BOILERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT
VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
BOILERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 5, An Act to amend the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) spoke on this bill and indicated we in this party were going to oppose it. He gave some of the reasons for our opposition to it. I rise to endorse and concur in what he said and perhaps give a little further information on why we think it is a mistake to pass this legislation.
I am one of those persons who worked for 25 years in a plant where the vessels were under extremely high pressure, something in the neighbourhood of 225 pounds per square inch, and I am very conscious, as were the other employees who were there, of the hazards of working with those pressures. I am conscious also of the fact that before the government inspectors came around there was always work being done on those vessels and compressors to ensure they would meet with the approval of the government inspectors.
I think we should recognize in this bill -- and likely we all do -- that we are not just saying the inspectors for the insurance companies may take over the duties of the government inspectors. In fact, in section 1 of the bill, amending subsection 32(3) of the act, the chief inspector for the government may exempt any owner of a plant operating 24 hours a day seven days a week from the requirements of subsection 32(1). In other words, there need be no inspection at all in those plants.
I suggest that even though the parliamentary assistant -- it may have been the minister, I have forgotten now -- stated the government expects these permits will be given out infrequently and only after a great deal of consideration, the probability is that two, three or five years from now those exemptions will be the rule rather than the exception. It concerns me that we are reducing the safety of the repairs and the operations of these high-pressure boilers and other pressure vessels.
I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that even an inspector for the insurance company is not nearly as independent as a government inspector. The government inspector has only one interest and that is the safety of that vessel and the safety of the operators. An insurance company wants to keep the insurance with that particular company. They have other interests besides the safety of the operators and the safety of that vessel and I suggest it is not unfair to state they are not quite as independent as a government investigator would be.
I am afraid too that another part of the application of this bill will be that it will force all companies to have insurance. That may be desirable, but they know they can get away with what they now say are delays if they have an insurance company which does the inspecting when there is a breakdown and when repairs have to be made. I suggest this to some extent is a deliberate attempt to force the 15 per cent or so of the companies that do not have the boiler insurance now to carry such insurance.
I am concerned too that not only are the present inspectors by and large opposed to this change in the legislation -- the parliamentary assistant shakes his head, but oh yes, they are; I have talked to some of them. The stationary engineers, who operate some 1,700 boiler systems in Ontario, have not even been consulted on this proposed legislation -- at least they tell me they have not been consulted on it -- and they tell me they are opposed to it. I talked, for instance, to Mr. Bert Duisberg of 915 Shepherd Street in Windsor, who is president of the stationary engineers union, and he tells me he has not been consulted on that, that he is opposed to it.
I also talked to Mr. Bob Maloney a month ago. I want to be frank about that. He is not only the general vice-president of the stationary engineers union but is also the representative on the review committee. He also told me he is opposed to this legislation, that it had never been discussed with the stationary engineers. These are the people who are operating these high-pressure boilers and other high-pressure vessels.
Surely they should have been consulted in this. When the parliamentary assistant gets up he will say why they were not consulted, or if they have been recently he will tell us what their opinion was. I am also concerned that in subsection 3 of clause 1, where there is an exemption, there is not even a provision there for notifying the section of the ministry responsible for boilers and pressure vessels about any breakdown. They do not even have to notify them, for that matter, about any explosion that may take place.
It seems to us, on balance, that passage of this legislation is inadvisable. As my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out, we do not have any evidence to date -- although I accept the validity of it -- that there have been substantial delays because a government inspector has not got there when the repair work was completed, so they get back into operation quickly. We do not have any evidence before us. All we have before us is a bill which is going to lessen government responsibility for the safety of boilers in Ontario.
At a time when surely there is a trend towards greater health and safety in the work place, those of us who are concerned about this matter cannot support the bill before us. Therefore, as my colleague for Ottawa Centre said, we in the New Democratic Party will be voting against it.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, in joining my colleague in support of this bill I would like to put on the record the feelings we on this side have relating to some of the comments made about high-pressure vessels.
We do not believe everything has to be state run in order to have men of integrity doing a proper job. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about inspectors for an insurance company doing an inspection on a high-pressure vessel. While they may have an interest, in a sense, their interest is to make certain the vessel is safe and is operating in a safe way.
If the American space program insisted everybody who worked for the state had to pass inspection on every facet of the space program, I do not think we ever would have put a man on the moon. It is significant that it is a good mix of private sector and public involvement.
We are talking about high-pressure vessels. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has suggested he has been exposed to high-pressure vessels in the 225-pound range, which is really not high pressure. High pressure is in the 3,500- to 5,000-pound range, which we get in hydraulics and superheated steam. These are some of the areas where an insurance company cannot take a risk on that kind of involvement.
We in this party are supporting this legislation because it makes uncommonly good sense. It is a sensible mix of private sector involvement with government inspection. It is a good bill and that is the reason we are going to support it.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot share the point of view expressed by the member for Welland-Thorold. I, of course, recognize he has his opinions about legislation, as do I. I tell the member I do not believe safety is going to -- and I had better be careful -- heck in a handbasket.
The member who has just spoken was talking to me during the supper hour, as was another member of the legislative staff. We discussed the very thing we are discussing here, that the insurers' inspectors are very hard-nosed individuals. I should also add that it is certainly not a feeling to be shared that we are going to decimate the inspection capabilities of our ministry by the passage of this bill. Rather, it will allow us to make better use of the inspectors we have.
The minister was clear in his statements when he said, "The function performed by our inspectors can be performed by government certified personnel from the insurance companies who will, in fact, be employees of the insurance companies."
We talked about the way the 24-hour plants can operate. They are going to be covered by some stringent regulations. I have a number of those regulations that might be proposed, but I will take the opportunity later on to pass them over so the member for Welland-Thorold is aware of the level of control that will be exercised.
With regard to the operating engineers, it is quite true that there has not been much consultation with them, because they are not qualified in the field of repairs. They come under the Operating Engineers Act, which covers the qualifications required by them to look after the plants.
I say quite honestly we are convinced this is a step in the right direction. That is all I have to say.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Mitchell moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, second reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I might say these are really housekeeping amendments to the Vital Statistics Act. I think the rationale behind them is clearly laid out in the explanatory notes.
I should point out I have been provided with a copy of a proposed amendment by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Perhaps to answer that, I have indicated to the member that our ministry, in co-ordination with the Ministry of the Attorney General, is currently preparing a policy statement which will be dealt with, it would be my hope, before the end of June or certainly within the next session. It will far surpass those concerns the member for Ottawa Centre had and will recognize a lot of concerns that have been expressed by members.
These are motions of a housekeeping nature, recognizing there is a commitment to providing the other aspects to the act that have been asked for by honourable members.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker --
[Applause]
Mr. Breithaupt: Why do you do that?
Mr. Conway: Since so few people come out to adorn the evening session we should applaud those who make the effort.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly support the points raised in this bill. I am not privy to the amendment which apparently was given by the member for Ottawa Centre to the parliamentary assistant, so I really have no idea what he was talking about in his remarks.
It might have had something to do with the matters we discussed in estimates with respect to the registration of the names of children, either through the mother's name or having that opportunity where consent to make that registration is untowardly withheld. Was that the theme, before I get into a dialogue, because that will obviously save us going into committee?
Mr. Mitchell: Basically, yes.
Mr. Breithaupt: I now have the amendment in front of me. Yes, this theme to which the parliamentary assistant referred is one that must be attended to. We were told in estimates last year this was a subject that is going to be addressed with some difficulty. We understand it takes time to sort out the particular wording required. It will allow registration where the name of the child is involved in that the child is neither the child of the husband of the woman, nor is she married, nor does she have any continuing relationship with the natural father of the child, they being two separate persons.
In any event, that theme having been resolved with the hope we will see legislation based upon some white paper approach, it will, I think, resolve that concern.
In so far as the other matters are concerned within this bill, they are housekeeping measures and allow certain documentation to be based on information received from jurisdictions other than Ontario, as opposed to the present requirement that they be Ontario-based. With the notes and the explanation we have before us, we are certainly prepared to support the bill.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we in this party will be supporting this bill too. As the parliamentary assistant pointed out, there are really just three housekeeping matters which will improve the existing legislation. Therefore, it is deserving of support.
However, we will be asking that this go to committee of the whole House so we can move an amendment. I apologize for not giving a copy to the critic of the Liberal Party. I was not aware he did not have one.
As has been stated here many times, it seems to us that if we get the opportunity to take action to improve a bill, as there appears to be here, a change which meets with the approval of all sides of the House, we should grasp the opportunity and do it now. Although the commitment may be given in good faith, these things seem to have a habit of getting postponed.
We will be moving this amendment for the purposes outlined by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), to give a mother the opportunity to give her own surname to her child when she no longer has a relationship with either the legal father or the natural father. Even though it may be said this amendment does not fit into the bill in the way they would like to have it fit in -- they are going to bring in another amendment -- there is no reason this cannot be repealed at a time when one might consider more appropriate amendments brought before this House.
Incidentally, this particular woman had gone to the Supreme Court, had battled at great cost to herself and had lost out in court. She had been in contact with the member for Ottawa Centre and she had been in contact with me. I presume she had been in contact with the ministry; I am just assuming that. It seems to me that amendment should have been here before us now rather than delaying it any further. For that reason, we will ask that this go to committee of the whole House and we will move this amendment.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as I attempted to point out to the members of the third party, and I say this quite honestly, a policy paper has been prepared. Perhaps I have seen it because I am responsible for the carriage of this bill; I have perhaps seen some of the contents much earlier.
I know they intend to go beyond such a situation as arose recently in the United States, where a husband chose to take as his married name the name of his wife's family, for whatever reasons; I cannot recall. If memory serves me correctly, it was to allow that family name to be continued because there were no male offspring. To answer that question and many others that have been raised by honourable members in this House, we are working towards that end. I do not expect it to be before the end of June, quite honestly, but I hope it will be very early in the fall.
In regard to the specific case mentioned by the member for Welland-Thorold, I believe the deputy registrar in our ministry has been in touch with the lady in question who has resolved her problem through other means. I grant it was not resolved in Ontario, but we are working to ensure there is an answer to that sort of problem in the future. That is just to assure all members that work is proceeding in that direction.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
House in committee of the whole.
VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Swart: I move that section 3 be amended to read as follows:
"Subsection 39(1) of the said act is amended by striking out 'only' in the first line and by adding the following after subsection (f): 'provided that where a married woman to whom a child is born files with a division registrar a statutory declaration in prescribed form:
"'(a) that when the child was conceived she was living separate and apart from her husband,
"'(b) her husband is not the father of the child,
"'and when no request from the mother and the father of the child has been filed in accordance with subsection 5, the birth of the child may be registered showing the surname of the mother as the surname of the child and no particulars of the father shall be given.'"
The Deputy Chairman: I am having a little trouble with the motion. Before I read and accept it in the way the bill is written before me, I have a hard time knowing whether you are adding a new section. Is that basically what you are doing?
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to subsection 39(1) of the act.
The Deputy Chairman: I see that.
Mr. Swart: We are adding to that some further words which incorporate the provision we want to see in the act and which deal with this problem before us. I suggest it is in order when we have subsection 39(1) before us.
The Deputy Chairman: I am going to take the position that you are adding something to the bill beyond the scope of the bill and on that basis I rule your amendment out of order. Is there anything further you wish to say to this?
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.
8:30 p.m.
NIAGARA PARKS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Baetz moved second reading of Bill 49, An Act to amend the Niagara Parks Act.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in my introductory remarks on first reading, this is strictly a housekeeping amendment bill. The Niagara Parks Amendment Act I am proposing is straightforward.
The first amendment is for the purpose of clarifying the commission's powers to control access to the lands of the commission. The second amendment gives the commission extended powers to control the use of signs and advertising devices on the commission's property. The third amendment is for the purpose of assigning powers to deal with property abandoned on the lands of the commission.
These amendments will contribute to the efficient operation of the Niagara Parks Commission and the lands within its jurisdiction. It simply brings the Niagara Parks Commission into line with the St. Lawrence Parks Commission amendments.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, we have examined the bill very carefully and, as the minister has described, it improves the ability of the commission to make decisions that truly belong in the parks commission's area of responsibility. We can support the bill.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, knowing Jim Allan and his ability to carry out his function as chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission, and with the explanation provided to us in great detail by the minister who is carrying this bill, we will be supporting it. I hope it will add to their surplus position of in excess of $4 million every year. If we could have more enterprises at arm's length with government acting as efficiently as the Niagara Parks Commission, we would all be a lot better off. We will support the bill.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments on Bill 49, An Act to amend the Niagara Parks Amendment Act. I concur with some of the amendments. But in section 2 it refers to "prohibiting or licensing, regulating and governing the erection, posting up or other display of notices, signs, sign boards and other advertising devices in the parks or within 400 metres of any part thereof."
This seems to have broadened the terms of the present regulations that apply to the Niagara parks in regard even to signs that may be posted along private property. I wonder what the variance is. It is to be 400 metres. What was it before, 100 metres, 200 feet? What are the major changes in this?
I say to my colleague the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), I was looking for some major amendment in the bill as it relates to appointees to the Niagara Parks Commission.
Mr. Kerrio: No. The old regulations stand. We know them.
Mr. Haggerty: We know them.
The member for Niagara Falls is a sitting member of the Legislature. In my riding of Erie, there is quite a bit of the Niagara parkway system that goes into the town of Fort Erie and up to the old fort on Lake Erie. I thought an amendment might be coming forward now at least to say that sitting members would also be members of the Niagara Parks Commission.
It is always better to have a sitting member than somebody who is perhaps retired from politics. I am not making any reference to the present chairman, Mr. James Allan, because I think he is doing an excellent job.
Interjection.
Mr. Haggerty: Even the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) could be appointed to it. In that way we would have some direct input from the Legislature to the Niagara Parks Commission.
The Niagara Parks Commission is doing an excellent job, and as a member, I should extend my gratitude to the chairman and the commission members for the job they are doing for the province.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification to the question raised: At present the commission has only limited authority to control signs, since the operative wording of the present clause 21(1)(f) is "prohibiting or regulating and governing" the erection or posting of the signs.
This amendment would extend the powers of the commission to license the posting of signs and other advertising devices as well as permitting the commission to prescribe fees, permits, terms and conditions under which the signs could be posted. I think that is the standard procedure in the other parks.
Mr. Haggerty: I just wanted clarification on this --
Mr. Wildman: We're not in committee.
Mr. Speaker: No. That closed off the debate.
Mr. Kerrio: He did not answer our question. We asked what the distance was now. It is to be 400 metres.
Mr. Wildman: Ask him in committee.
Mr. Speaker: I think we can resolve this. If the minister wishes to answer that question, he may. What was the difference in the 400-metre posting from what existed under the former legislation?
An hon. member: It was in feet.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: It was in feet, yes.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: So much for progress.
Mr. Kerrio: That is pretty important. We are going 400 feet into private property --
Mr. Speaker: Four hundred metres.
Mr. Kerrio: Four hundred metres on to private property now. What was the range before?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will look this up, write a letter and tell you all about it.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Bennett moved second reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the operation of the Guild hotel, restaurant, recreation and culture facility in Scarborough.
The Guild is now owned by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and operated by a corporation called Guildwood Hall under a lease that expires on June 15, 1983. This bill extends the lease until December 31, 1983.
It establishes a board of management of the Guild that will be composed of a chairman and 14 additional members, all appointed by the metropolitan council. Seven of these members will be nominated by the province. The first chairman is to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the nomination of the board and thereafter will be elected by the board.
The bill empowers Metro to acquire the Guild from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and to enter into agreements with the board of management to operate the Guild. The first such agreement is to be for a two-year period and will expire December 31, 1985.
By June 16, 1985, the board of management is to have completed a study of the future uses of the Guild and to have reported to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the chairman of Metropolitan council. The province is to pay for the study.
The board is to offer employment to the employees of Guildwood Hall beginning January 1, 1984. They will lose no salary and their pension rights are protected.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to have this legislation before us, only because of a personal involvement and knowledge that I have of this situation.
The Guild Inn is a project that has developed over more than 50 years. It was done by Spencer Clark, one of the most distinguished and active citizens in Metropolitan Toronto, and his late wife, the former Rosa Breithaupt.
The first husband of Rosa Breithaupt was a man named Russell Hewetson, and his sister married a young lawyer in Brampton by the name of Grenville Davis. So the Premier (Mr. Davis) knows Mr. Clark as an uncle, and his relationship with Rosa Breithaupt has always been the basis of his claim to be related in some way to me. I have never made the reverse claim --
Mr. Nixon: He is such a social climber.
Mr. Breithaupt: -- but he and I still get along fairly well in that connection.
In any event, both he and I have some knowledge of this whole project, which has been of tremendous benefit to the eastern portion of Metropolitan Toronto. When I heard the bill was coming up today, I took the liberty to call Mr. Clark to inquire as to his view of the legislation. I received a message in my office when I returned after supper and the comments he made were simply these:
"I hope that the province will still exert some influence on the permanency of the Guild until the result of the new study is known. I see it becoming a more important asset to the country than I think is generally known."
I think those comments are valuable to place on the record as we discuss this bill. What we are dealing with is a project that has been the life work of two people, which is now in the public domain and which we have an opportunity and responsibility to manage well.
In speaking with the government House leader (Mr. Wells) before the supper recess, it was my understanding that Mr. Edmund Bovey is going to be the chairman designate of the board that is going to oversee these operations. I can think of no one with a higher reputation or greater abilities in such matters than Mr. Bovey. He is a very happy choice for this kind of a project. From the limited knowledge I have of him, I think the people of Ontario are most fortunate to have his services at this time of change, as we see how this project will fit into our society in future.
Certainly there are going to be some changes in the Guild Inn and in its operation. I am most pleased to see from the explanatory notes that those persons who are on the staff have all their rights and benefits protected. The project will continue, therefore, with the same team of people who made it the success it has become.
There is also a necessity to maintain a curious, certainly unique, project Mr. Clark has had. From the variety of large buildings that have been torn down in the heart of the city, he has gathered a tremendous collection of sculpture, pillars and various antiquarian items that reflect the history of this city. They are marked by descriptive information that is available. This harks back to a time when Toronto was a smaller city and many of its building projects were embellished and designed and carved upon in ways that modern construction no longer allows.
So we have seen some changes. From my understanding of the circumstances, I think we have now come to a stage of development where we are almost digesting this project into the future needs and into the parks and recreation and other tourist requirements of the eastern portion of Metropolitan Toronto.
I have put on the record the reported comments that I received from Mr. Clark. I think the project that has been developed over the life work that he and his late wife Rosa have brought to the Guild of All Arts is something that is as interesting and rare in this province as was, for example, the McMichael Canadian Collection and its contribution to the province, and the development at the Royal Ontario Museum of the Corelly finds and purchases that have formed the basis of the superb Chinese artefact collection, which happens to be in the city of Toronto.
These are all projects that have resulted from the love, interest and contribution of individuals to this province. We have seen it in the Zacks collection of art, which has been given to the Art Gallery of Ontario, and a number of other philanthropic approaches that have enriched, from the generosity of the givers and either at a fair price, for tax benefits or whatever contribution, the social, educational and cultural fabric of Ontario.
I welcome the acceptance of this change, not only by Mr. Clark but also by the responsible authority, Metropolitan Toronto, and the acknowledgement as well by the government of Ontario as to its ongoing responsibility and interest in making sure that this whole scene, ranging from the Scarborough Bluffs to the sculpture and the operation of the Guild Inn itself, continues as a viable and positive project within Ontario.
I am pleased that the bill has come before us, and I recognize there is a particular urgency because of contractual requirements. I trust the bill can be completed this evening. From my own personal knowledge, it certainly has my understanding as to why it is before us. I trust it will be well received by the members of the House.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to say about this bill, not the least of which is the way in which the bill was brought before us. I do understand some of the background of the need for urgency of the legislation. But, having said that, I want to register a small protest that a bill introduced on Friday last and printed yesterday is put before the Legislature this evening for debate.
It seems to me this is a matter that has been under consideration for some lengthy period of time and the government could, without a great deal of effort, organize its business in a somewhat more efficient manner that would give the members of the Legislature an opportunity at least to read and consult at some length with those people who are affected by the bill.
I must admit that in my own personal research on the matter, I was somewhat pressed for time. The bill suddenly appeared and we were given the grand total of something in the equivalent of 24 hours of working time to try to find out all of the ramifications of the bill. I must admit it is with some unease that we discussed it this morning in our caucus. However, we did arrive at a conclusion.
One of the things that did surprise me was that the government is nationalizing the Guild Inn. I had thought there might have been a mild protest from that side of the House over nationalization of the Guild Inn. I must admit it would not have been my top priority, but it is a place in the history of Ontario which is unique.
Rumour has it that it is going to become the official residence of the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory), and I hope that is not true.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Who told you?
Mr. Breaugh: These things leak out. On a more serious note, it is the result of some lengthy sets of negotiations among several parties, I guess principally the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the corporation of Metropolitan Toronto and the government of Ontario.
8:50 p.m.
In the vein in which we usually try to receive these matters which are negotiated with municipalities and with the various agencies of municipalities, I am accepting on faith the premise that this is a negotiated agreement of sorts, presented in legislative form. In that context we do find the bill supportable.
I want to put on the record, though, a couple of concerns that I have and I would appreciate a response from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) at the end of the debate on second reading; if we get those assurances, perhaps that will be enough or, if not, we would like to go into committee of the whole House to receive some of these assurances.
There are two matters which I think will clean up any difficulties I might have had with the bill. One is that over the past years there has been a growing and interesting relationship between the Guild Inn and several other people from that community who have used it as a focal point for various types of activities.
We recognize that in the bill itself there is a proposal for a study of sorts, which perhaps will give us some rather grand schemes. We hope, and we seek the assurance from the minister, that in the process of formulating somewhat grander plans, things that have been accomplished at the Guild Inn already will not be set aside.
We hope that those community-centred projects which have begun to flourish around the Guild Inn will be allowed to continue at least until such time as the study is completed and, more specifically, that those people who have been participants in that kind of activity up until now will have an opportunity to have some input and to participate in the study process.
In a nutshell, what I am saying is that we will be unhappy if this study turns out to be the kind of thing that is done even by an esteemed group of academic people who will go off by themselves and report back some two years from now with a grand scheme.
We would like to see this study process as an open one, where there is an opportunity for participation by the community, by those people who are now using the facilities of the Guild Inn for a variety of purposes. With that consideration, one of our concerns will be alleviated, and I hope the minister will reply to that.
The second matter is one that we run into all the time with this kind of a proposal which involves a change in status of a facility like the Guild Inn. I refer to concerns about the employees.
As the minister knows, there is not a union there which would provide the opportunity for employees to go through the normal processes of submitting grievances around seniority, salary and pension matters, and we are left with the usual rather succinct treatment of employees here that the ministry will see that no one loses any salary or benefits. The difficulty, of course, is that the way these bills are prepared leaves that somewhat open to question.
In other words, the government of Ontario, in preparing this legislation, gives a general assurance that no one is going to lose his job. It announces in here a kick-in date of, I think, January 1, 1983. The difficulty is that there may well be employees between now and then who lose their status as employees. I am told that, as of this afternoon, there was something just over 40 -- I believe 42 -- permanent employees of the Guild Inn.
It becomes a little more confusing when one talks about temporary employees, because many of those people will be working there during the summer months when they are somewhat busier. But certainly for the regular employees, who do not have the benefit of a trade union to represent them, or even of an association -- nor for most of them, I take it, a personal service contract -- they have to rely on the good intentions of this legislation to preserve their jobs, their salaries and their benefits.
I would like to hear some further assurances on the part of the minister that this is exactly what will happen and that in the fall of this year we will not be in the Legislature raising questions around some of those permanent employees who have lost their jobs or have had their salaries diminished or have suffered some loss of benefits.
With those two provisos, we do find that the bill is a supportable piece of legislation, and I would like to give the minister the opportunity now to respond to the two little provisos which I put on.
In the scale of things around here, we often tend to forget that there are individuals who may not be part of the great scheme of things. But people who are employees of the Guild Inn deserve the consideration of the Legislature, and I would appreciate the assurances of the minister that their jobs will be preserved, that their salaries will remain intact and that they will not lose the benefits, much as is in the legislation itself, except for perhaps just a slight bit more elaboration on that.
The second matter I want the minister to respond to is the matter of the community around there, particularly those members of the community who have built up, in the last little while, some of the activities that go on at the inn.
I would like to see some assurances that the process will be an open and public one, providing for some input from the community itself, and that there will not be a sudden dislocation of the activities that have gone on at the Guild Inn. Secondly, I would like a somewhat more detailed response to the matter of the employees.
With those two provisos, we find this to be a supportable piece of legislation.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, the bill appeared rather suddenly and we have not had much time to study it. Back on February 10, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) a number of questions about the Guild Inn, because it does house some rather interesting architectural artefacts. I thought his ministry should be concerned about the preservation of those artefacts.
I knew the lease was due to run out on June 15, 1983, and therefore I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Culture to take us into his confidence as to the plans for the future of the Guild Inn and the property surrounding it. The Minister of Citizenship and Culture did not deign to answer my queries; so I am going to ask them again. Perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) will be able to give us more information.
I feel it is important that this House be informed as to what is going on with respect to the Guild Inn. As my colleague said, it is somewhat unusual for the government to nationalize an inn, which is what it did five years ago when it purchased the Guild Inn property, and the inn thereon, for $8.2 million. That is a sizeable amount of money. The cost was split between the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the provincial government; so presumably at the moment they are joint owners of that property.
As we have heard, the property and the inn was then leased back to the former owner, Spencer Clark, for five years. Presumably during that time the government was going to make further plans for the future use of this acquisition. Somebody has said it might be considered a Minaki south, but I hope it was not acquired as a losing proposition which needs to be propped up by government funds. I hope it will not become another sinkhole like Minaki.
There are a number of considerations that should be taken into account. My colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has gone into some of them. I have mentioned the preservation of the artefacts, which is one area where we would like some assurances from the government that this will be taken into consideration.
At present the artefacts are surrounded by a fence. The fence has a gate which is not locked; so people can get in, but it does set the artefacts off from the general park area and indicates to people this is something that should be treated as being somewhat different than places where one throws balls and has picnics. I hope that fence will be retained.
Another area where we would like information is, what are the objectives of the government in acquiring this property? The first reference I could find to it in the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's annual report was in 1981. It stated, with reference to the inn, "No intensive development of the waterfront and bluff top open space areas is proposed, other than provision for picnicking, lookouts and pedestrian trails." That was in the 1981 annual report.
Lo and behold, though, we found the MTRCA then proceeded to ask the Metropolitan Toronto council to set up a task force to plan for the future development of the inn property. That task force reported in October 1981.
9 p.m.
Some of the things it proposed to do were rather alarming to people who wanted to see this property preserved very much in its original state with no intensive development, as the annual report of the MTRC said. The task force proposed, for example, cutting two new entry roads to improve vehicular access. One of these involved the demolition of three frame cottages used by artists. It proposed a much larger parking lot; it proposed that the existing green fence surrounding the inner core and protecting the artefacts be removed; it proposed new washrooms to be built south of the sculpture park; and it proposed the extension of waterfront activities after the finalization of the shoreline stabilization.
I am not quite sure how one carries on waterfront activities when there is something like a 200 or 300 foot drop down to the waterfront from the Guild Inn property. I presume some sort of access to the waterfront would have to be built. That task force report produced quite a lot of comment from local residents and other people concerned about the Guild. An organization called Friends of the Guild was created, consisting of people who wanted to see the property retained largely in its present form. That organization has been pressing for further consideration of the future of the Guild Inn property.
This bill, in effect, washes out that task force and sets up a new body to study, over the next two years, what the future of the inn should be. I think that is a very desirable step because the previous task force was mainly made up of what one might call bureaucrats, without disrespect to them. It did not involve the public in its planning. It was more or less presented on a take it or leave it basis.
I think we would like some assurance from the minister that there will be full opportunity for public input in the study that is coming under this bill. We would also like assurances that we will have public hearings; that as plans are developed by the planners, the landscape architects and others who are hired, they will be made available to the public to look at; and that we will see that the objectives that appear to have motivated the government to preserve the property and make it accessible to people for recreational purposes, but not necessarily recreational purposes that will overload the property, are made the focus of any master plan.
We hope there will be opportunities for people to review the plan and, possibly, suggest modifications when it comes out.
I would also like the minister to clarify for us why the conservation authority is being cut out after having paid $4.1 million for the property. Will it be reimbursed by Metro Toronto when the property is turned over to the board of management set up under the act, or will it be reimbursed by the province? Who will end up as the actual owner of the property, including the Guild Inn? That is one question I think a lot of us would like the answer to.
Another question is, who will run the Guild Inn? What kind of an inn will it be retained as? Will it continue as a conference centre, an inn where one has dinner and weddings? Quite a lot of my constituents have their 50th wedding anniversaries there. It is a very pleasant place. The point is, if it is going to be operated by a board of management appointed by this provincial government and Metro Toronto, who will make any profits there might be? Who will see what kind of an inn it develops into? Who will see that the inn is refurbished when necessary, and that sort of thing?
When it is a public inn we have to know what plans there are for it. I would certainly be very upset if it was leased to a private operator who took the profits. When we have an operation of this sort, there is no reason the profits should not either be ploughed back into improving the inn or be used to benefit the people of the province who put up the original $8.2 million for the property.
Those are the main questions I would like the minister to comment upon. Perhaps he could also tell us what the role of the province is in determining the future use of the property. Will it be left entirely to the decision of the board of management provided for under the bill?
My colleague mentioned the haste with which this legislation came in and that one of the reasons for haste is that the lease is expiring on June 15. I have here a letter from the Premier (Mr. Davis) to Metro Chairman Godfrey saying the government will be bringing in legislation to provide for a board of management before the lease expires. The letter says the legislation should be passed by May 1983.
Mr. Wildman: What is the date on that letter?
Ms. Bryden: It is dated February 14.
I wonder why it took so long for this legislation to come in when the Premier was promising Chairman Godfrey --
Interjections.
Ms. Bryden: I would like to quote one paragraph of the letter, "With a modest degree of co-operation from all concerned, I am confident this legislation will be approved by the end of May 1983, a sufficient period of time prior to the expiry of the current contractual arrangement." I am a little surprised the Premier is so confident he can get legislation through in May 1983 when he does not introduce it until June 3, 1983. That is a beautiful piece of legerdemain.
While we will support this bill, we will expect the Legislature to be brought into the various stages of decision on the future of this property and that the public will be fully involved in the study of it. We also need assurances, as my colleague mentioned, that the employees concerned will have their rights fully protected, that the artefacts will be preserved, that the artists who were using the premises will be allowed to keep using them as far as possible in order to continue what was known as the Guild of All Arts.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is somewhat unprecedented for a member of the government side to participate in second reading of a bill such as this. However, I know I need not tell my friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) the reason I descended the throne, if I may use that expression, to come back to my place. I wish to take just a few minutes to point out --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Mr. Robinson: I had forgotten how much fun it was to be up here with all this help.
I wish to take a few moments to share with the House my support for Bill 57, second reading and beyond. I also would like to say on behalf of others of us from the Scarborough family that in a municipality that has grown from some 25,000 people a meagre 30 years ago to now border on the half-million mark, one of the true historical and cultural constants in our community throughout that time, and indeed for years before, was the Guild of All Arts, now more colloquially, and probably officially, known as the Guild Inn in Scarborough.
9:10 p.m.
My interest in the Guild dates back to the time prior to my birth when, as many members will not know, it became somewhat of an artists' colony away from the hustle and bustle of the then major urban core of the city of Toronto back in the 1930s. I suppose it may now be rivalled in some of the outer reaches of California.
Having taken on that worthy endeavour in the 1930s, in the midst of the Second World War, in the 1940s, it became a refuge and a sanctuary, particularly for repatriated Canadian prisoners of war who were coming back suffering the psychological and psychiatric ill effects of a very painful time in our history and certainly a very painful time in their personal history. It was during that time, and I am proud to say so on the record, Mr. Speaker, that my father worked at the Guild of All Arts trying to help those unfortunate people returning from overseas. I guess from that time, and in later years through another marriage within our family, the ties became even closer.
I want to speak very briefly for a moment if I may, and I apologize for taking the time of the House, about the motivation of the original sale of the Guild. I know my friend the member for Kitchener would join with me in speaking in tribute to Spencer Clark and his late wife Rosa, who passed on some two years ago now, and of their dream, not to create something to their own immortality within Scarborough, but to try to capture something of a time in the city of Toronto, which through modernization, through urbanization, through progress, was simply not in the long term likely to be available.
With the failing health of Rosa Clark and the ageing of Spencer Clark, I believe truly, knowing him well, that Spencer Clark looked to the public sector not as a place where he might be able to sell, if you will in crass terms an otherwise unsaleable commodity on the public market, but as a place where there might truly be a sensitivity to preserve something that in other hands might well not be preserved, and that not for our time, and we may be as cynical as we like, but for the time many years beyond us.
I think in fairness that part of the reason for the difficulties in not arriving at an initial agreement but now in terms of trying to develop a new working agreement that will go on into the future in the light of the study, is again not so much to preserve it for immortality but to avoid some of the pitfalls of it becoming, for instance, an architectural theme park where McDonalds might prevail as the outstanding feature somewhere in the midst of the gardens and the sculptures themselves.
Without prolonging the debate unnecessarily, may I simply express my gratitude to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) for his sensitivity in developing this bill on behalf of the Clarks, and the Clark family as far-reaching as we all may be, and in more certain terms to the people of Scarborough and to the people of Metropolitan Toronto for preserving this very valuable and unique part of our heritage, which could not be copied under any other circumstances.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I want to note for the record from my perspective as a member for eastern Ontario, in the absence of my good friend and colleague the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the very Conservative member from Brockville, that we have witnessed not an epic event tonight but a very curious series of developments.
First we have passed a metric bill, introduced by a Conservative government. Now we are in the process of passing a semi-nationalization public ownership bill introduced by a Conservative government. If one looks at the minister who is introducing this, he still carries the albatross of Edwardsburgh around his neck and has done for about five to seven years now. How is the poor member for Leeds going to go back to Brockville on Friday morning and tell his good Conservative constituents what the Conservative government of Ontario did on Tuesday night in the Legislature?
It has brought in more metric and more public ownership. This is the government of Minaki. This is now the government of the Guild Inn, and deficit financing. I just do not know how the good member for Leeds is going to explain this to the very Conservative delegates he will be joining this weekend in Ottawa. I wish him well, and I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing well as he explains how the Conservative government has moved one step further into public ownership along with metrication.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the members of the House for their interest and concern in the Guild. As the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) and the member for Kitchener have said, the Guild Inn has been a very important part of the development of some of the very famous people in the field of art. Spencer Clark and his late wife are to be complimented for having taken a very sincere personal interest in trying to preserve, while others were not interested, some of the interesting architectural characteristics of buildings that have existed in this community for a fairly lengthy period of time.
I have talked to Spencer Clark over the years when I was Minister of Industry and Tourism and had the opportunity of being at the Guild on several occasions. Spencer Clark was always intriguing in telling about the difficulties he had, as the member for Kitchener will attest, at the time of the destruction of major industrial and commercial buildings in this community, in persuading the principals of those buildings to allow him time to remove certain special features to be taken to the Guild property. There is no doubt it is an asset both to this province and this country. It will have an opportunity of staying in existence. It has a long-term benefit.
To answer the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and some of her concerns, it is the intention of Metropolitan Toronto, and I guess one of the real reasons for bringing this bill in tonight, to put the management of it into the hands of a board of trustees, to make sure it continues to be accessible to the public, so that we do not find that through some process people will decide they want to lop off certain acreages for other uses and so that we do not turn the Guild or some portions of it into an amusement park, which is not the purpose nor was it ever the idea of Spencer Clark or his late wife.
What we are trying to do here is very clearly to indicate to that community that this province would like to see the Guild continue in the basic use it has been developed in over the last number of years. No doubt, as some members have already said, there will be changes at the Guild. Time will dictate them.
The most important thing is the point the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) raised about community participation in the study program that will take place over the next couple of years. There are two things I would point out to the member for Oshawa. There will be some people in the immediate community who will be nominated and eventually appointed, I trust, to the board of trustees. They will bring a personal understanding and knowledge of what the Guild should do for that community and how it should not change in any direct way so that it affects the community itself.
The member for Kitchener mentioned that our nominee for chairman will be Ed Bovey, who is a well-known individual. He has had a concerned and very close association with the Guild over the last number of years. If there is one person who will add a great deal of stability, understanding and appreciation for what has been accomplished up to this point, it will be the chairman who has been nominated. We hope the nomination will be approved by others. He has an understanding of the staff because he has been around the Guild for many years and it will be his personal interest to make sure that section 20 of the bill is carried out for the protection of the current employees to the fullest extent possible and that the other fringe benefits they have at present will be carried forward into a new contract after January 1, 1984.
I want to make a comment about the period of time the bill has been in the House and ask for action. To the member for Beaches-Woodbine, the letter written by the Premier back in February to Paul Godfrey, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, reflected his desire to get the bill drafted and common agreement as quickly as possible and bring it into this House to get approval before June 15, 1983.
9:20 p.m.
I doubt if anyone has to be told there were some differences of opinion in the drafting of the bill between the government, Metro and some of the others involved. It would have been rather foolish to bring a bill in here if we could not have had some workable relationship once the board of trustees happened to be appointed. It has only been in recent days that we have been able to modify the bill to have a degree of acceptance. I am not going to go into all the discussion -- some of which even I was not privy to; it was carried on by others -- as to nominees and the way things will take place and so on.
I want to point out to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that subsection 206a(2) in section 1 of the bill indicates the disposition as far as ownership, purchasing or leasing are concerned. That will be part of the negotiations that will go on for a period of time.
In the final analysis, we will appoint a study group. I indicate very clearly to the member for Oshawa and the other members of this House that in the process that study will include public participation and review by the adjacent community and by its board of trustees as well. Eventually that report will cover a very wide-ranging number of subjects: what is required at the Guild today; the long-term use of the Guild; how it should continue to be managed and financed; what activities or expanded activities should take place at the Guild; what other improvements should take place; and how the capitalization of those improvements will be carried out.
Those are the reasons for the study. For me to try to predetermine or prejudge exactly what the final conclusion will be would be rather foolish at this point. The report will be given to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, to me and eventually to the board of trustees. At that point I am sure we will have an opportunity to participate in what we think are some of the highlights of the report and where we should take it from that time.
To answer the member for Oshawa's question, to the greatest degree possible, section 20 indicates clearly the responsibilities of the board of trustees to the current employees and the opportunities for the continuation of pensions. The answer in relationship to community participation is twofold: one, in the consultation with the consultants making up the report; and two, there will be people from the adjacent community appointed to the board of trustees who have knowledge of the past performance and what they think should happen in the future.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to indicate very clearly that the member for Scarborough East, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, has had a great and very deep-rooted concern to see the Guild is maintained. She, as well as the member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Kitchener and others have said that the original purpose, character and reason for the Guild being in existence continue, and that we not allow certain groups who might have a very different opinion as to what should happen to come in and start to destroy what has taken many years to put in place.
I say to members in this House that the member for Scarborough East has taken a very active part in trying to bring some degree of levity to the whole discussion that surrounded some of the controversy over the Guild in recent months.
I appreciate the support and understanding of this House in passing this bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Wiseman moved second reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act.
Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment to explain to the honourable members what we are planning to do in these few housekeeping amendments.
The first item deals with the role of the Queen's Printer whose office is under my ministry for administrative purposes. It is intended to extend his power to protect crown copyright, to include not only the legislative and other materials printed by government at the present, but also other forms in which information and material are produced, such as magnetic tapes, film and microfiche. Crown copyright exists in any work prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty, in any government department, for a period of 50 years.
The amendment further centralizes the control of this copyright in the Queen's Printer who is already performing the function with respect to the printed word. It will also include computer tapes and other electronic means by which government documents are kept.
The second housekeeping amendment is authorizing a seal for the ministry, and this is a legal requirement for deeds and certain types of contracts, as most of the lawyers in the House will understand. We have been using a seal since our inception, and this provision will just make it formal.
Section 3 corrects an oversight from the last revision of our statute several years ago. The intention always was that the power both of the minister and the ministry could be assigned by an order in council under this section.
The fourth provision is a new one, and that is to protect the ministry's employees and officers against lawsuits as long as they have acted in good faith.
The last one is an amendment dispensing with the necessity of an order in council to approve delegation of authority, which I make to various individuals in my ministry to help process the administration.
Those are the five housekeeping amendments.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his opening statements and comments in regard to the amendments he has put forward to Bill 23, An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act. We do support the bill.
I find it rather difficult to follow the intent of section 1, amending subsection 3(2) of the act. In the old act it says:
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint a Queen's Printer for Ontario who shall control imprint and seek legal copyright on and control title to all legislative and other material printed by the government."
In the explanatory note I have, I think the word they are looking for is the word "produced." There is not much difference from producing the material as they are permitted to do now, but I guess the minister has indicated that computer tapes will be included with that amendment.
The other area of concern is section 3, amending subsection 5(3). The act provides for the assignment of the responsibility to another minister, and that does bother me to some extent. The amendment is complementary to subsection 5(2) of the act, which sets out the responsibility of the minister.
I thought perhaps we were going to see some form of central purchasing agency within the Ministry of Government Services, instead of the present system of farming out printing to every ministry over there -- the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, the Ministry of Natural Resources, one could go on down the line there without having control of expenditure on printing here in Ontario. I imagine if we take into consideration all the different ministries, we are looking at millions of dollars in the area of advertising and other areas of printing.
I suggest somewhere along the line this government will have to show some prudence in this area and say, "We are going to have some control over all forms of advertising." Perhaps it should all be pulled under the wing of this ministry to bring some degree of prudence there.
9:30 p.m.
The other area I am concerned about is section 2, that authorizes a form and use of a seal. I am a little bit lost about the seal of Ontario. I do not know whether it is a trillium, the coat of arms or the provincial shield. What seal are we looking at here? Is it the provincial coat of arms that should be on all government printed material?
Mr. Breithaupt: It is a picture of Larry.
Mr. Nixon: Martel's shoe.
Mr. Haggerty: Martel's shoe. I do not know what it is, but I think we are looking for some explanation in this area. What seal are we talking about? I would like to have some clarification on that.
The last section of the act raises some concern. The bill seems straightforward except for the last proposal. Does the last section not present a potential jeopardy to persons who contract with a ministry? That last amendment to the act reads as follows:
"No deed or contract in respect of any matter under the control or direction of a minister is binding on Her Majesty or shall be deemed to be the act of such minister unless it is signed by him or is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Mr. McClellan: Until my colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) had spoken, I had not realized this was such a complicated bill. But let me simply say on behalf of my caucus that we support Bill 23.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): You are too kind.
Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I appreciate the support of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and his party and I will try to answer a few of the questions of the member for Erie.
The old act just covered the printed word in the area of the Queen's Printer. Since that time, as we know, we have many other areas the Queen's Printer looks after. I mentioned them in my opening statement. For example, there are films and magnetic tapes; the honourable member mentioned computer tapes and other electronic means. I think we have covered the whole bailiwick, we hope to anyway, so we will not have to amend that part for some time.
As far as advertising is concerned, we in Government Services do little advertising other than for good things, such as advertising for contracts and letting people know they can bid on certain jobs in certain areas, such as in the riding of the member for Erie. I hope occasionally the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) might have one of those jobs in his riding, or the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), or the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) or whoever.
As I mentioned in my estimates, we have about 60 functions to perform in Government Services. I would not want to take on the co-ordination of all the advertising for the province. Perhaps that would be better asked of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague).
As far as the seal is concerned: I have seen it, but I have never paid a lot of attention to it, maybe the lawyers have. I understand it is a seal with the Ministry of Government Services around the outside. Whether it has the Ontario shield or coat of arms, I could not honestly tell the member at this time. I will have a look and let him know at the next question period.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 42, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.
Mr. Conway: Let the record show she was sporting a snarl.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I'm not. This looks like a snarl?
Mr. Speaker, Ontario universities have traditionally enjoyed autonomy in the management of their financial and academic affairs. The major portion of their operating funds, however, now comes from the public purse. Government therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the universities are adequately accountable for the expenditure of these public funds and that the future viability of the universities is not jeopardized by their incurring unmanageable deficits.
In recent years, there has been an increasing tendency on the part of Ontario's universities to resort to deficit budgeting. I fear that in some cases this may ultimately lead to financial insolvency.
A report by the committee of financial officers, universities of Ontario, indicates that 14 of the 21 institutions incurred operating deficits for the 1981-82 fiscal year and that six institutions had cumulative deficits of the operating variety for 1981-82 in excess of $1 million or above 10 per cent of their total operating income.
In response to this situation, I announced on February 18, 1982, that the government would not provide extraordinary funding for institutions which incurred unmanageable deficits. I also asked, at that time, the Ontario Council on University Affairs to advise the government on the most appropriate legislative method to prevent universities from incurring unmanageable deficits and to eliminate or reduce any that have been incurred up to this point.
Council responded with advisory memorandum 82-5, Restrictions on University Deficits. The advice contained in this advisory memorandum forms the basis of the legislation before the House. This legislation will prohibit universities from incurring cumulative deficits in their operating funds accounts in excess of two per cent of their operating revenue for the year.
While I believe that universities should strive to avoid incurring deficits of any size, the two per cent limit will allow them some flexibility in the management of their financial affairs. At the same time it will prevent them from incurring deficits which could threaten their future viability.
This bill also requires the universities to make financial reports to the Minister of Colleges and Universities containing such information and by such dates as the minister may require. This provision will allow the ministry to monitor compliance with the legislation and the general financial health of the universities. We have been somewhat concerned in recent years with respect to the timeliness of financial reports from those institutions; we expect that this provision will indeed be used to remedy this situation.
Officials of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities have been engaged in discussions with representatives of the universities pertaining to these reporting requirements and to the other procedures related to the application of the legislation. I am pleased to note that we have agreed to a number of changes in these requirements, which are reflected in the revised policy compendium which was tabled in conjunction with the bill, and that those discussions are now continuing.
I should tell the members it is expected that each university, as an autonomous body, will be responsible for deciding how best to live within the legislative restrictions placed upon it by the university deficits legislation. Intervention, that is the appointment of a university supervisor as provided for in the legislation, will only occur when universities are unable or unwilling to reduce unmanageable deficits and only following extensive investigation and consultation with the Ontario Council on University Affairs. Such an appointment would be made as a last resort, and only in order to prevent financial insolvency.
9:40 p.m.
A university supervisor would be required to give advice and guidance to the governing body and the chief executive officer of a university for the purpose of improving the financial situation and, thereby, the financial health of the institution.
The supervisor would also be empowered, if necessary, to act on behalf of the governing body, and on behalf of the chief executive officer but would, of course, be bound by all constraints that would normally bind the governing body and the chief executive officer of the institution.
This piece of legislation is in line with other legislation controlling those autonomous bodies which receive the bulk of their financing from the public purse. It is appropriate legislation for such bodies as universities and I would urge the honourable members to consider it seriously.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Just before I recognize the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), might I ask the co-operation of all members in limiting their private conversations so that the debate may be heard.
Mr. Conway: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr. Kerr: You guys got a convention in Ottawa or something?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: The injunction of the Speaker does not seem to weigh even with his assistant, the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) who, God knows, is the first to lecture the rest of us for our transgressions in that connection. I look only across the way --
Mr. Cunningham: That is the cream of the crop.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Look behind you.
Mr. Conway: I generally find it more useful to look ahead.
The Acting Speaker: Order. We are not off to a good start at all. Perhaps we can take a deep breath and start again.
Mr. Conway: Some of us, Mr. Speaker, can take a deep breath without any difficulty.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on second reading of legislation which I believe is an opportunity to deal directly with one of the most important issues facing the province in 1983 and, in fact, for the decade which lies ahead; that is the financing and financial help of our university community.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It might be difficult, but try.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: It is always nice to have the irascible Minister of Revenue here.
Mr. Havrot: He is not irascible.
Mr. Conway: My toothpick friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) also seems to have become interested in the debate. I would feel happier if he would return to his woodworking and let the rest of us return to the debate.
I appreciate the opportunity, rare as it is, to speak directly to an issue concerning the health of our university community. That is what I see Bill 42 as being.
I listened carefully to the minister's opening remarks. It is with pleasure that I rise, on behalf of my colleagues, to resist the principle of Bill 42 for reasons I will articulate in the coming moments. She draws back, as is her wont, with a certain air of incredulity, wondering why and how we might be caused to take a negative position against this bill.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a logical piece of legislation.
Mr. Conway: She says it is an obvious piece of legislation --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I said "logical."
Mr. Conway: -- but perhaps subsequent parts of my text will help her understand the reasons for our resistance in this connection.
It is interesting that as the sun sets on the career in the Ministry of Education of the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) we are faced with such legislation.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: By actual count, this is the fourth occasion today that the member for Renfrew North has made some comment about my imminent demise as the Minister of Colleges and Universities. If the member knows something I do not know, I think it is up to him to let the House know what it is he does know, if anything.
The Acting Speaker: Is the member going to address that point of privilege or is he going to accept that and carry on?
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, you will have to decide whether or not that is a point of privilege.
Let me repeat, lest the minister did not hear me accurately, it is of some interest to me that we are being presented in this House with such legislation as the sun sets on the career of the member for York Mills in her role as czarina of all education. She asks me how I know that. I say only that it is in the stars and time will tell whether I am right. I am quite prepared to let the future determine whether I am correct, as I believe I am.
If Bill 42 represents the minister's last stand, as I believe it does, we are hopeful her successor when he takes over in a few weeks' time will be in a position to reconsider the initiative that is at the heart of Bill 42.
I want to say at the outset that this legislation is offered by the minister, not only as she outlined it in her opening remarks this evening but as is to be found in her compendium, because she says it is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity that we have so many of our universities either in, or likely to be in such a deficit position as to necessitate this kind of legislation.
She goes on, as she did just moments ago, to remind us that the sum and substance of Bill 42 was really recommended to her by the Ontario Council on University Affairs in its memorandum 82-5 which she referred to, and I might add, as she referred to in her usual selective way. But I would like to deal with the bill in a number of areas by simply drawing to the members' attention, and for the minister's consideration, some of the issues that give me pause and give concern to members of the official opposition.
She says the situation is serious in a number of institutions and she cited the evidence in her opening remarks. Just this very day I was in communication with representatives from the Council of Ontario Universities who told me that this year, for a variety of reasons, the evidence seems to be fairly clear it is not going to be a bad year at all in terms of most of the institutions.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, of course; look at the grant they received.
Mr. Conway: She says, "Of course, look at the grant they received." It was interesting that it was not the grant so much as the impact of Bill 179 that was stated to me as the principal reason for the conditions that were more favourable this year than last.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, 8.6 per cent is not bad.
Mr. Conway: She says "8.6." I am going to come to that if the minister can restrain herself. It seems to me that, when we look at the situation in the here and now, we ought to take note of just how few institutions are in the kind of danger and jeopardy the minister would have us believe.
In fact, in her own compendium to Bill 42 she sets out two charts in the appendices which indicate, for example, for the year ending April 1982, that we have Brock, Laurentian, Trent, York and Ryerson, five institutions which are going to be subject and would be subject if her bill became effective as of this particular date. They would be in hot water as far as the deficit position is concerned. But that was an improvement from the previous year when a couple of other institutions found themselves over the two per cent ceiling she is establishing in this legislation.
I might add that one of the patterns she sets out with her two charts relates to the situation in northeastern Ontario. I might parenthetically invite the minister to give us some sense of when the Parrott commission is going to report.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: July.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Now it is July. The last time I checked it was the March-April period. I understand poor old Harry has had to have three final meetings to deal with the problems he is confronting with the university reorganization for northeastern Ontario, so I am setting aside the Laurentian, Algoma, Nipissing and Hearst family from this particular bill, because I am assuming the Parrott commission, when it reports, will give us some separate guidance for those particular institutions.
Let me refer to the Ontario Council on University Affairs' memo 82-5 which the minister has referred to and which sets out a two-point rationale for this kind of legislation. Let me just quote from that particular memorandum which is to be found, for those members who have it, in the compendium. I will read from page 3 of that OCUA memorandum 82-5.
"The proposed requirement that no university should incur an unmanageable deficit is, in council's view, a logical and necessary extension of the principle of financial accountability. Council considers the issue important at this time because restricted funding from government has made it increasingly difficult for universities to balance income and expenditure."
Let me just repeat that, for the particular benefit of the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities, who might have been momentarily distracted by her colleague and my good friend the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. Kennedy: Don't neglect the rest of us; don't ignore the rest of us. You said you were going to speak to her.
Mr. Conway: I do not wish to ignore my good friend. Well, I will include the member, who used to be her parliamentary assistant and may still be, but I think -- well whatever.
Just for the minister's attention, let me read that part of the OCUA 82-5 memo. Listen carefully.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have read it.
Mr. Conway: I did not hear her refer to this in her opening remarks and I do not see it too prominently displayed elsewhere in her statement.
"Council considers the issue important at this time because restricted funding from government has made it increasingly difficult for universities to balance income and expenditures."
Mr. Bradley: They are out begging to the public for money.
Mr. Conway: It goes on, "Without clearly defined deficit limits and in the absence of clear projections by government of its funding intentions for the future, institutions face growing pressure to resort to deficit budgeting."
Mr. Bradley: That is right. That is just the way they deficit budget over there.
Mr. Conway: My friend the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) could not be more helpful in drawing to the minister's attention and that of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who I understand wishes a university for his own community, within certain private councils at least --
Mr. Gillies: Not a university at all.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That isn't what he is asking for.
Mr. Conway: I said "within certain private councils" and I withdraw that.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege: The member for Renfrew North, with his usual faculty for putting words in other members' mouths, has in fact misled the House. I have never, in private or in other councils, suggested that I want a university in my community and I would ask him to withdraw the statement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I would ask the member to withdraw his statement. The member has used terms that are not to be used in this House.
Mr. Gillies: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the member was inadvertently misleading the House, but none the less, he did.
The Acting Speaker: The member will withdraw the statement that he misled the House. He still has not satisfied the Speaker.
Mr. Gillies: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw it. However, I would suggest to the member that if he feels I have suggested to anybody that I would like to see a university established in my community, he is quite wrong.
Mr. Bradley: Wouldn't you?
Mr. Gillies: No. In fact, we are pursuing other options; that is not one of them.
Mr. Conway: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I apologize profusely for having excited the tender sensibilities of the member for Brantford and I want to be very open and generous in my accommodation for his feelings in this connection. May I repeat my profuse apology to him in that connection.
I want to say to the minister seriously and directly that, when one reads from the OCUA memo she relied upon for this legislative direction, it is extremely clear that OCUA feels that the years of irregular and unreliable funding, some would call it years of consecutive underfunding, have created much of the pressure to force some universities in this province into a deficit position. I do not for a moment disagree with that.
The OCUA memo which she has recommended to our attention sets out very understandably that, "The Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the government of Ontario generally bear no small measure of the responsibility for pressures being put on some of the institutions in this province to consider and proceed with, from time to time, deficits."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Read it again.
Mr. Conway: I will, for the benefit of the Minister of Education. "Council considers the issue important at this time because restricted funding from government has made it increasingly difficult for universities to balance income and expenditures. Without clearly defined deficit limits and in the absence of clear projections by government of its future funding intentions, the institutions face growing pressure to resort to deficit budgeting." That is fairly clear to me, and I will be returning to that a little later.
Moments ago, the minister referred to the situation of her most recent operating grants for 1983-84 as being --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: And 1982-83.
Mr. Conway: She referred specifically to 1983-84. Now she is adding to that.
I want quickly to draw attention to something that has been commented upon by many others in the post-secondary community, the yo-yo-like quality of the grants over the past decade. In 1972-73, which, granted, was 10 years ago, the increase that year over the previous year was roughly 1.9 per cent. In 1975-76, which happened to be an election year, the increase was 14.7 per cent. In 1979-80, the increase was 5.3 per cent over the previous 12 months. I do not have to, and I will not for the minister's benefit --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Look at the last five years.
Mr. Conway: Rather than look at the last five years, I will simply refer the minister to the publication of the Council of Ontario Universities --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Look at the last five years.
The Acting Speaker: I ask the minister to refrain from interjecting.
Mr. Conway: The minister asks us, and me in particular, to look at the last five years, a chapter which I again state is coming to a quick end. If one looks at those five years, no better a guide could there be than the COU's "Squeezing the Triangle" pamphlet which indicates only too clearly to the public in Ontario that this minister has presided over some of the toughest times in terms of transfer payments from Queen's Park to the university community in this province.
The literature is everywhere to support the claim that particularly since 1977-78, the squeeze has been on and the current Minister of Colleges and Universities has turned the screw, with the help of her friend the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and her friend the Premier (Mr. Davis), ever so tightly on the university community in this province.
I draw her attention again to some of the literature which she knows only too well, some of which I will be referring to a little later because, as she knows, I have a particular interest in this blue book which sets out many of the same issues chapter and verse.
It is true there have been deficits incurred in a number of the university institutions in Ontario in the recent past, but in talking to many of those people the first reason cited by many, if not all, is the underfunding from Queen's Park and the unreliability of the grants over a period of more than 12 months.
10 p.m.
Many of those people resent the suggestions which the minister has made about how there is somehow bad management. I talked specifically with people at the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations who were more than a little bit exasperated at the charge she apparently made on more than one occasion that some of the difficulty might very well have developed out of bad management.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: They have said exactly the same thing.
Mr. Conway: I want the minister to stand in her place before this debate on second reading has concluded and be specific. Let her, if she wishes to, like Cicero, be the accusative case, stand in her place and make specific charges, which --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is an OCUFA paper I can show the member.
Mr. Conway: I ask the minister to stand in this House and make specific charges. Which university president? Which board of trustees has mismanaged its mandate in this connection? Make the charge --
Mr. Bradley: Or forever be silent.
Mr. Conway: -- make it specific or, as my friend the member for St. Catharines says, "Forever hold your peace," because if she has specifics -- clear and relevant charges against any of the 16 Ontario universities -- we would be very pleased to hear them. I am sure everyone at the Council of Ontario Universities would delight as well in the specifics of those charges. In the absence of those specifics, the minister has compromised the entire university community with that kind of suggestion.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is silly. And the member is sillier.
Mr. Conway: The minister is really excited about the alleged silliness on this side. I want to say --
Mr. T. P. Reid: Would the original Margaret Thatcher please stand up?
Mr. Conway: I do not consider it silly when we have a minister of the crown who offers up legislation like this draconian Bill 42 because she apparently has charged that some institutions are bad managers but she will not publicly name them, setting out chapter and verse of their ineptitude. I invite her later on to tell us how it is not true and to deny she ever made those charges. Many out there feel aggrieved because she has cast such a general aspersion upon the entire university community.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not true.
Mr. Conway: That is not what some people with whom I have spoken said and I cite particularly OCUFA as having left that view with me. If the minister denies it, she should stand in her place and deny it absolutely.
In her recitation of the advice tendered in the Ontario Council on University Affairs memorandum 82-5, the minister indicates the principle of Bill 42 was called for in that particular document. I think it is silly, if not worse, for the minister to make that kind of suggestion in this House at this particular time, because I have to believe she knows that to be an incorrect statement.
Let me cite from page 18 of the OCUA memorandum 82-5 where the kind of intervention is specifically dealt with. It sets out a model of intervention with a primary intervention for investigation, which I must say is incorporated in this Bill 42. What does it say about secondary intervention; what should happen beyond the investigation? Let me cite from the first full paragraph on page 18 of the OCUA 82-5 memorandum:
"The Ontario Council on University Affairs' only advice with respect to secondary intervention is that it not be based on general enabling legislation." Yet that is precisely what Bill 42 is with respect to the very critical question of secondary intervention.
I have respect for the very considerable talents of the Minister of Education so I resent her suggesting to her colleagues here that this bill ought to be supported because it represents what was suggested to her by the principal advisory group on university affairs, namely, the Ontario Council on University Affairs. They stated directly and emphatically that she ought not to proceed with general enabling legislation.
Let me continue that paragraph: "Council suggests that legislation to accomplish secondary intervention should be implemented only on a case-by-case basis."
Mr. Bradley: That is sensible.
Mr. Conway: The member for St. Catharines says it is sensible and it is hard to disagree with that.
"The enormous range of possible situations which may arise would likely mean that general legislative provisions would either be too all-encompassing, and thus open to misinterpretation, or too restrictive, and thus requiring further amendments. Legislation specific to each case would be more appropriate and more effective."
That is a very main point --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Okay. Read the next paragraph.
Mr. Conway: The minister invites me to go on and I shall do so, but I want her to reflect upon what has been stated in this connection and I will tell her why.
It was two years ago that we in this chamber, particularly those of us with an interest in health policy, were confronted with a problem at the Toronto East General Hospital. I felt at that time there was no question on the part of any member that there was a specific problem at the Toronto East General and it needed a remedy. We thought we were going to get an amendment to the Public Hospitals Act or another piece of legislation to deal with that difficulty.
If memory serves me correctly, the investigating team at Toronto East General told us it would be most useful and appropriate to bring in a specific bill for that unique hospital situation. We got not a specific bill but Bill 113, which is just a carbon copy of Bill 42. It was general enabling legislation that allows the government of Ontario to move in and put under effective trusteeship that or any other public general hospital in Ontario.
I have to say to the minister --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: But this is not secondary intervention. This is primary.
Mr. Conway: The minister says this somehow is not secondary intervention. I have to disagree with that remark. If one reads the particular document it is clear -- at least to me. The way I read it was that when they were talking at OCUA of primary intervention they were talking about the investigative role. They say as much in that paper.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, no, no. You are wrong.
Mr. Conway: I see even the assistant deputy minister nodding his head in disagreement. Well, there is a difference of opinion because I certainly read OCUA's direction.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: OCUA understands the difference.
Mr. Conway: At any rate, I do not see the need for general enabling legislation --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: This next paragraph states it.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister will have ample opportunity to respond to the detailed comments being made by the member for Renfrew North.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Let me just reiterate: If the minister has a problem with a specific institution, then let her be prepared to identify that problem in all its respects, if it is bad management or some kind of structural difficulty, and let her come before this chamber and introduce specific legislation to deal with that. I do not accept the need for this sweeping power to give her that kind of standby intervention on all fronts.
We have been told not to worry about Bill 42. And this was just the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) all over again in 1981. "I do not know why," he said, "the hospital community is in an uproar with Bill 113. We do not ever intend to use it, you must understand. All you good Tory, Liberal and New Democratic volunteers and community leaders who serve on the boards of governors and trustees, we would never use this nasty bit of business. Yes, we would like a bludgeon that we could wave at you from time to straighten you out, but we will never use Bill 113."
I hear from those involved in the client community with respect to Bill 42: "You do not really need to worry," they say at the ministry, "because we are not going to ever use it. We would like to have it in the cupboard so that some upstart at Carleton or Laurentian or York might not get any fancy ideas about passing on a wad of multimillion-dollar deficits to the provincial Treasurer for a write-off."
I think that is a very bad way for us, as a parliament, to legislate. The minister has an obligation, if she has specific problems, to identify those and, as a last resort, to come forward and legislate on a specific from-time-to-time basis.
If she wishes to maintain good relations with the university boards of governors and trustees, I cannot imagine why she would choose to do otherwise. I have to say to the minister, in one way I see Bill 42 as a clear and barefaced insult to those scores of men and women who give weeks and months of their valuable time to the management of the affairs of our Ontario universities.
It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion other than that Bill 42 represents the minister's want of confidence in the collective capacity of that fine group of men and women who serve everywhere from Windsor to Ottawa to the Lakehead and throughout all of Ontario. It is clear to those people that Bill 42 represents a want of confidence in their capacity. If the minister believes, as I like to think she must in her heart of hearts believe, that these are good and capable people who know how to manage and manage well, the minister will withdraw the bill in recognition that those men and women discharged with that important obligation can go forward and make the management decisions that are necessary in good times and in bad.
It is stated by the Ontario Council on University Affairs that direct intervention by government ought to take place only in a case where "financial viability is in serious danger and then only as a last resort." I note that Bill 42 clearly does not make any such reference with respect to the circumstances under which it will be implemented.
It has been also mentioned by many in the university community with whom I have spoken --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has the floor.
Mr. Conway: I just wanted to be clear that other conversations had their opportunity to run their course. I say that without prejudice.
The Acting Speaker: The member has the floor.
Mr. Conway: The fact is that in some other ways this legislation is redundant for a number of Ontario universities. I know the minister knows that a number of Ontario universities have in their collective agreements, financial exigency clauses which provide for a mechanism to deal with serious financial emergencies.
It is true those financial exigency clauses do not exist at all Ontario universities, but it is true they exist at approximately nine or 10 of our 15 or 16 Ontario universities. In fact, those financial exigency clauses provide for a situation where, if the board of trustees determines there appears to be a financial emergency, the matter is then referred to a joint committee which investigates the situation with the assistance of accounting people. Upon achieving a consensus that such a situation of emergency exists, a pre-negotiated process is available for achieving layoffs, salary cutbacks, etc.
In fact, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations advises me this pre-negotiated process was resorted to at Algoma two years ago and the results were reasonably satisfactory. It seems to us it might very well be far easier to extend the provisions of the collective agreements, where they exist, to those other institutions not so covered so this kind of financial exigency clause might be put in place to deal with the problem, which we all realize may exist from time to time.
The minister says, I think, quietly, "No way."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I did not say that. I will give you the facts later.
Mr. Conway: All right. I am interested to have the facts, because like a Gatling gun the minister spits out a variety of responses that can sometimes be distracting, and I do appreciate her interventions. The minister, like Peter Pocklington, shares a worry from the far right that there is too much bureaucratic red tape in our society today. As she and the former chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs, God rest his soul in that legislative way, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: He is very much alive and well.
Mr. Conway: But not in his chairmanship function.
Mr. McClellan: He has been purged for left-wing tendencies.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member will speak to Bill 42.
Mr. Conway: I want to say to the champion of the far right in the Ontario Conservative government that the import of her Bill 42 is to visit another layer of bureaucracy and a skein of red tape on all the university administrators and the financial officers of those institutions. I read the bill in such a way that she is demanding, or is going to demand, or is likely to demand an entirely new system of reporting in respect of certain conditions.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has been 10 years in the works for goodness' sake.
Mr. Conway: It has perhaps been 10 years in the works, but the net effect is to force an already overburdened university administration with another reporting layer. I simply want to say to the minister that her commitment to cut red tape is not lived up to with Bill 42 because the net effect for all of the Ontario universities is they are going to have more reports to fill out.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, just different.
Mr. Conway: Well, different; it will be very interesting to see how that works out because a number of those financial officers are not nearly as sanguine as the czarina of all education that this is not going to be a burdensome bureaucracy.
Interjection.
Mr. Conway: I am glad to see that Mr. Donaldson is his usual helpful self. Perhaps he will enjoy his stint at Treasury, because there I suspect the challenges will be more immediate and altogether more pressing. When he has the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) to put in his place about how he is overspending in his old department, heaven will be with him in all respects.
It is interesting when one looks at section 11 of this bill. When we see the definitions, I understand the negotiations as to the specific accounting regimes, while they have been well advanced, are not yet conclusive. It would be very useful in this connection if the minister could, in the time available to her at the end of second reading debate, be more helpful in a specific way about what she understands will be the specific definitions used and the kind of accounting regimes she will expect to be followed.
10:20 p.m.
I will tell the minister that if the Ontario universities, through their financial officers, are half as creative as the accountants in Ontario's crown corporations, such as the Ontario Land Corp., the poor Minister of Colleges and Universities will never know what kind of accounting is going on from year to year. In a way, I hope the universities take their lead from the accounting practices of certain of our crown corporations in Ontario which, like good chameleons, change their colours.
I cannot believe that a new bureaucracy and a new accounting procedure, however long in the works, are not going to be an additional burden, an additional cost and more time-consuming for those institutions, with more red tape than the minister obviously believes.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: One of the reasons is federal policies.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: That is another difference of opinion, perhaps, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting the minister has stated in her compendium and in her remarks today that we ought to have Bill 42 because a number of other provinces have it as well. It is an interesting point.
I am sorry my friend from St. Catharines and my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) are not here. Does the extension of that logic, for the attention of the minister and Harry Fisher, mean there is an announcement coming on alternative schools funding? Does it mean there is an announcement coming on separate schools? When one does the comparative analysis with British Columbia and other jurisdictions, there are more rich packages in terms of levels of support that are offered in some of those jurisdictions.
It is interesting how selective --
The Acting Speaker: Order. The background conversation is now more audible than the words of the member for Renfrew North. I would ask all members to stop their private conversations in the House.
The members know what I am talking about. The member for Renfrew North will continue.
Mr. Conway: I appreciate your help, Mr. Speaker. The minister has stated there are good grounds for this legislation in Ontario because other provinces have it. She will perhaps want to correct me with the very skilful assistance of her acting deputy minister, Mr. Wilson.
My reading of the literature, I must admit, is cursory and not as detailed as it might be because, unlike the member for York Mills, I do not have the panoply of learned assistance which is predictably, and perhaps justifiably, the requirement of the ministers of the crown.
But perhaps the minister and her ADM can help me understand which other province in Canada has a supervisor with this kind of sweeping power. Can the minister in her rebuttal cite the legislation of another jurisdiction with a supervisor in exactly the same legislative high chair of judgement and with the sweeping authority she is going to allow and create?
Mr. McClellan: Probably Albania.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: One of the member's favourite places.
Mr. Conway: The minister said in passing, to my friend the acting House leader for the New Democratic Party, the upwardly mobile member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), that Albania may not be it.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what I said. What I said was that Albania was one of his favourite places.
Mr. Conway: I do not want the minister to be distracted but perhaps when she and Mr. Wilson get together later this evening to plan their strategy for Thursday or Monday they will help me understand which province has a supervisor with the powers she is vesting in the supervisor that is being created with Bill 42. I am not aware that particular bird is to be found in a legislative way anywhere else in the Dominion of Canada. We may be corrected on that particular matter.
I want to turn to one of my principal objections to this legislation. It has to do with the very serious question of the context in which our universities are financed in this year and for the foreseeable future. I want to say very emphatically that in my humble estimation, there is no way we can discuss Bill 42 without an understanding of the landscape against which it is pinned, against which it is drawn.
I know you, sir, with your very artistic bent of mind will appreciate that to take Bill 42 out of the context of that financial environment would do a great disservice to the assembly and certainly to the university community at large.
The minister will share, or she will at least want to consider sharing, the frustration of members on all sides of this House when it comes --
Mr. Hennessy: All sides, all sides.
Mr. Conway: -- and I know I speak for my Hibernian friend the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who is an active partisan for the Lakehead University, resident in his fair community --
Mr. Hennessy: I've got a degree.
Mr. Conway: I am sure the member has not one but many degrees, and God knows they are probably far more valuable than anything I obtained in my time in formal education. In this, I agree with the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).
Three years ago, or thereabouts, the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province, in responding to very heavy pressure from the university community about the dire straits -- to use that lovely Trudeauesque expression -- in which the university community was finding itself, two and one half years after the member for York Mills took over the colleges and universities responsibility, in response to the cry and the pain of the university community, he struck a blue ribbon committee to look at the future role of Ontario universities. In charge of that committee, at least in a co-ordinating capacity, was none other than Dr. Harry Fisher, Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities. That very august body of a dozen or so men and women --
Mr. Wildman: Blue chip.
Mr. Conway: Blue chip, as my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) states -- made two reports, one in March 1981 and a second six months later in August 1981.
It is very interesting to look at what was referred to in that committee because --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: August is six months after March?
Mr. Conway: The minister is altogether too vigorous in her interventions.
The Acting Speaker: You are not to be asking questions, honourable minister. Is this a point of order, a point of privilege or a point of view?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: August is not six months after March.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Renfrew North will please try to disregard these interjections.
Mr. Conway: I will certainly re-count that to be sure: April, May, June, July, August. It is true. It may be my usual hyperbole. It was five and not six months. Again, I apologize to the member.
But what is very interesting is what these people had to say in their report to the architect of our Ontario post-secondary community, at least in the post-war period, the Premier himself. What they had to say was not a very happy thing. It was not a very positive survey.
The Speaker indicates this may be an appropriate time for me to adjourn the debate. I am happy to do so, letting the minister know I will return next time to a brief summary of the main points in the Fisher report, main points which have been on the public record now for two years, and that have not been responded to in any way. If she thinks Bill 42 is going to be the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega of her response, she is sadly misinformed.
On motion by Mr. Conway, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.