CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT
HEALING ARTS RADIATION PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT
MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8:04 p.m.
CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Williams moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, third reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak for long about this because we have had the opportunity to debate it on second reading and in committee. I regret I was unable to be here on Tuesday because I had other duties outside of the Legislature.
We were told today that much of the corporations legislation of this province dates back to the 1900s, to the turn of the century. That is some 84 years ago, even before the lifetime of this particular government. I want to put on the record my regrets, not only as a New Democrat but as someone who has spent some time as a financial journalist and one concerned about the effective working of markets and the system, at the government's failure to respond to the constructive suggestions of this party, particularly, to bring our legislation in Ontario up to the standards that are now the norm in Britain, Washington and in the Canada Corporations Act.
The question of information provided by corporations and of their obligations in return for the privilege of limited liability is something this government and its members never seem to have understood. They seem to feel corporations have a divine right to do what they can and what they will in society and in the economy without any sense of a reciprocal obligation. That means, for example, they feel a corporation has no obligation to give the most basic information in terms of the economic impact it has on the community or the most basic information with which it and its operations can be judged by those people who seek to do business with them, by those who consider being employed by them or by those who seek to extend credit to them.
Some of that information is available through commercial services, but the people who are least likely to gain access to them are simple workers and consumers, the ordinary people of this country, who are somehow left out of the charmed circle created by the Conservative Party. It has been acknowledged for generations, in theory, what limited liability is all about. It is a privilege granted by the state. It enabled the creation of the corporate form of organization --
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member the principle of the bill has been discussed. We are on third reading now.
Mr. Cassidy: Yes. I am simply reiterating briefly some of the points that need to be made on third reading.
The corporate form of organization has proven somewhat useful, but an obligation to keep the public informed has developed overtime. That is normally done through a corporate reporting mechanism. It is done through securities legislation in Washington and through the Canada Corporations Act nationally. It is not parallelled in Ontario, although this is the major location of corporations in the country. If we do not provide that information here, that leadership will not be provided by other provinces.
Instead, we have a mess of numbered corporations in this country which is impossible to fathom. It is impossible to know who is doing what to whom, who owns whom, what sales are where and what our assets are. This is used, not by legitimate business people but often by people who want to deceive or manipulate the market and real estate. It is a way of ripping off ordinary people in this province.
8:10 p.m.
That is something the government quite categorically indicates it is in favour of. It has indicated that by opposing amendments to this piece of legislation which were proposed the other night. For those who read Hansard and for those who will read about this in the history books, this is only the second or third time this legislation has been opened over the 12 years I have been in this Legislature.
However, the opportunity to modernize the legislation is there. It has been there on those occasions in the past. If this government wants to say to people in business they have a legitimate role in society, I have no objection to that. But they should be saying equally clearly that people who play a role in the economy and who engage in business also have responsibilities and obligations, not only to themselves and the shareholders but to the community that provides them with trained people, a market and economic stability within which their enterprises can operate. That should include a reasonable level of disclosure of what they do, how much they sell, who owns them, whom they own and what kind of operation they have in Ontario.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the points of view expressed by the member for Ottawa Centre have been expressed many times in this House in the past. They reflect no new thinking or input from the traditional philosophy and point of view of the socialist party of this province. Nothing new has been contributed to the debate, so I have nothing further to add.
Motion agreed to.
LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Williams moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, third reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --
Interjections.
Mr. Cassidy: What is the matter?
Mr. Nixon: You are the matter.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem unhappy about the parliamentary process taking place. I feel an obligation to --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to follow our rules of debate and recall that we have had the principles of the bill in earlier debate.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is a customary rule in this House that on third reading one can briefly resume some of the main points of the debate if one wishes. My colleague on the procedural affairs committee is nodding his head in agreement.
The government has no legislation to bring forward. It does not know what it is doing. It will not tell us when its budget is going to come down.
The Deputy Speaker: Those comments do not even fit third reading.
Mr. Cassidy: It is simply playing around here and has been doing so for five or six weeks.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please take his seat.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: If the member did what he was paid to do, he would have been here for second reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Those comments, with all due respect to the member, have nothing to do -- even stretching anything -- with the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --
The Deputy Speaker: May I finish for just a moment.
If the member has a brief capsule that is honestly within the debate on third reading, then he should proceed, but I would remind him he is under an obligation to point out why this needs to be included on third reading.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, we have a motion before the House. In my version of the reading of the rules, a motion before this House is debatable. I am not aware of any limits in the standing orders to that debate either.
Mr. Nixon: He is a member of the procedural affairs committee. We know what that means.
The Deputy Speaker: Could we perhaps dissent from the debate? If the member for Ottawa Centre has a quick capsule of third reading debate, then let the House hear it.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I got up and began a third reading debate in the way you suggested. I was promptly interrupted by heckling from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and by interruptions from you.
Mr. Breaugh: You were hassling the member, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cassidy: That is right, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member will please take his seat. The chair and the honourable member do not want to enter into debate, but in answer to the member's latest point of order, he embarked, triggered by the heckling as he may have been, into a great dialogue of what the government had or had not done and had not offered. He was nowhere even close to anything that resembled a third reading debate. That is my comment on the member's point of order.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is an interpretation of the rules I am familiar with. Since when does the chair take it upon himself or herself to censor what an honourable member will say in this House on a debate on second reading, a committee amendment, clause-by-clause study, committee of the whole House or a debate on third reading? Is it your position that the chair has the right to censor? Do you want members of this party to start to submit our remarks to you in advance? Is this Brazil or Poland or someplace like that?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member may be in that kind of mood, but I suggest we do not embark on it. I would remind the member that, according to our rules of order for procedure on debate on third reading, there is an opportunity for the member to debate why the bill ought not to be ordered for third reading. That is the essence and the total of it. If the member can proceed under those rules and parameters, let him please do so.
Mr. Cassidy: With respect to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of rules that say a member, speaking in a third reading debate, is obliged either to speak for or against. Clearly, if it is a government measure, I would be very surprised if a member of the government were to get up to offer reasons why the bill should not be ordered for third reading. Is there a new ruling that says the members of the opposition must speak only to oppose measures but otherwise must remain silent and make no constructive criticisms at all in the debate?
The Deputy Speaker: No. I am sure the member did not miss the point being made. If so, I will remind him we had the principle of the bill on second reading. Third reading exists merely for a person to make a legitimate debate as to why it ought not to go forward to third reading.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: You are saying that anything said here must be --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. This is not a debate with the chair. The member could go on all night with points of order, but it is not going to happen. Let us settle on our comments. I think the honourable member understands them. He knows what the third reading debate is about. His other points of order have been out of order.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I was perhaps seeking to defend the rights of the members since, in view of the suggestions of censorship and so on that you make, I would be happy to --
The Deputy Speaker: I will take care of the rights of the honourable members.
Mr. Cassidy: You were not taking care of my rights.
The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect, I was.
Mr. Cassidy: I am speaking on third reading of the bill. The motion is for third reading of the bill. This party will support that third reading. I simply wanted to bring to the attention of the members that since we debated this bill on second reading a week and a half or two weeks ago, it appears that Manitoba under a New Democratic Party government is now preparing to move forward with respect to the encouragement of small businesses that will be entailed in allowing small breweries and pubs, a principle which was discussed here at some length over the course of this bill --
Mr. Kerrio: Cut it out. The NDP is on the way out and the member knows it.
Mr. McClellan: You are not a free enterpriser; you are a socialist.
Mr. Cassidy: That is right. I hear the member of the Liberal Party is opposing this venture to aid small business.
Mr. Kerrio: I am small business; you are not.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I assume the member is concluding his remarks on third reading.
Mr. Cassidy: I am making my remarks, Mr. Speaker. When I conclude them, I will let you know.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member has the floor, he must abide by the rules. We just discussed the rules and the parameters of third reading. Surely the member wishes to fall within those parameters. Does he understand clearly?
Mr. Cassidy: With respect, I have been subject to constant harassment and interruptions from the chair. That has made it rather difficult for me to sustain my remarks. I point out, as I have pointed out on other occasions, that were it not for this contumacious attitude coming from the Speaker's quarter and perhaps from other quarters in this House, I would have concluded my remarks on third reading some time ago.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cassidy: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks shortly.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is out of order in his comments. His reference to the chair, as it has some reference to some particular part of the House, is not at all appropriate. Let me remind him that when I am in this chair I am impartial. His references in the last remarks and a few just prior to them have been totally out of order. This is the last time I will ask the member to proceed within the parameters of the debate. Otherwise, he knows my alternative: I must name him.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to point out was that in Manitoba they are now taking steps. I think I recommended here that before the end of June this province could provide some leadership with respect to providing something new which would assist in tourism and which would help to raise the quality of life for people here.
The government has taken an initiative in terms of allowing beer in the ball park, but I am suggesting for people who either do not get to the ball park or would like other options in terms of diversity in Ontario, that this is something that could have been done with respect to this piece of legislation.
I am sure the members of my party join me in being prepared to see a new set of amendments to the Liquor Licence Act coming forth before June which would permit brew pubs, mini-breweries and micro-breweries to be established here in Ontario. That is the contribution I was hoping to make. With your support and co-operation together, Mr. Speaker, we could see that done for the province before the summer equinox.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Ottawa Centre was not able to schedule his time to be in the House the other day to participate in the debate and to espouse his support for this undertaking, which he had discussed with me prior to the bill coming forward for debate in the House.
He has taken two courses of action, one of which is inappropriate, to try to deal this evening with the proposed amendment which he had hoped to put that particular day during the debate but which did not come to pass. We recognize and understand that he has his own private member's bill, Bill 35, before the House for debate at another time, so it is inappropriate to debate that issue here this evening.
Motion agreed to.
THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)
Bill 12, An Act to amend the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act;
Bill 13, An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act;
Bill 14, Arboreal Emblem Act, 1984;
Bill 123, An Act to revise the Professional Engineers Act.
HEALING ARTS RADIATION PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Mitchell moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Norton, second reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity the other evening to talk to the House leaders opposite. I understand the compendium was thoroughly understood by them. I assume that nothing has changed since then and that we have their support.
Interjections.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to resolve it.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). However, the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) is correct in that he did discuss the bill with our critics, myself and the representatives of the New Democratic Party.
We are not going to oppose the bill. That does not mean to say we like it very much, to tell the truth, because the government seems to be using, to some small degree, the facility known as the computerized axial tomography scanner in a rather strange and unfair way. Rather than use that descriptive phraseology regularly, I will revert to the usage that the bill employs and call it a CAT scanner or, if the members prefer, a scat canner.
One thing that concerns me is that this bill gives so much control to the Ministry of Health as to where these facilities are going to be installed. The wording, as usual, is esoteric, in that such a unit can only be installed in a hospital or other facility, or in a hospital within a class of hospitals, or in a facility within a class of facilities.
I am not sure what all that means, but I have a feeling that the parliamentary assistant has been advised by Miss Wysocki herself in a very careful and complete way so that nobody is going to install a CAT scanner unless the minister gives his approval.
This has not been the case in the past. I see the ministerial adviser peeking out from around the throne. As usual, she is very welcome in the chamber, because I find her legislation is usually very well drawn indeed and complete, without loopholes.
Members may recall that a number of communities in years gone by have petitioned the ministry for a CAT scanner of their own. Not the least is Brantford itself, represented by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who is sitting in the back row beside the parliamentary assistant and who may join in this elaborate debate somewhat later in the evening as it draws on.
One thing that concerns me, for example, is that one of the smaller provincial centres in the Niagara Peninsula -- St. Catharines, I believe -- was able to get approval from the ministry for a CAT scanner some years ago. The people in Brantford find it difficult to understand why approval would have been given to St. Catharines, for all of the great need there, when a similar need, particularly in a community of a similar size and maybe with at least as many problems involving mental facilities, was denied.
Our officials in the district health council have made it clear, in parroting the views of the ministry, that we have access to the facilities in Hamilton; but they are no more readily available than those of the city of St. Catharines.
8:30 p.m.
I suppose all we really lack is an entrepreneur with the heft of an Archie Katzman. The member for Brantford has a lot of heft, there is no doubt about that. When it comes to paving Highway 403 in my riding, he is the guy who actually makes the announcements. When it comes to saving the homes in Onondaga township that are about to tumble into the Grand River, he has the heft to stop the erosion of the banks.
However, in this instance the government has seen fit to pass special legislation. A city like Brantford, which has certain financial resources and excellent medical facilities, does not have a CAT scanner. As they look at the possibility, they find in Bill 27 that any possible initiative which might come from the local community is cut off at the source for all time. It can only go into that city with the full and clear approval of the ministry.
While subsection 22a(1) as amended indicates it can only go in these hospitals or facilities, or facilities within facilities, subsection 22a(3) goes on to say: "No person shall install or operate or cause or permit the installation or operation of more computerized axial tomography scanners, (a) in a hospital or other facility; (b) in a hospital within a class of hospitals; or (c) in a facility within a class of facilities, than the number of computerized axial tomography scanners prescribed by the regulations."
In other words, unless the officials of the ministry give their imprimatur, Brantford will have to be a second-class community for all time because the ministry has decided it is not going to install such a facility in our community.
I realize that with the tremendously expanding costs of the provision of medical services and of these elaborate, modern, expensive facilities, they cannot be installed in every community hospital. This would not make sense. However, it seems to me the ministry is acting in a rather unfair and perhaps injudicious way in passing this legislation before some of the senior hospitals in the province have been so equipped.
I hope the parliamentary assistant will be able to indicate clearly in the House that there is an intention and money set aside for establishing these facilities across the province, rather than saying there are some now established and no more are going to be permitted.
The parliamentary assistant is violently shaking his head, almost to the extent of losing his hearing aid. However, in his comments on the principle of the bill, I hope he can assure me and members from many other communities who feel they should have at least a hope of obtaining these facilities that the prospect is not for ever snuffed out by the passage of Bill 27.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health pointed out, we do intend to support the legislation that is before us which regulates the addition of new CAT scanners to the health care delivery system across the province. Far be it from me to --
Mr. Nixon: Correct?
Mr. McClellan: Not even correct, but talk history to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). I believe this is really a re-enactment of powers which the Ministry of Health gave itself some years ago when it discovered that hospitals were engaging in fund-raising campaigns to obtain CAT scanners as prestige items.
Mr. Nixon: It also has something to do with saving lives.
Mr. McClellan: I will come to that. However, wealthy communities with maybe five or six hospitals found themselves in the middle of what was, quite frankly, a rather crazy competition between large teaching hospitals, each of which wanted to have a CAT scanner, each of which was in a community that could raise money on the fund-raising market to obtain CAT scanners and each of which was installing a CAT scanner.
Less advantaged communities, such as Sault Ste. Marie, Brantford, Peterborough --
Mr. Nixon: St. Catharines.
Mr. McClellan: -- and St. Catharines, which were not able to raise easily the $1 million of private capital that it takes to purchase a CAT scanner, found themselves disadvantaged. Second, the ongoing operating costs, which now are about $150,000 a year for a CAT scanner --
Mr. Mitchell: The figure is higher, much higher.
Mr. McClellan: I am just reading from the figures provided in the compendium. If the figures are false, as the Ministry of Health figures so often are --
Mr. Mitchell: If the honourable member will look in the compendium, I think he will find the figure is $300,000 to $400,000 a year.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The parliamentary assistant will have his opportunity.
Mr. McClellan: I stand to be corrected, because I was reading the statement of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), page 2: "The purchase price of a CAT scanner is currently about $1 million and the ministry contributes approximately $150,000 a year towards the operating expenses of each of them." Perhaps the ministry does not pay the full cost. At any rate, they are very expensive.
Quite frankly, we have accepted the principle that the Ministry of Health should be involved in the rational planning and distribution of CAT scanners across Ontario. It does not make sense to have an open-chequebook policy with respect to superexpensive medical technology. We accept the principle that the Ministry of Health has an obligation to regulate the introduction of expensive medical technology, but the corollary is that it has to be done on some kind of rational and fair basis.
When I was critic for the Ministry of Health, it was clear there were very fundamental inequities in the distribution of CAT scanners. I must say that Toronto has CAT scanners coming out its ears. Peterborough does not have a CAT scanner. I used to visit that great constituency relatively regularly on my tours, and I discovered there was a tremendous backlog of referrals from Peterborough to Toronto hospitals. It was a matter of great concern that despite the abundance of CAT scanners in Metropolitan Toronto, there appeared to be a serious problem of access.
Again, there are other communities I am sure we will hear about during the course of the debate. This is one of those issues that prompts a fairly strong degree of emotional response. A community hospital is the very symbol of community spirit and pride. I suppose it has become a matter of first class or second class whether or not there is a CAT scanner in a community hospital. The ministry is going to be hearing from all the communities that feel they have been unfairly treated.
I think there is an imbalance between the large metropolitan areas, with their well-financed teaching hospitals and with all the advanced medical technology money can buy, and the smaller centres, such as Peterborough, Sault Ste. Marie and Brantford, whose regional hospitals are not blessed with great pools of private wealth to draw upon and have not been treated fairly by the Ministry of Health.
I would be curious to hear the parliamentary assistant talk about short-term and long-term plans for CAT scanners. I suppose it is too much to ask as we stand on the eve or the precipice, or perhaps not, of a provincial election. I assume we will have all of these announcements with respect to additional CAT scanners in the fullness of time. It would be helpful for the parliamentary assistant at least to let us know which projects have been approved in the last year's budget and which projects the ministry intends to approve in the coming fiscal year.
8:40 p.m.
Again, it would be helpful if the minister could outline for us, without getting into a really elaborate debate, where advanced technology fits into the big picture. I served as critic for the Ministry of Health for about four and a half years and I never did understand what the philosophy of the ministry was with respect to preventive health care and curative medicine.
Computerized axial tomography scanners represent one of the more expensive and spectacular pieces of disease technology. I think they have very little to do with genuine preventive medicine in the sense in which we understand it. They are a useful, remarkable, even miraculous diagnostic tool, and they can help -- the former Minister of Health is looking daggers at me.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are just curious to hear what you are going to say.
Mr. McClellan: They obviously can catch disease symptoms early, but that is not preventive medicine; it is still curative medicine; it is still disease oriented. There has to be a symptom there for the CAT scanner to detect; there has to be disease present for the CAT scanner to function.
While all of us are acutely aware of the tremendous advances that have taken place in curative medicine as a result of the introduction of the CAT scanner, we still are waiting for some coherent policy from the Ministry of Health and this government with respect to genuine preventive health care. We can pursue this at the estimates debate, but we appear to be as far away from that as we were in the 1970s when CAT scanners were first introduced.
We now have a Health budget of some $8 billion, nearly all of which goes to the treatment of disease, to curative medicine, and it is a sum of money that defies comprehension. I think the budget has almost doubled since I became critic for the Ministry of Health in 1981. My recollection was that the budget in 1981 was something around $4 billion; this year it will be $8 billion. Almost all of that money goes to the treatment of disease and almost none of it, a minuscule, tiny, inconsequential portion of that $8 billion -- I suppose something like $20 million a day is now spent on health in this province -- goes into preventive medicine.
CAT scanners are the most spectacular and, I suppose, the most high-priced big-ticket item in the array of curative medicine equipment that is available in our health care delivery system; but sooner or later the government is going to have to do some very hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis and make a determination of whether for the $8 billion we are spending we are actually making very much new progress in decreasing our mortality rates and improving the quality of life for our people.
Again, these are matters that are more appropriately debated during the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and I simply wanted to set a few concerns on the record. But we are pleased to support this legislation.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have very brief comments on this bill following up on some of the thoughts put forward by my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
I, of course, will be supporting the legislation and I agree with comments made by other members that this particular advance in medical science is a very valuable one, one we would like to see taken advantage of in all of our communities.
I have no particular quarrel with the ministry citing by regulation where such an expensive piece of equipment would be located. However, as my friend opposite mentioned, we certainly have had an interest in the city of Brantford in a piece of equipment of this sort.
I would like to point out to the parliamentary assistant that I would certainly understand if one or two of these CAT scanners were located in Hamilton, which is the large metropolitan centre near my community; I would certainly accept that and the fact that we do not have one. However, I understand there are in fact four CAT scanners in Hamilton. There is one at the McMaster University Medical Centre. I think there is one at St. Joseph's Hospital, one at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital and another that does not spring to mind.
Mr. Nixon: There is a fifth in St. Catharines.
Mr. Gillies: There is one in St. Catharines. It leaves me wondering --
Mr. McClellan: Why is that? They must have better representation or something.
Mr. Gillies: I would hesitate to comment on that, but I wonder about such a distribution whereby a large metropolitan centre could have four CAT scanners, whereas a centre such as Brantford that services -- Brantford General Hospital is the major hospital, I point out to the parliamentary assistant, not only for Brant county but also for --
Interjection.
Mr. Gillies: I was just coming to that.
It is also the central medical facility for many people in North Dumfries township, towards the southern part of the riding of Cambridge, for people in the northern part of Haldimand-Norfolk, and even for people in parts of Oxford county and so on. We draw from a larger catchment area at Brantford General Hospital than I suspect is sometimes recognized by the ministry.
I do not particularly want to quarrel about that. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the ministry has been very generous in providing new and expanded facilities at the Brantford General Hospital. Some of those facilities were opened by our parliamentary assistant, along with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and myself not many months ago. The ministry has not been parsimonious in recognizing our need for a new emergency department and X-ray facilities. I realize there is a quantum leap when one is talking about a $1-million-plus piece of equipment like a CAT scanner.
The Brantford General Hospital does have reserve funds available to it. I doubt if they have nearly enough on reserve to purchase a CAT scanner, but they have enough to start looking at it as a proposal.
I am quite happy to support Bill 27. I hope in the implementation of the terms of Bill 27 the ministry will be open-minded and fair in its adjudication of requests by smaller cities to acquire such a piece of equipment.
I would be very disappointed to find down the road that there was yet another CAT scanner in addition to the four already in Hamilton, or that some other community of much less merit than Brantford, which I would not dare mention, would be the recipient of one before we receive that consideration.
Brantford is not a second-class community in any respect, and we deserve a facility like that to add to all the other first-class health facilities we already have.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the legislation and the comments of my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) with regard to the thrust of funding health care in this province by the government, and to agree with his concerns about the emphasis on capital equipment and institutions and, overall, the emphasis on curative medicine and treatment procedures rather than preventive medicine.
I recognize, as has the government -- I am sure the parliamentary assistant would agree -- that in dealing with such very expensive equipment one has to have some sort of control to ensure that efforts to raise funds for this equipment are not duplicated across the province in various communities and that the worthwhile efforts of many people and organizations who dedicate themselves to raising funds for health care are not wasted. I certainly support the thrust of the legislation.
8:50 p.m.
Having said that, I have some sympathy with some of the comments made by members with regard to how the government might decide on the distribution of these CAT scanners, especially when one looks at subsection 22a(3) of the bill.
As members from my part of the province have said many times, we come from an area that has distances many of the other members here from southern Ontario do not really understand. I know the parliamentary assistant has some feeling for that, because he has been in my riding a number of times and I am sure he understands the kinds of distances people have to travel in order to get the health care they need.
There has been a long and festering issue in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma over the ministry's decision some time ago, under the auspices of the present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) when he was Minister of Health, to designate Sudbury as the regional health centre for northeastern Ontario. While I do not have any real objections to that decision in itself, it is important to realize that when this decision was taken a number of officials who were active in setting policy obviously did not understand as much as they might have about transportation patterns in our part of the province.
When one has to travel for care, one often has to take into account the need for speed. This may be surprising to many members of the House, but, with respect to the swiftness of travel, it is easier for people from Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma to reach London, Ontario, or Toronto than it is to reach Sudbury. One might ask why this is, now that we have the air ambulance service and so on. But the fact is that more patients are transferred to southern Ontario to be able to take advantage of the facilities they have than have ever been transferred to Sudbury.
Mr. Piché: Because that is where the medical facilities are.
Mr. Wildman: They have a CAT scanner in Sudbury. The fact is that transfers still take place to London and Toronto from the Sault Ste. Marie hospital.
As a matter of fact, when I was coming down here earlier this week I had the unfortunate experience of meeting an acquaintance of mine, a constituent from Goulais River who teaches in Sault Ste. Marie. I was very surprised to see him getting on the same plane as I was. I asked him why, and the reason was he was travelling to Toronto in transit to London so he could be with his son, who just that morning had been transferred by air ambulance to London to have a CAT scan because of an emergency and an accident he had been in that morning.
I would certainly hope they have not found anything really serious and that his son has recovered. But the point is that people in the medical profession, people at the health councils and so on, have been arguing in our area that one must not only look at distance but one must also look at transportation patterns in determining the location of these facilities; and the fact remains that it is easier, certainly by normal carriers, to reach Toronto than it is to reach Sudbury from Sault Ste. Marie. Toronto is an hour's flight. If you are going to Sudbury, the only regular carrier would be norOntair, and you have to stop in Elliot Lake on the way; if you are going by ground transportation by ambulance, you have a three-hour trip.
This has been pointed out to the ministry. The former minister, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), was very much opposed to the efforts of the medical community, the service clubs and others in Sault Ste. Marie who were trying to raise funds for a CAT scanner for Sault Ste. Marie. He said: "We have one in Sudbury. That should serve your area."
I am glad to see that attitude is changing and did change to a point. I have a clipping from the Sault Star, dated January 26, 1981, with the headline, "Sault CAT Scanner Highest Priority." The article states:
"A Sault Ste. Marie proposal for a CAT scanner is one of highest priority being considered by the Health ministry. The announcement of that and other improved medical services in northern Ontario came today in an address by Russ Ramsay, MPP, Sault Ste. Marie. He was subbing for Health Minister Dennis Timbrell, who remained in Toronto because of the illegal strike of nonmedical Canadian Union of Public Employees workers."
I know many of us will recall that in 1981 there was a great deal of political activity in this province. At that time the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay), representing the government and the then Minister of Health, made a statement that the CAT scanner was of highest priority for Sault Ste. Marie. We still do not have a CAT scanner in Sault Ste. Marie, more than three years later, although the funds have been raised. I wonder what the reason is.
I was informed by the present Minister of Health, in a letter dated July 22, 1983, that the district health council had established a subcommittee to assess the need for a CAT scanner in Sault Ste. Marie and that the committee was considering it. Since that time, I believe the ministry has agreed to the location of a CAT scanner in Sault Ste. Marie, although I am not certain of that. I hope it is the case. I hope too that before we see another provincial election, we will have a CAT scanner to serve Algoma district and Sault Ste. Marie, located at one of the hospitals in Sault Ste. Marie. Both hospitals there are co-operating with one another.
Again, while I am not opposed to the designation of certain areas as medical centres for different parts of the province, I believe distance must be taken into account and transportation patterns must be considered. I find it somewhat amusing to hear members from southern Ontario, whether they be from Brantford or whatever, complaining about the distance they might have to travel to London or Hamilton when we have to have people transferred, as my constituent had his son transferred this week, from Sault Ste. Marie to London.
Mr. Nixon: We have to go a long distance to catch fish.
Mr. Wildman: We certainly have a lot of advantages in Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma and northern Ontario, but at the same time we do not have many of the facilities that people in southern Ontario take for granted.
As all of us here will recognize, we all pay the same taxes, we all pay the same Ontario health insurance plan premiums and we in northern Ontario help to subsidize the facilities that are established for treating the sick in southern Ontario. We do not debate that in many cases very sophisticated facilities should be located where there is a larger population, in the larger population centres; but if we are going to do that, please let us make certain there are ways in which we can reach those facilities and we can benefit from them since we are also contributing to them.
I again urge the parliamentary assistant to persuade the minister and the government to move as quickly as possible on the provision of a CAT scanner for Sault Ste. Marie and the Algoma district.
9 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add a couple of brief comments about Bill 27. I must say the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), rang very clearly in my ears simply because I share a part of Ontario which, while not as northerly as his district, is one that faces what one might call the tyranny of distance in that, outside of the hospitals, we really do not have too many specialized facilities in the city of Pembroke. Virtually everyone in the county of Renfrew who must receive specialized health services must travel a minimum of 100 to 125 miles to the regional health centre in the national capital.
Mr. Nixon: You get cheap licences.
Mr. Conway: In a rare moment, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is quite incorrect in that respect.
In the compendium prepared for Bill 27, I note the government has set out those areas in which the 33 computerized axial tomography scanners are located or will be located.
Mr. Mitchell: That is being read wrong, but I will address that later.
Mr. Conway: I am interested to hear the parliamentary assistant clarify that because I have before me a compendium which says: "Current availability: At present there are 33 CAT scanners approved for operation across the province. These scanners are or will be in place in the following hospitals."
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a matter of debate.
Mr. Nixon: It certainly is.
The Acting Speaker: In the sense where there is the back and forth participation that is now taking place. The member for Renfrew North has the floor, so please continue. The interjections from the parliamentary assistant are not necessary.
Mr. Sweeney: It sure makes for interesting listening.
The Acting Speaker: And Hansard.
Mr. Conway: The minister of health for Ottawa and eastern Ontario has just arrived, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett). I note his arrival.
I would appreciate some clarification from the parliamentary assistant as to the exact meaning of that list. I was surveying it moments ago while the member for Algoma was on his feet. If that list is at all representative of what is the case and what will be the case, 15 of the 33 approved scanners -- almost 50 per cent -- are in the Metropolitan Toronto region.
Mr. Nixon: Do you mean hog town?
Mr. Conway: According to this appendix, 15 of 33 of these scanners will be located in the Metropolitan Toronto region.
The member for Algoma is quite right in pointing out there will be significantly fewer scanners in northern Ontario. On a per capita basis, I suspect the number will be dramatically lower. I am quite prepared to accept, as the member for Bellwoods so ably pointed out, the fact we are going to have increasing specialization. Hospital centres will develop to utilize these very expensive instruments of high medical technology.
Notwithstanding that, I am rather concerned that, according to this appendix, almost 50 per cent of those approved scanners will be found in Metropolitan Toronto. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has pointed out, with the apparent support of his colleague the member for Brantford, that Brantford will not receive any attention. It does not appear on the appendix.
Only McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay and Sudbury General Hospital are approved in northern Ontario. I gather they both have scanners already. The member for Algoma was pointing out in his remarks that was a community -- Sudbury -- and I remember in a previous incarnation when I was Health critic being in that part of northern Ontario, the Sudbury area, when there was a very active campaign being spearheaded by community leaders to raise the necessary capital funds to have the scanner installed in one of those hospitals.
I say to the parliamentary assistant there does appear to be something of too great an emphasis on Metropolitan Toronto and something of too light an emphasis in terms of northern Ontario. I would like him to address his comments to that and to give some indication of whether northern Ontario might expect an additional CAT scanner.
Knowing of his great interest in our part of the province, I see from the list that the Ottawa Civic Hospital and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario currently have scanners, and approval has been given to the Ottawa General Hospital and the Kingston General Hospital for a scanner to be installed.
I might parenthetically note that one could not imagine the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), the Minister of Health for Ontario, being able to walk in daylight through the streets of historic Kingston and not being able as Minister of Health to announce that he in all his ministerial glory was able to bring, not just OHIP to that fair city but the CAT scanner as well.
For our region, I note that Cornwall is obviously not being considered and neither are Pembroke and Belleville. I do not see Peterborough anywhere on the list. I am sure the Speaker, the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), would be very disappointed to note that his community, one as large as Brantford, as my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk might want to note, is also not being considered. I do not see North Bay on the list as well.
I recognize that not everyone is going to qualify -- that is a given -- but the point that jumps out from this list is that there certainly seems to be a great concentration, not surprisingly, in Metropolitan Toronto and some notable gaps in northern and in eastern Ontario.
Perhaps the parliamentary assistant might address himself to the currency of this list. How are people not on the list ever to expect to gain consideration? What will he be able to say in public to his friend the member for Brantford and my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk about their possible acquisition of this highly prized and very expensive technology?
I want to conclude by noting that perhaps it is inevitable that we have apparently accepted -- and I am told this legislation is to pass with a nod -- in this province that cabinet authority, centralized here at the Legislature and exercised by way of regulation is going very effectively to reach out into these communities. I know the parliamentary assistant would want to say and will say, I am sure, when he rises to his feet that since we are paying much of the bill we should have some say about where the technological developments are allowed to take place.
I look at Bill 27 and think about the principle and what that same principle might mean in terms of its application elsewhere. I vividly remember from my own recollection of the debate we had here about two years ago on Bill 113, An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act, an amendment that gave the cabinet of this province very great powers to intervene directly and significantly in the operations of public general hospitals. It was the old Toronto East General Hospital amendment that the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) might want to look up some time.
9:10 p.m.
I see something of a pattern here that worries me a bit in that we have, and we will with the passage of Bill 27, formalized and credited to the executive council yet another extremely important instrument of centralized authority. This will have a dramatic impact on the conduct and capacity of local health authorities and on local citizens anxious to expand their health care infrastructure.
I know my friend the member for Carleton is interested in this debate because he has been watching and probably is playing a part in the debate in the national capital right now. The priority lists of the Ottawa-Carleton regional district health council do not seem to recommend themselves to the ministry of which he is so ably the parliamentary assistant.
According to a report in our English-language daily in the national capital region the other day, neither the parliamentary assistant nor his friend the Minister of Health has been able to give the people of the region or the health council either a clear understanding or a clear explanation of why the Ministry of Health has different priorities for the region than does the health council.
Perhaps unbeknownst to the member for Carleton, the authorities have been dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) who, I learned from my medical friends in Ottawa, has enormous sway on these matters of social policy, to say nothing of other provincial policy in the Ottawa and eastern Ontario region.
It does concern me somewhat that through this kind of legislation we are increasing the centralized authority by means of which the executive council, the cabinet and the Ministry of Health, through regulation, can very directly control the allocation of important health resources in Ontario.
It may be the price we have to pay for our very public health care delivery system. If that is the price we have to pay, however, I think it is incumbent upon members of this Legislature at least to note it as the power builds by dint of the passage of this kind of legislation.
I resume my seat inviting my friend the member for Carleton, the parliamentary assistant, to help me better understand the specific application and currency of the appendix attached to the compendium.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, partly to correct the record but also partly to make a point, I would like to make a comment or two on the bill.
My question arises out of the comments of the member for Brantford, who observed there were four CAT scanners in Hamilton located in four hospitals. There are only three Hamilton institutions on the list. If this is indeed the case, I would like the record to stand corrected. There are, in fact, three CAT scanners in Hamilton.
Especially since the addition of the McMaster University Medical Centre but even before that time, Hamilton has been a major medical centre. It has been a centre for a high degree of specialization in a number of areas. At present the pressure of the population on CAT scanner facilities in that city is such that there is at least one month's waiting list for anyone who wishes to get that kind of examination.
I would also like to observe that if three is the accurate number, when one looks at the greater Hamilton area -- excluding nearby cities such as Brantford, but just taking in Stoney Creek, Hamilton, Dundas and Burlington -- there is a population of some 600,000, which means one CAT scanner to every 200,000 people. The 15 located in Toronto work out to an average of one for every 150,000 of population.
I am not aware whether there is some rational reason for that kind of distribution difference and I would like to have an explanation of that, if I could. It does seem to me that if Toronto has been reasonably allocated 15 CAT scanners, then it underlines the claim of a number of smaller communities with hospital populations in the vicinity of 200,000 that they should have that kind of facility available. It also suggests that the Hamilton region hospital system, with the specialization it offers and the ancillary services that go with a CAT scanning facility, certainly needs to move somewhat in the direction of Toronto in terms of the number of CAT scanner implacements.
That is all I wish to observe. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can comment upon the figures if the record does need to stand corrected.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to remember all the questions that were asked and as briefly as possible to answer them all.
There is a fourth in Hamilton, Henderson General Hospital, which does not appear on the list, unfortunately.
Mr. Nixon: Are there any other omissions?
Mr. Mitchell: I do not have the master list, so I cannot confirm that.
I would like to say to the member for Algoma, that not only have I had the pleasure of visiting his riding and a couple of very nice spots up there, but I have the pleasure as well of having his mother-in-law as a constituent.
I want to assure the members opposite that I believe there are 33 CAT scanners approved to be installed or actually being installed at this time. However, we do expect in the vicinity of six additional applications this year. When we say there are 32 or 33, we do not mean that is the limit. There are criteria I think one would rightly expect to find, however, because the equipment is very expensive -- $1 million to $1.2 million, plus up to $500,000 a year to operate. It really depends on the number of scans that it is to be used for during the year. Going through some of those criteria may be useful.
Please do not forget that we are talking about an X-ray device. If I can make a personal observation, I have had people talk to me about their concern over the number of X-rays they are given when they go to a dentist, for example. We have read in the newspapers that sometimes people are a little concerned.
We are talking about a very narrow X-ray device here.
This device has been dealt with since 1977 under the Public Health Act, but since we now have the Health Protection and Promotion Act, it should rightfully be included under the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act. It is very expensive, not only by way of capital cost, but in operational costs. I know members would want to be sure that it is in the right place, in a facility where it can be properly operated and where those people who are being examined by the device know they are in the best possible hands.
These criteria are basic for the acceptance or installation of a CAT scanner and cannot be taken in isolation. There should be a minimum referral population of 300,000. I will grant that the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) did raise some figures, and there is no doubt there are adjustments, but that figure is basic.
Geographically isolated areas as well may be given special consideration. There is also a requirement that the machine should be able to provide at least 3,000 scans per year per unit.
9:20 p.m.
Another requirement is that each hospital that applies must be able to demonstrate it will be able to recruit -- it involves X-rays and we want to be sure it is properly handled -- the proper professional and technical staff who are able not only to operate it and use it but also to make sure the thing is functioning properly.
Mr. Nixon: Surely the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) can get those for you.
Mr. Mitchell: Listen, I have not mentioned that we are now going beyond this. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) may not be aware, but there is talk in Ottawa of a device that does not fit within the X-ray category but is now being sought after by some of the trauma centres. I am referring to an NMR; I think it is correctly called nuclear magnetic resonance.
Mr. Conway: Claude, we have got to get one of those for Ottawa.
Mr. Mitchell: There is a request in from Ottawa; I should make the member aware of that.
Each hospital also has to prove first that it has the financial resources to purchase the equipment and the ability to operate the equipment without incurring a financial deficit. We also must remember that recommendations in support of CAT scanners must be made by the district health council in the area and forwarded to the minister for his consideration.
It has been clearly recognized that this ministry provides $150,000 towards the operating costs of each unit. However, hospitals may apply for capital renovation costs for installing a scanner; the ministry may agree to pay two thirds of these costs if the project is considered acceptable and if sufficient funds are available.
I hope the criteria I have indicated may help answer the question of why a machine is not in Brantford, in Sault Ste. Marie or in other places. I do not want to say tonight they will not get one, because that would be as wrong as saying they are going to get one tomorrow.
Mr. Wildman: The Minister of Labour said that in 1981.
Mr. Mitchell: Well, unfortunately, I will not do that. But I think it is fair to say I am aware there is this request from the Sault and that the support appears to be there, again bearing in mind the cost of operating and the capital cost, and the member has assured me they have raised the money.
It would be absolutely wrong of me to say it will happen; but I think it is also fair to say the request is there and very serious consideration will be given, bearing in mind that I hope it has the support of the district health council.
Mr. Haggerty: Why would it not have the support of the district health council?
Mr. Mitchell: It depends on the priority lists that the district health councils have. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, or perhaps it was the member for Renfrew North, raised the issue of what appears to be a divergence of views or opinions as to what the district health council is saying and what are its --
Mr. Haggerty: They are an arm of your ministry.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Mitchell: In any event, I have attempted, I hope, to answer the questions --
Mr. Nixon: They take the blame; you take the credit.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Carleton is responding in final form to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I must be honest. I have appreciated the questions raised this evening. I am not sure I have answered them all, but I have tried to do so by pointing out the criteria required for the use and provision of a CAT scanner. If questions were raised that I have not answered, I assure the members I will go through Hansard and make sure they are answered.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
House in committee of the whole.
MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 42, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.
On section 1:
Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying when I adjourned this debate on the evening of Tuesday, October 11, 1983, Bill 42 is a very serious and important piece of legislation in which this Legislative Assembly ought to take considerable interest. From speaking to my friends the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and others, I know there is a keen, ongoing interest in this legislation.
Mindful of the fact that we had this bill carried over from a previous session, I want first to report that at last count the Canadiens were leading three to one halfway through the second period. Is that correct? If they continue that, I will lose $10 tonight. I hope the government House leader can bring reports to me as I continue with these remarks.
I am a little surprised to see this bill back in the House and on the agenda so early in the spring session. Just to refresh everyone's memory, Bill 42, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, has as its principal provision legislative control by this government of operating budgets at the 15 or 16 Ontario universities.
The bill requires that "no university shall incur in any fiscal year a cumulative deficit in its operating fund that is in excess of two per cent of its operating revenue for the year." Bill 42 also requires that universities "make such financial reports to the minister, in such form, containing such information and by such dates as the minister may require."
The bill also provides for the appointment of one or more persons to investigate and report on the financial situation of a university. The Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to "appoint a university supervisor for a university where, having regard to the content of the report of an investigation...the Lieutenant Governor in Council is of the opinion that...the financial situation at the university" is such that action should be taken to improve it.
The university supervisor is required to provide "advice and guidance to the governing body and the chief executive officer of the university." The university supervisor may request that "the governing body or the chief executive officer do any act that they have authority to do" and may do the act on their behalf if they fail to comply with his request.
Provision is made for reports by the university supervisor to the minister. The appointment of the university supervisor continues in force until terminated by the order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Investigators and university supervisors are protected against personal liability.
The kernel of the bill is contained in the latter sections, which provide for the creation and the mandate of the university supervisor.
9:30p.m.
As members will know from their careful reading of this legislation and from a cursory examination or perhaps a more thorough examination of the minister's statement to the standing committee on social development, to which the bill was referred last September, it is the intention of the government by dint of this legislation, as the minister would argue, to better manage the transfer payments the provincial Treasury allocates to the university community. This year the government will transfer to the universities something in the order of $1.125 billion, if I am correct. If I am incorrect, I am sure my friend the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) will correct me.
We have before us a bill that has some acceptable components. On previous occasions I have indicated my willingness to support the minister in her very understandable and justifiable desire to better understand the way in which the universities that receive this $1-billion transfer spend those funds.
I think the minister has made a case, one that is justifiable, for improving the reporting mechanism, though we did hear in the committee that there was a willingness on all sides, quite apart from this legislation, to provide the government generally and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities particularly with any information they would request. Quite frankly, there seems to be some confusion as to what it is the government wants in terms of information that it has not yet received.
We last dealt with this bill late in December 1983, late in the session that terminated on the 16th of that month. I remember the date well, because I was returning through the snows of mid-December from the great reaches of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, where my friend the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) bested me yet again.
Before leaving for that fateful and fatal day, I remember being told by the minister about the conditions I had set for the speedy passage of Bill 42, and there were three, to quickly cover that ground again.
First, in September I had indicated to the minister that I wanted a clarification of the government's attitude and of the public policy of the present government vis-à-vis accessibility to universities in this province. I see some provincial student leaders in the galleries tonight. They really deserve the credit for this, because my good friend the member for Hamilton West and I were not successful in gleaning from the minister a revised interpretation of the John Robarts-James Allan-William Davis Ministry of Education version of the commitment.
The student leaders of the province, in a meeting with the minister held some time about mid-November, elicited a very direct, almost dramatic and most helpful elucidation from the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Education (Miss Stephenson) as to precisely what government policy was. It was, as has been reported in the public press, along the lines of the earlier Robarts-Davis commitment. I thanked the minister for that then and I thank her for it again.
The second condition I had set -- and I do not want to sound too unilateral, because of course I am not -- was that I had asked the minister to address the whole question of the operating grants formula. As the minister knows, there are a number of universities in this province that, having experienced serious deficits in the past two, three or four years, have developed recovery programs that have been and would be still seriously affected by any significant changes to the operating grants formula.
Some universities have made no secret of their recovery strategy, and a number communicated them to me as well as, I am sure, to members of the government. I cannot imagine the universities in the Toronto area not confiding in my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), the parliamentary assistant to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, a man who has keen interest in these matters of higher education. I know the member for High Park-Swansea would have been apprised of the concerns of York University, for example, with respect to its views on any amended operating grants formula. The minister did make some comment about that, but not as complete a comment as I might have expected.
The third point I had set for the consideration of the minister with regard to the speedy passage of Bill 42 had to do with an amendment I introduced that night in October, I believe, striking out those parts of the bill which give the university supervisor created by this legislation anything beyond an advisory role. I do not believe the minister has indicated yet that she is at all prepared to accept that amendment.
At any rate, those were the three conditions I had set for the minister in terms of the passage of Bill 42 through this House.
In fairness to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, she indicated in the later days of that fall session that she was at work on a package or a statement. I do not want to either misstate her case or misrepresent it, but I think I remember it well enough to say that back in December, when we discussed this bill, sometimes in the presence of the government House leader, the minister indicated she was working on a package or a statement that would appease my concerns --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Some of them.
Mr. Conway: Some of them -- and make the passage of the bill as smooth as it could possibly be. It is not often the Minister of Colleges and Universities makes that kind of an offer, at least it has not been my experience, although I have not had too many bills with which to test her.
I remember the day and the place well. It was mid-afternoon on December 15. The sun was setting and it was getting very cold. I was in a phone booth at the four corners, I believe, in Winchester Springs. Oh, it was cold. It was election day in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and the minister was there almost as often as I, saying --
Mr. Nixon: Was the member not conveying a message from the departed?
Mr. Conway: Yes, as my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said. I will never forget that front-page story in the Morrisburg Leader. I will tell members I thought that was, if nothing else, reminiscent of Mackenzie King. It was quite a thing to say, but different strokes for different folks. I will give the Minister of Colleges and Universities the benefit of that front page. She may not have seen the story, but it was a very interesting revelation that she offered the people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry late in that campaign.
Mr. Mancini: What did she tell them? Tell us.
Mr. Conway: No, I would prefer not to, under these conditions; but I think the minister should --
Mr. Nixon: I do not think that would be in order.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Conway: I do not think it would be either, actually. It certainly is not unparliamentary, but it is something that struck me as very interesting.
Anyway, I was in a phone booth, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), having spent the morning in Winchester trying to get the Liberal vote out.
Mr. Nixon: Which he did, and he was ready to come home at 9:15.
Mr. Conway: That is why I was available in phone booths in mid-afternoon. I phoned my office and said: "I hear the minister has delivered her package. What is it that will now allow me to drive back to Toronto tonight, defeated or victorious, to wind up the session and accommodate the minister in her concern?"
It was that day in December 1983 that the minister quite dramatically rose in her place and read a statement of --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not dramatically at all. It was very straightforward.
Mr. Conway: I find the Minister of Education is most often dramatic in her pronouncements. I was not here that day; I will accept her word for it. The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) nods approvingly, but I cannot believe the minister was not both firm and dramatic as she read this 20-page statement in the House. That statement changed dramatically the context of Bill 42 and the debate related to it.
I must give the minister some credit because I have been in this House and in its committees pressing her, sometimes to her discomfiture and to mine, about the nature and extent of her response to her deputy minister's famous report of August 1981. For two and a half years, the Minister of Colleges and Universities publicly said little about what it is and what it was the government of Ontario intended to do in response to the famous Fisher report that I have almost worn out from reading. I invited her, plaintively and pleasantly and a lot in between and otherwise, to set a course as she has done in other policy areas of her imperial mandate, to strike the direction for the future that was called for.
Mr. Sweeney: To do something.
Mr. Conway: As my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot says, to do something.
Mr. Sweeney: Anything.
Mr. Conway: Not just anything, but certainly to do something. To give the minister credit, she did on that day in December last year rise in her place and for the first time formally react to the challenge set in place some 28 months earlier by her then and still deputy minister, Dr. Harry Fisher et al.
In striking the Bovey commission, or the Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario -- do I have that right? That is what the order in council says.
Mr. Van Horne: With a little dash of mustard.
Mr. Conway: With a little dash of mustard; I do not know about that. I think that look probably says it better than anything.
The appointment of the Bovey commission was an extremely important appointment by this government and this minister. I do not minimize the importance of that commission. I have said elsewhere and I will repeat now that I believe this Bovey commission to be quite apart from the traditional government commission. I really think this is a commission unlike other commissions. I might be wrong, but the minister says I am not. It is very important for this Legislature, seized as it is at present of a growing interest in the health and future prospects of our Ontario universities, to monitor very carefully the operations of that commission.
I was disappointed to hear the comment of some who had been joining me for those many months and those years between August 1981 and December 1983 who had asked, along with myself, for some kind of a reaction to the Fisher choices; I was disappointed, and I communicated my disappointment directly to some of my friends in, for example, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, such as Bill Jones, president, a very capable and constructive player in this important business; I was disappointed that some people immediately jumped on the commission and said it was really bad news and it was an example of how the government had failed and surely the minister would want to resign. They certainly gave the impression this was not a commission they wanted much to do with.
I think OCUFA, as it always does, made some very important points in its initial observations but I do think it went too far. I think, having complained about the silence and inactivity, in a public sense, of the government's response to the challenges set out two and a half years ago it is not adequate for any of us to, once an action, however controversial, is taken, to immediately suggest that the minister ought to resign.
I am prepared to give Mr. Bovey and his partners, Messrs. Watts and Mustard, the opportunity to go forward with their very important mandate.
What is that mandate? It is a mandate which materially impacts on Bill 42. Again I say to the minister I do not understand why, given the Bovey commission's mandate, we are here tonight dealing with Bill 42.
Some days ago, I think it was on supply, I indicated to the House my anxiety that the minister might try to return with Bill 42 to seek its passage before the Bovey commission reported by mid-November of this year. I had hoped, from some of the indications I gathered indirectly from the government House leader, the bill might be stood down, as I think it should, until we have the benefit of that commission.
The minister might care to nod or otherwise gesture to indicate a response to what I am going to say, but I heard late this afternoon that the Parrott commission is now going to be folded into the Bovey commission.
Mr. Nixon: The minister has a large repertoire of gestures; would you care to select one?
Mr. Conway: I heard late this afternoon from authoritative sources that much, if not all, of the mandate that Dr. Parrott had to reorganize the university community in northeastern Ontario would now be taken up by the Bovey commission.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not really.
Mr. Conway: The minister says not really.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: They cannot really do their job without looking at the Parrott commission.
Mr. Conway: Exactly. The minister, in an aside, said they cannot really do their job without looking at the Parrott commission. I appreciate that intervention. I understand absolutely what she is saying and I could not agree more wholeheartedly. She has never made more sense in her eight and a half years of distinguished parliamentary life here.
9:50 p.m.
I ask the minister, having recognized that Dr. Parrott and his colleagues at the commission looking into the reorganization of the university community in northeastern Ontario cannot do their work without taking account of the Bovey commission, how can she realistically expect this Legislature to enact legislation that will provide this government with very important new powers of intervention with respect to the university community while an extremely important commission is at work reviewing critical components of the university question at this point in Ontario life and history?
I really fail to understand how that should be allowed to happen. I believe we were told by the Minister of Education, and certainly by others who were supporting Bill 42 in the committee stage in the committee hearings back in September, 1983, such as Dr. Matthews, the former chairman of the Ontario Council on University Affairs, the current president of the University of Guelph, that Bill 42 would be a useful signal to the university community.
We were told the bill would set up a clear statement in front of university administrators, student leaders, faculty associations and the community at large that the provincial government, headed by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Education, was simply not going to tolerate a policy of calculated deficit spending by any university or any group of universities in this province.
The minister and her supporters on that committee made it even more clear by stating that while they felt very strongly attached to this new signal, they did not feel any great emergency and, quite frankly, did not expect the bill in its full provisions would have to be often or ever applied.
Therefore, I take the minister at her own word. This bill, as it is currently written, is most helpful and is most useful as a signal to the university community that the minister and the ministry, in the broadest sense of that phrase, are not going to tolerate a premeditated policy of deficit spending at any of the Ontario universities, or at least a policy whereby significant deficits are run up on the ordinary account without any provision being made for their retirement.
The minister knows I was concerned about some of the --
Mr. McClellan: Retirement?
Mr. Conway: Yes, for the benefit of the member for Bellwoods, I did say to the House that the minister and the ministry were apparently concerned, in some cases I think for good reasons, about the apparent desire of some universities to run up significant deficits on their ordinary account with no plan for their ultimate retirement.
A few years ago, one of the universities in the national capital region probably challenged the minister very directly on that particular point.
I will just take the minister back to what she said and what Dr. Matthews indicated in those hearings seven or eight months ago. Basically, they said to the legislative committee and to the community beyond: "We are not happy about this deficit situation. We are not going to tolerate it. This Bill 42 is a clear signal to those in the university community that we are going to take a hardline approach. We do not expect to have to use this legislation in full force soon, often or perhaps ever. However, it certainly will be," we in the committee were told, "a very useful instrument by means of which we can discipline the university community to the realities of the early mid-1980's in which restraint must be the order of the day."
I do not know how many university administrators read the press today to take note of the advertising budget increases in the Ontario government. As the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and the member for York South (Mr. Rae) pointed out today, it appears that restraint is a very selective doctrine.
Back to the main point, Mr. Chairman. The minister made it rather clear to the committee in September that this bill does not have great urgency because, more than anything else, we want to get the signal out. There is no question that the very tabling of the bill, its first reading, gave the community a very clear indication and a very clear signal of the ministry's intention.
I did not bring the compendium with me tonight, but the department provided a very useful compendium to Bill 42 in which it set out the surplus and deficit situation of all universities in Ontario as at the end of the 1981-82 fiscal year. A number of our outstanding universities are on that deficit list, and I consider them all to be outstanding. Some of the most notable there are from the northeastern community that Dr. Parrott and his fellow commissioners were looking at, so they have to be separated out in some ways.
The minister will know, and the House should reflect upon, and I know my friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) will want to pay particular attention to the fact that the situation has improved substantially in the past 18 months for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the public sector restraint legislation and a more vigorous attitude on the part of most university administrators. They are simply not going to be able to roll up these deficits, whatever the causes, and a number of causes rest with the Ontario government itself.
Not only does the trend line indicate a significant improvement in the deficit situation of Ontario universities, so the message has clearly gone out and there seems to be an attitude of compliance on the part of most, if not all, of the boards of governors and the administrators, but we also have from the ministry itself a statement: "The bill is not urgent. We do not need it just yet; we could certainly do without its enactment for some time to come because really we do not plan to use it often, if ever."
One has to ask, as we did in the committee and I remember particularly the interventions of the government members for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) and for Humber (Mr. Kells) who joined with others in the opposition back in September in wondering why we were enacting something we really did not need because the problem seemed to be correcting itself rather well.
Against all of that backdrop, the minister has now gone forward and struck the Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario, the so-called Bovey commission. The minister's statement, though read in my absence, has captured my attention for many a day since that time in mid-December 1983. I do not know who penned the draft, although I see some very able talent just behind the throne and underneath the press gallery. I can well imagine how some of those mandarins, to use the word in its proper context, could have authored this 20-page document.
It is a very interesting document and I wanted to touch briefly upon some of the highlights of the minister's statement. I think it is extremely important for this Legislature to understand the context in which we now must debate Bill 42. It is a very different context.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I thought we were in clause-by-clause debate.
Mr. Conway: Yes, we are.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Are we not?
The Deputy Chairman: As far as the House is concerned, if the members wish to take it clause by clause, they may.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's what I thought.
Mr. Conway: We provided the opportunity for the government to --
The Deputy Chairman: Does the member want to go section by section?
Mr. Conway: In a general sense, I am beginning, as I am entitled to do.
The Deputy Chairman: Then I am wide open.
Mr. Conway: That is right, and I intend to make an introductory statement, summarizing the bill and the new context, because there is an extremely different environment in which this Bill 42 now finds itself.
10 p.m.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, because I have great respect for your insight in these matters, that this statement grew out of our last legislative debate on Bill 42, this statement and this commission, in part at least; it might have had all sorts of other --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You presume too much.
Mr. Conway: I probably do. I only know what I know, and I know.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not enough.
Mr. Conway: As I said the other night in Delhi -- oh, I had better not.
Mr. Nixon: Go ahead.
Mr. Conway: I will not. It was a good time the other night in Delhi, I must say to my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps you should complete your thought there.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that the minister told me she would have a statement, a package that would ameliorate my nervous concern about certain aspects of Bill 42, and here it is. I want to review some of its comments because they are indeed important.
I see the minister smiling, undoubtedly at her correspondence.
Mr. Nixon: She has gas.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Never.
Mr. Conway: The minister? Mr. Chairman, please, I would hope the two distinguished members for York Mills and particularly for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk could be kept entirely in parliamentary lines.
Mr. Nixon: We have a new baby at home and he smiles like that.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: What is his name?
Mr. Nixon: Alexander.
Mr. Conway: The minister in her statement began: "Mr. Speaker, there has been in recent months, and indeed in recent years, a great deal of discussion about the role of universities in today's society and the structure of the university system and the various government policies that have attended the development of the universities in this province over the past two decades." And here was a line I really liked -- chutzpah, I think Stephen Lewis would call it: "In recent months, I have intentionally encouraged discussion on these matters."
I must say to the minister she certainly did. I think she perhaps was being a little more or less candid there than might have otherwise been imagined. She certainly did in the summer of 1983, for example, intentionally encourage perhaps more discussion than she ever imagined by saying first: "Well, I do not know. John Robarts, Bill Davis and Jim Allan might have made a commitment about accessibility to a university place in this province to every qualified student, but if he or they did, I cannot find it." It is certainly not clear to me that that really is the government commitment.
Of course, as the minister knows, there was not an editorial penned, from Kenora to Cornwall or from York Mills to Timmins, that was silent on this subject. With those student leaders, some of whom are in this chamber tonight, in mid-November she certainly had a statement to make after that three-and-a-half month discussion. We have come full circle.
I noted in her statement as well that the minister went on to talk about how in 1959 the Honourable James Allan, Treasurer of Ontario, had stated, "The government's objective was to ensure that no student who has the capacity will be deprived of the opportunity of attending university and of developing his talents to the fullest possible extent."
She went on to quote the Premier (Mr. Davis) in 1965, who said -- the minister quoting her colleague the then minister, now Premier: "We probably must now recognize the inevitability of some form of post-secondary education...for all capable of profiting from it."
I certainly appreciated in that statement a recantation of those sacred commitments from her Conservative forebears in that historic portfolio which she now occupies.
She went on talking in the statement about the relationship between government and the universities. She said: "The basis of the government's policy has been in place for many decades. Post-secondary education has developed on the basis of a diversity of institutions rather than on a single institution."
She took us through a recital of the Spinks commission which I thought was both interesting and helpful. She got a little bit revisionist at the bottom of page 4 when she interpreted the following:
"While indicating its preference for the decentralized system in place at the present time, the Committee on the Future Role of Universities in Ontario foresaw" -- that is the Fisher group's report -- "that government intervention would be needed under certain scenarios." The Fisher group, "indicated a preference in circumstances of financial stringency for a one-time intervention for the purposes of restructuring, followed by a return to a decentralized system of autonomous institutions."
Let me stop there and commend the minister and her staff on a remarkable interpretation, or a remarkable distillation, of what they deemed to be the essential Fisher 1981 conclusion. Extraordinarily, they would have one believe -- I should not say they because the minister, as always, would want to accept full responsibility for the statement. She would unbelievably expect people to believe the justification for significant intervention in the university community can be found in the Fisher group's final report in August 1981.
It is true Fisher et al in their final report imagined a situation, particularly in chapter 6, of how the government would have to move in and very significantly involve itself with university planning on a one-time basis.
When I look at the terms of reference for this commission, I cannot help but believe the Bovey mandate is chapter VII, section 6.0, of the final Fisher report of August 1981. Let me read section 6.0 from The Alternative: A Restructured System, so the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) and the Minister of Education can better understand what I intend when I suggest there is a very good case to link the Bovey mandate with that final chapter in the Fisher report of August 1981.
It says: "If funding throughout the decade" -- of the 1980s -- "is not at the level recommended by the committee in section 2.1 above...." Members will recall it was suggested in that section of the report that if the Ontario government wanted to sustain the university infrastructure it had built, meeting the five objectives which had been struck and which were continually endorsed by the government for the university system, the financial --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: In its current state and without any modification.
Mr. Conway: Let me repeat. My understanding of the Fisher interpretation is that it said if the government of Ontario wanted to maintain the university infrastructure in the current state that had been developed so very well by our friend from Brampton and his predecessor from London North and others back almost to Dr. Ryerson, and if it was going to meet the objectives set for the universities and reinforced in recent months, the funding mechanism and the funding levels would have to be at inflation for at least five years, from 1981 through 1986. This report was finalized in 1981. There would be a capital allowance of $25 million annually to the system for each of those five years.
10:10 p.m.
That level of funding would be required to sustain the system that was in place when the committee was finalizing its report in 1981. That is what is being talked of here when the committee states in its chapter VII:
"If funding throughout the decade is not at the level recommended by the committee in section 2.1 above, but at the level suggested by the May 1981 provincial budget, a major restructuring of the current university system will be needed to provide the best that can be obtained with the available funding."
There is a rather sorrowful, almost defeatist tone to that last sentence.
"This major restructuring would necessitate legislative action, including these or other measures: reducing the number of universities; changing the character of some or all of the universities, and limiting their range of activities; and grouping universities in two or more categories with different missions.
"The degree to which each of these measures will be required is a complex function of the actual availability of funds and the chosen priority for factors such as geographic accessibility, program range and quality, and level of research desired.
"The following restructured system is proposed:
"Ontario would have one comprehensive university capable of offering a very broad range of high-quality programs at all degree levels. The province would not have more than four full-service universities offering a more restricted range of high-quality programs at all degree levels. Also, the province would have four or five special-purpose institutions, including some designed specifically to serve northern Ontario.
"Of the remaining institutions," chapter VII concludes, "some may have to be closed, and the others, to the extent that the accessibility objective is to be met within total funding limitations, will have to be restructured. These institutions would offer high-quality, undergraduate instruction in arts and science, and perhaps the early years of programs in high demand, such as engineering and business.
"The committee recognizes that the action proposed is drastic. The current problems of the universities are such, however, that if funding continues at the level suggested in the May 1981 Ontario budget, it is urgent that action be taken.
"The detailed advice for the restructuring outlined here should come from an implementation task force which should be established immediately. The task force should consist of five or six knowledgeable people, none currently in the Ontario university system. The task force should outline in detail the new university system, including the role of each institution that remains."
That is the end of chapter VII. I certainly thought about that chapter as I went forward in reading the minister's December 15, 1983, dictum where, I reiterate, she noted:
The Fisher group had recommended "in circumstances of financial stringency a one-time intervention for the purposes of restructuring, followed by a return to a decentralized system of autonomous institutions.
"The government indicated, in response to [the Fisher report] that measures such as closure of institutions were unacceptable. Following release of the report, discussions took place among the Premier, the university presidents and myself to identify alternative ways of bringing about the kind of rationalization which the committee felt would be necessary under continued conditions of financial restraint."
Then she went on in the statement to talk about the climate of the 1980s and the 1990s. She indicated that the set of objectives struck by the Ontario Council on University Affairs in 1978 continues to be accepted by the government as the mandate the universities in this province have to fulfil. She noted that in the context of that commitment, "These objectives and commitments of the past have served Ontario well." She goes on to say, "We are now in a new era with new challenges and new needs."
It is logical in these times, therefore, to anticipate a reduced demand for undergraduate post-secondary education, in its traditional forms at least. She indicates the federal government -- God bless the federal government -- is responsible, by dint of the arbitrary removal of the 1977 revenue guarantee and of the imposition of the six and five factor on federal transfers. Ottawa has really created havoc here.
I thought of that the other day when I was reading in a national capital daily that one senior Ontario cabinet minister said, "We really ought to have an election provincially in Ontario in June of this year, because can you imagine having an Ontario election without a federal Liberal government to run against?" I think it was on page 2 of Thursday's Ottawa Citizen. "Senior Ontario cabinet minister says, 'Can you imagine not having a federal Liberal government to run against?'" As long as it is around, and it may be around for a longer time --
Mr. Kolyn: Was he named?
Mr. Conway: Oh, not named. One is never named over there when one is offering insider information about such sensitive things.
Mr. McClellan: Dalton Camp even says that today, too, in the Toronto Sun.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member would be surprised.
Mr. Conway: I am sometimes surprised. Yes, I was very surprised that day in December to read on the front page of the Morrisburg Leader the minister's observations about certain things that were germane to the writ to be returned on December 15. I will tell the members after we finish. The minister may perhaps have been quoted inaccurately, but it was quite a dramatic statement.
The minister goes on with stating that the government of Ontario places a great priority on the development of its human resources. She talks about the need. "We can no longer afford," she says in her statement, "in economic or social terms to maintain any system of education without more precise targets, more defined directions and more responsive institutions and programs to meet the needs of Ontario."
Then she gets into the specific mandate of the commission. Here is where very important questions arise. To begin with, she indicates and she relies upon some studies done by Professor Peter Leslie, of Queen's University I believe if memory serves me correctly, that the greatest problem facing Canadian higher education is the ageing of the university faculty.
The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), let the record note, says, "Hear, hear."
Mr. Shymko: We are all eager.
Mr. Conway: It is good to see the member for High Park-Swansea and his ministerial supervisors here in the same chamber at the same time.
The minister, in her first statement about the terms of reference of the Bovey commission, says we must consider proposals to deal with the critical question of faculty renewal. "Faculty renewal," she says, "will be a cornerstone of the government's plans for our revitalized system in the 1980s and 1990s." With that, she inflamed the collective passions of every faculty association and faculty member in Ontario.
Mr. Cassidy: No kidding.
Mr. Conway: I would tell the member for Ottawa Centre that she really did. She began this whole commission's mandate by almost a declaration of war on the faculty associations, which responded almost in kind. I was surprised to read in her statement that the cornerstone of the government's renewed, restructured university system is going to be a process or a mechanism of faculty renewal.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a means to permit it to happen.
Mr. Conway: It is a means to permit it to happen. I find it very interesting because the minister knows this full well, because she had about the same day legislated in that area for educators in the elementary and secondary panel. I think I am right in saying one of the last bills passed before Christmas was the Teachers' Superannuation Amendment Act. Am I correct in that? I think I am.
I may be incorrect in thinking, as a lot of people think, that the way to achieve faculty renewal, if the minister is concerned about an ageing population in the faculty associations, about an ageing faculty generally, is to provide the financial incentives.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Are you suggesting that is not a possibility? Your imagination is very limited if you are suggesting you do not believe that.
Mr. Conway: The minister is a very able lady and she knows exactly how her words are interpreted or how they might be responded to in the community beyond.
I will not recite or call to mind some of the comments made by the member for York Mills, the Minister of Education, in a recent excursion to the Niagara Peninsula. But when I followed her down to the Niagara and St. Catharines area a few weeks ago, the local press regaled me with accounts of what she had had to say about the problem of an ageing faculty in Ontario. The only person about whom she had more colourful things to say was my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), about whom --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not recall mentioning that at all.
Mr. Conway: I will get the minister the appropriate references, but she certainly was quoted as saying -- and again I stand to be corrected, because I had not intended to touch upon it, not tonight at least --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have touched on everything else; you might as well touch on that.
Mr. Conway: Well, it is very important because the minister herself indicated in her statement setting the Bovey commission in place that the cornerstone of her reform, her renewal and her restructuring is faculty renewal. I say to the minister that, as someone who legislated in that area for elementary and secondary panels in late December, she knows full well if she wants to deal with creating the process for new blood in the system, the mechanism she will have to develop is essentially a financial one.
She is quite aware, I am sure, of what her choices in that area are. To start her reform, her renewal, her restructuring by stating her cornerstone is going to be this, has, rightly or wrongly, inflamed a lot of the faculty members in this province, has upset those who are not inflamed and has concerned a variety of people in between.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: And I have been cheered by a significant number of faculties.
Mr. Conway: The minister says she has been cheered. The cheerers have not really been battering down my door, but I guess that is no great surprise.
I think it was unfortunate, because I am prepared to give this commission an opportunity to do some of the important work that has to be done.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is magnanimous of you, I must say.
Mr. Conway: I have tried to be magnanimous. I have been more magnanimous on the average than I believe my colleague the member for York Mills has been. When I read what she had to say about the member for St. Catharines in her most recent visit to the peninsula, I was disposed to believe --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I just said he was a dear little boy.
Mr. Conway: Let me bring in that clipping, because it was when I --
Mr. Nixon: How could anybody be critical of Bradley?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Your leader did a good job of describing him, I must say, and this one as well -- perhaps not quite as accurate as this one, but pretty close.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Back to the bill.
Mr. Nixon: Opposition makes strange bed-fellows.
Mr. Conway: There are days when I am not unhappy that the minister did not run for us in 1975, but those days are few and far between.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am certainly glad to know that, and it was not 1975; it was 1971.
Mr. Nixon: Or even earlier. She was just a girl.
Mr. Conway: The admission leaks out.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. I had no intention of doing it. It was your enticement.
Mr. Nixon: Ah, she was the only girl who ever turned me down.
Mr. Conway: I say to the minister I think she set back her own cause by the phraseology and the prominence she gave to that faculty renewal cornerstone in her mandate. I invite her to try, wherever possible, to tone down some of the rhetoric that has upset a very important part of the university community in this province.
I want to reiterate this because it is important. She said in her opening statement setting this commission in place: "The government sees a need to appoint a commission to produce a detailed operational plan to effect changes in the university system to address these issues."
I say to the rest of the assembly we would do well to monitor carefully the developments of the Bovey commission, because it is a commission of extraordinary importance and one I suspect is going to have some very critically important things to say for each and every citizen in Ontario.
The minister went on to talk about her desire to have the commissioners look at ways and means of differentiating the system to avoid costly, needless duplication. That is given to the commissioners as an important part of their mandate.
The minister said: "I believe the universities of tomorrow should have a more clearly defined, different and distinctive role. Each one of those should assume a character and a structure which is consistent and compatible with that role. I also believe this plan for tomorrow can be accomplished without reducing the number of universities in Ontario, although fundamental changes may be necessary to some or to all of the institutions. Each university cannot aspire to universality."
I ask members to reflect upon that term of reference and to connect it to the last paragraphs of chapter VI in the Fisher report. It is almost a direct linkage and one I note on that account.
The minister indicated as well in her terms of reference to the commissioners that they are to look at not only a differentiated university system but also a system whereby there can be established "highly specialized, designated-purpose institutes through co-operative involvement of the universities and the business sector... The commission will consider the designation of specific universities as centres of specialization with a view to preserving and developing further a calibre of teaching and research that is characteristic of those that play a pivotal role in Canada with their international reputations."
It was in that connection that I was quite struck to hear the minister take her place in statements on Friday, April 13, 1984, and announce, happily for my friends at the University of Waterloo, a $31-million capital grant over four years to the University of Waterloo towards the construction and alteration of facilities for the Institute of Computer Research.
Mr. McClellan: Pull the plug. Time.
Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Bellwoods calls my attention to the time, Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: It might be an appropriate time --
Mr. Conway: -- and I always do as the member for Bellwoods suggests. On that good advice, and reminding the minister that when we return to this debate I will want to expand upon the mandate she struck for this commission and to look specifically at how it will impact, and is currently impacting, upon the provisions of Bill 42. I will adjourn the debate.
Mr. Chairman: There is no need to adjourn the debate.
On motion by Hon. Miss Stephenson, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.