province, funded by public money. In promoting the relationship for research and development with the private sector there are obviously going to be any number of agreements entered into, many of which the IDEA Corporation will be a party to and some of which it will not be: it will simply be performing its role of promoter.

I want to understand whether the government is aware of the need to provide for the protection of the public domain. In the bloom that went forth when this IDEA Corporation was first put forward, there has been no indication of anything, as my colleague has alluded to and as I am trying to explain happened in very real terms in the United States, to protect the province, the public of Ontario, for the vast investment of public funds in this whole field.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the field is not a complex and difficult one. I am suggesting, however, that the complexity and difficulty of the field requires the IDEA Corporation as soon as possible, if it has not already done so, to develop and publish a guide with respect to the relationships between the public sector and the private sector and how, under that guide and statement of principles, the public sector is to be protected.

I am not objecting to the basic proposition behind the IDEA Corporation. But in no conceivable way am I going to sit here year after year and find that the private sector, at the expense of immense public money, has taken upon itself to have all of the benefit of the research and development done in the public domain.

I do not want anyone to think the agreement to which I referred is some unique example. There is an equally dramatic example between Harvard University and one of the major Monsanto chemical companies, where the adjustment that was made at the expense of the public domain was a matter of serious concern to those interested in the marketing of science and the role of the public sector in providing for that kind of research and development. I may also say it was true with the University of California. That is true anywhere that universities require money.

One of the major issues at the present time is going to be the turning off of the tap in Ottawa, the extent to which the universities are strapped for money and the intellectual atmosphere that will result from that, when universities will obtain revenues by entering into agreements to carry on research and development with public facilities in circumstances where it is not economic for private industry to do so. Private industry will pay the universities under these promotional arrangements in such a way as will likely interfere with the integrity of the public domain of the property and knowledge that will come out of that technological development.

I have gone on perhaps, Mr. Chairman, but I would certainly say to the parliamentary assistant that perhaps he should telephone Mr. Daniel Steiner, the general counsel at Harvard University, and have a discussion with him in order to get the benefit of his views and I hope act in a way that is contrary to the stated position explained by Mr. Steiner.

With great respect, I think there is significant danger for institutions such as the University of Toronto, Queen's University or any one of the other provincially assisted universities, let alone the other colleges and universities in the province, unless this corporation provides clear and specific guidelines which are publicly available so that the public purse will not be milched at the expense of private industry for the so-called laudable objectives of the IDEA Corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I have gone on at some length and tried your patience. I will appreciate the remarks of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, you have tried my patience a little bit.

Mr. Jones: I think all of us recognize in this new and changing world that the IDEA Corporation will be making its way and in many ways, I suppose, leading the way in this province. We will be finding that is a very valid concern. What is in the public domain will have to be guarded and a valid concern will be how each can benefit in this linking we have talked about without either of them being compromised.

I know the private sector -- to take one of the two sectors -- is finding it has problems as it comes forth to the government and finds that in order to be successful its members must work with other companies. I am thinking of a specific case just recently in which BILD was involved where, as a new high-tech industry, the private sector went abroad to seek contracts. They had some assistance and direction from government. Their biggest hangup has been that they did not know how to interface with each other lest one take advantage of the other. It was in the aerospace industry; smaller companies that had been successful but now had to move on if they were to continue. They had to find ways to protect the integrity of each of their respective companies as they worked together in partnership.

I suggest what the member is saying is that IDEA Corporation will have to commit itself to this. I have no quarrel and would have to agree. I think he would also agree that we ought not to become paranoid about these --

Mr. Renwick: God forbid we become paranoid. I've been here too long to become paranoid.

Mr. Jones: I appreciate that. I think all of us would agree that we cannot but seek out the ways we can have the benefit of the two being linked together without one taking advantage of the other.

I know in the world of research that the great bulk of new research moves throughout the world from industry to industry, in and out of the private sector, in the papers that are prepared and the research documents that are shared. A great system of protection of those ideas has come forward.

I will make a note, of course, of Mr. Steiner in the Harvard situation, but I would just remind members that we do have situations -- the Ontario Research Foundation, for example -- where private sector and public interests come together. We would find that in some of these same sections the member referred to when he touched on the skill requirements -- that is, in the section that deals with something a little different from the protection of thoughts and ideas; rather, that is to meet the needs of the new research and development findings.

4:30 p.m.

I think we should also remember that we do have in the very nature and makeup of the proposed board of directors a balancing, I suppose a protection, of the public domain by the fact that we are drawing people from as diverse sections of our economy as labour, even government, our universities and, to be sure, industry and other parts of the economy. But there is that balance, and I suppose that tells us that we have that protection.

With respect to furthering the public interest, section 8 requires that the board of IDEA in the final analysis shall comply with any directions given to it in writing by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the minister "with respect to the accomplishment of any of its objects." That is yet another accountability to the public interest.

I appreciate the member's remarks and I will carry them forward into the government process.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a brief comment. I want to make certain that we in this assembly get the report in the first place. I assume we will. I have not examined the minutiae of the provisions of the bill to make certain that when that report is filed the usual statutory provision is there to ensure that it comes before the assembly. Whether it is in the bill or not I would expect an assurance from the parliamentary assistant that it will.

I want to quote a very brief paragraph -- perhaps I should have done that originally and then just sat down:

"Historically, university research has been the source of random discoveries that have spawned science-based industries. Taxpayers' money is present at every stage of this work, used in the faith that the return on public investment will benefit all. College administrators invariably offer assurance that their first concerns when considering new sources of funding are quality of education and protection of academic freedom. Yet the old tradition that if you are nice to people they will take care of you has been replaced in many instances by contract language that at least symbolically permits corporations to gain a toehold on a not-for-profit body."

That is my point, Mr. Chairman. I trust that the parliamentary assistant has indicated in his response that he believes it merits close attention, and I will await with interest the publication of the guidelines that will provide a clear indication of the protection of the public interest as he enters into this particular minefield of multitudinous agreements between the private and public sectors. One will have to be pretty bright to protect oneself against the private sector in this economy, and I am quite certain that any of the members of the assembly who are aware of that will know the kind of care that will have to be devoted to the very serious public problem that my colleague and I have tried to draw to the government's attention.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the member, in answer to his question about whether the report will come to the Legislature: Yes. Section 17, indeed, reads:

"The corporation shall, after the close of each fiscal year, deliver to the minister an annual report upon the affairs of the corporation signed by the chairman and one other director of the board, and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

Mr. Wildman: I am afraid the comments from the parliamentary assistant do not really answer the concerns we were raising directly.

First he referred to section 8. I note that in section 8 it says the board will report "with respect to the accomplishment of any of its objects or the exercise of any of its power" from time to time. That was one section the parliamentary assistant used to answer the concerns raised by my colleague under section 10.

He also then referred to the annual report which comes under section 17. I hope when we get to section 17 he will explain what the differences are between this report alluded to in section 8, which is to be from time to time, and the annual report referred to in section 17. From my reading, it does not appear section 17 deals specifically with the accomplishments of its objectives which are referred to in section 8. If it does, why is there a need for two different sections? Why is there a different comment specifically in terms of the period of time?

In terms of the comments of my colleague, one other matter raised by the parliamentary assistant in answer to his concern for the protection of the public domain was that there would be representatives from not only business and labour but also government and the universities on the board of directors. That is acceptable, I am sure, but that does not necessarily mean the protection of the public domain is achieved.

I do not want to impugn any motives or cast aspersions on the integrity of any of the people who might be appointed to the board of directors. However I am sure the parliamentary assistant is aware of some cases in the United States where universities that have gained public funding have had situations where the researchers have formed themselves into private corporations for the purposes of obtaining patents on innovations which they achieved through publicly-financed research. Having those faculty members on the board of directors does not preclude that kind of development, one which hardly protects the public domain.

Mr. Renwick: My colleague has drawn to my attention that the government of the state of New York has a statute dealing with the policies with respect to the public domain in relation to the State University of New York. I emphasize again we are not talking about infringing the field of academic independence or freedom, but I do think the policies set out, I assume, in such a statute in New York and probably in other jurisdictions, to deal with this specific problem are ones to which the government must address its attention.

Mr. Jones: If I may comment in reply to each of the members, the member for Algoma pointed out we have a section 8 which we alluded to in our comments and a section 17. He was asking whether one perhaps made the other redundant or whether there was a duplication in them.

Mr. Wildman: I want to know what the difference is.

Mr. Jones: Okay. Section 8 says, "The board shall comply with any directions from time to time given to it in writing by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the minister with respect to the accomplishment of any of its objects or the exercise of any of its powers." It is complying with written directions of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and that is not necessarily a reporting process. It is responding as to what it has done as to the direction.

In section 17, that is an annual report; it is not only a report but also, as it reads, an audit. That is an audit that must be done annually, while the other comes from time to time.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Dealing with clause (d), I am concerned that it may have the appearance of advocating more and more training in, say, the engineering field rather than pure scientific research. I raise that concern again and hope that the IDEA Corporation will split its resources in such a way as to encourage both sectors.

Mr. Jones: I am sure the member is not making a case for something extremely frivolous. But my other comments made before remain.

This clause talks about "the skill requirements of high-technology industries," which is a broad term. We know some of the biotechnology work that will be happening and some of the other things that have to do with it. One could not define one section of research because, as the member has said earlier, one cannot always define what type of research is going to benefit in the immediate future or in the long term. But the member's comments are noted.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 10(2) carry? Carried.

Shall sections 10(3) to 10(6), inclusive, carry? Carried.

Mr. Wildman: I have a question on section 10(4).

Mr. Chairman: I apologize. I was too quick in carrying the subsections. I recognize the member for discussion of section 10(4).

Mr. Wildman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leniency.

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant at this time can give us some indication of what kind of financial resources this corporation is going to have. We have here a statement that "in carrying out the objects of the corporation under subsection 1, the corporation may provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan, guarantee or purchase of equity shares or other securities."

We are being told what they can do with whatever money they are going to have at their disposal, but nowhere have we had any indication of what kind of resources this government is going to give this corporation to carry out its objects.

I hope the parliamentary assistant is at liberty now to give us some indication of what kind of resources this corporation is going to have.

Mr. Jones: I would like to be able to assist the member in things specific but, on the other hand, as mentioned in the debate the other evening, I am not at all certain that is appropriate.

First, though, I would like to reassure him, as I thought I had done the other evening, that as is set out in this section of the bill, where it talks about providing financial assistance by way of grants, loans, guarantees or purchases of equity shares or other securities, and as we talk about the universities, for example, as we have been doing this afternoon, certainly the government recognizes that is not achieved with necessarily, in today's terms, a small amount of dollars.

I did remind the member the other evening and will do so again, that the IDEA Corporation falls under the umbrella of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. We all know that the BILD program has as its total overall amount some $1.5 billion, with some $750 million of those dollars being identified from the public sector of this government.

I can share this with the member: There is a ready recognition that, as we approach this, it probably would be premature to put out an amount that might restrict the activities of the IDEA Corporation as it comes together with its directors. On the other hand, we do not want to be irresponsible and seem to be throwing money around, picking large figures when we do not yet know the specific needs that will be identified in each of the areas the bill is responding to. I am not trying to duck but rather to be realistic in saying that the government is committing itself under the BILD program to making large amounts available and also being accountable, recognizing that we must first know what the priorities are and where the dollars are needed and not pretend to know in advance of it coming together.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the comments made. However, I would like to know how exactly this will work if the parliamentary assistant is saying it is going to come out of the BILD program. In other words, if the IDEA Corporation is ready to make a grant to a particular university or company, or a combination, or if it is interested in making a loan for purchasing equity -- whatever -- is it going to have to come back for approval on a project-by- project basis to BILD? Or is it going to have a certain amount of money with which to work and have flexibility and then just report back on some regular basis other than the annual report alluded to later on in the bill?

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the legislative side of things today rather than the administrative. But keeping that in mind, I would just say that surely, while the member raises a valid concern, the mechanics have to be flexible to meet the need. I could speculate, probably with a fair degree of accuracy, because there has been some thought at this stage of how that would happen -- whether it would be global in one context and how that would break down in turn and where the suggestions would flow, up the system, down the system, or a combination of both. I think it would be better to categorize the commitment of the government that the whole underlying thesis of the IDEA Corporation is that flexibility will be the key word and also adaptability to the needs of the universities in this case, as the member mentioned.

Mr. McClellan: This is becoming increasingly obscure. The assistant seems to be saying the government has a major piece of legislation in front of us that it is asking the assembly to pass, but that the administrative details have yet to be worked out. That may be an unfair interpretation of what the assistant just said, but that was the impression I was left with.

I think what my colleague for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is trying to understand is precisely what are the administrative arrangements for this piece of legislation. When the government brings in a major program through a statute, normally the administrative details have been worked out. What we are trying to understand is whether the IDEA Corporation will have an annual budget, a fixed amount of money from BILD, which I understand to be a cabinet committee.

We are trying to understand whether the IDEA Corporation will, like every other branch of the government, be given an annual allocation of funds. I do not know -- will there be a formula based on some perceived appropriate percentage of the total piece of pie to be allocated to this purpose which will be its annual budget and which it will have a mandate to spend in accordance with priorities, as the secretary has said? Or on the other hand, will the IDEA Corporation not have an annual budget, but look at projects and recommend projects as worthy as they emerge to the BILD committee of cabinet? Perhaps the secretary could try again to tell us how the government intends to administer this statute.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, what I meant to say in answer to the member for Algoma was that we are not dealing today with administration, but rather legislation. All I was saying is I was not presuming to look into all the day-to-day administrative details that will take place when a president and a full board of directors in a corporation is completely at work.

Certainly, yes, is the answer to one question. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development is a senior committee of the cabinet; and yes, there will be an allocation to that committee by cabinet. Yes, it will be based on a formula of need, and yes, it will have flexibility. In my experience with this government, certainly the programs I have been involved with have identified the need, made the best guesstimate of the funding that will be needed and that is justified for that priority. Yet they have never, where the cause is worthy, failed to recognize that sometimes those things change.

In this Legislature I have in taken through a bill that had to do with youth employment programs in another capacity. I can remember X millions of dollars were assigned to that with great thought and estimation of the need, but later overruns were met and the House joined to approve those. That was a decision of cabinet as to how much that amount would be.

I am saying there will be a formula and it is a committee of cabinet. Yes, it will fall under BILD and yes, there would be a portion of that BILD amount allotted to the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corporation. But that would not preclude what we might loosely term ad hoc decisions as needs identify. I would not preclude the university community or another community we are trying to reach from coming with specific needs apart from the budget.

Mr. McClellan: I understand then that there will be an annual allocation from BILD to the IDEA Corporation with, as the assistant says, flexibility to respond to particular initiatives as they would emerge or develop. Where will such an annual allocation be reported in the estimates process? When the Treasurer tables his annual budget and that budget is broken down into budget estimates, where will the IDEA Corporation's allocations show up?

Mr. Jones: I cannot say with accuracy, to be totally candid to the member, where specifically that would show. My guess is -- and I will get the answer to it more particularly and share it with the member or members who have joined the debate today -- but my understanding is at this point it would appear in the budget as a line under that budgetary process the Treasurer reports in the normal budget.

Mr. McClellan: It would be part of the Treasurer's budgetary allocation?

Mr. Jones: That is my understanding.

Mr. McClellan: I want to try to understand this because one of the political questions we want to try to address -- it has been raised during the course of the debate -- is the amount of our provincial wealth that is allocated towards research and development and what percentage of the gross provincial product in Ontario and in Canada has, in the past, gone into research and development.

Various speakers have spoken to the relatively paltry amounts that have been spent so it is important we get a clear idea on an annual basis of what resources the government is prepared to vote to this enterprise so we can assess whether the government is serious in its commitment or whether this is simply window dressing. When can we expect to see, either through the normal budgetary process or through supplementary or special estimates, the first annual allocation to the IDEA Corporation?

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I know other people speaking to the bill have used terms such as "promotional purposes" and other comments. That is clearly not the commitment the government is making with the IDEA Corporation. I would remind members yet again I do not think it would be responsible on our part to start to presume ahead of time and talk specific dollars, except to say that the government recognizes the need for investment in research and development. We have the legislation. The members opposite are making comments and allegations -- and there were more of the same the other night -- about how this government has not had a commitment to R and D --

Mr. McClellan: I was expressing a fond hope.

Mr. Jones: Okay. Given the member's argument, if that is so, that is what the IDEA Corporation is out to do: to improve the numbers of dollars going into research and development as well as other purposes.

Mr. McClellan: My question was when.

Mr. Jones: As to when, there will be announcements coming forward in the near future, and that is the truth.

Mr. McClellan: That has a familiar ring to it, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like "the fullness of time."

Mr. Breaugh: It is not quite as specific as the fullness of time.

Mr. McClellan: The fullness of time was a concrete phrase, at least in comparison.

I want to understand this; I want to understand how serious the Ontario government's commitment to this venture is. Is the parliamentary assistant saying we will have an allocation to the IDEA Corporation before the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) brings in his next budget or not?

Mr. Jones: I believe that is exactly what I am saying.

Mr. Chairman: No further discussion?

Just for the record, we had passed section 10(3). We had discussed subsection 4.

Section 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

Section 11(1) agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have a short question on subsection (2)(b) where it states that the corporation may "enter into an agreement with the recipient to provide for participation by the corporation in the ownership, licensing, royalties or use of any industrial property flowing from research and development by the recipient."

Is this perceived by the authors of the legislation to be the normal route the corporation will go when patents result from research, or is it just something the corporation may do but is not perceived as the main purpose? In other words, are we going to get a return when this research leads to profitable and marketable innovations, as we hope it does?

Mr. Jones: Again, Mr. Chairman, I know that sometimes the members would like us to be specific, but I hope we do not lose sight of one of the main thrusts of this bill and the intentions we have for it. The IDEA Corporation may become a part owner; it may negotiate licensing or royalty agreements. And again the emphasis is on providing the flexibility and adaptability to opportunities as they may come up or to needs that may be identified, be they in the private-sector marriage to a post-secondary or the other way around. I do not think we could identify any one and say that all agreements are going to take that road of equity or royalty or any one of the multitude of other alternatives we are providing through the IDEA Corporation.

I am sorry if I sound a bit like a broken record on this subject, but we are trying to have the broadest possible vehicle to give us the greatest possible flexibility.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion? No further discussion on subsection 2.

Section 11(2) agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jones moves that section 11(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "shall" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof the word "may."

5 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: I just have a short question. Why?

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, to say that the corporation "shall" pay profits that might come into the consolidated corporation might preclude a decision we all might want to see them make -- perhaps to retain for the benefit of the work of the corporation some portion thereof. So again we are trying to build in more flexibility.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jones moves that section 14 of the bill be struck out and that sections 15 to 22 inclusive be renumbered as sections 14 to 21 respectively.

Mr. Wildman: I am curious as to why you are doing this. Is this a move to finally decentralize the operations of government in this province? For instance, are we likely to see a head office located in Brampton or even perhaps in Wawa? What is the reason? Can you not find a building, or what is it?

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, certainly I have not heard Brampton mentioned, or for that matter Wawa. The intent in removing section 14 is not to restrict it to Toronto. Corporations do change their head offices from time to time. So we felt again, in a spirit of flexibility, we had best leave the head office choice open.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 14 and 15, as renumbered, agreed to.

On section 16, as renumbered:

Mr. Wildman: I raised questions during second reading regarding the sunset provision in this legislation -- the three years. I pointed out the Treasurer himself has indicated that when there is a long-standing problem we cannot expect an immediate fix. I am just wondering whether the inclusion of this provision for review after three years is an indication this government does not have a real commitment to ongoing funding of research in the province? Or is it somehow dreaming it is going to revise all the problems we have experienced over the past number of years in three years?

In other words, does the government really expect that by 1985, because of the operation of the IDEA Corporation, we are going to meet the commitment for 1.5 per cent of the gross national product for R and D, as is envisaged by the federal minister, even though the Treasurer in his budget statement last spring indicated that reaching that figure by 1985 was very unlikely?

Mr. Jones: No, I do not think any of us would be under the illusion we are necessarily going to fix in one year, two years or any time period the ongoing evolution that must take place and which the IDEA Corporation is set to serve -- namely that of advancing R and D and bringing together the various components of the economy.

Three years probably would be realistic -- it certainly is in a lot of other endeavours -- for us to be able to see whether this vehicle in its present form, the IDEA Corporation we visualize today, is still the best vehicle to meet the ongoing need for the bridging or, if you will, the linking up of universities, the private sector, individuals and those who are innovative and need the assistance of R and D and entrepreneurial instinct to bring about new jobs, an expansion of productivity, a reduction in the cost of productivity and all the other benefits that will flow from the work of an IDEA Corporation.

I do not think there is any particular year. It is certainly not a hidden sunset clause, but simply a statement that the government feels three years would be appropriate for review.

Section 16, as renumbered and as amended, agreed to.

Sections 17 to 21, inclusive and as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 47, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RACING COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 22, An Act to amend the Racing Commission Act.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I was making some brief remarks on second reading of this bill at the time of the adjournment a few days ago. I do not want to repeat them, but I do want to say that it is probably a relief for the present chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission that the bill be enacted. Without enactment, it means Charlie MacNaughton will continue to be a civil servant; and one can hardly picture that, knowing he used to be Treasurer of the province and had other responsibilities leading up to that high office.

Not that he would be condescending about the role of civil servants but, having been a sort of supreme being in this chamber, he might consider it something less than his main ambition in life to be so designated. The only reason I can think of for the bill being before us is that it means Mr. MacNaughton will no longer be a civil servant and maybe his friends will stop kidding him.

I feel, however, that the appointment of members and commissioners to the racing commission is something that should concern us since, over many years, it has been done from the ranks of good, loyal, Conservative servants or those senior members of the party who have more or less gone out to some sort of pasture, horse or otherwise.

I feel that those people perhaps have had more of a commitment to the Ontario Jockey Club than is healthy for the good of racing in the province. I have nothing against the Ontario Jockey Club. As a matter of fact, I feel that over the last 20 years they have done a good deal to improve the sport of racing and, in so doing, increase our revenues in the province. But we also know that particularly in the last decade non-jockey club racing enterprise has become more and more important.

5:10 p.m.

Frankly, as a representative of a farm community, I have felt very strongly that the non-jockey club racing probably responds to the farmers more effectively than the jockey club itself. The Ontario Jockey Club still carries with it that aura of money and style which has been associated particularly with flat racing, not only in this jurisdiction but also everywhere else.

When the horses get buggies -- sulkies -- behind them, then that tends to be when the dirt farmers get into the act. The races that used to be a part of every country fair have now been specialized by very good facilities indeed and even have the availability of parimutuel betting.

I can remember one of my former colleagues in the House saying that the quality of the horses did not matter; if you could bet on it, it could be Holstein cows racing and you would still get the crowds there, cheering or whatever they would be doing.

My own feeling, of course, is that the quality of the horseflesh adds a great deal to the occasion, and the farmers in the province have done a great deal in the improvement of the horseflesh and the quality of racing, both here and in many other jurisdictions.

I do feel that sometimes the Ontario Racing Commission shows favouritism to the Ontario Jockey Club in the awarding of racing days, and the minister who is in charge of the jockey club, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker), appoints the officials. That is referred to in this bill specifically.

Those people who look after the racing, the judges and others who are appointed by the ministry, are still civil servants. There was a rumour going around among the people interested in racing that the former minister, who is now the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), used to have a parking place out at Woodbine with his own name on it, which shows how far he was prepared to go to make use of the special favours that might be available to him.

One can imagine how the members of the jockey club and the racing commission would suck in their breath when the honourable minister would drive up in his limousine -- of course, in the hours when the Legislature was not in session -- and would participate in examination of the horseflesh and the other activities associated with it that take place at Woodbine and those other jockey club emanations.

I do not think there was ever a reserved parking spot for the honourable minister at Orangeville Raceway or anything like that, where they pull those buggies around. I always had the feeling that when the minister was looking after these things he had something of a patronizing approach to anything other than jockey club operations or flat racing.

He considers himself, and with some good reason, an expert in these matters. I only wish he were here, because I have a feeling that my comments would stimulate him to make some comments about racing and this bill, even in this House.

Frankly, I have always felt that Charlie MacNaughton did a good job as Treasurer. I believe he was Treasurer the last time we had a surplus in the province, and I well recall his predictions then that the province was headed for a series of deficits if the policies of the then government were going to be maintained.

The policies have been maintained, at least to the extent that we have huge deficits, and Mr. MacNaughton can be seen to be correct in his predictions of doom. I sometimes wish that he were still Treasurer so we might not have had the experiences of huge deficits that we have had since he left and took over his responsibilities in the Ontario Racing Commission.

I know that any criticism I would express about this bill that would indicate the commission directs too many of its favours to the jockey club, he would be quite prepared to deal with on its merits. If he were a member of this House, I know he would be quick to express his view of the merits. But he is not here and I am, and I have to express the views that have been put to me by the dirt farmers in my area, who actually do raise the horses and do get up at the crack of dawn to practise and exercise them. They are the ones who go out and take their chances against the owners of other horses, trying to make a living, trying to make a few bucks in a great sport, one that I think is based not on the elite of the province but on the dirt farmers who do the work and, in fact, have the most fun.

I am in favour of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in place of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who is unavoidably away from the House this afternoon attending one of the many celebrations in his own riding.

I am indebted to him, however, for the historical information I am about to impart to the House. The provision according to which the chairman should be a public servant, a member of the civil service, apparently goes back to the days of the former Provincial Court Judge S. Tupper Bigelow, who was chairman of the commission at that time. If he is alive, God bless him; if he is dead, God rest him.

I understand that at that time the purpose of the provision, which excepted the chairman of the racing commission from the general role of the members of the commission and made him a civil servant, was with respect to emoluments such as pension and otherwise that would come his way from the performance of that function.

We have no difficulty in supporting the two provisions that are in the bill. My colleague has indicated that he has no further concerns about the bill. We, of course, will support it and will not request that it go into committee, and we trust that it will have a speedy passage.

However, within the leeway of the discussion that has taken place, and with no knowledge whatever of horse racing, I would be interested in knowing whether the parliamentary assistant is in a position to tell us in the House what the present position of the government of Ontario and of the federal government is with respect to the amendments which I understand the federal Minister of Agriculture is going to propose to authorize intertrack betting in the province. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant has that knowledge. It is a matter of interest every year in this assembly, and I would appreciate any light he might shed on that question.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, since one of the largest racetracks is in my riding, I feel I should say a few words on this bill. It is also one of the oldest racetracks; its charter, I understand, goes back to a grant of land from the Queen. This means they are fairly well installed in my riding, although the community itself is not all that thrilled about having a racetrack in its midst, because it does cause very serious parking and transportation problems, and even residents of the communities beyond find it difficult to navigate past the racetrack on their way home on evenings when there are early evening events.

However, since we are dealing with the position of the chairman of the racing commission -- and, as my colleague has said, we are not opposing this change -- I think it would have been nice to have had more of an indication from the minister or the parliamentary assistant as to exactly how the chairman of the commission is accountable to this Legislature for the various decisions of the racing commission.

The racing commission does make a great many decisions about the operation of racetracks in this province and about the operation of the betting system, and I think there should be more opportunities for this Legislature to debate those decisions and perhaps to have the chairman of the commission appear before us on a more regular basis.

5:20 p.m.

In particular, the proposal to bring in intertrack betting at the different racetracks concerns the people in my area, because presumably this betting could go on from nine to five or even 24 hours a day. We do not know. Presumably, a lot of the people who are going to make the bets will be arriving in automobiles, and additional parking will be required. There may be additional congestion in the transportation system to place these bets. But the community has not been consulted at all.

People have no idea what intertrack betting will mean in terms of the facilities at the racetrack and how they will impinge on the community. This is the sort of question members of the Legislature should have an opportunity to discuss with the chairman of the racing commission. I hope, as these new developments are introduced, there will be an opportunity of that sort for the members.

It is also possible that we will go into offtrack betting, if the federal government approves it. Again, will it be operated by some of the operators of the racetracks --

Mr. Nixon: It's a policy of this government to have offtrack betting. Eugene Whelan is the only one who saved us.

Ms. Bryden: Will there be additional facilities in the community outside the racetracks? If so, how will those facilities be allocated to people who will be given licences to operate them? These are questions this Legislature should have a say in. I hope, after we pass this bill, the ministry will give us more of an opportunity to bring the chairman of the commission before a committee of the Legislature for discussion.

Perhaps in his response the parliamentary assistant will discuss the question of intertrack betting, what the plans are, and how citizens can find out how it will affect them.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, when one rises to speak on a bill of this kind and sees that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and the House leader of the Ontario Liberal Party (Mr. Nixon) are both in favour of the bill and find little wrong with its contents, then it is very difficult to be critical of almost any aspect of that piece of legislation.

Mr. Nixon: However.

Mr. Bradley: However. No, there is no "however" in this case. I think it is a sensible housekeeping change.

Speaking as the critic for consumer and commercial relations, I have to say that members in our party agree that the chairman should not be subject to the Public Service Act. I think that is sensible. We agree that the members of the commission should not have to be civil servants. That is not a requirement anybody would look for. We think it is sensible that the commission has the power to employ secretarial assistance and judges, as well as the professionals they have had the power in the past to employ, such as stewards and so on.

I must comment very briefly, however, on the makeup of the board. I have always felt, with so many of these commissions and committees and places where one can appoint people, that it is unfortunate they do not represent a more reasonable cross-section of the people of Ontario, particularly in terms of political affiliation. While we do not have a senate here in Ontario, it appears to me that bodies such as this certainly make up for the senate in terms of a place for political warhorses from the governing party, which has been in power for almost 40 years.

Mr. Mancini: This is better than the senate.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) indicates it is better than the senate. In many ways, one is able to hide these particular appointments somewhere in the background. Everybody notices when one tries to appoint someone to the federal Senate. When they appointed Peter Stollery, it caused a big kerfuffle here in the city of Toronto and across the country. But when one appoints some former cabinet minister from the provincial government or some loyal party worker from Oxford --

Mr. Mancini: A Tory hack.

Mr. Bradley: A Tory hack -- I did not want to use that particular term, but a person who has been loyal to the governing party in the province -- to use this kind of commission for those appointments would be wrong.

Although I do not have many hopes for this particular minister on anything in the last few days, we hope he and the cabinet will make those kinds of appointments that would be more representative of the people, not only politically but also in terms of being able to look in perspective at the total racing situation in Ontario, and not be, as my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has indicated, somewhat sympathetic to the views of the Ontario Jockey Club.

My colleague also mentioned that the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who now is the Minister of Community and Social Services, had a somewhat active interest in this, and I think it was a well-known interest publicly.

I certainly feel that, if any members of the opposition had ventured into the racetrack, the sleuths in the minister's office, the Donald Segrettis of the minister's office, would have spotted us, noted the time and place when each one of us was there and added it to the personal dossiers the minister obviously is compiling on individual members of the opposition.

As a party, we speak in favour of this. I know the parliamentary assistant to the minister will take back the message that we hope some of the appointments could better reflect the composition of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that the standing committee on procedural affairs this past session undertook to investigate some agencies appointed and created by the government of Ontario. One of these commissions happened to be the Ontario Racing Commission. We took the opportunity to visit the Mohawk establishment and see firsthand how the operations are run.

Mr. Breaugh: Why not tell how it went out there?

Mr. Mancini: Actually, I did not want to get into any of the personal --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege: I apologize for being a little slow on this, but it just occurred to me that, when the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) was speaking, he made an allegation that is of very grave concern to me as a member of this Legislature, the allegation being that one of the ministers of the crown was keeping dossiers on individual members of this Legislature, of which I am one.

Mr. Bradley: I referred to opposition members.

Hon. Mr. Norton: An infringement of the member's privileges in this House is an infringement of mine.

If the member has any information suggesting that anyone in this House is keeping a dossier on anyone else in that manner -- he even made the allegation that it was like Donald Segretti, and that has well-known connotations to all of us in this House in view of the events of a few years ago in the United States -- if he knows that, I think it is incumbent upon him now to stand up and place that information before this House so all of us can take the appropriate action to protect our rights.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I take that as a point of order rather than as a point of personal privilege. It is a point of order. If it is the minister's wish to have Hansard looked at, and if there is something to be withdrawn, we will certainly speak to the honourable member.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, it may ease the minister's mind to recall the situation in the House last Friday when the minister to which my colleague the member for St. Catharines is referring was ready with an answer following his question having to do with some action of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, which the other minister is responsible for.

He made the allegation that my colleague from St. Catharines had done exactly the thing which the member for St. Catharines was complaining of. When it became apparent that the information from the minister, which had been collected by somebody in his ministry, was incorrect, he did not even have the grace to withdraw and left my colleague in the situation where, of course, he is directly critical of the minister and his staff.

The Acting Speaker: A point of order has been made. Hansard can be looked at. If there is some change that is to be made, we will certainly look into it.

Mr. Breaugh: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: The question was whether any minister of the crown has a dossier on any other member in the House. I wish the record to show that I am well aware that the Solicitor General of Ontario has a complete dossier on me, because I gave him some of the material.

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of the Environment is aware that he interrupted a great speech and we are little concerned. Anyway, I was saying that the procedural affairs committee had gone to Mohawk to investigate firsthand the operations and how things were run.

It is no secret that I happened to lose $14 that night. I received advice that evening from the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

The Acting Speaker: You are speaking on Bill 22.

Mr. Mancini: Right. The advice came from the member for Oshawa, and I should have known beforehand that his advice would lead me in the wrong direction.

Anyway, I believe the point that should be made is that this is an example of a commission that has been created by the province. It is only by chance that the procedural affairs committee decided to undertake a short investigation of the commission's activities. What concerns me is that the government of Ontario surely was aware that the procedural affairs committee was going to be looking into the Ontario Racing Commission.

I am disappointed that we were not provided with the information that the minister was looking forward to making some changes. I am disappointed that these changes have been made without the procedural affairs committee report being tabled in the House and without the minister having the opportunity to look at the recommendations we are going to be making, because he might have wished to incorporate the recommendations of the procedural affairs committee in this bill. I am disappointed that the government has decided to act in this manner.

Of course, we are going to support the bill; there is nothing offensive in this bill. But that just goes to show one of the very points that was made by another member here this afternoon. These boards, agencies and commissions are appointed by the Ontario government almost in secret. Nobody knows who is over at these particular offices running these operations. It is almost like a subgovernment in secret.

If we were to look at the American experience, no one gets appointed to any of the commissions in the state legislatures or Congress or Senate without first appearing before a panel of the elected members. They decide whether the individual person is fit to hold that job and can examine any of the biases that individual person may have. Frankly, I am disappointed that we are going to continue along the same path that we have been following for so many years in the province. My colleague from St. Catharines pointed out very eloquently that --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think it is important that not only the honourable member who is speaking but also all of the honourable members understand that there is no secrecy associated with the process to which he is referring.

The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The kind of scrutiny he is talking about certainly takes place, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council by order in council appoints such people. The orders in council are always published. If the honourable member is able to read, he can read the orders in council when they are posted.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex South has the floor. And that is not a point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: That's right. Slap him around.

The Acting Speaker: It was more a point of information.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, members they may not be aware of this but it is very important. I wish to inform them that two years ago, when the procedural affairs committee did an investigation of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, we asked the chairman how it was that he came to know who was interested in sitting on the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We asked the chairman if ads were placed in the paper or if letters were sent to all members of the Legislature informing us that these positions were becoming available.

The answer we received was that they had some kind of network and they really knew who was out in the field, who was able to hold these positions on the Ontario Labour Relations Board. In my view, and I stated it then, that is secrecy. This government has created a subgovernment of secrecy by appointing well over 500 agencies, boards and commissions. Hardly any member of the Legislature knows who the chairmen of these commissions are, and we hardly know what they are doing. They are going about their everyday lives passing regulations, passing their own laws by which people under their jurisdiction have to abide. This Legislature is not privy to what is happening. We are not privy to the people who are making these decisions. Surely after 40 years, even the government must be concerned about the monster it has created. That is exactly what it is.

I am offended that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) is not concerned. Surely under his jurisdiction he has numerous commissions set up. I doubt if he knows what is going on. He probably does not even know all the people sitting on these commissions. It is absolutely necessary for the Legislature to take more of a role in deciding who sits on these boards, agencies and commissions. Subgovernment secrecy is the only term to be attached to the philosophy and policy adopted by this government.

I explained earlier that I was disappointed with the ministry for not making a presentation before the procedural affairs committee, when I am absolutely sure it was aware of our investigation into the Ontario Racing Commission. We raised the matter of intertrack betting during those hearings. We heard from the Jockey Club. We heard from different people who have dealings with the racing commission. I am really disappointed. I am sure the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) is not privy to a single statement made before our committee.

So we end up with Bill 22, a very innocuous piece of legislation, a housekeeping type of thing, and we have lost an opportunity to make an impact on the government. His party has several members on that committee, who also raised some concerns. Not even his own party's concerns are being taken into account. What kind of government do we have? Is that what happens when a party wins so many seats? Does it get so sloppy and so arrogant that it does not even take the time to find out what is going on in its committees? Are there not people reporting back to the ministry as to what is going on?

Sure, we will pass this piece of legislation, but it is not going to answer some of the problems that were raised in the procedural affairs committee. Once again, this government has only done half a job.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will make my comments very brief.

This bill is a direct recommendation of the agency review committee. In answer to the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), quite honestly, no, I have not seen the results of the committee as yet, but since he drew them to my attention I will examine them very closely.

May I say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that I have only been in racetracks twice in my life, once in the little town of Arthur, which is full of my relatives and not too far distant from the member's home, and the other time in London. I must admit I am not a specialist on racetracks and racetrack operations, but I will certainly see that the comments he made today are passed along. I might have some sympathy with the comments made with regard to recognizing those who ride behind the sulky.

5:40 p.m.

I am afraid I do not have an answer for the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), but I will attempt to get the answer for them as soon as possible.

Basically that wraps up my comments. I appreciate the support. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) made a comment in the House today on something that I certainly am not aware is going on. I would question, frankly, that it is occurring. However, the question has been raised and Hansard will be examined, but I would certainly think no one would really be doing that.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Mr. Mitchell, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Walker, moved second reading of Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this bill has come about with the intent of restating and revising the laws that apply to business corporations, and it is also an attempt to bring uniformity between Ontario corporate legislation and legislation federally and in other provincial jurisdictions. I have talked to some honourable members in the House, and because there are some amendments that we wish to make to it as well, we have agreed that it go to a standing committee. I will terminate my comments at this point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, there has been some consultation, and we recognize in the House that we are talking about a rather detailed and extensive bill. It was the feeling of many members of the opposition, and agreed to by government members, that the very best place to deal with it in the kind of detail we would like and to ask the kind of questions we would like would be in a committee. It is my understanding that the government has agreed to have this go to the standing committee on administration of justice for detailed study.

We feel the time has certainly come to bring our legislation into line, first, with the federal jurisdiction, and second, with the other provincial jurisdictions in this country. We think this act goes a substantial way towards doing that. However, we do feel some improvements can be made. Perhaps we will see some of those when the government brings forward its own amendments, and there may be occasion for us to move amendments as well. From the beginning, the administrative functions under the act are given to the director rather than the minister. In my own view that is a positive move in itself. But from there on down we will make recommendations on the kinds of changes we feel are necessary.

We have within our party the former chairman of the company law committee, who no doubt will have some detailed comments on this. I know that within the next few minutes this afternoon the House leader of the Ontario Liberal Party will be making some brief comments on the bill as well. So we speak in support of having this proceed to committee.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief and, I hope, pertinent remarks on this bill on second reading. I welcome the agreement of the government that the bill would go outside the House to committee, particularly because I know that the task force on churches and corporate responsibility wishes to make submissions to the committee. I understand they will be writing to the chairman of the committee and to the clerk to let them know their wishes with respect to that presentation. There may well be other people who want to make submissions.

My problem with a bill such as this is very simple. It goes through a great deal of discussion in the ministry with a lot of people who are interested in it, which excludes the assembly totally from any participation in the bill. The bill then comes before the assembly, and we are expected to deal with it in some formal way. We are not prepared to deal with that. We had the problem in the last parliament of the Securities Act. It was out in committee, but it was impossible, even with a minority government, to change any provision of that bill in a substantial way.

I simply say to the representatives of business and of the corporate, legal and accounting professions in the province that we would be delighted to see them in front of the committee. If they do not bother to come, we will assume it is because their closet arrangements with the government have permitted them to have their say and the bill represents not any public input but simply the closed world in which those particular members of the world of the corporate elite operate.

I particularly want to indicate very clearly that I for one would like to understand that ancient provision in section 130 of the bill, which has been inherited from other provisions, that deals with the liability of directors for wages. I trust when we are in committee, somebody will explain to me why in this day and age the directors' liability is couched in such inexplicable terms and has a reference to that very modern Conservative statute, the Master and Servant Act, as a guide to the basis on which the directors will be responsible for the wages of people who are employed by corporations.

I may also say there is a convoluted relationship in reference to the Employment Standards Act. I have read it several times. I do not understand it and I will expect in committee that there will be a very clear understanding of what that provision means. I would request the minister, his parliamentary assistant and his advisers to give a few moments' thought to modernizing that provision of the bill respecting the responsibility in the case of default in payment of wages for persons who are employed by corporations. I defy anyone, let alone a person in receipt of wages, to understand the extent and degree of the responsibility this act is supposed to impose upon the directors with respect to their liability for wages.

I will also want to know very clearly that the provisions of section 131, and its last subsection dealing with the question of disclosure by directors and officers to the board of directors of their interests so that they will be seen not to profit, are fully and totally adequate, in the sense of covering the specific case that I drew to the ministry's attention, and which was well known as a matter of concern here. It concerned the profit that was made at one point by the then chief executive officer of the Consumers' Gas company. He was never required to account for the profit he made when his interest in the contract was not disclosed.

There was a statement by the Ontario Securities Commission at the time, within the world of corporate manners, that everything was quite fine. The fact is that the chief executive officer of that company did not disclose his interest in a contract with a corporation of which he was the principal shareholder and from which he derived considerable, either direct or indirect, profit. That matter of the disclosure requirements is of immense concern to me, because the corporate world closes ranks very quickly and the key words in that section are "the material contract." Who could tell whether this particular contract was a material one? I want to say to the minister that in committee we will be very concerned with that particular provision.

5:50 p.m.

My friend the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) will recall quite well that, when the Ontario Securities Commission came before us in committee when we were dealing with the Re-Mor matter, it had the temerity to suggest it was not responsible to the minister of the crown who in turn was responsible to the assembly. The Securities Act reads something to the effect that the commission shall have the responsibility for the administration of this act. It is in the Securities Act, an act which is given to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) for the purpose of its administration.

It was the strangest possible argument one could have heard and, therefore, I was anxious to make certain that in some way or other this new bill did not breach in any way or pretend to breach in any way the ultimate responsibility of the minister of the crown to this assembly for the administration of that act.

I may say that my concerns are not dispelled by a reading of the bill. The present bill specifically provides that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is responsible for the administration of that act. The standard words are used in the definition of "minister": the minister "to whom the administration of this act may be assigned." That is fine.

Then, under the existing bill, the present Business Corporations Act, we have a specific statement that the minister may delegate his powers to the director and the director is defined as the director of the companies division or whatever the name of the division in the ministry is.

It is quite interesting that there is no such provision in this bill. All it simply says, towards the end of the bill, is that the minister may appoint a director who will do so and so, but the magic words about responsibility and the magic words about delegation do not appear in it.

I want to say to the minister that I for one, and I know my colleague the member for St. Catharines agrees, do not ever again want to be faced in committee with somebody who comes before us under a statute of this province and tells us in some way he has no responsibility to the minister of the crown and through the minister of the crown to this assembly.

In the brief time at my disposal, I want to talk as succinctly as I possibly can about two matters that have become confused in the public mind. I want to lay them both to rest because they are matters of great significance to me and to my colleagues in this party. The confusion in the use of the language is something I cannot tolerate. The notion that there is such a thing as a corporate citizen and, therefore, a good or a bad one is absurd.

It is true that in law a corporate entity is referred to as a person because it has a legal personality, but everyone knows the use of the term "person" in this context is, like the corporation itself, a legal fiction to enable the law to deal with the artificial entity. To endow this entity with citizenship, to equate the corporation with a human being, is logically unacceptable and morally revolting.

It has become part of the commonplace language of our time that there is something called good and bad corporate citizens. I want to say that is a distinction which I do not accept, which is not acceptable to this party and which does nothing but confuse the real substance of the matter.

In this province, under the election expenses regime under which we operate, we have had the theory that somehow or other corporations which do not vote are something called corporate citizens and are therefore entitled to make contributions for election purposes. I simply want to say that I do not accept that. I do not know when the day will come when they are outlawed, but I know the argument that will be made and I want to address that briefly in the few moments which remain to me.

A deliberate confusion has been created to equate the powers which may be exercised by labour unions with those of corporations. There is no comparison between the power of the union and that of the corporation, either quantitatively or qualitatively. The union is a voluntary organization of men and women. It is an expression of their need to unite for the purpose of defending their common interests and their status in society. Anyone acquainted with the history of employee-employer relationships, still often described in the law as the master-servant relationship, would be aware of the fact that without his organization the worker would be completely helpless except for laws which provide him with some usually inadequate protection.

The corporation, on the other hand, is an entirely different creature. The quality of the power exercised by a union, and of that wielded by a corporation, is simply incomparable. In our present society it is the corporation which decides on the direction of investment, the quantity of investment, the nature of the product or service produced, the location of its plant and office, whether its operations are to be expanded or curtailed or closed down.

The banks, near banks and insurance companies decide how, where and when the savings of the people are to be applied and invested. In short, the corporate sector has the power subject only to fiscal and legislative limitations to shape the economy of the country and its future, to increase or decrease unemployment, to build homes or office buildings, to introduce or to delay technological change and to make almost all the important decisions governing our society.

I have always found it impossible to understand how any objective person can compare the pervasive power of the corporation with the capacity of a union to negotiate improved pay and conditions for its members, or even to cause inconvenience to the community as a result of a democratic decision of its members to withdraw their labour temporarily. In my opinion, the attempt to equate corporate power with that of unions is a scandalous distortion. Unfortunately it seems to have succeeded.

Mr. Speaker, I know that all of you would recognize that I have not got the capacity for that kind of eloquence. I just simply want you to know that a man whose views coincided with mine, but who had the greater capacity for expressing the concerns which this party has on that kind of nonsense, the late David Lewis, made those remarks in a lecture he gave in 1976 on the Scarborough campus of the University of Toronto.

He set out very clearly that you do not equate the corporation with the trade union in our society either quantitatively or qualitatively. I used, and I paraphrased, some of the substance of his remarks in the comments I made because when we are talking about the structure of the so-called business corporation in the province, it not only covers the structure of tens of thousands of very small businesses that use it quite properly for the purposes of the organization of their business, but the identical structure -- whether it is at the provincial level or the federal level -- is the very structure that is used by the several hundred corporations which dominate and control the economy in which we live.

We all know the damage as well as the good that the corporations may do to our society but the extent and degree of the concentration of their power and their influence is a matter which is of grave concern to us in this caucus. I simply want to say to those who want to discuss the corporate world with me, let us not talk about either corporate citizens, good or bad on the one hand, and let us not try to equate for one single moment, quantitatively or qualitatively, the all-pervasive power of the corporations with the kind of defensive protective mechanism that working people in this province and elsewhere have evolved to try to wrest a decent living and decent working conditions from the corporate world in which most of them must spend their lives.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, and because the bill is going out to committee, I will take my seat.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if you want to leave the chair for supper at this time it would be all right with me. I do not have a lengthy presentation but I cannot give it in two minutes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would think what we would best do is to carry this debate on after the supper recess.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

October 20, 1981