Hansard Transcripts 1983-Jan-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of all honourable members that this weekend more than 500,000 Canadians, half of them residents of this province, will be marking the 65th anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of the Ukraine, which occurred on January 22, 1918, in a part of the world where, today, the problems of freedom, liberty and justice still are major areas of concern and confrontation. In the solutions towards world peace and world sanity, that area still will be playing a major role.

This anniversary is particularly unusual and different this year, because it is also celebrated in conjunction with an anniversary of one of the most horrifying periods in the history of humanity, namely, the great famine that occurred 50 years ago in that part of the world. I wish to draw to members' attention that these celebrations will take place this weekend. The 50th anniversary of that famine will be marked throughout the year. Within seven or eight months between 1932 and 1933, more than seven million people perished, which is almost the population of the province of Quebec.

It is by marking such tragedies and such events that we remind all of humanity that the problem of evil and those unfortunate moments of great cataclysms are sometimes perpetrated, not as a result of natural catastrophes but often as a result of political aims and political goals.

We, as lawmakers and legislators, should always he vigilant. Be it the great tragedy of the Nazi holocaust, the tragedy of the Armenians or, as in this case, the tragedy of seven million Ukrainians who perished within eight months -- 75 per cent of them, which is close to four million, children -- these are moments that remind us that vigilance for the freedom and the right to live of individuals and, collectively, of peoples is a concern of all of us as members of the human family.

I thank you for this opportunity, sir.

ANNUAL REPORT, REGISTRAR OF LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS, 1979

Mr. Speaker: Before embarking on the routine proceedings, I wish to deal with a matter raised yesterday by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who tabled a petition pursuant to standing order 33, petitioning that the statutory annual report of the registrar of loan and trust corporations for the year 1979 be referred to the standing committee on the administration of justice.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I rise. I do not want to be place you in the position where you make a ruling on this matter and then you place me, sir, in a position where I have to consider whether I should challenge your ruling. I have no problem, of course, if it accepts the position that I put forward. However, I have a problem about you making a ruling about the rules of the House without me having an opportunity to express my reasons for it if your ruling is going to be adverse.

I recognize that is rather a catch 22. I did, however, yesterday indicate that I wanted an opportunity to place my reasons for the petition, why I believe it to be in order. I had anticipated that a member of your staff, sir, or yourself, might ask me for my views, either privately or otherwise, with respect to this, so you would understand that I do not embark upon these procedural rules lightly. This is a matter that is of utmost concern to us.

Mr. Speaker: It is indeed; it is a very important matter, and I thought you had made your views quite clear in presenting the petition.

Without attempting to prejudge the matter, is it the wish of the House that I proceed with this ruling, or shall we leave it in abeyance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let's leave it for a couple of months.

An hon. member: Could you give us a clue what the ruling is?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: How will they ever know?

I have read standing order 33(b) very carefully and find that as this is an annual report to the minister required by statute, the standing order requires the minister to present it to the House before consideration of his estimates.

I therefore find the petition to be in order as far as and including the word "justice." That is, the petition should simply read: "Pursuant to standing order 33, we the undersigned petition to refer the statutory annual report to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the registrar of loan and trust corporations for the year 1979, being the latest such report presented to and laid before the House, to the standing committee on the administration of justice."

The remainder of the petition as tabled is extraneous, not contemplated by the standing order, and is therefore out of order. It is the duty of the committee, of course, to decide what will be considered within the confines of a report referred to it.

10:10 a.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO TECHNOLOGY CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House today that, as of February 8, all six of Ontario's technology centres will be open for business.

As members know, three centres already have been launched; they are the Ontario Centre for Microelectronics in Ottawa, the Ontario Centre for Auto Parts Technology in St. Catharines, and the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery in Sudbury. At those three, work is well under way on a variety of programs serving the respective industrial sectors.

I am now able to announce the opening dates of the three remaining centres.

On January 31, the Premier (Mr. Davis), my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and I will open the Ontario Centre for Farm Machinery and Food Processing Technology in Chatham.

The following day, February 1, in Cambridge, the Premier and I will open the first of two advanced manufacturing centres -- the Ontario Centre for Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing, or CAD/CAM for short.

Finally, a week later, on February 8, the Premier and I will open the other advanced manufacturing centre, the Ontario Centre for Robotics in Peterborough.

Naturally, all members are most welcome to attend these official openings and probably have already received their invitations.

In the case of the Chatham ceremony on January 31, any members unable to attend may wish to view a live video hookup between the centre and the main lobby of this Legislature.

At the other two openings, there will be major displays of the technology; indeed, at Cambridge we expect to have one of the largest displays of computers applied to manufacturing ever assembled in Canada. In fact, I dare say it will be the largest display ever put together in Canada and perhaps one of the largest in North America ever put together under one roof.

As members know, the six centres come under a $110-million, five-year technology program administered by my ministry and funded by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, whose chairman is the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Collectively, the centres, along with the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., will foster and provide practical assistance towards the adoption of modern technologies which will increase the productivity of Ontario industries and enable them to remain internationally competitive.

I wish to report briefly on the three centres that will be opening soon. First, I am pleased to report that BILD has accepted in its entirety the business plan and proposed allocation of funds for the Ontario Centre for Farm Machinery and Food Processing Technology. The money requested and approved is in excess of $10 million over five years, most of which will be spent not on physical plant but on programs and professional expertise of direct benefit to that industrial sector.

In the farm machinery part of its mandate, this centre will concentrate on the development of secondary equipment, farm materials handling equipment and specialty crop machinery. In the food processing area it will focus primarily on fruit and vegetables and will actively promote the use of microprocessors to increase productivity through automation and control. The centre will have a pilot plant to demonstrate both equipment and process technology. It will also mount educational and training programs to advise farmers, equipment manufacturers and food processors of the latest advances. We expect to be able to announce shortly the appointment of a board of directors and a president to run this centre in Chatham.

For the two centres for advanced manufacturing technology, BILD funding totalling $36.7 million already has been announced.

The CAD/CAM facility in Cambridge will promote wider use of this computer-based technology, which allows manufacturers to perform complex design, engineering, manufacturing and inspection work more quickly and more efficiently. The result is improved product quality and increased productivity.

The facility in Peterborough, meanwhile, will promote the use of industrial robots and the growth of supportive robotic industries. It will provide consulting in robot applications and run demonstration and training programs, both in-house and externally for industry, students and the general public.

Members may be aware of the appointment earlier this week of Mr. Kenneth Jones as president of these two centres for advanced manufacturing. Mr. Jones, who formerly was president and chairman of the board of Standard Modern Tool Co. Ltd., brings extensive background knowledge that will greatly assist Ontario manufacturers facing the decision to adopt these new technologies.

On the recommendation of the advisory committee, one president was chosen for the two centres because they are so closely allied. Each centre will have a senior general manager.

Earlier this week, also, we were pleased to name Mr. I ames Wade as president of the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery Technology in his home town of Sudbury. Previously president of his own engineering and project management firm, Mr. Wade will apply equally distinguished credentials in this centre's service to the mining and forest industries of Ontario.

Finally in this update, I want to acknowledge the tremendous assistance provided by so many individuals in the private sector in bringing our technology centres from concept to reality. Whether members of original advisory committees, consulting firms or ongoing boards of directors, they worked unstintingly to perfect the business plans that are the blueprints for the centres' first five years of existence.

I have no doubt that the six technology centres will help move Ontario into a new era of technological advancement. By assisting our manufacturers to reap the full benefits of high- technology innovation and its industrial applications, they will contribute to renewed economic progress for us all.

CLERK'S WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to extend to the Clerk of the House my congratulations and those of the government with respect to his 40th wedding anniversary, which will be celebrated on Sunday of the upcoming week. I wish to express on behalf of all of us our congratulations to the Clerk, and in particular to his wife, who quite obviously has exercised great perseverance, sensitivity and understanding for those 40 years.

FILM SCREENING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, while we are making announcements, and in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), I am sure he would want me to let all members know that there will be a screening on Monday for all members and press gallery members of a speech he delivered at Bluewater Centre for the developmentally retarded last June, when he guaranteed their continuation because of all the fine work they had done. I am sure everybody would like to come and hear that on Monday; I will give the members the date.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEPOSITORS' ASSETS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is no doubt aware of the press reports this morning pointing out a situation that has worried me for some time. It appears, according to press reports, that there is $125 million missing, unaccounted for, untraceable or looted in this complicated series of transactions. Will the minister confirm or deny those press reports of this morning?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to associate myself with the references the honourable member made to the money involved, nor to those who may have put it forward. May I also say that since this is an issue that is currently before the Morrison special examination with respect to which people are under oath, I am not prepared to comment further at this time.

Mr. Peterson: So the minister is going to continue to stonewall even though it appears there is a sieve somewhere in this series of transactions.

The minister is aware that a number of rent cheques come due at the first of the month. Because he either does not know or is not prepared to tell us or the tenants, will he consider setting up a trust fund on an emergency basis to handle those rent cheques that are coming due to make sure those apartments are maintained until this whole business is sorted out?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I said yesterday, I am quite aware of the concerns of the tenants and issues in that area are being actively considered at present. I have no further information to give the Legislature at this time.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that New Democratic Party policy on Tuesday becomes Liberal policy on Friday, but --

Mr. Kerrio: You are so far behind us you don't even know you are in the game.

Mr. Breithaupt: You'll never catch up on this one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: It hurts; I know it hurts.

My question to the minister is simply this. He now has had time to ask his appointees, Mr. Shuve and Mr. Taylor at Greymac and Mr. Voelker at Seaway, a very simple question. It is not the complex question demanded of Mr. Morrison, but a very simple question of fact; that is, was the payment on $152 million of third mortgages received, when due, on January 10? If that payment is in default in any sense, will the minister please assure this House that he will exercise his legal and moral obligations and take over as trustee of the apartment buildings, as we asked on Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in response to that same question, clearly those are issues we are looking at. When I have information to provide to this House, I will do so. I am well aware of the questions, and I will provide the information when it is presented to me for presentation to this Legislature.

Mr. Peterson: This matter has been going on for some three months now. Thoughtful people were aware of complications even before that. Mr. Morrison has been in there for about two months. The ministry has had its special investigators in there for two weeks. How long is the minister going to take?

There are so many unanswered questions. The minister stands up in this House every day with great personal embarrassment and gives us no answers on this whole matter. Time is conspiring against him. When is he going to come back to this House with some answers on what is going on with respect to tenants' rights, depositors' rights and all the other questions we have been asking?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us clear the air a little bit. I do not stand, or sit, in this Legislature with any sense of embarrassment. I stand here on behalf of the government and say, quite frankly, that we have acted responsibly and prudently in the interests of the depositors, shareholders and creditors of those trust companies. That is our sole goal, and I trust it is the sole goal of the members of this Legislature.

I am fascinated that the Leader of the Opposition has belatedly come to the view that things should be done as expeditiously as possible, because he tends to change his position. On November 16, he said the typical way the government gets out of problems is by having royal commissions. On November 17, he said the typical way we do it is by royal commissions. The implication is that we should not delay things that way. Now he has flipped over and is on the other side.

I want to find out information, I want to find it out quickly and I want to make certain that the depositors, shareholders and creditors receive the kind of protection they deserve in this province.

Mr. Peterson: My friend is obviously feeling quite beleaguered. He will recall that at the time of the original Cadillac Fairview sale, we said it had to have a complete royal commission inquiry then.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The facts have substantiated that and have become even more complicated. The minister is three months out of the play at present. It has been a shoddy performance on his part.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I do not care what personal innuendo the minister wants to engage in. Anything he wants to say is fine.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member should be embarrassed. He is embarrassing some of his very good friends in the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. New question.

Mr. Peterson: I am embarrassing John Clement and Stanley Randall? Is that what the Premier is saying? Am I embarrassing his friends? Who am I embarrassing? David Cowper?

Mr. Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition please resume his seat?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We want to see the list of friends and who has the most friends in the industry. Come on now, come clean.

Mr. Gillies: Friends are something that member does not have to worry about.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition with a new question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the suggestions very clearly are that there is up to S125 million missing. What assurance is the minister prepared to give the depositors today that this missing money will not in any way affect the security of their deposits?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, once again, just so we understand the facts about the ad lib that was put in: On November 16, the Leader of the Opposition said, "It is, of course, the typical government response"-- I am reading selectively -- " to have a royal commission." Unless I read the word the wrong way, that is a man standing up and saying: "Don't delay things. Get on with it." I thought that was the message.

Last night I congratulated him in that his party and the third party agreed to introduce legislation so that the government could adequately deal with the problems, quickly, efficiently and effectively. I think we are on the same side, that of the interests of the depositors, creditors and shareholders. If he is not interested in the same side and in dealing with the matter expeditiously, he should say so, because that is this government's role and that is what it is doing.

As to the question about the down payment that was reportedly made in the transactions, I have indicated very clearly, with no sense of stonewalling but acting responsibly, that those are issues before the Morrison inquiry with respect to which people are under oath. I do not intend to comment on them at this time but will when the information is available and there are no constraints upon talking about it.

Mr. Peterson: Morrison has been there for two months. The registrar should have been aware of these things some time ago, as we have pointed out repeatedly. Still the minister is not prepared to make any answers in this House. He is aware that the press has reported this today. He is aware also that thoughtful people were concerned about this question some two or three months ago. Some time he has to come to this House with some answers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The press reports this morning are creating whole new levels of anxiety to compound an already complicated situation.

Has any director of Greymac, Crown or Seaway filed a report -- and I am referring specifically to Messrs. Cowper, Clement and Randall, or any other director -- or come to the minister or the registrar after those transactions, suggesting that there was anything untoward or filing any notice under section 193? If they have not, is it part of the minister's investigations to investigate the question of directors' liability in this whole affair?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am advised by the registrar that he did receive notification from Mr. John Clement, indicating that he had filed a written protest with respect to mortgages advanced by Greymac Trust Co. on January 11, 1983. To my knowledge, I have received no further such indications from any directors.

With respect to the other question asked, that is a question that will have to be resolved with other legal issues that revolve around the many problems confronting us.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can clarify this problem for me. The government has seized the assets of the three trust companies. As I understand it, that action is entirely independent of the Morrison inquiry. Those three trust companies, of which the government is now in effect the trustee for all the assets and liabilities of those three trust companies, have been placed under the responsibility of three particular individuals. We have been asking a very simple question of the minister. Were certain payments made to those trust companies 11 days ago with respect to mortgages they hold on these properties?

The minister keeps talking about the Morrison inquiry. Surely it is not up to the Morrison inquiry to answer that question. It is up to those people who now are in charge of running those companies to tell us whether they got the cheques on January 10. I think most Ontarians tend to hear from their mortgage companies when they have not paid their mortgages on time. Is there going to be one law for everybody else in Ontario and another law for Kilderkin Investments and Mr. Player, or are we going to start treating people on the same basis?

Can the minister please tell us whether the mortgages have been paid and what action the government intends to take if they have not been paid? It has been 11 days. Not many people in this province get that kind of leeway from their mortgage companies. They usually get a letter much more quickly than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not all they get.

Mr. Rae: A phone call?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member and the Premier want to step out and discuss this for a few moments, it is all right with me. It will be a friendly discussion. The Premier promised that. He has told me he will not do anything violent to anybody. I am sure that is a commitment I have from him.

10:30 a.m.

Let us clarify the role of the Morrison examination and the registrar's taking possession of the assets of the three trust companies.

Both of those investigations, if one wants to call them that, have common and similar threads. Clearly, they dovetail in that, while the registrar has control of the assets, as part of his mandate he will be looking at a number of aspects as he evaluates the trust companies involved. That is the sort of information the Morrison examination would be looking at as well.

What I have said before in response to the question the member asked about mortgage payments is that I understand the question and I am aware of it. When I have information to give this House, I will be pleased to do so.

Mr. Peterson: The minister indicated that Mr. Clement filed a notice with the registrar on January 11, as I recall his words. I refer him to section 193 of the act: "but if any director present when any such investment is authorized, forthwith, or if any director then absent, within 24 hours after he becomes aware of such investment, and is able to do so, enters his written protest against such investment, and within eight days thereafter notifies the registrar in writing of his protest, the director may thereby, but not otherwise, exonerate himself from liability."

My understanding is Mr. Clement was on the board of Greymac Trust at the time of the mortgage loans with respect to the Cadillac Fairview deal, which was early in November.

Is the minister suggesting he was not there at the time, was not informed at the time or only became informed some time in January so that he could file the notice? If he is not, I ask him again, are his investigators or the police or someone who is looking into this whole situation looking at the question of directors' liabilities for this apparently missing $125 million?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have no way of looking into the minds of individuals who were directors of various companies. I am simply reporting to the member the facts in response to a question he asked me. I have said clearly there are a number of legal issues related to the trust companies about which active consideration is under way, but as yet no decisions have been made. When they are made and when I can release that information to the member, I will.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. It concerns a letter which I understand the Premier received from the Association of Large School Boards of Ontario yesterday regarding its concerns about the security of deposits in Greymac Trust and Crown Trust.

I am quoting from the letter: "Some or all of the assets invested in Crown Trust and Greymac Trust may not be recovered, thereby severely restricting the ability of these school boards to continue their level of operation for the remainder of this year.

"Given the pressing nature of these concerns, the Association of Large School Boards of Ontario respectfully requests that your cabinet provide the assurances required by investors at this stage of your investigation and make every attempt to guarantee the safe return of all assets on deposit with these trust companies."

It is my understanding that these boards have a total of $19 million invested in these trust companies; $11 million in Crown and $8 million in Greymac.

If we could go back to the discussions we had earlier on in the week, in the light of the fact that there are a great many public institutions, municipalities, school boards and pension funds with money that belongs to the ordinary people of this province, will he not reconsider his remarks of the last few days when he said the government would not guarantee these investments? Will he now make the announcement that the government will guarantee these investments, whether they are made in Crown, Greymac or Seaway?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, consistent with what I said the other day and with what the minister has been saying, I think it would be quite improper for me to say the government is going to guarantee in an absolute sense all depositors or investors in those three companies.

I feel concern with respect to the school boards. I have not seen that letter yet, although I understood it was coming. I think my own school board has a $3-million deposit in Greymac. I am a little intrigued that the deposit was made on December 31, 1982, after there had been some rather obvious discussion in the press.

Why that particular deposit would have been made I guess is a matter of judgement by the board itself.

I would assure the honourable member that we are aware of the difficulties of some of the boards and some of the municipalities. Certainly at this time it would be quite inappropriate for me to say yes, everybody will be guaranteed for what they deposited.

I do raise the hypothetical question again to the leader of the New Democratic Party. It is very easy for me to be quite sympathetic to everyone who has deposited. I am just posing the question to him again. There may b e some corporate deposits there. There may be corporate deposits from corporations that still are functioning relatively well, have certain profits. Maybe even Inco has a deposit in Greymac for all I know. Is the leader of the third party suggesting that public funds should be used to guarantee the investment of Inco, if hypothetically it happened to have an investment in one of those companies? My guess is he would not say that.

Mr. Rae: The Premier guessed wrong. The answer is yes, because there is no reason why any taxpayer or any ordinary depositor or innocent investor in this province should have to pay the price for the government's negligence.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: That is the reason the answer to that question is yes.

The government made a very real distinction in its statement on Monday between those who had made investments in Crown and those who had made investments in Greymac and Seaway. From the point of view of the ordinary depositor or from the point of view of the corporate depositor -- whether that be a municipality, school board, charitable group or whatever -- how can the government justify this distinction between Greymac, Crown and Seaway, other than the fact that Crown is a company which has a very long history and Greymac is a relatively new corporation?

Again, why should the depositors pay the price for the government's own lack of vigilance? Why should they not be protected when it would appear from everything that has been revealed so far that the government's own administrative and regulatory procedures and the breakdown of those have been a vital contribution to the problems facing depositors at this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I do not agree with the last statement made by the member.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said he was surprised that the Peel board made a deposit as late as December 31, given the attendant publicity surrounding this whole affair. Was he surprised also that his own Province of Ontario Savings Office was selling certificates for these trust companies right up until that period of time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that has been discussed on other occasions. The Province of Ontario Savings Office is not in a position to make determinations for investors. They are there to provide a service. They were not selling. They were not promoting. They were providing a service, which the Leader of the Opposition well knows.

While I am answering the member, I would just like to interject and thank him on behalf of the chairman of Ontario Hydro for those very charitable and kind remarks he made about his retirement.

Mr. Peterson: Lennie Rosenberg could run that place just as well.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: In answer to my second question, the Premier said he disagreed with the conclusions that I drew with respect to a lack of vigilance of this government and the breakdown of the regulatory process. I would like to ask the Premier why he will not now quite simply order a public inquiry to determine who is right in this matter with respect to the lack of vigilance. Is he agreeing with the minister that it should be left entirely to an internal process where the minister and his staff can be judge and jury in their own cause?

Is he going to require every depositor in the province who is affected by the collapse of Greymac and Seaway to take the government to court or to go through the same agony and great hardship that the people in Argosy and Re-Mor have gone through? Why will he not order a public inquiry to determine this very fact? If he disagrees with us, fine. Why does he not take that and get the support of a public inquiry if he is so sure he is right in the matter?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never been as sure as the member, as I have listened to him over the years and read what he has said. I have always been one to confess that I am not always right, but I do make certain judgements and at this time I do not accept the observations made by the member in the earlier part of his earlier question. It is as simple as that.

Going back several weeks, if when this matter first came to public notice we had accepted his advice and that of the Leader of the Opposition to appoint a royal commission, once again, when we appointed a former royal commissioner to look into the rent aspect of it, the Leader of the Opposition said that here we were again trying to hide something or dispose of some issue.

I would only say that if we had appointed a royal commission back in November or early December, from my knowledge of the situation the possibilities are of depositors in those three companies being prejudiced because of the functioning of a royal commission to a greater extent than has been the case; the delay that is involved and the procedures that are involved, I think should be obvious even to the member opposite.

I say with the greatest of respect that the approach taken by the government, in particular by the minister, has been in the interests of the depositors and has been in the interests of the integrity of the trust community in this province. Those people I discuss it with in the trust industry in this province, some of them well known to the Leader of the Opposition, think the minister and the government have handled a difficult situation extremely well.

[Later]

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Before I start, I understand the honourable minister is taking speech lessons from the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams); but anyway, I will carry on here.

I want to use this opportunity to correct the record if I may. On Tuesday, January 18, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) the following question: "Is the minister aware of any of the directors filing notice under section 193 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act that there are any untoward transactions or violations of section 191, which describes the kind of investment that they had? Is he aware of any notices to the registrar or anyone else from any directors attempting to absolve themselves of liabilities if in fact there was a violation of section 191?"

The minister made the following response: "No, I am not personally aware of any notices from any of the directors of those three trust companies, but if there were any they will be reported to me. In the absence of that knowledge at the present time, I can only answer that I do not know of any."

That was January 18. Today in the House the minister has revealed that on January 11 a notice was filed. Obviously, that speaks to a lack of candour on behalf of the minister or a very distinct lack of communication within his own ministry.

REGULATION OF TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my new question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it concerns the other aspect of the legislation that was passed on December 21 which the minister did not refer to in his statement this week. I am referring to that aspect of the legislation that gives the registrar the ability to disallow takeovers of more than 10 per cent of the shares of a company.

Subsequent to the passage of legislation there appeared articles in the press with respect to the proposed acquisition or attempted sale of a company called Dominion Trust. Can the minister explain what grounds the registrar had for acting to prevent the sale of Dominion Trust to one Vince Lanzino?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there has been no request made of the registrar to approve such a sale.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister saying there was no offer and acceptance with respect to Dominion Trust? It is my understanding from the evidence that was also made public in the Globe and Mail on January 5 that a deal was in fact closed and that it was signed last November by Mr. Axton, who was the previous owner, and Mr. Lanzino, who was the purchaser, and that the spokesman for the Toronto corporate lawyer said: "The legislation was a shock. The legislation puts up certain policies by the Ontario government, and both the vendor and the purchaser in this transaction are endeavouring their utmost to comply with the legislation as it currently exists."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Was a deal not closed? Is it the minister's understanding that a deal was arrived at with Mr. Lanzino? Can the minister tell us again what concerns the government had with respect to this transaction?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, as I am sure the member would understand, the government does not sit in the legal offices of parties throughout the province to be Big Brother, watching over every contract that is signed by parties. I have no reason to disbelieve what I have read in the newspapers; that there was indeed a contract to sell which had been agreed to in principle, or which may have been completed.

What I said to the member was that to the best of my knowledge there was never any formal request made to the registrar to approve or disapprove of the person or persons who were endeavouring to acquire that company. In the abstract, I am sure the member really is not suggesting that I should send a team of investigators out to report to this Legislature on individuals who have not made formal application to the registrar under that act.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, have those particular sections of the amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act been used in any other circumstances since their passage in December?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, in terms of a formal request to the registrar related to an approval of transfer, except in one regard. The member will recall that there was an outstanding offer to minority shareholders. It did not quite come within the terms of a follow-up offer but was made on the Toronto Stock Exchange, presumably to be in compliance with a follow-up offer for the balance of the outstanding shares of Crown Trust.

It was necessary, in order to protect the interests of those minority shareholders in late December, for the registrar to advise them by public notification that should they accept the offer that was outstanding at the Toronto Stock Exchange. To protect their rights and interests, he would approve the transfer of that one per cent of shares still remaining to the purchaser of the shares of Crown Trust.

Mr. Rae: The same reports quote the registrar, Mr. Thompson, as saying, "Dominion Trust was one of five or six trust companies which were the subject of concern to the government at the time it was planning the legislative amendments."

Having passed the legislation in December, having admitted the problems of regulation and the fact there are situations where records of companies may not be what they appear to be, is the minister satisfied that the investments and shareholders and deposits in the other trust companies in this province are safe today?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have no present reason to feel they are not, but certainly the registrar is constantly reviewing trust companies in this province and if any information is forthcoming to him that indicates further examination should be carried out, he will do it. But I have no information at this time.

ONTARIO HYDRO STRATEGIC PLAN

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy regarding the memorandum of understanding he tabled with the clerk on December 22. I can appreciate the minister might require a memorandum of understanding with Ontario Hydro, because we on this side certainly understand the functions and operations of Ontario Hydro as they relate to his ministry.

It was pointed out to two of his predecessors that Ontario Hydro was quite willing and able to conduct its own business and did not take any pleasure in having the ministers of the crown interfere in any way. I am sure the members for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor and Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) will attest to that situation.

Is the minister aware of what is in the opening pages of this memorandum? On page 2, it says: And whereas the government has stated that the purpose of such a memorandum of understanding is to clarify the objectives and priorities of the agency, and to set out the operating relationship between the agency and the minister and his ministry without supplanting any statute which establishes the responsibilities and authorities of the agency."

10:50 a.m.

With that very clear and concise understanding that Ontario Hydro is still going to manage its affairs the way it has in the past without ever asking us or telling us what is going on, I ask the minister whether Ontario Hydro has prepared its strategic plan as required under the so-called memorandum of understanding, and whether he will table this plan showing Hydro's financial plans, including projected costs and proposed methods of financing of its capital construction program and system expansion program?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could make one or two observations on the preamble that was incorporated in that question, I think the people of this province, and particularly the electrical customers of this province, have been well served by men and women of high competence and integrity who have accepted the invitation to serve on the board, and who indeed make up the Hydro family that is responsible for discharging the day-to-day operations of the board.

Included in that list, of course, would be the very competent people who have served as chairmen. That provides me with my first opportunity in the House to pay tribute to Mr. Macaulay, who has indicated that he will be stepping down at the end of March. He has served the people of this province in many capacities with great sensitivity, particularly as Hydro chairman. The comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) notwithstanding, the people of Ontario have been well served, and I want to pay Mr. Macaulay tribute for what he has done and the leadership he has shown in this particular responsibility.

Certainly the memorandum of understanding is very clear. It sets out the relationship between the public utility and the ministry. Attached to it are the schedules setting out the statutory requirements that have to be followed. The particular matters to which the member has made reference have been the source of ongoing discussions as the board reviews the entire capital program, in keeping with the revisions in load growth forecasts, as I have mentioned on several occasions in this House.

Mr. Kerrio: I want to make it abundantly clear that we have never questioned the integrity of the personnel at Ontario Hydro.

The question is, will the minister at last get some kind of an understanding whereby he will set up some criteria and policy that Ontario Hydro should, if it is going to serve the people in the future, comply with? In that way it would better serve the people and not build the bureaucracy we have seen unfold over the last few years.

In keeping with that request. I ask the minister if he would consider establishing a select committee of this Legislature to look into that capital expansion program and to do some of the meaningful things that were done during minority government, the only time when any light shone in the dark corners of Ontario Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Welch: One would almost think the member for Niagara Falls was getting theological, referring to light shining in dark corners, a very appropriate comment to make during the season of epiphany.

I am satisfied that the working relationship between the public utility and this government is a fine one. It is quite clear that the energy policy of this province is well understood and I have no reason to believe there are any areas where there is not agreement about the goals to be accomplished.

AMI (CANADA) LTD.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to American Medical International.

At the time he approved the cost-plus contract between AMI (Canada) Ltd. and the Hawkesbury and District General Hospital in November 1982, was the minister aware that the US Federal Trade Commission, Ronald Reagan's trade commission, had laid charges against AMI for anti-trust violations? These charges related to AMI's practice of buying a monopoly share of hospital beds in San Luis Obispo county in California, and, having once acquired the monopoly control over hospital beds and eliminated their competition, they have used their monopoly position, according to the charges, to hike up the prices charged to sick people for the sale of hospital services.

Was the minister aware of the AMI (Canada) Ltd. record of corporate citizenship when he approved this contract?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the general reputation of American Medical International was reviewed carefully by both the hospital, which is the body that entered into the contract, and the ministry. I am not sure whether the hospital itself was aware of those charges at that time, but I think it would be rather injudicious of the hospital to back out of an arrangement with the company --

Mr. McClellan: We are talking about you, not the hospital; you approved it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just to widen it, I think it would be injudicious of the ministry to suggest to the hospital that it decline a contract which we believe, and the hospital believes, may well save several millions of dollars over the next several years. The saving would be accomplished without health care declining for citizens of that region but rather while it improved.

It is important to remember that AMI runs about 100 hospitals in the United States and about 25 hospitals in places that run the kind of health care system the member would admire -- Great Britain, Australia, France and so on. They have a lot of experience through 125 hospitals and they have a record of saving millions of dollars while improving health care.

Is the member suggesting we should back out of an experimental process to see if they can do the same thing here, when there is not a conviction but only a charge laid? The quality of care has not been traded off; simply, in one area comprising three or four hospitals of the 125 they own or manage, they may have acquired too many and have concentrated too much power. If he is saying that, then I suggest it would be rather shortsighted for us to back out on the basis of unproven charges and charges which relate in no way whatsoever to actual management of the operations or quality of health care. It just would not be sensible.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister aware that the cost-plus deal at the Hawkesbury and District General Hospital permits AMI to keep one half of any profits generated above $750,000 in addition to its $300,000-a-year management fee? Is he aware AMI intends to reach its profit target by cutting staff by 10 per cent through attrition by 1985? During this period a new hospital will be built which will increase the number of beds, so there are going to be more beds and fewer staff. Is he aware that this is how the profit target is going to be reached?

Is the minister surprised the AMI executive at the hospital in Hawkesbury indicated to New Democratic Party research staff that he intended to generate additional revenues through the sale of hospital services to the community? He gave as examples of the hospital services he would be selling to the community as part of his revenue- producing plan under the contract ultrasound services, nutrition programs and preventive health programs.

I ask the minister to reconsider this very serious mistake he and his ministry have made. I ask him to do what he said he did not think I would recommend, but which I do recommend:

to get out of this contract as quickly as possible. I ask him to facilitate the management contract that was tendered by the Ottawa General Hospital by acting as the guarantor. If Hawkesbury needs management assistance the Ottawa General is prepared to provide it, with the minister's help. Would the minister give us a pledge right now to keep the multibillion-dollar US hospital corporations out of this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Getting by all the clichés the member wants to attach to this, I think he and this government owe some things to the Ontario health care system, and one of those is to make sure it is run as efficiently as it can be.

The member should contemplate the savings at Hawkesbury. It remains to be seen if we are right, but we believe the quality of care will be improved. The member has acknowledged there will be more beds, not fewer. One can imagine what it would be like if we were in the opposite scenario with fewer beds. The member would really be outraged in those circumstances.

11 a.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Beds do not give care by themselves, or haven't you noticed?

Mr. McClellan: It would be nice to have nurses to go with the beds.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So we are going to have more beds over the next few years.

I have the projected figures for the ministry's budget allocation to the Hawkesbury hospital. Over the next 10 years, in accordance with the contract signed with AMI, the hospital understands that rather than having an increasing allocation the allocation in current dollars will go from $5.5 million in 1982-83 down to $5,155,000 in the 1987-95 time frame. Subsequent to that it will go down to $4.3 million.

What we are going to have is a brand new facility. We are going to have 30 or 40 more beds in the facility, and we are going to have a budget that decreases from $5.5 million this year down to $4.3 million over the term of this contract.

Perhaps the member's concern, rather than being about the quality of care, is about the number of employees there will be. Perhaps his proposition is that the $3.3 billion in the hospital system should be maintained and inflated in order to protect all the jobs in that system. If it is, particularly when we are talking about taking jobs out by attrition, he ought not to be suggesting that where there are more employees than necessary the situation ought to be sustained.

He has been very articulate, and properly so, on the matters that relate to the need for more money in preventive health areas, mental health areas and so on. It would be a crime for us to pay more money into the hospital system than is necessary by maintaining more staff than is necessary in hospitals.

This minister and this government will give the member the assurance that quality of health care in Hawkesbury and in every other hospital in the system will not be affected one bit. So there will be savings over that time frame of almost $1 million a year by the end of the contract. There will be more beds and a maintenance, if not an improvement, of the quality of health care. That can and has been done.

Let me give the member one example of where it has been done.

An hon. member: Time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I guess I am scoring some points or the member would not be yelling time. I can always tell.

In the years 1979 and 1980 there was a dramatic increase in the utilization of hospital beds in this province, but there was a decrease in the number of staffing hours in the hospital system. Those years, 1979 and 1980, were not years in which there was a decline in the quality of health care in the province. So we had an increase in the quality of health care with fewer employees in the system. There is no reason to believe that cannot be effected in more hospitals in the system in the years to follow than just in the years 1979 and 1980. We believe this may be -- not certainly, but may be -- one way in which those goals can be accomplished.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what responsibility his ministry has to assist hospital management teams to develop those same kinds of skills themselves rather than having to import them from the United States? This is particularly pertinent when we have, in the majority of the universities in this province, strong management administration programs. Why is it necessary for us to import those skills when, surely, the ministry itself has a responsibility to assist our hospitals to develop those skills themselves?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me widen that a bit. I think it would be fair to say the government and the education system, post-secondary in particular, has the obligation to try and turn out those kinds of people. It would not be a direct responsibility of my ministry to train administrators; I accept that immediately.

However, no hue and cry has been raised over the past few years while hospitals have had to go south of the border to hire administrators as opposed to firms to do administration and bring them here. By the way, the administrators who have been hired from the United States to come and work in our hospitals have by and large been excellent.

Mr. Sweeney: Why did we have to go there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to get to that.

One of the things we are facing is that hospitals have really grown to be very large operations. Even in a community the size of Hawkesbury that hospital's budget is over $5 million; it is a big operation. Therefore, the quality of people and the kind of training these people need has had to be vastly superior to what it once was, particularly with financial pressures coming upon them.

I share with the honourable member some regret that not enough of these people are available. I have to acknowledge that many of the people currently serving as administrators have served their hospitals very well. They have come up through the system and worked in the hospitals when the hospitals had budgets very much smaller and when the complexity of the hospitals was very much different. At the same time I think it would be unfair to suggest that all of those people should be turfed out and replaced.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To be fair to the post-secondary system, I believe we are turning out a great number of people with extraordinary expertise --

Mr. Bradley: You are not doing a good job, Bette.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did the member hear what I was saying? I said they were turning out a great number of people with sufficient expertise.

This is an important point. One of the problems we are facing is that if the hospitals were to pay the kind of money these people can get in consulting operations and in other places in the private sector, I would be faced with complaints that hospitals are paying $100,000 or $150,000 to an administrator of a hospital.

So the competition out there is very severe for administrators with the kind of skill and experience they do need in this day and age. I regret to say the competition is winning over very many of the competent people who are being trained in Ontario and in Canada who I wish were working in hospitals. And when they do work in hospitals for a period of years, quite frankly they often end up going outside to private sector jobs.

I hope to be able to use this kind of vehicle, if it works well, to attract some of that expertise back in to run the hospitals.

LIMOUSINE FARES

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. As the minister is aware, on December 6 I asked him to look into excessive increases in international airport limousine transportation of some 18 per cent. As he is also aware, on January 12, some five weeks after my request, in a letter to Jean-Luc Pepin on the matter he quoted figures of only 10.5 per cent to 11 per cent increases from information received from the ground administration personnel at Toronto International Airport.

As the minister is no doubt aware, he received false information, which he relayed to Mr. Pepin. An increase from $19.50 to $23.00 -- an increase of $3.50 -- is certainly an 18 per cent increase, not the figures that were quoted to the minister.

11:10 a.m.

With this unreliable information received, will the minister get this matter resolved immediately? How long are we going to have to wait to have this increase rolled back? It is now close to two months and, as the minister is aware, either the restraint program works two ways or not at all.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member did bring this matter to my attention and I said I would look into it. It does not fall under the jurisdiction of my ministry or of this government. He told me of this 18.5 per cent increase. I had my staff investigate it with the personnel at Toronto International Airport who are responsible for the licensing of the limousine services and the taxis out of that airport.

After getting this information, I wrote to Mr. Pepin asking him to look into this excessive increase and I sent the member a copy of my letter. If we got any misleading, untrue or wrong information, we got it from Mr. Pepin's own staff because we got it from Toronto International Airport. I passed that information on to Mr. Pepin and asked him to investigate it.

The member tells me he has receipts to prove the 18 per cent increase. I hope he will forward those to me and then perhaps I can write to Mr. Pepin again.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. The members from the Niagara region received from the director of residential services for the St. Catharines Association for the Mentally Retarded a letter concerning core residences. As the minister may be aware, there are a number of severely retarded adults in need of community residences that provide a high degree of supervision. These core residences do not exist in the Niagara region at the present time.

The Niagara District Working Group conducted a needs survey in the Niagara region and published the results in April 1982. These results indicated that at present 31 adults residing in the region require placement in an adult core residence and that by 1984 the number will rise to 47.

In view of that and the continuing discussions and representations that have been made to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, could the minister indicate to the house when these people can expect some answer from the ministry over which she has some control as provincial secretary?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will know that my control over the operations of the ministry is very limited. My responsibility lies with determining and co-ordinating policies, but there is a limit regarding operations within the ministry. I will relay the member's message to the minister when he returns.

Mr. Bradley: When relaying that message to the minister upon his return, would the provincial secretary be prepared to indicate to him that it would be appropriate to have an immediate answer to this question in view of the fact the parents are getting on in age. It would be a blessing for them to know how, where and when these children will be settled in a residence.

The point I make with the minister when I ask her to relay this information is the process has taken so long and the need is there, now and immediate. Indeed, the need was there a couple of years ago. Would she impress upon the minister the urgency of this matter and ask him to take the appropriate action as soon as possible?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, I will be glad to do so.

LITTON SYSTEMS CANADA BOMBING

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), the government House leader (Mr. Wells), the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling), my question is to -- I am delighted to see the government House leader returning.

My question relates to the arrest yesterday in the vicinity of Squamish, British Columbia, of five persons in connection with the Litton Systems Canada Ltd. bombing incident. As this matter involves the integrity of the investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto Police as well as the integrity of the peace movement and the nuclear disarmament movement, will the minister ask the appropriate minister, be he the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, to report to this House on Monday on the following question?

Is there is any evidentiary connection in the police investigation between the detention of Mr. Ivan LeCouvie on December 7, the search under warrant of the World Emergency office in Peterborough on December 8, the search under warrant of the Cruise Missile Conversion Project on December 14, the additional searches under warrant on December 15 of the home of Mr. Kenneth Hancock on Dewson Street, of the offices of the Alliance for Non-Violent Action at 730 Bathurst Street and, on the same day, of the homes of Rosemary Cooke and Tom Joyce at 38 Langley Avenue in Toronto, and other circumstances surrounding that investigation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be happy to get the Hansard version of that question and pass it on to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Ministry of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) if he is here -- he was here a minute ago.

Mr. Speaker: He is not in his chair.

Mr. McGuigan: Failing the Minister of Industry and Trade, I ask the government House leader to forward the question to him. It concerns his announcement about the opening of the technology centre in Chatham for farm machinery and food technology. I want to ask the minister if he is considering the investigation of radiation as a method of food preservation. This method is being investigated very actively in the United States and it does promise a very cheap and effective method of preserving food.

Because of our expertise in Canada and our lead in that type of research -- I am thinking of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. -- because of the lead we have in nuclear generation and the amount of power we have, Canada and Ontario should be leaders in that regard.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as someone who has great concern for radiation problems, I will be glad to pass this question on to the Minister of Industry and Trade.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $7,980,600; heritage conservation program, $21,473,400; arts support program, $62,399,800; citizenship and multicultural support program, $9,962,400; libraries and community information program, $30,227,700; ministry capital support program, $89,701,100.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. McClellan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I want to make a very brief comment about the ruling you made at the beginning of today's sitting with respect to standing order 33.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I really think that would be out of order if you did that, with all respect.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, if you would give me 30 seconds --

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing provided in the standing orders for that.

Mr. McClellan: There was a matter of precedent that was dealt with in your ruling. I wanted a clarification.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear your point of order.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, sir. The ruling you made, which I may say was welcome in the first part, ruled that the petition was in order. But you ruled that the terms of reference of the referral to the committee was not in order by virtue of the fact that, according to your ruling, they are extraneous, not contemplated by the standing order and therefore out of order.

My question of clarification to you is this: there are numerous precedents in both directions. On some occasions, the House has referred a report, under this standing order, to a committee with specific instructions of the House which act as the terms of reference for the work of the committee once the referral is made. There are precedents for that practice. There are also precedents for a referral under the standing order of a statutory report without terms of reference.

It is certainly the interpretation of my colleagues that both of these practices are consistent with our practices and traditions here in the House and both of them are consistent with the standing order. Sometimes a referral can be made with terms of reference that instruct the committee to do thus and so, and at other times the referral is made and once the report is received by the committee it will decide, under the direction of its chairman, what it will do with the report.

It seems to me that both practices under this standing order are equally valid. This particular petition did include a second part, which had to do with the establishment of the terms of reference. I would ask you to consider, perhaps not immediately but in the light of our precedents here in this House, whether the terms of reference in this petition also may not be in order according to our precedents.

I would ask you, sir, to take this matter under advisement with your advisers, perhaps till the beginning of the week.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I would like to just say a word. If you were going to take this matter under advisement, I would like to argue very strongly in favour of your ruling. I believe this standing order 33 contemplated a procedure for referring annual reports to committees and that the intent very clearly was that the annual report be referred down, and then the committee could decide what sections of the annual report, or matters, were to be considered by it. It was not to be considered in the same light as a resolution or motion of this assembly directing a committee to do certain things with certain ground rules or certain terms of reference.

Under this standing order that provides for referrals of statutory annual reports, I believe it would be very wrong, sir, to have this House also put terms of reference of what should be considered under that particular matter. I do not think there are any precedents for that in this House at this time --

Mr. McClellan: There are.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that were done where the petition actually specified what the terms of reference were. There are motions of the House where this may have occurred, but I do not --

Mr. McClellan: The health referrals to the social development committee.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly on the point of order raised by the member for Bellwoods: it is certainly my recollection that the member for Bellwoods, and not the government House leader, is correct when he points to the fact that in certain earlier circumstances the reference was quite specific about what the committee was to do.

I well remember initiating the first of those references in this House in the early days of March 1978. If my memory serves me correctly there was specific reference made at that time. I well remember the then government House leader and the then Treasurer, the former member for Chatham-Kent, not commenting upon it because it was the intention of that initial reference that the social development committee would on petition involving the annual report of the Minister of Health for 1976-1977 look specifically at the Ontario health insurance plan premium structure and policy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to review the records. I have not had a chance but I would want to see whether that was actually in the petition at the time,

Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to deal with this matter now. It was one of the matters which was of some great concern and was taken into serious consideration before the ruling was made. Obviously there has been some contradiction, if you will, in the application of it.

It is my understanding, and hope, that in making this ruling the matter will be cleared up once and for all. As I read the standing orders, it is very clear in my opinion that the standing order provides only for the referral of the report.

Mr. Conway: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have not had an opportunity to canvass X number of petitions. However in light of what you have done -- and I might stand corrected because as I indicated moments ago I have not looked at the whole spate of references we have had since March 1978; I would very much like to have a look at them -- I would ask if you could arrange to have the table officers submit to members of this assembly, or at least the representatives of each of the three parties, the entire list of those petitions. I think I remember a number of cases where there was specific reference. If that is the case then it would concern me no little bit that this ruling now seeks to set aside what may have been and what some of us thought was something of a precedent.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it sets anything aside. I think it clarifies once and for all what the standing order says. In my opinion it is very clear. Just because perhaps something has been done erroneously in the past --

Mr. McClellan: Sir, that is called a precedent in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it is, but --

Mr. Renwick: You are overruling a precedent.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is right. As I said, it was a matter to which we gave very serious consideration. I think this ruling will clear it up once and for all.

Mr. Conway: Will you give an undertaking to present members of the House --

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is his ruling.

Mr. Conway: The government House leader in his --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. Let us not get into a debate.

Mr. Conway: Sir, as a member who initiated this process five years ago, I feel that in a personal way I have some investment here. I am listening with great interest to what the government House leader is interjecting about what may or may not have been past experience.

I do agree wholeheartedly with the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who draws our attention to the enormous importance of precedent. It is only days ago that the government House leader and the chief government whip went to the standing committee on administration of justice and brought forward the time allocation resolution. They went to considerable lengths, almost colourful lengths, to draw our attention to precedent as set out in May for the purposes of their interest at that time.

Again I regret that I have not involved myself in the last 24 hours with a canvass of the various petitions, but given the nature of the British parliamentary tradition. I feel it is important for us to pay some attention to past practice. As the member for Bellwoods has pointed out, precedent continues, one hopes, to play an important role in the way we set parliamentary policy around this place.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is quite right. I point out to the honourable member that the petitions are public information. We can present them or he can look them up. I was asked by the member for Riverdale when he made his presentation. I made it clear that I would take the petition into consideration. On the basis of that petition, I have made a ruling. It is my clear understanding of what the standing order says.

I want to point out for the information of all members that, notwithstanding what has happened in the past, I do not necessarily have to be bound by former decisions of other Speakers or even by previous decisions I may have made myself. I am responding to a particular petition put forward by the member for Riverdale. I have made my ruling and I clearly understand it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Under rule 33(a), the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has not presented the reports of the registrar of loan and trust corporations for the years 1980 and 1981 as required by that order, nor has he given any reasons for the delay in presenting those reports.

Mr. Conway: That rule just castrates this whole process, and I really resent it.

Mr. Speaker: The last report we have is for 1979. I referred to it in the decision. That is the only report that can be considered, because it is the latest one that has been presented to the House.

Mr. Renwick: All I was drawing to the attention of the House was that the minister is in default under the standing orders of the House, because the petition required us to refer to a 1979 report rather than to the latest available report, which this House should have had for the purposes of that reference. It is passingly interesting that the Legislative Library has the 1980 report but the report was never tabled in this House. There is no sign anywhere as yet of the 1981 report.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I end my participation in this by registering my strong, deep personal protest at the underlying reasons for the second part of your decision. As I interjected loudly to my friend the government House leader (Mr. Wells), it is a castration of the whole process. I resent it entirely as a private member of this assembly. Frankly, anyone who knows anything about the operation of whips in this place knows just what a nullity, in many respects, we have made of this whole process as a result of that ruling in this second instance.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: My friend mentioned my name in this. I mentioned in my comments to you, sir, that I did not believe there had ever been a petition that, as well as referring it, also referred to what the terms of reference of the committee would be in the consideration of the report. I am perfectly willing to be shown that there is such a petition, but I can recall many petitions in which no terms of reference have been set.

The point is that we are not changing anything here today. We all knew when the Ministry of Health report went down that Ontario health insurance plan premiums would be considered. When numerous reports were referred, we all knew what the matters were going to be that were going to be considered; the committee then sets its own priorities.

That same procedure is taking place here. A report is going down. My friends know what they want the committee to consider. They will then put those matters before the committee and ask that they be considered. I submit that it is unfair and a personal attack against us on this side to suggest that by the Speaker's ruling something is being changed today. I submit nothing is being changed.

I do not like being associated with some suggestion that we are doing something underhanded or are somehow denigrating the processes of this House by what has happened today, because we are not.

Mr. Speaker: I want to make it very clear that both the member for Renfrew North and the government House leader are out of order. I have made the decision based on the standing orders. What has happened in the past really is not relevant. I have made my decision based on the standing order which, I have said, is very clear to me. The decision has been made and we will abide by it.

[Later]

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order briefly to correct the record: Since our little contretemps here this morning I have had the opportunity to canvass the Hansard of March 9, 1978, at which time I introduced the first petition, I believe, under standing order 33(b) referring an annual report to a committee of this House.

I said at the time I might be wrong. As it turns out, I was wrong. That first reference did not include a specific agenda for the committee. I wanted to clear the air on that. I understand from some consultation since 11:30 this morning that the Clerk's office is working on a list of the previous references. I still maintain a memory of at least one or two that did contain that but, as well, I might stand corrected. I did want the record to be clear on that point.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have often criticized the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) as having a role that does not seem to amount to very much. If we look at the secretariat in its final form, it was intended to be an overall superministry to govern the various branches that fall under its aegis. We have been wont to make the criticism that the minister has not really exercised a strong enough hand in that regard. I have come to change my views on that somewhat and would like to express them.

In every company there is a tough vice- president or a tough president, whatever level it is, who gets into the trenches, fights and goes ahead, regardless of personal feelings. Usually that same company will have a chairman of the board or a president who is above such nasty things. That person deals with the public and the press and carries the image of the company.

Perhaps the Provincial Secretary for Social Development has fallen into the latter role, and it may be a useful role in that the minister can be the conscience of the Social Development field. The minister, although at times she may have failed to express that conscience in the way she would have liked to, really is a person of compassion and conscience. Perhaps we should appeal to her on matters of conscience.

One matter comes to mind that is very much in the news at present, and I want to bring it to her attention. I refer to the made-in-USA Playboy programming to be shown on the First Choice pay-TV channel. It has been called, by the president of that channel, "adult entertainment." Critics, and most women, claim it is pornography. Lynda Hurst, a columnist with the Toronto Star, has pointed out the dictionary definition of pornography as "the depiction of erotic behaviour in writing or pictures intended to cause sexual excitement."

We have not seen any of these programs in full yet because they have not been aired, but we have seen flashes -- I use that term advisedly -- of that entertainment on regular TV. I think most thoughtful observers would conclude that they were simply for excitement because, as Hurst says, they have little else going for them.

11:40 a.m.

Most of us would agree that if it is not pornography at present, it has the potential to become pornography, especially as viewers become a little jaded with watching the same sights: after a while they become pretty commonplace and ordinary. From my own experience in watching TV and other forms of entertainment, I can say that I am pretty blasé today about things that I thought were pretty awful not too many years ago. As viewers demand more and more, there is a potential for this to become hard-core pornography.

At the very least, even what is being shown today is demeaning and exploitive of women. As little as this government has done in the way of working for women, I still have to say that it has attempted to increase the lot and role of women in our society. Legislators, educators, religionists and women activists have been fighting to raise the stature and value of women in society. The type of pornography being flashed on the screen right now does exactly the opposite.

Under the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, entertainment scenes have to be sexually explicit before the province will press obscenity charges. I questioned the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in the Legislature in November 1980 about a particularly offensive movie. He later ordered a showing for the police and subsequently ruled that the scenes were not sexually explicit, even though the movie showed scenes of women being sold in the setting of a livestock auction ring.

I will read the letter I received from the Attorney General, dated January 14, 1981, to myself.

"You may recall that during question period on November 21, you drew to my attention the broadcast of Prime Cut on CFPL-TV in London. Following your question, I asked the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission to review the matter with Chief Walter Johnson of the London Police Force. I have now received his report.

"I have been advised that CFPL arranged a private viewing of the film for a member of the vice and drug section of the London police force and the assistant crown attorney, Brian Farmer." At this point, I have to say that I appreciate the Attorney General going to this trouble, but I am not very well satisfied with the answer.

"Although the theme of the film involves murder, sex, white slavery and other forms of violence, those viewing the film found no explicit sexual scenes, no nudity and no obscene language."

It is a couple of years since this happened, and my memory may not be as sharp on it as it should be, but I recall the film opened with a scene in a livestock sales barn. It was the type of barn in which I have spent a good deal of my time, mostly buying livestock; I did not sell that way but usually bought stockers and feeders to take home to feed and slaughter.

It was a scene I was very familiar with. I thought: "This is going to be kind of interesting, because it is a side of life that many people do not regularly see. At last we are getting a little bit of publicity for the agricultural side of life."

But I found, as the buyers walked down the aisles and looked into these pens that should have held hogs, sheep or cattle, that they had women in them. In my view, particularly as the father of three girls, I found that rather obscene. The buyers came along and bought these women. One of them appeared to be drugged; the star of the show bid -- I forget the price -- then picked up a girl and carried her away.

There was nothing explicit about it, I suppose, in that they did not show the person being used in that fashion, although in the next scene she was seen waking up in a beautiful bed in what looked like the bridal suite of a very expensive hotel. From then on, she was treated in not too bad a manner, really. Nevertheless, the scene showing the person being sold as one would sell livestock -- as a matter of fact, the title of the film was Prime Cut -- I thought was rather explicit.

My question was, what would be required to have obscenity charges pressed? What would be explicit? I am not accustomed to using this kind of language, but it seems that to be explicit one has to show in exact detail every item of a complete sexual act. It seems that is what is necessary to be explicit.

I will just read on: "There were several scenes of persons being shot and scenes of girls being sold at auction, apparently for purposes of prostitution. Other scenes implying sex and violence were portrayed in such a manner that the viewer was left to imagine what had taken place."

I will digress for a minute. As a farmer, one of the most amusing scenes to me involved a large grain combine out in the field. One of the bad guys drove his car up to the front of this grain combine and actually shot the operator right between the eyes, as I recall. The operator slumped over the wheel. The combine kept approaching the man in the car and, through some miracle of imagination, the combine swallowed the car.

We could see the car being chewed up in the beaters of the machine. I see my friend the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) is laughing. Out of the back of the machine came the car all baled up. Of course, we do have farm balers that bale hay and straw, but we do not have a machine that will take in a car like this one and throw out a baled car at the back. That was about the only point of amusement in that whole movie and one of the points where we might say they were dealing in fantasy. Everything else was pretty plain.

The Attorney General went on to say: "The film had apparently been edited prior to showing by CFPL-TV on October 31, 1980, and viewers were advised that parental guidance may be necessary due to the scenes depicted. Only one complaint was received by CFPL-TV and no complaints received by the police."

I can understand that. We have become so jaded and it has become so commonplace for us that it is readily accepted, or perhaps people say: "Well, what's the use? We can't really fight these sorts of things; we just have to accept them."

I am quoting again: "It was the opinion of the investigating officer and the assistant crown attorney that the film Prime Cut as shown on CFPL-TV on the night of October 31, 1980, did not contravene the provisions of the Criminal Code.

"I am certainly concerned about the whole issue of pornography and thank you for drawing this matter to my attention."

That was signed by the Attorney General.

11:50 a.m.

I would like to point out that on January 4, the Minister of Justice for Canada, the Honourable Mark MacGuigan, announced the coming into force of Bill C-127, which replaces the offences of rape, attempted rape and indecent assault with sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon or threats to a third person.

Sexual assault charges can be based on offences ranging from touching to sexual intercourse, whereas under the old code full sexual intercourse, and that explicitly means penetration, had to take place before a judge would consider convicting an accused.

That whole system has been changed, and we have yet to see the results, but it is to be expected that there will be many more convictions under the new laws than there were under the former one, because there are many forms of sexual assault.

I happen to believe that any person, man or woman, is in control of his or her body. Just as putting your hand on another person and grabbing him by the shoulder is physical assault, so any handling, fondling or touching in a sexual manner is sexual assault. It is an invasion of privacy and an invasion of the wishes of that person, and it does nothing but demean and lower the value of that person as a person and it turns him or her into no more than an object.

In that area of the Criminal Code we have some relaxation of the requirement that a very explicit act has to be performed before a conviction can be registered. I believe that to balance that in the area of obscenity in entertainment, we somehow need to take out the requirement for an explicit act. I realize that is very difficult, because we are dealing with ideas and concepts and these are hard to define. Nevertheless, if we are going to raise the level of our regard for womanhood in our society, we somehow must come to grips with a concept as being socially explicit and socially obscene.

I ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development to confer with her colleagues in the cabinet, particularly the Attorney General, to see whether, by getting together with the federal Minister of Justice, it might be possible to come up with some limits or parameters that we could use as a guide in these matters.

I am really not asking for censorship in this regard, although I do not see why it would not be appropriate to ask for censorship, because we do have censorship in the movies that are shown in movie houses. I know that while there are some differences in things that are shown in homes, because we do regard our homes as our castles, nevertheless I do not think that absolves us from being concerned about these matters.

What I am asking for is some limits so that the people who are concerned in this business will know they can only go so far and so that the public out there, either through the police or acting on their own, can call us to task by laying charges.

Of course, it would come before a judge for the judge to determine whether or not obscenity had occurred; it would not be the prerogative of the person laying the charge to decide it. The person might believe that obscenity has occurred, but a judge would decide, just as in our highway traffic laws we have speed limits that say what is expected to be the upper limit of the speed you travel on the highways. We do not put a policeman in every car, we do not catch every person who drives over 60 miles per hour; but still some are caught, and it is generally accepted among the public that that is the limit.

I ask the provincial secretary to take that on as a matter of conscience, and I think we can look to her as a person with conscience in the cabinet. As a woman herself -- not that women's rights should be fought solely by women, by any means -- and as a person who understands these things, she is the obvious person to carry this through. I would appreciate any comments she might make later on.

I want to bring another matter to the minister's attention. It is a letter I sent to her, and she is acquainted with it. It relates to a local matter in my riding. A constituent, Paul Theriault, a citizen of Ridgetown, has recently published this Blissymbolic Book, Part 1, The Birth of Jesus. The author gave his work-time as a labour of love for the Kinsmen Club of Ridgetown and for handicapped children. They were assisted by other service clubs, and they paid the publishing costs of $5,500 for this book. Eleven hundred copies of the book have been distributed free of charge to Bliss users and teaching institutions throughout Canada and other countries, and 90 per cent were distributed in Canada.

This gentleman now has translated the story of Romeo and Juliet, and it will cost approximately $12,000 for 2,000 copies. The Kinsmen Club feel they cannot approach the people of Ridgetown for a second donation; so I wrote the ministry asking whether they would consider the funding of such a work.

I appreciate that in these times of restraint we have what many might say are more compelling causes for the expenditure of money. Certainly we do have economic troubles here in Ontario, and I guess on another occasion I would blame the government for its share of them. We have to recognize that it is also a federal problem as well as a worldwide problem; we will soon have some 32 million people in the industrial world out of work. Thus one might say that every cent of our provincial money should be directed in those ways.

Yet throughout these difficulties it remains a mark of our civility and of our civilization that we must not abandon every other pursuit. We have got to show that even under these difficulties we can spend some small amounts of money in other ways. I ask the minister to do what she can in this instance. I believe she is working on it, trying to do whatever she can.

12 noon

There is another concern that comes to me from time to time in my riding. I am sure every member in this House is faced with this. Perhaps those in rural and outlying ridings have more of a problem than city members. It concerns those people who are receiving welfare under the General Welfare Assistance Act. The requirement is that people must be actively looking for work. I do not think there is any person here, myself included, who would quarrel with that requirement. Public money is being spent that is taxed away from other people and those people have the right to think the people receiving the money are doing as much as they can to help themselves.

I have two towns in my riding whose main industry in times past has been woodworking -- producing flooring, furniture and supplies for furniture -- because they are in an area of hardwood forests. However, today a good deal of that hardwood lumber is imported from across the lake in Pennsylvania.

The point I am making is that these towns are very small, with around 1,000 population. There are a lot of retired people living there, and the minimum amount of industry. One might describe them as residential towns, though some of the people there might be offended by my calling them residential. They are certainly doing as much as they possibly can to attract industry. These towns are a fair distance from other major centres such as London, St. Thomas and Chatham. They are equidistant from those centres.

It is very difficult for a person there to keep presenting a job-search record, because there are only a certain number of restaurants and stores. These industries are, surprisingly, working at a very high level, but they are not at a point where they are hiring more people. So welfare recipients make the rounds in town, go to a dozen or so places and that pretty well exhausts the possibilities. The surrounding farmers, who have very little work at this time of year, do not offer much opportunity for these people.

So they go back when they get their next welfare cheque and are told, 'We do not want the same people, we want new people." In order to qualify as new people, they have to have transportation to go another 30, 40 or 50 kilometres and require transportation around the city. As every member knows, those cities have their own employment problems. There are thousands of people there who are out of work and on benefits of various kinds. The chances of finding work in this situation are about as close to nil as they can be.

My request is that the minister try to use her influence to bring a bit of compassion to these situations. They may not be unique to the people of the towns I represent, I have no way of knowing, but I think the minister would have to agree it is much more difficult in towns of that size in a rural setting than it is in London, Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Toronto or Oshawa.

I have another question that is a matter of some conscience. I have had a running battle with the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) on this matter. He has expressed some concern and has said he is not satisfied with the situation. I think perhaps there are other members on this side of the House who have faced this same problem. In spite of the minister saying he is not satisfied with it, he has not taken any action or offered any suggestions that would relieve the situation. I refer to the matter of the sale of nursing home licences.

The background of the story is that a decision seems to have been made by most people in the industry that a nursing home needs about a minimum of 60 beds to have the economy of scale to be able to buy the services and goods required by those institutions at reasonable rates. That is supposed to spread the bed costs or the administration costs and perhaps make it possible to offer fuller programs to the people in those homes.

We do not quarrel with the objective of trying to give the very best in social and humane services, and of maintaining the safety of those homes; we do not quarrel with that one bit.

I point out that I represent part of Kent and part of Elgin but, taking Kent as a unit, this has now meant that four smaller nursing homes have been sold. Three of them moved to the city of Chatham and one to the town of Wallaceburg. The smaller communities, and I am speaking of Ridgetown which has a population of about 3,500, are now without a nursing home.

What is worse than actually being without the home is the trauma of seeing a home moved. Great relationships have been established between people in the town. People have visited a home on a regular basis even though they did not have relatives as patients or residents in the home. As a matter of extending themselves in the community and doing some good social work, once a week they would visit these places. Relatives in Ridgetown and the surrounding areas found it much easier to attend the home because of its proximity.

However, the home in question did not meet the standards. It met a great many standards as far as loving care is concerned. There is no question about the loving care that was given to the residents. There were a great many questions about safety. In the words of one of the local people who examined it, "It was probably the safest home in town." In spite of all that, it did not meet the requirements so the licence was sold.

The going figure usually used is about $10.000 a bed, although the purchaser said it was more like $9,000. Regardless of the price placed upon that bed, it offends my conscience and I hope it would offend the minister's conscience too that nursing home beds can be sold as one would sell taxi, trucking or so many other licences that we use in the commercial trade in Ontario. My contention is that if a nursing home does not meet the requirements and fails to live up to the standards set for it, that licence should be withdrawn.

12:10 p.m.

In the case of a smaller town, it should be at least offered to someone else who would build a home in that town. It might happen that no one would come forward to build a home in that town because they too might say: "We do not have enough beds here. We do not have the opportunity to amalgamate it with others and therefore it is not a going commercial affair."

I think the minister would agree they should at least be given the opportunity and they would have the advantage. The one I had in mind was 37 beds. If we place a $10,000 price per bed, or even less, it comes to somewhere over $300,000; and that went to the purchase of a piece of paper rather than the purchase of bricks and mortar. I suggest that is a system that really is unconscionable and should be changed.

I was tackled one day by one of the members of the local health committee who told me I had made a great error in coming down on the side of the people who wanted to retain the home. I gave him a piece of my mind. Perhaps he felt a twinge of conscience himself.

He said the home had not been in compliance for nine years. We had the act at that time for only 10 years. He knew as a member of the local health council that they had been nine years out of compliance with the act. Surely that was time enough that a decision could have been made to have cancelled that licence, perhaps long before the operator put as much money into the facilities as he did and before he actually became trapped, because in the economic system the minister's contention is, "He has so much money invested in this building that we have to give him a chance to get out of it."

I can see a little bit of argument for that, but surely if those things had been done when they should have been done that situation would not have developed. I think I have covered the main matters I had on my mind. There are many others that could be brought up in this area. Perhaps they might be more appropriately brought to the various ministries. I look to the minister as a sensitive person who has a conscience. I do not know whether she wishes to assume that role but I think I am on pretty safe ground when I say she is such a person. I look to the minister for some answers in this regard.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up a lot of time this morning but there are a couple of concerns that in a way are follow-up concerns I want to raise with my friend the provincial secretary. There is a certain sense in which this perhaps may be the last set of estimates; I do not know.

One of the things I want to try to pursue again, since I have been pursuing it since 1977, is the question of the perpetually vanishing provincial home support policy.

The minister is aware of the origins of the search for a provincial home support policy. It happened when Darcy McKeough was the Treasurer and he had the bright idea of taking a close look, for whatever reason -- I guess it was part of his cost-cutting obsession -- at elderly persons' centres. He saw these centres being funded by various ministries and came to the conclusion that they were identical with services that were being funded by other branches of the government through municipal recreation services.

He commissioned a report to look at them, which said: "Yes, you are right. There is duplication. Some elderly persons' centres ought to he eliminated." That produced one of the great hubbubs in Ontario, certainly since when I was elected in 1975 and now. We all remember the outrage that was created when the provincial Treasurer mistakenly took a potshot at elderly persons' centres.

Out of that hubbub and the concerns that were identified in the Anderson report in 1976 with respect to the discombobulation in services to the elderly, the province decided to adopt a coherent set of policies with respect to services to the elderly; and part of that was to be a provincial home support policy that would include elderly people and other population groups that need these services -- the physically handicapped, for example.

I think that process was initiated in -- the minister may be able to help my memory -- 1977, although it may have been 1978. There had been a series and a round -- at times it seemed a perpetual round -- of green papers and discussion papers and consultations. After the first consultation there was another discussion and another consultation. Literally thousands of people across the province have been tied up in this process for the last six years.

My question is, and I do not think it is an unreasonable question, where is the policy document? The minister has had the discussion papers, consultation processes, the second set of discussion documents and the second round of consultations. There have been interministerial meetings until I am sure everybody is blue in the face and yet we cannot get an answer to the question: Where is the document?

We still do not know what provincial policy is. That means very simply that we still do not know who is supposed to do what. What ministries are supposed to be responsible for what services? Who is the lead minister for home support services and for which population groups? How are they going to be paid? Who will co-ordinate the services at the local level? How does somebody who needs home support services plug into the system so they get the service they need? Who makes the decision with respect to what service they need? What are they entitled to and who pays for the service? Is it going to be a welfare service based on a means test? Is it going to be an insured service based on universal coverage under medicare?

These are very basic and important questions. All of the thousands of people who work in the field are entitled to know the answer. What is government policy? I am not even debating what the policy should be. I have given up. One cannot debate when one does not know what the opponent's position is. I do not even know if we are opponents in the thing. It may well be that the policy is very progressive. That is a remote possibility but one's hope springs eternal.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Nothing like being biased right.

Mr. McClellan: I am always nonbiased.

I will not go back to the beginning but I will start at 1981; this is only 1983 after all. On page S-107 in the estimates of the social development secretariat, I asked the minister in her estimates in June 1981 to please comment on the home support legislation. Do not forget we were promised a package of comprehensive legislation that would flow out of the policy.

The minister said, and I am quoting directly:

"Yes, I will boss. You have hit upon a sensitive area. You know very well of the entrenchment of certain programs within certain ministries and the difficulties in bringing about a meeting of the minds." This, I add in parenthesis, is four years after the process had started.

12:20 p.m.

I asked her in June 1981, "Are you going to produce a white paper, or what?" She said, "I am not just sure it well may be." I said: "When are we going to have some indication of what government policy is? We have been waiting now for three years." The minister said, "Do I dare say, in the fullness of time?" I said, 'No." She said, "I would be safe in indicating to you two or three months." That would have brought it to September 1981, by my reckoning.

I backtrack briefly, because the government had hoped to be able to announce the new home support policy during the 1981 election; but because they could not achieve the so-called meeting of the minds, which it is the responsibility of this provincial secretary to try to facilitate in the policy field, because that meeting of minds did not take place between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and I guess the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture was involved as well, there was no policy.

When the minister promised the policy two or three months after June 1981, that remained an illusory vision as well. I pursued it in the Ministry of Community and Social Services in October 1981, and I asked that minister where the policy was. During his estimates he said the overall policy would be announced very soon; but it was not.

So in June 1982, I asked the provincial secretary in her estimates: "Where is the policy? When will the policy be released from the closet in which it has been languishing for so long?" The minister said, "I think just as soon as they have finished the consultation process." This was in June 1982, five years after the consultation process has begun.

Then she said, and I am quoting directly from the sacred text: "As I indicated, that will be finalized in July some time. Hopefully thereafter, the announcements will take place as to the different areas where the program will be implemented." She also said, "I am sure when you are doing the estimates of the Ministry of Health, which will be following our estimates, at that time the minister will be able to elaborate more on the policy." She said that on June 22, 1982, at page S-387. But, of course, it was not announced.

So I pursued it with the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) this fall in the estimates of the Ministry of Health, since the provincial secretary had said, "I am sure the minister will be able to elaborate more on the policy." The secretary said that in June, so in the estimates which are currently under way in the standing committee on social development, I asked the Minister of Health where the policy was. This was on December 15, 1982.

The Minister of Health was not very discreet. I do not know whether the secretary has had an opportunity to review Hansard. I said to him, "I am hoping that you can give us some idea when the overall policy will be made available." The Minister of Health said: "Again, while Mrs. Birch has said that I might be able to give more details in my estimates, the whole point of her operation is obviously to try to pull the ministers together to handle that overall policy. I can, of course, speak only for my component of that overall policy."

He said: "I have to believe that it has had some success. Whether or not it has resulted in a policy document which Mrs. Birch has referred to on several occasions, we have done our work and I think other ministries have too."

Is there a policy or is there not? The Minister of Health does not seem to think there is, and I am really beginning to wonder whether this is not all some cruel practical joke that is being played on people. The minister engages in a perpetual series of consultations with the promise of a coherent provincial policy. Her job is to develop provincial policy. That is what she is paid to do, among other things.

The Minister of Health continued his indiscretions on page 688 of Hansard on December 15, the estimates of the Ministry of Health:

"The absence of the public release of the overall strategy from which we are working is something which -- I hate to say this to you, but it is the responsibility of the secretariat which brought the people to co-ordinate it. I would also make it clear that in terms of a single comprehensive document, I have been briefed on many of the components of that discussion and the review. I haven't seen the single document myself."

Oops. Whatever happened to the policy? He has been briefed on bits and pieces of it. Does it exist or not? So I asked the Minister of Health, "Does it exist?" The minister said: "I believe it exists. I don't know if a single document exists in the policy field as of today."

I have lots of patience. I have been here eight years and I am not going anywhere, I don't think. But I think the people who are providing service in the field have a right to ask: What is provincial policy? What are the funding mechanisms? What are the co-ordinating mechanisms? Where is the package of enabling legislation to make it possible to provide home support services on an orderly basis? Where is the policy?

I simply ask the provincial secretary again today, please do not pass the buck this time to the Minister of Health, because it is obvious the Minister of Health can be quite surly when people pass the buck to him. He simply passes it back. He has passed it back to her and he was quite curt about it in the estimates.

So I would ask her again: where is the policy and when will it be made public? I hope this time she will give us a coherent answer.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to the minister's concurrence and perhaps pick up what my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) discussed previously, and that is the situation of nursing homes and homes for the aged.

I am sure the minister is well aware that in the Niagara Peninsula there is a shortfall of beds in both areas. I was a little bit alarmed this past year that there were 20 beds in a nursing home in Ridgeway, Ontario -- that is the town of Fort Erie -- where, through some measures of the government regulations for the safety of the patients, the owner had to renovate the place to bring it up to the standards of the fire code under the Nursing Homes Act.

I can recall that seven or eight years ago the same notice went out to the owner of the nursing home in Ridgeway and changes were made. Of course, it was an older building, but it provided a much-needed service for the elderly people in that municipality.

Lo and behold, the person responsible for the home decided she was not going to spend any more money on the older building, and she bowed out of the nursing home services. But by bowing out, not providing the services and not offering the home for sale locally -- I am sure some other person would have perhaps had the opportunity to continue with the 20 beds allocated to this nursing home -- it was sold to another nursing home operator from Hamilton. Those 20 beds left that municipality and went someplace over around St. Catharines or around the Grimsby area.

12:30 p.m.

Meanwhile, a study was done by the health council informing the ministry of the shortfall in beds in nursing homes and in homes for the aged. I believe 90 or 100 beds were supposed to be allocated between the city of Niagara Falls and the town of Fort Erie. That meant 20 extra beds left the area, and I do not know what this government is going to do about providing accommodation for the elderly there. As our population is aging, severe difficulties will be experienced. I have written a letter to the Ministry of Health expressing my views on the matter of licensing. A licence is a privilege in the sense that it gives one an opportunity, for example, to drive a car under certain rules and regulations. If one cannot live within those rules, the licence is removed, but it is not for sale.

I can see in the very near future the private nursing homes in Ontario having a monopoly in the field. It will become more costly to persons who require resident care in nursing homes. The costs will be prohibitive, so in no way do I encourage or suggest the government should permit the selling of bed licences. The homes paid nothing when they came into business and they should not receive anything when going out of business. The licence should pass on to another person who wants to operate a nursing home in Ontario for the benefit of the elderly.

I do not think the same principle should be used as is used for a person wanting to buy a tavern or a hotel. Sometimes a building may be old and perhaps has an historic value, and the cost of a liquor licence makes the business more profitable, but I do not think we should put licences for nursing homes in the same category as that those given by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. I resent the government encouraging this practice. There is certainly going to be a monopoly that will cost people a large amount, and perhaps some will not be able to get nursing home care.

There is a shortfall of beds in hospitals for chronic patients. I am sure the minister is aware of a person who is most dedicated in this area, the director of homes for the aged in the region, Doug Rapleje, who was on the senior citizens advisory board from which reports came out quite often over the past couple of years. I believe that committee has wound down now.

Another of the concerns I hope some government member will seriously consider is the crisis in employment opportunities for many young people in the province, particularly between the ages of 18 and 25, those who have graduated from secondary schools and have taken a postgraduate course in colleges or universities. There are no job opportunities for many of them. That is a crisis. I have sat in with my colleague on the youth unemployment crisis task force on two or three different meetings. It is a sad situation to find many of these young people are unwanted in our society, not needed, irrelevant to the needs of jobs in the area.

That situation is increasing considerably in the Niagara peninsula where we have one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada, about 21 per cent. If we took away the work-sharing agreements many industries have with the government, unemployment would be much higher, about 25 or 26 per cent. The crisis facing many young people in Ontario is being ignored. The so-called free enterprise system has failed completely. It is a failure in that more consideration has not been given to creating jobs through some form of industrial development. I suggest there is a good lesson to be gained from the time of Franklin Roosevelt's reign in 1935 when the New Deal came forward.

I am sure the minister is aware that Roosevelt came out with a program to assist many young persons for a two-year period who might never get a job otherwise. The jobs he created came under the three Cs program -- not conservative, but Civilian Conservation Corps. That was one of the best programs that ever came out of any government. It put many young people back to work and provided an opportunity for them to be useful citizens.

They were not getting a handout; they were doing something good. They went out on a reforestation program and the payoff today has been great to the government and people of the United States. Now they are having their second cutting in the forest industry as a result of the reforestation through that program.

I do not have to tell the minister of the backlog in the reforestation program that needs a big push in Ontario. Reports from professional foresters are coming out saying that in the next 20 years there will be a crisis in the forest industry in Ontario. They say we will not have additional resources coming on stream to feed the new plants that are being built in Ontario.

If the minister really wants to get into a good program for a period of two years, he should design a program that could be called Civilian Conservation Corps so they could be doing something useful.

The reports and studies that came out of that project back in 1935 said many were given an opportunity to advance. At least they had some experience in a job and that is one of the problems with young people today. Every time they knock on the door of industry they are asked what experience they have. They can have all the degrees they want but they do not have the experience.

In our social climate today with the depression we are in, many persons who have experience cannot find the jobs they need. My point is there are many youths in Ontario who want an opportunity to be employed and to have some form of security. I do not think they want welfare. They should be given a chance to do something. The government should come up with a program that is really going to pay off, maybe not in five years but after 10, 15 or 20 years. It will pay off later and many of those young people will be able to say, "It was through my efforts and the government's efforts that we have the second and third cutting of forest industry products here in Ontario."

I suggest this is an area to take a good look at. It is good to have the temporary programs for the summer months for students in school. That does help a little and gives them some encouragement that there might be a brighter future for them. But I suggest that for those persons who cannot get a job, and feel they are unwanted in our society, we have to take a serious look and find something for them.

If one ever travels the countryside, by rail in particular, one looks at the waste in scrap steel that is sitting outside. We could call in an environmentalist corps in that area. Often people say, "How come Japan does not have the problem of industrial pollution that we have in Ontario and throughout Canada?" A good lesson to learn from Japan in this area is that almost their whole industrial society is based on recycling of waste that we throw away in Canada and in the United States.

They buy tons of scrap steel. From my experience on the committee dealing with the Inco layoffs in 1977 we found cut that Japan has no mineral base at all. We wonder how it can come to be one of the top industrial nations in the world. They will take scrap nickel and refine it to get the nickel. Perhaps they will get some cobalt and steel out of it too -- out of things we cast aside. They have been able to capitalize on what we call trash.

12:40 p.m.

I think of the metal that is laying around. I think of the Minister of the Environment who a few years ago was going to clean up the countryside, the backyards of every home and get rid of the scrap automobiles. They are still out there, so something has to be done in this area. Perhaps if she put a good team out there, they would want to do something useful in beautifying the province -- to keep the promise to keep it beautiful.

I bring these suggestions to the minister's attention. I know she is concerned in this area and I hope she will listen to these suggestions and come up with a good, concrete program for the many unemployed young people. She should at least give them some encouragement and let them know we are concerned about their future and their security which, in the long run, will bring productivity and employment for Ontario's future growth.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are running out of time to deal with this concurrence if we are going to hear a response from the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

There are a couple of points I would like to ask her to comment upon. In the absence of any cabinet minister being designated as responsible for women's issues, we tend to expect the minister to speak on those. A great many of them such as day care, welfare rights, home services, cultural programs and so on come under her purview, but she has been amazingly silent on very many of these issues that women are greatly concerned about. Pension reform is another one.

Particularly I would like to ask if she is intending to take any position on the proposed programming by First Choice pay-TV which will, in effect, make that programming a branch plant of the American porn industry. I think this is something we should be looking at very carefully.

Has she written to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission expressing the concern of a great many women in this province? This concern has been evidenced by the demonstrations and the letters to the editor expressing the indignation of women about the proposal to make programming which really demeans women, and exploits women as sexual playthings, a part of what would be a family channel. I am not necessarily suggesting she should urge censorship, but I think the possibility of alternative channels for those who wish to buy this kind of programming is one route.

The minister does have the power to refer questions of this sort to the Ontario Status of Women Council for advice and consultation. I wonder if she has considered doing this so that we can get answers to the questions of how to get a limitation on this kind of pornography, and on this kind of demeaning programming which will lead to attitudes towards women that are definitely not acceptable in our society.

The second point to which I would like a response is that the Ontario Status of Women Council has done a review of its operations. In the latest annual report, which is for 1981-82, it comes up with nine recommendations for changing the work of the council. The council is due for a sunset review on March 31, 1984, so there is not much more than a year in which to consider and make changes.

I think the council, after considering the matter very carefully, has come up with nine very important recommendations for making it more viable in terms of staff, funding, having a full-time director, having expert personnel at its command, and a broader means of choosing the members of the council by contacting women's organizations throughout the province.

In addition, the recommendations envisaged much more involvement by the council in government policy-making. It has been evident for the past several years that the council is simply ignored by the government. Some of the disabilities under which it has worked are a very low budget, a small staff, and no full-time director. I would like to know the minister's attitude to those recommendations. I will leave those two questions for comment by the provincial secretary.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to rise and speak on the concurrence for this ministry. There are a couple of things I would like to bring to the minister's attention. She is the co-ordinating minister for services such as those for the mentally retarded, and I would like to give her some examples of things that have occurred in our area. The Norfolk association for the mentally retarded has been a leader in the field of bringing those people into the municipality. We do have two homes in Simcoe -- Le Manoir Nursing Home, which is privately operated, and Colborne Residence, which is providing good facilities within the community itself. These people are doing a good job in the town of Simcoe.

Another home in Dunnville is providing the same service for the association for the mentally retarded for Haldimand, and it has a workshop at York, providing work for some 30 people. It has moved into new facilities. Again, in Norfolk, there is a workshop, are Industries, providing work for 50 people. There is a waiting list for both these facilities. That is an area we can co-ordinate and expand on.

As we are closing the existing facilities around the province, I would like to mention an example. We have White Oaks Village at Hagersville, which was a training school, on about 50 acres of land, serviced by water and sewer. Perhaps such an area could be brought into play by using it for a facility such as we will probably need to take care of the handicapped. There is not only a working area but also an area that can be dedicated to agriculture. The handicapped can work outside and use their talents, not only as they are doing now in carpentry work, baking and handicrafts, but in agriculture.

There is nothing more stimulating than being able to do something creative with one's hands and with the soil. In a time when we are looking for opportunities to provide employment, which is so important as many members have pointed out, that is an area that could be tapped.

Another thing that has been of concern to me is providing facilities for our senior citizens. Again that has been brought to the minister's attention this morning by various members, such as my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin. We have many small municipalities, and I will give some examples in my own riding. There is Jarvis that does not have any accommodation at present, Cayuga and Port Rowan. The minister is well aware that there is nothing like spending your retirement years in your own municipality.

12:50 p.m.

Why can we not use some of our existing buildings, such as schools that have been closed? Maybe they can be turned into senior citizens' centres where people can look after themselves. Maybe the ones who do need services could live as couples in a dignified manner. The ones who do not need services could use the kitchen facilities that are already there.

I can think of another facility in my municipality of Jarvis that may become available, and I know there is considerable interest by the community, the church organizations and the clubs. I know many of them are looking for projects to utilize and expand their very good work in the municipality.

If some funding were provided from her ministry under her direction or co-ordination, it could encourage them to help themselves. All they need is some leadership, and clubs such as the Lions Club, the Rotary Club and the Kinsmen Club are only too willing to provide services to communities for both young and old. Her ministry could show a little more leadership in that field by making sure we do have facilities to take care of our elderly, because that percentage of the population is increasing yearly.

It is going to provide employment for people who may not have the talent to get into the world of the computer, and l think we do have to think of that part of the population who want to contribute and provide for their families and their future.

One final thing -- and I would like to give the minister an opportunity to wrap this up -- is that agriculture in the region was particularly hard hit last year by a devastating frost in August, the earliest in 50 years. It has made havoc of work that provided employment and accumulated credits for unemployment insurance. The situation has increased the welfare roll by something like 70 per cent, and the number of unemployed looking for jobs at the Simcoe office has almost doubled in the last few months.

While we have been allotted something like $560,000 for the six municipalities and the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, it certainly is not reducing the welfare rolls. It is not really having much effect on overall employment in the area. I think we could use more funding, working along with the region, the area municipalities, the conservation authorities and local employers to provide more opportunities for employment in that area.

I would like to bring those things to the attention of the minister, and I hope she will take them into consideration.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Kent-Elgin for the confidence he has placed in me in being the conscience of the social policy field. It is a very onerous responsibility and, like everyone's conscience, it is a very private thing, I guess because of the low visibility of a provincial secretary. The holder of that office seems to get attention only when it is a critical or very negative area but rarely is given any attention when positive things are developed. I really do appreciate his understanding of the role of the provincial secretary and how she has to tread a very fine line in co-ordinating policies within our particular social policy field.

I am very pleased that he raised the whole issue of pornography, as did the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). It is an area that gives me, personally, a great deal of concern. As the provincial secretary I have been very concerned about what is happening to the family in this province. Being very much aware that what happens within our own homes sort of puts a stamp of approval and acceptance by all of us, if we allow the kind of paid private showings to happen in our own homes it appears to me that as parents. we are, in fact, approving.

Other examples of approval given within the home are social drinking, smoking and many other characteristics that I think are very damaging to family life. I am very discouraged that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission would give approval to a company which I understand indicated well in advance that this kind of programming would be developed.

Yes, I do intend to make our position known. I assume, although I have not talked with the chairman of the Ontario Status of Women Council, that they too will be concerned and will be making an approach to those responsible for licensing this kind of programming.

I think it is wise that we speak out well in advance, because for someone who does not have an opportunity to watch television very often I find myself appalled at what I am seeing coming across the television tube these days when I do have an opportunity. The language and explicitness of the actions I see being portrayed -- perhaps I am old-fashioned but I find it appalling. I am concerned that we are allowing it to go even further by encouraging and permitting this kind of programming for family members to see.

It is all well and good to say: "You can turn it off. You do not have to let your family view it." But the very fact of having it come into one's home I think speaks to the whole issue. I am extremely concerned about it and, certainly, will be voicing my opposition to this kind of direction in pay TV.

As members know, the Board of Censors in Ontario is responsible for checking out, as a community service for all of us, and determining content of the movies that we are seeing in this province, but they have no right at the moment to view what would be available through pay TV. I do not think they are looking for that kind of concern.

The member also spoke about the constituent who is involved in providing, through Bliss symbols, books for those who for the very first time are able to communicate and read. This is an area of real personal interest to me because I have observed for a few years the development of this communications program at the Ontario Crippled Children's Centre. We were able to provide them with additional funding to encourage them to proceed. I empathize very much with this gentleman's program for providing more in the way of communications. We are certainly trying to find a way of helping him to provide that financially.

The whole area of jobs for young people is one that I have indicated is a real problem these days. I think some of the ideas the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) has shared with us this morning are some that we could consider. I know that in the forestry industry, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has employed a lot of young people in the north; but we all know the numbers are great.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): One minute.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I agree with him that it is tremendously important for us as a government and as a society to be indicating to young people that they do have a tremendous contribution to make. We should be doing everything in our power to make them aware that we do care and that we must find opportunities for them.

I p.m.

I dread to think of a generation of young people without the opportunity to work and to take part in what we are doing. We are attempting through our youth secretariat and through the government to provide as many employment opportunities as possible. As the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has indicated, we will be expanding each month to meet that ongoing need as we see that conditions are either improving or deteriorating.

I can assure the member that everyone on this side of the House is just as concerned as he is in making sure that our young people do have the opportunity for meaningful work.

Over the years I think one of the great pleasures I have had is seeing the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) mellow. Today, when he called me friend, I thought, I really finally made it."

The Acting Speaker: I regret the time that has been given to this concurrence has been exhausted.

Resolution concurred in.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

January 21, 1983