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

July 5, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

VISITOR

WORLD CUP RESULTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BILD AGRICULTURAL INITIATIVES

ORAL QUESTIONS

WAGE CONTROLS

TAX ON LABOUR

WAGE CONTROLS

PRICE CONTROLS

SACRE-COEUR SCHOOL RENOVATIONS

JOB CREATION

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

JOB CREATION

TRAINING OF MIDWIVES

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

KOZAK TREATMENT PROGRAM

PETITIONS

RETAIL SALES TAX

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

GRANTING OF DEGREES

TAX ON MEALS

RETAIL SALES TAX

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MORATORIUM ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITOR

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the presence of an honoured guest in your gallery. Mr. Russell Johnston is the member of Parliament at Westminster for the constituency of Inverness and is leader of the Scottish Liberal Party. With that list, I know you would want to make him welcome.

Mr. Speaker: We are very pleased to welcome Mr. Johnston to our assembly.

WORLD CUP RESULTS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to inform the House that in a major upset Italy just beat Brazil in the World Cup soccer tournament.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BILD AGRICULTURAL INITIATIVES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to report to the House on the successes of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program in agriculture.

Mr. McClellan: That should not take long.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Just for that, I may read even more slowly than usual.

When the Premier (Mr. Davis) established the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in January 1981, he identified the six major areas which will best help provincial economic growth in the 1980s. They are electricity, transportation, technology, people, community and resources. BILD's $1.5-billion funding is being spent over five years for development in these six areas.

Agricultural development comes under the resources aspect of BILD, and $58.25 million has been allocated for BILD agricultural initiatives. The ministry has also allocated $5 million from its own budget for other BILD programs, bringing the total funding to $63.25 million.

Today I am tabling a detailed report on the BILD agricultural initiatives made through my ministry, but I would like to mention just a few points from my report.

First, BILD is generating new jobs, increasing production and earnings and, more important, helping make Ontario more agriculturally self- sufficient. For example, BILD and my ministry recently granted $3 million to H. J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. towards the $15-million cost of expanding its Leamington plant which will make Heinz the first major Canadian tomato solids manufacturer.

Canada currently imports $50 million worth of tomato solids a year and Ontario consumes half of that. That amount is growing every year. When the Heinz plant reaches full production, it will replace fully 25 per cent of the imported tomato solids. Furthermore, it will generate more than $4 million a year in new income for Ontario farmers as well as new jobs and other economic spinoffs.

This program is just one of nine BILD agricultural programs in the food processing field. BILD has allocated $20 million over five years for programs of this nature. The nine programs approved to date have received a total of $11.2 million. This sum represents 19 per cent of the $60-million total capital to be invested by the companies involved in these projects.

Another important BILD agricultural involvement is the Ontario storage and packing assistance program. The marketing period for Ontario fruit and vegetables must be extended through the provision of modern storage and packing facilities. BILD has allocated $20 million for this program over five years.

BILD agricultural has already approved 100 storage and packing construction or modernization grants worth nearly $1.7 million. The total capital cost of these 100 projects is more than $4 million. They cover storage facilities for everything from apples and onions to potatoes and cucumbers. As a result of this initiative, more Ontario money is being spent on Ontario-grown produce and staying in Ontario to strengthen our provincial economy.

Several other BILD agricultural programs are aimed at improving product opportunities. BILD funds are allocated to help modernize whey processing facilities and cream and butter processing. Other BILD programs are encouraging growers to plant more asparagus and tender fruit to stimulate local processing industry. The byproduct of these programs is the replacement of foreign-grown and processed goods.

BILD has also committed funds to high- technology education for agricultural colleges and to farmers' market expansion. All these programs are listed in the report I am tabling today.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that agriculture supports a $10-billion food industry in the province and, because of BILD, that industry is growing and developing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WAGE CONTROLS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, now that he has returned from Ottawa. There appears to be a substantial amount of confusion about what his government is going to do with respect to the wage control matters. We have been treated to a number of articles over the weekend featuring comment by various of his ministers and various staff people, some speaking personally, some perhaps speaking for the government.

Will the Premier bring this House up to date as to his plans and what he intends to do to follow the federal initiative?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the meeting last Wednesday was one of the better meetings in Ottawa, by which I mean it was better than some that I have attended.

Mr. Nixon: Did it have something to do with the menu?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. The more constructive part of the discussions took place before lunch.

I think it is fair to state there was a fair degree of unanimity among the first ministers with respect to the need for government restraint or control over expenditures, whatever term one may wish to use. At the same time, a number of us pointed out that in our own way we had taken certain initiatives, although not as all-embracing as the federal legislation which has been introduced.

I understand that some speculative stories and personal observations were made in the press as to what the posture of this government may or may not be, and that is quite understandable. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that no determination has been made yet. It is a very complex subject that requires a great deal of thought and assessment. I can assure him that the members of this House will be the first to know when a determination has been made.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier has said he has not made up his mind whether initiatives will be taken, and I assume he is still contemplating possible courses of action. Some of the press reports said he would be making this determination at his cabinet meeting on Wednesday. Whether or not that is accurate, I do not know.

Can we have the Premier's assurance that any such legislation will be brought to the House prior to our adjourning for the summer so that we can have a full discussion of how this is going to impact on the people of Ontario? Can we have his assurance that it will be brought to this House before we retire?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot give that assurance. I think it is obvious to the Leader of the Opposition that if one of the options, which would be some form of legislation, were felt to be necessary, it would come to the House. One cannot legislate without the House.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Premier did not have a statement to present to the Legislature today as to exactly what he proposed as leader of his government last week.

May I ask the Premier whether he agreed with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) when the minister stated publicly this weekend that wage controls should be across the board in both the public sector and the private sector? He is a minister of the crown and a member of the Premier's cabinet. Does the Premier agree with his position on that?

Perhaps the Premier could also indicate when he intends to give a full report to this Legislature on what specific proposals he has to reconstruct and correct the very deep-seated structural difficulties in the economy of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the honourable member is disappointed that I did not have a full statement about the discussions that took some three and a half to four hours on Wednesday last. The 10 participants were all expressing personal points of view or views on behalf of their governments or their provinces to the first minister of Canada, as I did in turn.

The meeting was convened by the Prime Minister. There was no formal agenda, as I am sure the member, if he had been reading the press, was aware. I think he will understand that I had already told the press two or three of the items I would be suggesting to the Prime Minister. One, related to the capital cost depreciation allowance -- I forget the exact terminology -- was the concern we have as a province with respect to incentives for equity investment.

Mr. Sargent: If you could tell the press, why couldn't you tell us too?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was all in the press, I say to the member for Grey-Bruce, before I ever left for Ottawa. If he read it, he would find it.

It is fair to state that there was a fairly wide range of discussion on the Foreign Investment Review Agency. There was no unanimity on that matter, which should come as no surprise to the member.

Relative to the observations, made I gather on a personal basis by the Minister of Revenue over the weekend, I am not familiar with them. I have not read them, nor have I discussed them with the minister. I remind the member of observations I have made -- which, incidentally, were observations, and not promises or commitments -- that I have always felt that if a program of wage controls --

Mr. Foulds: No promises or commitments.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member was carping on Tuesday about being interrupted and about my taking too long. Here he is the first offender this afternoon, which is typical, traditional and why I enjoy it so much. In fact, if the people on the other side of the House ever stopped half my fun would disappear.

I say to the member that I have made observations, in terms of equity, that I have always felt that a program should embrace more than just the public sector; although I do point out to the member, in spite of some of the press reports I have read, I have stated that point of view but I think he will find we never made such a promise or commitment.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the Premier understands that a lot of observers of this whole debate feel he is governing in a very strange way when he comes to this House and talks about his own feelings, presumably as the member for Brampton but not as Premier. His Minister of Revenue now is talking from a personal point of view but not as a minister. He has his press secretary, Denis Massicotte, saying he is betting that controls would cover all public servants and parapublic sectors. As a result, there is a great deal of confusion and concern by people who are potentially affected by this kind of legislation, if it comes in, or set of rules, however it comes in.

My question to the Premier must be this: Will he guarantee this House that if he does bring in a program of controls, it will be fair in the sense that it will not punish those persons on the low end of the economic ladder to the same extent as it does those on the upper end; in other words, the controls will be geared to income?

Second, if he does bring them in, will he bring in controls on prices for the things he does control, particularly hydro, to ease some of the burden?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am intrigued by the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, because I thought I had answered an almost identical question on Tuesday last. My recollection is that I pointed out on Tuesday last -- the member can check Hansard to see whether my memory is correct -- that, as a matter of policy, this government had recognized the question by our own controls or wage guidelines primarily having an impact on those in the higher-income levels. I think I told the member that on Tuesday.

In my limited experience, no program of controls can guarantee total equity. I think everybody accepts that. There is always some degree of inequity in any program. If the Leader of the Opposition is arguing that the federal program is totally equitable, I think he will find even the initiators of that program will say they know it is not totally equitable. They understand that.

I also say to the honourable member that if he read the federal program and Mr. MacEachen's budget carefully -- I think I said this to him on Tuesday, but I will repeat it -- he would realize that while they are establishing some sort of administrative agency with respect to administrative price increases -- I assume they are referring to fares of Air Canada and some of those other administrative agencies -- they did, in fact, exclude energy.

If the member read the paper carefully -- and if memory serves me correctly -- there was a modest increase in energy prices even after Mr. MacEachen's budget. The Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) can correct me if I am wrong, but I think there was an escalation in price on July 1 or July 2, or whatever date, and that, in a particular way, was excluded from Mr. MacEachen's program.

I think the member will understand why because, as I have listened to him over the years, he has always advocated escalation in energy prices to meet world price. Now that world price has not gone up -- and recall suggesting to him that this might not happen, but he will forget. I would point out that Ontario Hydro is not the same as Air Canada or some other areas where, administratively, one can keep prices or fees down.

I say to the member, who takes great delight in pointing out to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) his concern with respect to the capital markets, that there is no question the very significant increase in the federal budgetary deficit is going to impose a very major burden on the capital markets both here and abroad. Ontario Hydro has certain necessities in the capital markets and if its rate increases were substantially reduced, the only alternative for Hydro would be to go into the capital market to borrow at high interest rates, which consumers would then end up paying somewhere down the road.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member -- by way of his final supplementary; which is against the rules, but I will try to answer it -- looks at the application before the Ontario Energy Board, he will probably find that the wage component of Ontario Hydro may represent between 1.5 and two per cent, perhaps closer to 1.5 per cent, of what they need by way of a rate increase. Most of the rate increase refers to the cost of capital and the cost of fuel.

TAX ON LABOUR

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer. On federal budget night, the Treasurer was absent from the committee that is looking into the retail sales tax matter. There was a delegation from the Canadian Truck Dealers, with Mr. Jack Kirby, who at that point argued against the extension of the retail sales tax on labour, saying that the tax on labour will not raise the Ontario government any extra money; it will create extra hardship for heavy truck dealers and extra expense for the owner-operators, and it will probably swell unemployment.

Recognizing this and the difficulty of this position the Treasurer has presented, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who was there that evening, said he could not comment but would leave it to the Treasurer to comment on this public policy matter. Given the fact that the thrust of the Treasurer's budget was to create jobs, and here we will probably lose jobs because of his tax, will he reconsider this tax on labour?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Mr. Kirby, as I am sure he told the Leader of the Opposition, before the committee hearings began, and I met with representatives of the heavy truck industry. I did listen with great care to their point of view. Until the committee hearings have terminated, I would like not to make any conclusions.

Mr. Peterson: I recognize the frustrations, because some of the government's back-bench members, such as the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnston), have said there will be no changes as a result of this committee because the Treasurer has made up his mind on these matters. That is why we are obliged to bring them up in the House where he has to answer.

The facts brought forward in that particular case are that the truck operators have the option of where their trucks are serviced and they foresee much more servicing in Quebec as a result of the new tax on labour. Is it the Treasurer's policy to drive jobs out of the province, to create more employment in Quebec in this area as it was, for example, to create jobs in Saskatchewan with the government's contracts or jobs in Alberta with the purchase of Suncor? Is that the new job creation strategy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the Leader of the Opposition should recognize that the variation in labour rates charged for fixing a truck within Ontario is much greater than it is between Ontario and Quebec. I suggest and suspect that the rates in major truck service centres in Montreal are at least as high as they are in Ontario, and perhaps higher. The last time I saw some figures, they were.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, different groups appearing in the committee have run up a projected total of 2,170 jobs that will be lost because of the measures in this one tax bill. Can the Treasurer tell us whether his officials have prepared any report of the impact of this bill on the economy? In other words, what are his projections for job losses? Is he still retaining the notion he held prior to the preparation of the bill when he did no research in this regard. Is that sufficient for him? Is he now in possession of any indication of how many jobs will be lost? What are his projections that will match or counteract those of the various groups that have appeared before the committee?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the decline in business in the heavy equipment repair field, and not just the heavy truck repair field, one will find that there has been a very dramatic downturn in the overall demand of late for a number of reasons. Business is down in general. The idea that the sales tax is the cause of that is not so. I can assure the honourable member that I do not believe and I still remain to be convinced, that there will be any dramatic reduction in the number of jobs farmed out.

The fact is that most of these large trucking and equipment operators have their own staff. They have used their own staff when they could do the jobs there and they have only farmed out the surplus, as was explained to the committee. That is my understanding. They got that kind of briefing from those people. Some of them get the overflow, the surges or whatever. In good times there is a lot of surge. In bad times the big truck fleets tend to do more of their repairs themselves because they are not using as many vehicles.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, as the Treasurer knows from having been at most of the hearings, a goodly number of people have come before the committee to make excellent commentaries, in many cases making suggestions that have enjoyed tri-party support.

Accepting that he would not want to say anything before the formal hearings conclude, can the Treasurer indicate today if, as and when he, on behalf of the government, will be making a statement as to what changes, if any, he will be making so as to set to rest the rather unfortunate rumours and reports emanating from certain quarters that he has no intention of making any changes and that these hearings and all the witnesses have been subjected to a pointless charade and an utter waste of time?

Can he indicate when he proposes to tell us what, if any, changes he is prepared to make on behalf of the government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously in the honourable member's interest to make sure he sells that message. That is not true. We have been listening with great care to what I consider to be the necessary changes on the regulatory side, the application of the rules as written in the bill.

As my colleague the Minister of Revenue has pointed out, those regulations will not be processed through the various committees of government until some time following these committee hearings. If anything, the committee hearings have delayed that process a bit. I do not say that is bad. I simply say there is no use in writing regulations that define, for example, the number of doughnuts one has to buy to attract tax or the conditions under which tax is levied for any other taxable entity.

As I understood it, the part that was not being amended was the bill itself, not the regulations. The regulations contain the bulk of the detail, not the bill. The member knows that.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I believe the Treasurer was inadvertently misinformed on a subject about which he gave some information to the House.

In Hansard from that evening, Mr. Kirby said this about the hourly labour rates: "The labour rates are virtually identical and have been checked by our committees, $28 to $32 in Ontario, $27 to $33 in greater Montreal. Because of the relatively high cost of service to these expensive units, it would make no business sense to have them serviced in Ontario where there is a tax, compared to their alternatives."

I refer the Treasurer to Hansard.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On that point, Mr. Speaker, the highest rate was in Montreal.

WAGE CONTROLS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Premier on the subject of wage controls.

In view of the conflicting and loose-lipped statements by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), the Deputy Minister of Labour and the Premier's press secretary, will the Premier give us a clear and unequivocal statement, difficult though it may be for him? Is his government going to bring in wage controls in any way, shape or form?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that in the opening question by the Leader of the Opposition. I assured him that if there were any legislation this House would be the first to know.

Mr. Foulds: Will the Premier assure this House that he will abide by his parliamentary responsibilities and that any decision taken by cabinet this coming Wednesday will be reported to this House forthwith on Thursday, before the House rises? Does the Premier not think it is important that any action he takes be taken in the full confidence of this House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I had answered that question as well after the Leader of the Opposition's question to me. I did not think I would have to explain this to the member for Port Arthur. He has been here a little longer.

I do not recall any bill the government can deal with other than in the fullness of this House. Certainly the honourable member has my assurance that if there is to be any legislation, it will be brought to the members of this House. I should also caution the member that, while I have not read some of the speculative stories, I would not count on this matter necessarily being determined on Wednesday.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, some of us well remember what the leader of the government said some time ago. I do not have the quote in front of me, but I am sure my memory serves me well. The Premier said he was opposed in principle to public sector wage controls. It was those words "in principle" that always struck me as being something of note.

I want the Premier to tell us now whether he is still opposed in principle to the idea of public sector wage controls. If he is, will he be saying that on behalf of the government? Surely, as a great monarchist and a great believer in the British parliamentary tradition, he will know that this business that he, like the Minister of Revenue, can speak personally from time to time on these important matters of public significance is not very relevant.

As Premier, is he still opposed in principle to the idea of public sector wage controls? If so, will he indicate what the policy of his government will be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my memory may be a shade better than the honourable member's with respect to what I said. I will try to repeat what I said to his leader just a few moments ago.

I am not sure whether I used the words "opposed in principle" or "philosophically opposed" but I suppose I would express the point of view of perhaps not all but most members of this House in our philosophical opposition to wage and price controls in whatever form and for whatever sector. At least I have not heard enunciated by the member's party any massive move in that direction over the years they have been there in opposition. I could be wrong. I certainly know that as a matter of policy for many years the New Democratic Party has been opposed to controls both in the public and private sectors.

I think I expressed this reservation back in 1974 or whenever the former program went into effect. At that time I and the then Treasurer said that we were, opposed is perhaps not the right word, but we did not agree with it or we did not like it, philosophically. It is a recognition that economic conditions have reached a point where this sort of action becomes necessary. One can argue whether it was totally necessary in 1974 or 1975, but it was done.

I do reserve the right to express a personal point of view as I have done on other occasions. The member has not always agreed with it but I continue. If he wants me to give him a litany of those things on which I have expressed personal points of view while being Premier of this province, I will be delighted to remind him of them. I reserve the right to do that. I also know that when I do, there are those in the media and elsewhere who sometimes say, and understandably so, that the Premier as a matter of policy is going to do thus and thus or not going to do thus and thus.

I would just reiterate what I said to his leader and what I said to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds): I have always been less than enthusiastic or nonsupportive of controls. I do not think there is any debate about that. I did make the observation in January, I think, as preparation for the first ministers' meeting, that I was concerned about and did not like the idea of having controls apply to a particular sector of the province. In so far as equity is concerned, I think I still have that point of view.

However, I would also say to the honourable member that economic situations have altered since last January and February. I think that is obvious to each and every one of us. I can assure the member that, as I said to his leader, if, as a matter of policy, there is a determination by the government of this province that does require legislation -- I should not say I can guarantee that they will be the first to know because I do not always control everything that is known; there are some days that is very obvious -- but in a legislative sense, the members of this House will be the first to know.

Mr. Foulds: Can I ask the Premier if he agrees with the statement made, as a matter of government policy I assume, by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) last week when he said he felt that the agreements his government has reached with the public service of Ontario were "reasonable" and therefore not contributing to the inflationary spiral? If so, will he give us a clear statement that wage controls are not a solution to the country's inflationary spiral and economic difficulties?

Also, will he at least give us the assurance, today, that the civil servants of this province, particularly in the wage categories that I brought out last week, will not be made to bear the brunt of this government's policy or the federal government's policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was not here when the Chairman of Management Board made whatever observations he did make, and I am not sure from what I understand that he made them in exactly that way. I am not saying that the member has misrepresented what he said but I will check carefully what he said.

Mr. Foulds: You are very badly briefed today, aren't you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually I have been very well briefed.

The honourable member would making a mistake, and all of us would be making a mistake if we did not recognize that "wages" in a general sense, including in the public sector, do have an impact upon inflation. It would be totally unrealistic to say that they do not.

It would also be unrealistic for us not to understand that in the public and private sector, and I think perhaps earlier in the public sector, our main trading partner, the one with whom we do the greatest amount of business and the one which is our greatest competition, exercised a greater measure of restraint with respect to the public sector than has been the case in Canada.

I think it is very obvious, and I would say this to the member's friends in the Ontario Teachers' Federation -- I know that his party keep in touch with them -- they want their pensions to remain intact, all of those things. So I know the member is very familiar with some of the representations being made.

But I also happen to know that the teaching profession in this province vis-à-vis the teaching profession in the United States, where they are our competitors -- if you take the state of California with Proposition 13; if you take several other states where they have constitutional limitations on the actual amount of expenditures; if you go to the post-secondary area -- and I am trying to give the member as much information as I can -- where the University of Michigan, as an example, one of the better universities in that state, had a mid-term reduction imposed by the state government because of their constitutional limitation, as did Ohio state -- I was down there for a cultural event and happened to chat with the presidents of both those institutions and they have done this.

If you look at the federal service in the United States you will find they have had some measure of restriction, or there has been a lower rate of growth than in our own public service here at the federal level, and this is true of state levels of government right across the United States.

I think it would be very foolish of us to ignore the fact that this is one of the problems we face. It extends to the private sector as well, where, once again -- I say this very objectively, and I think it is fair to say it -- the settlements, the concessions, etc. have been of greater significance than here. If the member does not believe me he should ask Douglas Fraser and some others in the United States. Check their rate of inflation, check ours, and the honourable member will find that what I am saying probably is factually correct.

PRICE CONTROLS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question, unfortunately to the Premier again. Because there have been a number of statements by his administration -- today by the Premier himself, over the weekend in the press by two cabinet ministers -- about price controls, can the Premier tell us, if his government is going to provide "the clear and resolute leadership" that the country and the province needs, can he tell us what action he is going to take to control prices in Ontario, if any action?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Hansard will record the last two words of the honourable member's question. He said, "What action is the government going to take;" and then in a very low voice, "if any?"

Mr. Foulds: "If any action."

Hon. Mr. Davis: That's right. So here we are. The member is asking me what we are going to do, if we are going to do something. So he is acknowledging that the option is there in some aspects of this not to do anything. I am glad to see that he senses this. I would say to the honourable member --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to be as helpful to the member as I can. I always try to help the member for Port Arthur.

I do not know that he can find a quote from me with respect to price controls. If one were contemplating that aspect of a control program, it becomes very complex in our sort of economy, where so much of price in this country is dictated by, first, the value of our dollar and, second, the fact that you are dealing with imported merchandise over which the Canadian consumer has relatively little, if any, control.

I really am prolonging this unnecessarily, I confess to the member, because my answer very simply is that I have already given it to the member: There has been no determination.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Premier tell us, aside from all the international factors and produce he refers to, if as a matter of policy he will, for example, instruct the Ontario Energy Board in its hearings at the present time on an application from Consumers' Gas to put a price freeze on increases above and beyond the actual costs, gas price increases and taxes that Consumers' Gas is required to pay? In other words, as a policy statement will he make a statement that there should be a freeze on the additional $83 million that Consumers' Gas is trying to get?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to confess to the honourable member that I am intrigued by the tenor of his question. If I were to interpret it literally and objectively I would only say that the acting leader of that party has really mentally come around to supporting the whole concept of wage and price controls. Here he is asking me to say to the Ontario Energy Board, in advance of any decision, that we must control price, which logically indicates, then, that the New Democratic Party of this province is coming down on the side of wage and price controls. I am very intrigued.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, given the conclusion of his first answer, in which he said there had been no determination of any price controls, when the Premier and the cabinet are considering the possibility of wage controls this week, will he be widening his consideration to some kind of price controls in either the private or public sector? Is that a matter of consideration by his government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am going back in history again in terms of the former program where, quite obviously, if one is dealing with this on a comprehensive basis one of the complex features is the

interpretation placed by the Supreme Court of Canada as to the constitutional responsibility and the question that was raised as to whether a program of this nature could be introduced by the federal government.

I will not debate at this moment my views of that court decision, except to make the observation that in my view the situation at this moment is far more serious than it was back in 1974-75. I believe that personally.

I think it is fair to state that any time a wage program is considered on a more comprehensive basis, the question of price is also assessed. I think it is fair to state to the honourable member -- I am sure that he has read this in his own home community and many others -- that the marketplace in some respects, because of the present economic situation, is accommodating a good part of the concern with respect to price; not all of it, but some of it.

That is part of the federal approach even though they have this other program with respect to -- I forget how they phrase it -- administrative pricing or what have you. I pointed out to the member one of the areas where there is a limitation here.

Mr. Foulds: May I point out to the Premier that in a question I raised there was enough substance that he could have an

interpretation, misguided as that may be, in contrast to the fluff in his statement about which no

interpretation is possible.

May I also remind the Premier that the government, as a matter of policy, intervened in the price structure of Ontario Hydro in order to equalize or make more fair the prices between rural and urban hydro consumers.

Mr. Boudria: Are you against that?

Mr. Foulds: No, we were in favour of that, as were all members of the House.

Does the Premier not now feel that as a matter of policy the government has a right and an obligation to protect the consumers of other energy sources in Ontario, particularly gas, which is what I am asking about at the present time? Would he not, as a matter of policy, repudiate the $18.30 administration charge which will result in $83 million additional revenue for Consumers' Gas, which is completely unnecessary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not purport to be as knowledgeable on the regulatory aspect of the gas industry as I am with respect to Ontario Hydro.

I would only say that in the preface to the member's question. where he suggested that my answer had less substance than his question, the only reason he made that observation is because he realized after asking the question that he had put his foot in it and he was modestly embarrassed. It may have been his subconscious at work, actually doing exactly what I suggested he was doing. I just put that to him as --

Mr. Foulds: Go ahead, answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Jimmy, I always know when you are trapped and you feel embarrassed. I can understand it.

I can only say to the member it is not as simplistic as singling out a particular source of energy. I am a consumer of Consumers' Gas, so I am not enthusiastic about seeing my gas rates go up. I am less than enthusiastic about that. However, I cannot indicate that the government is going to intervene. I think such a commitment on my part would be very premature.

SACRE-COEUR SCHOOL RENOVATIONS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Is she aware of the report of the public institutions inspection panel of Prescott-Russell, in which a recommendation was made concerning the Sacré-Coeur school in Bourget?

If I can quote from that report. it says: "We consider the basement of the school to be extremely dangerous because of numerous electrical wires that are loose and hanging from the ceiling."

It concludes that portion of the school should be closed.

Is the minister aware of this report? Is she aware that the school is a death-trap for the students? If so, what action does she plan to take?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the member obviously knows, the provision of facilities for education at the elementary-secondary level is the responsibility of the local school board.

It is my understanding that there has been some concern expressed about this school by the local fire marshal since the year 1959. I am not aware that there has been any specific request, in my almost four years in the Ministry of Education, for improvement or renovation of this school.

However, I will tell the member that we did receive the report on June 22. It had been delivered directly to the eastern Ontario regional office, and there is a meeting of the regional office staff and with members of the board scheduled for July 13. After that date I will be able to answer much more clearly and succinctly the questions posed by the member.

Mr. Boudria: I wonder if the minister is also aware that the same report identified the Ste-Euphémie school in Casselman. I quote from the report again:

"The school should be condemned and the building demolished. We recommend that the Minister of Education take immediate action to have this done."

While it may be true that in the minister's original reply she stated that does not fall specifically within her purview but rather within that of the school boards, nevertheless the recommendations of the report are made directly to her or the ministry.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware that these exercises frequently do direct the recommendations directly to the minister; but I would also say to the member that I am aware of the problem in the same report, delivered on the same date to our ministry about that school.

I am also aware that within a very short distance there is probably sufficient accommodation to take care of all of the children currently attending Ste-Euphémie. Obviously, if the board is concerned about that school it can close it down and transfer those children almost immediately.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. He will be aware that there was a small

article in the Globe and Mail on the weekend that indicated layoffs in June in the city of Guelph were up 452 per cent as compared to June of 1981.

Is he now willing to admit to the Legislature that his predictions, and projections in the May 13 budget, of four per cent real growth in the last half of 1982 were completely off base? Is it not time that he should reassess his position on the budget and bring in a budget that has real job creation for cities like Guelph, Sault Ste. Marie, and many other cities in this province that are now feeling the real impact of this recession, which is really a depression to those communities in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out in the budget that the only kinds of jobs we could create in the short-term were obviously those in the public sector. That is why a fair amount of money was aimed at that sector and at the housing sector.

I am delighted that the federal budget has reinforced, to some degree, our housing initiatives. I would suggest to the member that until consumer buying and investor confidence return to the marketplace there is no other significant way of creating jobs.

During the summer we will have, I would say, roughly 75,000 to 100,000 jobs in the various government-sponsored initiatives. We still believe the upturn will occur as the fall goes on. Whether it will be four per cent now, as was predicted then, remains difficult to assess, but there is every reason to believe that the trend will be up and not down.

Mr. Cooke: Is the Treasurer telling the Legislature this afternoon that he is still standing by his predictions of a four per cent growth in the last half of this year? Secondly, is he aware that in the city of Guelph there are 1,303 people on welfare, and that his budget and work incentives programs will not do much to eliminate those large numbers on welfare in Guelph, which is a record? In other words, it will not do much to lower that cost to the city of Guelph.

Is he prepared to look again at short-term job creation that looks at the problem seriously, covers the total cost for the municipalities and creates the thousands of jobs needed in this province while we are waiting for the economy to turn around?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It seems to me that Guelph has been one of the highest growth areas in the manufacturing sector over the last number of years. It happens it is the manufacturing sector which is under pressure now. The member knows that. When the manufacturing sector is under pressure, those cities that have done very well and have highly skilled labour groups are affected the most. That is so evident I am sure the member can accept it.

It also happens those people with those skills are not the ones most likely to turn their hands to the kinds of short-term job creation efforts we have in society. I have no intention of making assistance to municipalities 100 per cent provincially sponsored because at that point I do not think any careful planning of the works will be used at all.

Does he not think it is the province's turn to support that initiative with a similar provincial program which would be possible under the new legislation before the House in the creation of the Ministry of Industry and Trade that the New Democratic Party has been holding up for the last few weeks?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there is a common belief that governments can spend themselves out of these problems. I suggest to my colleague that sometimes we spend our way into these problems. I am afraid the greatest single shock of the federal budget last week was the cash requirement jumping some 275 per cent from its originally predicted level of $6 billion. That has had a massive negative effect upon --

Mr. Nixon: Wait until your fall budget.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My budget? As somebody said in the Globe and Mail today --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Orland French.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Once in a while, one does get a column one likes to quote. It says the issues we have been arguing about when compared to the problems at the federal level are relatively insignificant. I am thinking of the ones we have been discussing in terms of my budget. It says my budget looks like it is a very fiscally responsible one -- I think those are the words I liked best in that column today -- when compared to those at the federal level. Be that as it may, that is our government.

The member was talking about jobs and housing. As far as I can tell, we have had about 2,100 houses purchased since our program began, about 1,200 of those in Metro and about 900 outside Metro. It has been interesting to see how successful that program has been. With each house making some 2.2 man-years of jobs directly, probably another one to one and a half man-years of jobs indirectly in the furniture industry and others, we believe we are attacking a set of problems and that is one of the best ways to go about it. One simply cannot spend one's way out of those troubles.

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I want to note the minister's new figure in farming. One sort of slims down for the spring and summer rush. I guess that is what the minister is doing.

My question has to do with financial protection, a program for cattle sales. Is he giving any consideration to making the plan retroactive in some form? I realize retroactive legislation creates problems but, due to the extreme losses some farmers are suffering from the McIntyre bankruptcy, with one fanner as high as $160,000, is there any possibility the minister could assist them in some way through retroactivity of this plan?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the two to three weeks of discussions with the various elements of the beef industry that led to the announcement I made here about six weeks ago, I thought about that question very seriously, recognizing there would be some individuals who would come out of certain business dealings in a very bad position.

I regret to say I had to conclude there is no point at which one could cut off any retroactivity and be fair to all concerned. Obviously, no matter what point one would choose, someone would fall outside of it. Therefore, I had to conclude the best advice I could give to the cabinet would be for a program to take effect August 1, and for which applications are in the mail now to all cattle dealers in the province, for licensing as of that date, without retroactivity.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for York South.

Mr. Conway: Last question?

Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps. Who knows? Don't be jealous.

Mr. Nixon: Listen, Donald, don't let them do it to you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is this goodbye?

Mr. MacDonald: Can you keep the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) quiet, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: If I want to say goodbye, I will say it in my own good time, when I wish.

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: My information is that a very great number of losses have been suffered by farmers because of bankruptcies of this nature across the province over the last year or so.

Has the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food been keeping a running account of how many countless millions of dollars, apart from in the McIntyre case, have been lost in the last year or two as a result of bankruptcies and of farmers not getting paid for produce which they have marketed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To my knowledge, we would have no way of keeping track. Most of the kinds of deals that would concern the member and would concern me would not show up in bankruptcies, and certainly would not be registered anywhere. Even in actual bankruptcies, the details are not filed in such a way that I know of so that we could keep track of that sort of matter.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Breaugh: In the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), I would like to put this question to the Minister of Revenue: Apart from the Treasurer's personal opinion, does the government have the slightest shred of evidence to establish that all of these groups appearing before the committee, which are projecting substantial job losses as the ramifications of the new retail sales tax, are right or wrong? Has the government any evidence, any studies? Has there been any consideration in a formal way of the negative impact of that particular bill?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has been asked on many occasions, both of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and of the Treasurer. My answer can be no different than theirs.

Mr. Wrye: Just give us your personal opinion.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will give you my personal opinion at the same time

Hon. Mr. Davis: Which happens to be the same.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is right. It happens to be the same.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don't you people provoke us about different opinions over there.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, that is for sure.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question now, please.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Those kinds of studies do not exist. I think it has been fairly well stated in front of the committee in the first three days of the hearings -- and I am sure there will be nothing different in the next couple of days -- that most of the statistics being brought forth by the particular representations are not backed by anything other than a worst-case scenario.

The Treasurer touched upon it very appropriately a while ago. He indicated that as the committee gets into dialogue with those making the representations, in most cases the members find there is an acknowledgement on the part of the person presenting his case that, yes, that sector was down earlier in the year, or yes, it is away down from last year, and there is nothing whatsoever to tie it in with the enactment of the May 13 budget or anything that has happened since.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to redirect to the Treasurer, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot redirect it.

3 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Then I will put it to the Minister of Revenue. Since we now have a clear admission that this was an entire aspect which he did not even study, and since we are in a recessionary period when these jobs are important to a great many people and it is now clear from testimony before the committee that he is putting marginal small businesses over the edge, is it not now time that he reconsiders, that he does those studies and in the interim he withdraws this particular bill?

Hon. Mr Ashe: Mr. Speaker, obviously the honourable member has not looked at the budget at all in its entirety. He has not looked at all of the job creation initiatives within the budget. He obviously has not looked at the two-year tax holiday for small corporations that have been lauded by all parts of the economy within Ontario. In fact, the conclusions he draws are erroneous and not based on fact.

TRAINING OF MIDWIVES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health. Following a recent coroner's inquest into the death of a baby whose parents intended to have a home birth with the help of lay midwives, is the minister aware of the recommendation that midwives in Ontario should be trained and licensed in a program set up by doctors and nurses and under their overview?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes we are, Mr. Speaker. We are aware of those recommendations and that will be the subject of some discussions we intend to have over the next couple of months with various parts of the medical profession, including the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association, to get their views on the entire situation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since there is a draft policy on this matter by the College of Nurses of Ontario and since, as the minister is aware, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is setting up a task force to develop standards with respect to nonhospital births, can the minister move to co-ordinate the views of those interested in this kind of medical service so that we will have a clear procedure in Ontario which will be known to all and which will bring into better practice the situation that has just grown up over the years but now apparently needs to be fitted in to the medical system in a much more precise way?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, some clarification of the role and practices involved, and a general clarification for the public so they will know just what is and what is not expected in those circumstances would be appropriate and that is the end goal of our co-ordinating activities over the next couple of months with, as I say, all parts of the medical profession, including the studies the member has referred to, with a view to bring some clarity to the situation.

I think the --

Mr. Nixon: You look so healthy and he looks so worried.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Your leader had a pretty good tan himself.

That is the object of what we are trying to accomplish over the next couple of months with a view to making sure those kinds of circumstances are clarified.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware of certain recent newspaper advertisements which read as follows: "Rent Review? Expert consultation and representation by former senior members of the Residential Tenancy Commission. SPAR Property Consultants Ltd., Toronto"? It lists the names of those former commissioners.

If the minister is aware of this, would he not agree that in this particular instance the voluntary guidelines or agreements that the currently serving rent review officers have agreed to are not operative and more action is needed by this ministry to deal with this problem?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the particular ad the member refers to, although I was aware there is a firm operating and the firm consists of people who were previous employees of or commissioners with the rent review commission.

I am surprised the member did not comment on the fact that the government had recognized there might be a perception of conflict of interest at the very least and had addressed that, first of all through a voluntary agreement that has now been signed by all of the existing commissioners. Second, all new commissioners, be they full-time or part-time, have as part of their order in council for appointment a specific notation saying they will not appear before that commission for a period of time after their employment terminates.

Mr. Philip: With respect, my initial question did recognize that and in fact I was indicating to the minister that this in itself did not deal with this specific kind of problem.

Would the minister now be prepared to advise the Residential Tenancy Commission that in his opinion it should not hear cases in which one of the advocates appearing is a former rent review officer? Failing that, on a longer-term basis, would he at least indicate that conflict of interest legislation will be forthcoming?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us clarify a couple of points. The member talked about a voluntary agreement. What I told him is that the government has gone beyond that and it is now part of every order in council. There is nothing voluntary about it. For any forthcoming and recent appointments, it is part of the order in council. However, those people acting as consultants are not being accused of any illegal act or wrongdoing. I have not heard the member say they are acting in any illegal way.

We have recognized that the perception of a conflict of interest is an important one in the eyes of those appearing before the commission and we have addressed it; but in addressing it I do not think the member would expect it to be retroactive, nor do I think it can be.

KOZAK TREATMENT PROGRAM

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Two months ago the minister told the Legislature that treatment by the Kozak method for the so-called "Crisco Kid" problem would be ready in Ontario within the next few weeks. He said he hoped Dr. Kozak would participate but "the program is in place whether he comes here or not." Two weeks ago in the press, the minister was quoted as saying the program would be operational by the end of August. Then he was quoted as saying that emergency cases are already being accepted.

Is Kozak treatment available in Ontario today and, if it is, why has the minister made no effort to publicize it among doctors across Ontario who would be interested in recommending their patients for this type of treatment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, to confirm what I said previously, the treatment will be available on a permanent and full-time basis commencing August 1. Right now it is available on an emergency basis; i.e. as an alternative to having to fly to West Germany, anyone who needs the treatment will get that treatment upon request at any of three hospitals, but chiefly at the Hospital for Sick Children.

Why have we not made it public? I cannot believe there is a treatment that is better known throughout Ontario than this particular treatment, because of the publicity it quite properly received. The fact is that the head of the department at the Hospital for Sick Children is in a position to notify all those who ordinarily would refer cases to that hospital and would come in contact with those cases. I cannot believe for a second there are very many doctors in this province who are not aware of the availability of that treatment or where it can be had in Ontario. If there are, I will certainly draw that to Dr. Ramsay's attention, because the program is operational.

PETITIONS

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, one of which states:

"We consumers and providers of food services strongly oppose the extension of the seven per cent sales tax recently imposed on food and drink. We further protest the sales tax on sanitary items." There are a few hundred names on that one.

The names on the other one can be added to the 5,000 names that have been already been tabled. It states:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

We, the undersigned, oppose the extension of the sales tax introduced by the Ontario government in the May 13, 1982, budget."

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today.

The first is from teachers at the Southwood Park Public School in Ajax, who are concerned about Bill 127. It says:

"Concerns are that it infringes on our collective bargaining rights, it interferes with the school board's ability to deal with local problems, and there is no need for an amendment because Bill 100 has dealt with negotiations adequately."

The petition is signed by 65 citizens.

GRANTING OF DEGREES

Mr. Breaugh: The second petition is from the members of the Zion Christian Reformed Church of Oshawa, who are strongly protesting the implications of Bill 137, which, if it becomes law, will make it illegal for the Institute for Christian Studies to award master of philosophy degrees to its graduating students.

"We urge you and your government to refer this bill to a committee of the Legislature or to amend it in such a way that the institute may be exempt from this proposed legislation and continue its work as before."

It is signed by 51 members of that church.

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Breaugh: The final petition is a petition protesting Bill 115's imposition of a retail sales tax on food items. This petition was gathered by Mrs. Jane Wilson in Oshawa and is signed by 627 people.

3:10 p.m.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 268 people objecting to the sales tax changes in the new Ontario budget. It reads:

"The budget that was brought down this week by Frank Miller is an insult to the Canadian people. It is time to stop reaching into the pockets of the working people. Why should the working man or woman be taxed because of the ineptitude of the budget minister, Frank Miller? The cost of the Suncor deal and the executive jet that is used for government joyriding are just two examples of money wasted by the Tory government. This petition is being circulated in the hopes of better treatment by the PC government."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory. first reading of Bill 168,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, by the terms of this bill the annual indemnity of members of the assembly is increased from $30,000 to $31,800 and the annual allowance for expenses of members of the assembly is increased from $10,000 to $10,600.

MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MORATORIUM ACT

Mr. Laughren moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 169,

An Act to provide for a Moratorium on Mortgage Payments for Persons Affected by an Interruption of Employment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for a moratorium on the payment of principal and interest amounts secured by mortgages on the residences of persons who suffer an interruption of employment arising from a legal strike, lockout or layoff. The bill also protects the mortgager from mortgage default proceedings during the moratorium period. It establishes the principle that homes belong to people and not banks.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, prior to the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 177, 195, 221 and 223 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Thursday evening, July 8].

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the acting government House leader that in an interim answer to my question number 157 given on June 3, 1982, the indication was that the information would be available mid-June 1982. Since it is now July 5, 1982, and unless I caught it wrong the answer was not tabled today, may I ask if we could get the earliest possible action on getting an answer which is now 20 or 25 days overdue?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader will take it up with the appropriate person.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to follow up on all of these questions. I have a list of some and dates when they will be brought forward. I do not have a date on that yet, but we will be following it up as quickly as possible.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, we are proposing to bring in four amendments during the course of the clause-by-clause consideration. The first is to subsection 1(5), introducing a simpler wording for the requirement of the continuation for school jurisdictions and boards. The second is to subsection 3(5), making it clear that the school closure guidelines are for the guidance of the board in its planning to close whatever schools it decides to close. The third is an amendment to

section 12 regarding visa students, to provide an additional exemption from the rule. The fourth is to

section 57 regarding rateable property, which we are proposing be deleted.

These will be brought in at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. I will leave it to your good judgement to jump up when you want the appropriate amendments put forward.

section 1:

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, is this not where Indian bands are referred to?

Mr. Dean: Sorry. I should have said

section 1(3), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, 1(1). The reference to Indian bands is spelled out. I wonder if the minister's spokesperson might just make it clear what the intent is in the change in the word. As I understand it, this is simply to clarify the involvement of representatives of Indian communities on school boards. Is that correct?

Mr. Dean: Yes, that is true; and to make it clear that these are the people with whom the ministry can now make agreements for the enrolment of non-Indian pupils.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Dean moves that subsection 1(5) of the act, as enacted by subsection 1(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"

(5) Until altered under the authority of this or any other act, all school jurisdictions and boards, including the names of the boards as they existed on July 31, 1981, are continued subject to the provisions of this act."

Mr. Dean: It does the same thing as the printed amendment, but it says it more simply.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to impose on you, but I do not have a copy of that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: We will get a copy to you.

Mr. Grande: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dean: I understood that copies had been distributed by someone.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The page is just bringing the copies now. I might suggest to the people assisting the minister's spokesman that the other amendments might come forward as well, not just when the minister's spokesman rises.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Right. I will allow the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) to review the proposed amendment.

Mr. Nixon: If I may, the change in the wording simply continues the existing situation being subject to the provisions of this amendment. Is that all it does?

Mr. Chairman: Are you asking me?

Mr. Dean: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: No; he nodded to indicate no?

Mr. Chairman: He nodded yes.

Mr. Grande: I have no problem with this amendment; so we can continue.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

section 3:

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to subsection 3(5).

Mr. Chairman: I tell you it is a lawyer's nightmare. I wonder how the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would read that?

Mr. Dean: The first amendment that I have is to subsection 3(5).

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, is it correct that we are looking at 3(5)?

Mr. Chairman: Yes; I thought it was subsection

3(3).

Mr. Sweeney: It appears to me to simply be a rewording of clause (z).

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Grande: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I also have an amendment to subsection 3(5). I am wondering in what order they are to be put. If we get involved in debate on the government amendment and we are going to be stacking or whatever we are going to do with these sections, then in effect there is no way I can put an amendment on the table. I want some direction from you.

Mr. Chairman: I had recognized the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) first but I am sure, in amicable parliamentary tradition, if you indicate that it would make your proposed amendment difficult to be brought forward the member for Wentworth would allow you to bring forward your amendment first. Are you agreeable to that?

Mr. Dean: If it is understood that what the member for Oakwood is moving does not preclude --

Mr. Chairman: No, of course not.

Mr. Grande: I move that subsection 3(5) of the bill be amended by striking out all the words after "guidelines" in the second line of clause 2 and substituting therefor" --

Mr. Chairman: Order. Do we have copies of

this now?

Mr. Grande: I did send you a copy of the amendment. I do not know if it got to you. I also provided a copy to the parliamentary assistant and the Liberal critic last week.

Mr. Chairman: Let us just hold it for a minute. No one seems to have anything, so maybe we should get some copies made.

Mr. Nixon: It is only a few words.

Mr. Chairman: Read what you have and they will get us copies.

Mr. Grande: I move that subsection 3(5) of the bill be amended by striking out all the words after "guidelines" in the second line of clause 2, and substituting therefor "to encourage small community schools to remain open."

Mr. Sweeney: I think he means clause (

z) rather than 2, but I am not sure. Is it (

z) or 2? The wording in here is (z). I am just trying to be sure I understand what he is doing.

Mr. Grande: The only clause that subsection 3(5) contains is clause (

z) and therefore that is the clause that is being amended.

I read carefully the response from the parliamentary assistant on the question of school closures on second reading of the bill. However, let me say that the powers the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) wants in this act go beyond the establishing of guidelines.

I would like once again to put on the record that the Minister of Education for the past three to four years has had guidelines by which the school boards have been asked to develop school closure policies. As I understand it, by May of this year all the school boards across Ontario had already responded to those particular memoranda the Ministry of Education issued.

It seems to me that the minister or the ministry should not require this new power to issue the guidelines. Therefore, this power makes me and this party very nervous indeed.

I do not want to go into the details again as we went through them on second reading but basically. even though the boards ultimately will decide whether a school will be closed or not, none the less the Ministry of Education issues criteria and I am nervous on this topic, because most of the research the ministry has done in this area seems to point to the fact that any elementary school that has an enrolment of 200 students or less becomes very expensive to run in terms of cost effectiveness.

Therefore, my nervousness is that if the ministry decides 200 is the cutoff point, all the ministry will have to do once it has this power in place is to say to the school boards that one of the criteria will be that when a school goes below 200 that school will be closed.

Of course, the school board will make the determination to close it, but that is not the issue. The issue is that it is a power the Ministry of Education has to force school boards to close schools.

The amendment the parliamentary assistant has made in this clause seems to me to say nothing to that fundamental problem. Instead, it just puts forward that the school board will be deciding the school closure. I never misunderstood it to mean that the Ministry of Education would say, "That school is closed whether the school board wants it or not." The semblance of democracy is still maintained, even though this ominous power the minister wants in this legislation is all-encompassing.

None the less, I suggest the Ministry of Education should be using criteria to encourage boards to keep open small community schools in this province rather than to close them down. My amendment goes to the heart of the matter and says that. That is a basic change in philosophy. I hope the parliamentary assistant and the Liberal Party -- which represents, by the way, a good portion of the areas in southwestern Ontario where busing is going to be a definite problem when community schools are closed -- will support this amendment.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say again, without being unduly repetitious, as I remarked on second reading, that neither the minister nor the ministry seeks or wants any power to close schools. The member for Oakwood has made an oblique reference to this. I want to underline again that what this amendment provides is for the issuing of guidelines to assist boards in making their decisions as to whether a school should remain open or be closed.

In my experience, as I think I recounted during second reading, I have noted that boards do take into account many other factors in addition to the economic one when considering whether a school should remain open or whether a particular school in preference to another should be considered for closure.

The intention of this

section of the bill, which is more clearly spelled out in the amendment I propose to present, is that the boards themselves must take account of all the relevant factors in the community before taking a decision to close a school. These are guidelines; they are not musts. There is no intention by the minister or the ministry to have it made automatic that if a school falls below a certain level it is to be closed. There is absolutely no intention of that.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with the explanation the member for Oakwood just gave, that the intention of his amendment is to have the ministry encourage school boards to keep schools open. I think we certainly should encourage them, but that is not what his amendment says. If I follow it correctly his amendment says, if we take out the words after "guidelines" in clause (

z) and add "and maintain schools open," that it would be impossible ever to close a school in Ontario; that is what his amendment says.

I would like to continue speaking, but if the member wants to clarify it he is free to do so.

Mr. Grande: I think the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) is looking at subsection 40(2) as opposed to subsection 3(5).

Mr. Sweeney: The member is right. I thank him. I did not realize there were two subsections dealing with this matter.

I have no difficulty with a statement which says we should encourage boards to keep schools open. That is one point. At the same time, however, I have stated in question period and have argued in debates with the minister that there need to be guidelines given by the ministry to boards as to how they proceed if they decide a school should be closed.

The minister has made it very clear, with respect to local autonomy, that the local board is the one that should make the decision. I agree with that. On the other hand, there have been a number of cases where boards have acted in a way that their own supporters have felt to be quite inappropriate and that I, as the former critic for our party, have felt to be inappropriate. Therefore, I have long supported and continue to support the need for the minister to issue guidelines to the boards as to how they must proceed.

Those guidelines must include the way the local community will be taken into consideration and the degree to which it will be able to make input. They must include the amount of time people will be given as to when this is likely to happen. They will have to look at the various impacts on the local community. When talking about a community in an isolated area, as in the case of the Schreiber school that the member brought to the minister's attention, it is not just a case of numbers, there is a community factor involved. That has to be taken into consideration for the guidelines.

We must look at the economic impacts. There are some boards that are closing schools but they are ending up spending more money in transportation than they would spend if they kept the schools open. All those factors have to be taken into consideration.

Once those factors have been taken into consideration, the local board must have the right to make that decision. This amendment, or one very much like it, has to stand. If the member would like to add his amendment to that to encourage schools to be kept open rather than to replace it, I could support it, but I cannot support replacing it.

I believe there must be an amendment somewhere that would require the ministry to issue guidelines to boards. Those guidelines would indicate the way in which a board would proceed in implementing its decision -- as a matter of fact, the way in which a board would proceed before it even makes a decision. Once the decision has been made, assuming the board followed the guidelines, then the guidelines would state how to implement that procedure.

I and my party will have to support the amendment of the minister as it now stands. If the member for Oakwood would like to incorporate his principle to encourage schools to remain open, I would be prepared to support that as well, but not if it is in place of the other. I cannot do that.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal critic seems to be suggesting that the Ministry of Education since 1979 has not issued memoranda, as it has done in December 1979 and in 1981, requiring school boards to produce school closure policies. The school boards have done so. Therefore, I do not understand his preoccupation. The question is why the Ministry of Education requires this power at this time if it was able to do all those things the member is talking about without having the power to do them in the Education Act; that is why this power is very suspect.

I point out that the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario, in opposing subsection 3(5) of the bill concerning clause 8(1)(z), does mention that the association cannot support "the concept of provincial criteria." I had better go back and read the whole thing, otherwise it does not make sense.

"The majority of the member boards of the association support the concept of each school board developing its own school closure policy. Indeed, most school boards would welcome guidelines from the ministry which would facilitate the development of relatively common policies that can be adapted successfully to local needs. The association cannot support, however, the concept of provincial criteria which are established by the government and imposed on school boards. Individual school boards are in the best position to determine what criteria should be included in a school closure policy, and local autonomy and accountability in this regard should not be eroded."

Therefore, I say to the Liberal critic, I am not in disagreement with the establishing of guidelines. The Ministry of Education has been able to accomplish that since 1979 without requiring this power in the Education Act. The question is why the ministry needs this power at this time if not to impose and force school closures on all boards of education in the province. With that, I rest the case.

3:40 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I also support this amendment, mainly because I think it would indicate a change of philosophy. That is what we are seeking in this new bill. The change of philosophy would be that local boards would be encouraged to try to find alternative uses for schools in areas of declining enrolment. That would be the first step taken when any school's enrolment drops below a certain level.

This amendment would put the onus on the school board and the ministry to aim at looking at the alternatives first to see how this community resource could be retained or worked into the community. It could possibly provide day care, senior citizen programs or skills training at night, as well as school training. There are other things to look at besides the bottom line of how many pupils there are and what the cost of operating the school is. This amendment would force all parties to look at the alternatives.

This amendment does not prevent the closing of schools, it simply changes the focus. If it is found there are not suitable alternative uses or that it is not feasible to maintain a school after all the options have been looked at, it would then be possible to close a school, as it has been in the past.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, speaking directly to the amendment proposed by the member for Oakwood, there is nothing anywhere in the regulations now which discourages keeping small community schools open. There is no need to state the obvious, that schools stay open unless they are closed. The purpose of the whole

section in this part of the amendment to the act, in this part of the bill, is to strengthen the responsibility of the boards to look comprehensively at all the factors involved before coming to a decision to close a school.

The amendment before us from the member for Oakwood really does not accomplish that at all. As the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has said, it appears to ignore the intent of the amendment that is printed and of the further amendment I wish to propose.

It is true the ministry has issued guidelines for this in the past year or so, but without an absolutely clear, specific legislative mandate that there is authority to do that. In the first place, the amendment is in this bill to make it perfectly clear that the minister does have this authority. The amendment I am proposing would strengthen that even further. It makes it clear that the minister is not deciding to close but is determining that boards should follow certain procedures before they, in their turn, make the decision. The decision will certainly remain there, with the local board. I am opposed to the amendment before us.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may ask for clarification to be sure I fully appreciate what the ministry is attempting to accomplish here.

It is my understanding the amendment as printed on page 3 of the bill was objected to by some school boards across the province because it looked as if the amendment was saying, and some people interpreted it as saying, that the guidelines would be guidelines on how to close a school and on how to go about doing it,

whereas the new amendment has guidelines for boards as to how they set up the procedures to do it. That is what I understand is the big difference.

I have discussed this with some of the boards and, once they understood that distinction, they withdrew their objection. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant could make clear if that really is the difference. The printed version in the bill says, "guidelines respecting the closing of schools,"

whereas the amendment says, "guidelines and requiring the boards to develop policies."

That is what I have been told is the essential difference. If that is not what it means, I would like clarification.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely it; and it has been brought about by the kind of concern the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has expressed. These concerns were made known to him as they were made known to us. We want to clarify it entirely. We do not think it changes the original notion; it makes it very clear that the ministry is not in the business of closing schools but is in the business of requiring boards to very clearly set out what procedures and policies they are going to follow in closing schools before they close schools.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Dean moves that clause 8(1 )(

z) of the act, as set out in subsection 3(5) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(

z) In respect of schools under the jurisdiction of a board, issue guidelines respecting the closing of schools and require that boards develop policies therefrom with respect to procedures to be followed prior to the closing of a school by decision of the board."

Mr. Grande: I have one very simple question, Mr. Chairman. Can the parliamentary assistant show to me how this policy differs from what has happened for the past three to four years? What is the difference?

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any difference between this and what has been happening. As I think I mentioned a moment ago, it is to make sure there is the specific and unambiguous authority in the act for the minister to issue the guidelines. It makes it clear that the guidelines are to be used by the board in establishing its own policies and procedures prior to making a decision.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Grande moves that subsection 4(4) of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, a very simple reason why this subsection should be struck out is that it is one of those new powers the minister and the Ministry of Education say they require in this act.

In taking a look at the explanation the parliamentary assistant gave for this particular

section during second reading debate, it does not seem to me that one tries to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. That is exactly what is happening with this. It is a power the ministry wants, as far as I am concerned, with which it could close particular programs within the school system and force the school system not to get involved in certain programs if they are or appear to be in competition with the private sector.

3:50 p.m.

I suggest that the reason the public education system was developed in this province, and, indeed, all over the world, was that the private sector was not interested in delivering educational services to our students. Another reason was that we wanted to make sure every student and adult in our society met a minimum requirement in literacy, numeracy, etc. Of course, the affordability principle is there.

But the reason I want this proposed amendment to be struck out is that, in effect, it will stop the public education system from getting involved in day care; and if it does, the Ministry of Education can say, "Sorry, but that will compete with the private sector, so you are not allowed." It will stop the public sector with the school closure power the ministry now has been given by themselves and the Liberals together.

In effect, the school board would be prevented even from buying buses to bus students to another school, because the ministry could turn around and say, "The buying of buses would conflict with the private transportation facilities in this province; therefore, you will not be able to bus your own students."

It would conflict with the delivery of special education services, given the fact that in the private sector, as I mentioned before, there are 61 schools in the province delivering special education services, and they are private institutions operating at a very high price.

What I am saying is that this power could be misused by the Ministry of Education -- not necessarily by the minister but by the ministry; and not necessarily at this time but at a future time. Once again, I get very nervous when a government requires powers for those very simple, superficial examples the parliamentary assistant gave us in the windup of second reading.

I feel so strongly about this area that neither I nor this party is willing to give the government this power. Basically when this government says, "Trust us; we will do good," this party does not trust it.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, all I can do, as the member for Oakwood has done in repeating the criticism he made earlier, is to repeat my earlier response that the purpose of the

section is to do just what it says. It is to prevent boards from, if I can use the expression, "going overboard" in bringing too much of the work place into the school system, if that is possible, and thereby ending up competing with the very businesses and individuals who are supporting the school system by their own businesses.

That is the purpose of it; it is not to get out into these wild flights of imagination, saying the school board would be unable to transport its own pupils. It is the most ridiculous rubbish to say that; there is no such intention whatever. It would never be used by anybody in his right mind, and I think we have people in their right minds in the school system, to prohibit a board from arranging its own special education classes or contracting for them. As a matter of fact, there is another

section in the act, which I believe the member well knows, that requires boards to provide special education programs by 1985.

The reasons that have been advanced for deleting this

section do not hold water; the amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Sweeney: Could I ask a question once again, please, Mr. Chairman? Why is it necessary to have the words "or may be" in the third line? They seem to be anticipating something, and I am not quite sure what that is. I can see the possibility of a direct conflict actually existing, but what is being anticipated? Is the bill saying that someone is going to say in advance, "Some day later on some

section of the private sector may get into that: therefore, you cannot do anything"? Quite frankly, it seems a little dicey.

Mr. Dean: I think the explanation is that if it is proposed that a certain program be entered into, someone could say: "All right, we have entered into it. Now we see it is in competition." If we see beforehand that it may be in competition, this provides the authority to stop that program from being entered into. It is an attempt to see beforehand. If the

section only said "that is in competition," that would mean it would have to be actually in existence to indicate that it was in competition. It is an attempt to give the boards an opportunity to look forward and ask, "Will this be in competition with private industry?"

Probably the members were here when I mentioned two typical examples. There was a market garden, which a school developed with good intentions but which turned out to be selling produce at reduced rates in competition with growers. Another was a ceramics class which did the same thing. The "may be" is just to give the authority to look forward and say, "Will this be in competition?" If so, "Don't do it."

Mr. Chairman: Actually, I think the member for Kitchener-Wilmot is talking to the section. Why don't we see how the amendment goes?

Mr. Sweeney: I am sorry.

Mr. Chairman: Just for the benefit of the guests in the public gallery, we are dealing with Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Education Act. We have a proposed amendment by the member for Oakwood to strike out subsection 4(4).

All those in favour of the proposed amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, the reason I raised the question in that way was that the parliamentary assistant will be aware of the fact that just recently I completed a three-month tour around the province looking at the whole question of youth employment.

One of the points that came up time and time again was the necessary relationship between schools and businesses with respect to certain parts of the training program. There are situations where the business sector is the most appropriate place for some of the training to take place, even though the student is still enrolled in a secondary school in most of the cases we referred to.

On the other hand, there were situations where the business people said, "We either cannot, shall not or have no intention to get involved in that." In such a case, the school might have to get into implementing a training program that might appear to be in competition with private industry, but if private industry simply will not do it, will not pick up its share of that training program, then the school could be in a very awkward situation indeed. That is why this "or may be" really bothers me.

I can see the potential implications, but I have real concern about those three words. I can see where there could be abuse, where a board in all good faith would take certain steps because it had indications from its local community that nobody else was going to do that; then, after it goes ahead and does it, finds out somebody will say, "That's a good idea, I think I will form a private company;" and the board will be out in the cold.

I am not sure whether it is the intent of the ministry, the officials of the ministry or even the draftsmen of this legislation that this should happen, but after spending three months travelling around this province I can see where it could happen. I am wondering whether the minister's officials have taken that factor into consideration.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Chairman, the only response I can make is that I am sure no regulation would ever be made that would prohibit the kind of activity the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has explained, for the simple reason that it would not be in competition with anything. If it were the only possible --

Mr. Sweeney: It may not be at the moment, but later on it could be.

4 p.m.

Mr. Dean: Later on? I guess nothing is etched in stone, is it?

Mr. Nixon: The 10 commandments are.

Mr. Dean: I'm sorry; nothing except the 10 commandments is etched in stone. Some people would contend there were really 20 but that 10 were lost in the translation.

Since nothing except that very precious document is etched in stone, I would think any board or ministry would look at the circumstances of the day with regard to any program or activity that was alleged to be in conflict with private sector activity.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection 4(4) carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye".

All those opposed will please say "nay".

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

section 12:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Dean moves that subsection 48(6) of the act as set out in

section 12 of the bill, be amended by striking out the word "or" at the end of clause (a), by adding the word "or" at the end of clause (

b) and by adding thereto the following clause (c):

"(

c) A person who is in Canada while his parent or the person who has lawful custody of him is in Canada on a work visa, a diplomatic visa or a ministerial permit."

Mr. Dean: This is brought forward at this time because of concerns that have been expressed to us directly -- I believe they were echoed by some of the members of the opposition during second reading -- that unintentionally we could be catching another group of students in this

section by not providing a further exemption, that is for the children of the parent or guardian who has lawful custody of the child and who is in Canada on a work visa, diplomatic visa or ministerial permit.

This amendment is to make certain that people who are legitimate residents of the country, though not citizens, will not have to pay the gross fees for the education of their children while they are in this country. We in the ministry believe this segment, and I do not have the figures as to how large it is, should have the right to have their children educated as residents of the country.

Mr. Grande: As we stated in second reading, we are in agreement with this amendment to this particular

section of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.

section 40:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Grande moves that subsection 40(2) of the bill be amended by striking out the words "and close schools" in the second line and substituting the words "and maintain schools open."

Mr. Grande: I do not want to prolong the debate. The amendment has to do with school closure and I think enough has been said on the matter. I would just like to place the amendment and leave it there.

The Deputy Chairman: Does anyone else wish to participate in this discussion?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have an opportunity to put a proposal to the parliamentary assistant. The proposal is that these guidelines not restrict the position of a school board on the basis of closing certain urban schools and leaving open rural schools. The honourable member may recall I made the point that in the past it has always been a foregone conclusion that the rural schools would close and the children collected in the rural area by school bus would then go into the urban centre where there may or may not be facilities for them.

I am sure the member knows of instances where the rural school is really one that can provide the better facility. I do not think we should forget about at least the possibility of a school bus picking the students up in an urban centre and taking them out to a school which already has facilities that would not have to be reproduced in the urban centre. Actually, there would be a saving since the school bus could pick the young people up at the school centre and not have to go over the many miles for concession collection.

I just thought I should put it to the member again, since in his response on second reading I do not believe he referred to that particular point. It has been something put to me in our area, where at least in one instance the proposal has been to close a very fine country school, which, at taxpayers' expense, has been provided with almost all of the amenities that would reasonably be expected, and to bus the kids into an urban school. I would like to see the guidelines allow for the alternative flow to at least be possible.

Mr. Dean: If I may respond to that, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is quite correct that I neglected to respond to that point on second reading. I agree with the principle he is enunciating there. I would like to see that it is made part of the provisions in school closure guidelines, that we do not necessarily assume the rural centre is automatically the one that should close. All things being equal, I feel as he does that the rural setting has a lot to offer people from all parts.

The Deputy Chairman: We have before us an amendment to

section 40.

All those in favour of Mr. Grande's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 40 agreed to.

Sections 41 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.

section 44:

Mr. Nixon: I would just like to ask the parliamentary assistant what is accomplished by

section 44, unless it is an re-enactment of the powers that school boards already have. I am sure he is aware that in many Indian communities the Indian students who may not be provided for as far as secondary education is concerned do move into the secondary school facilities in the surrounding non-Indian communities and have done so for a good long time.

I would simply bring to the parliamentary assistant's attention one of what I would suggest are the very successful agreements of this nature. The Indian students from the Six Nations Indian Reserve community come in to Brantford and attend the Pauline Johnson Secondary School, named for the famous Indian poetess. The reason I am interested in that is I taught there for a number of years and I thought the situation worked rather well.

The parliamentary assistant will be interested to know that quite a significant number of young Indian people have accomplished a good deal of high academic achievement and, in many instances, have come back to the Indian community to assist in teaching, medical practices, dentistry, as lawyers -- believe it or not -- and so on. I am not so sure we need too many more lawyers, but that is another particular prejudice I have.

What does

section 44 accomplish that we have not been able to work out in the Indian and non-Indian communities until now?

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Dean: It is designed to give the boards the legislative power to enter into agreements with the crown and with an Indian band to carry on education for non-Indian students in Indian schools and to provide instruction in schools provided by the crown. It also determines how one is to count the number of Indian pupils enrolled in schools so the allocation of trustees is more fairly accomplished.

Section 44 agreed to.

Sections 45 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.

section 57:

The Deputy Chairman: I have two amendments for

section 57, and both of them are identical in intent.

Mr. Dean moves that

section 57 of the bill be struck out, and that sections 58 to 70 be renumbered as sections 57 to 69.

Mr. Sweeney: I would just point out that Mr. Bradley had indicated earlier that since the ministry was fair enough to remove this

section he was withdrawing his amendment because, as you said Mr. Chairman, it has the same effect.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 57 to 69 as renumbered, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 46, as amended, reported.

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

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 38,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Ms. Bryden: At the present time, we are debating a reasoned amendment to second reading of this bill, which our party has put because we intend to vote against this bill.

We find that the very vague objectives in the bill for the ministry do not address the problems facing Ontario. One of those problems, as we all know, is unemployment at the highest level since the Depression: 10.2 per cent for Canada; 7.9 per cent for Ontario. These are the May figures, which are the latest available. Already, that level of unemployment for Ontario passes the figure the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) put in his May 13 budget when he anticipated an unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent for Ontario in 1982.

At the present time there are almost 400,000 people out of work in this province. That is only the reported figure. There may be many more who have given up looking for work. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high; layoffs are snowballing; utilization of plant capacity in Canada as a whole is at its lowest level in 20 years, slightly under 70 per cent. This kind of situation requires more than the vague objectives of the bill. In fact, all this bill appears to do is to change the name of the ministry. It is a typical response, one that we have become used to from the government opposite.

It is rather like the change of name of the Conservative Party to the Progressive Conservative Party. Despite that name, we still have a province without a freedom of information act. Is that progressive? We still have a province that provides almost the lowest amount of aid to post-secondary education and to those in society who are voiceless and require social assistance, many of them sick, disabled and unemployable. Is that progressive?

We also have a government which relies more and more on regressive taxes, such as the retail sales tax extensions of this budget, the loading of more burdens on the municipal governments, which raise regressive property taxes, and the highest medical premiums in Canada. This kind of a situation requires a new response and not simply a change of name. Changing the name of the ministry from Industry and Tourism to Industry and Trade is completely meaningless unless we also see that there are plans for providing a real industrial strategy for this province.

The change of name is rather like the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. It is what one might call a part of the big blue balloon which the Tory party provides as an answer to economic problems. We have had the first anniversary of the BILD program. This was brought out just prior to the election with a great deal of public relations fanfare and ballyhoo; but when we look at the first year's achievements in the anniversary report, which was brought forward last December, we find there has been very little achieved of what BILD promised.

For example, BILD was supposed to provide $750 million of investment over five years, with the private sector matching that figure. In the first year, not one penny has come from the private sector. Again, only $145 million is reported to have been spent in the first year, and when we start to look at the figures we find that most of it is money that was reshuffled from other ministries. I would say one could call it the greatest double shuffle in history.

4:20 p.m.

One of the expenditures which I presume was included in that report of $145 million is $42,000 for the public relations exercise that reported on the first anniversary. It was a very flossy booklet, which I am sure the Speaker will recall, and there was a big meeting to tell those favourite few the government invites to these kinds of meetings what BILD had achieved. I did not receive an invitation to the meeting. We do not need more public relations exercises. What we need is a change in philosophy. When one reads the objectives, this bill does not seem to contain any change in philosophy.

For example, it says in clause 3(

c) the ministry shall, "advance the interests of the private sector of the economy of Ontario by providing appropriate promotions, assistance, counselling and advocacy to aid in the securing of new markets, the introduction of new technologies, the development of new products and adjustments to changing world economic conditions."

The private sector is not participating and, therefore, all the money the province presumably is going to make available for projects will not be taken up. One cannot operate only in the private sector because it will not act until it sees there will be markets for its products.

It says we must have a climate of confidence. If the climate of confidence is built up simply by giving away the store to the private sector and then letting it invest abroad, add to its profits or do whatever it wants with no planning of how the money will be spent and with no obtaining of equity when money is given from the public sector, we will end up with the same thing that has been happening for the past 40 years under this government: putting money down the drain with no return to the investors of the province, that is the taxpayers who are putting their money in and who want to see results.

This philosophy of relying entirely on the private sector is really the privatization of government. This Conservative Party has taken government out of the public domain and handed its powers over to the private sector. The rest of us who are not in the industrial world are expected to take the crumbs from whatever they produce.

Second, the ministry's objectives do not encourage more Canadian investment. We know from speeches made by the minister that he welcomes foreign investment. Foreign investment is like taking dope; there are side effects. One may encourage some foreign investment to come in but sooner or later the dividends and interest start flowing out. Sooner or later, the foreign companies start adjusting their buying so they buy from their parent companies more than they buy Canadian.

The whole foreign investment will end up with us having less development and money to invest here than if we had tried to do it ourselves by engaging in productive investment through joint ventures, through public ownership and through encouraging Canadian development.

If one looks at the interest and dividend outflow, and this is what foreign investment has brought about, in 1970 it was $1 billion; in 1981 it was $7 billion. That shows how habit-forming foreign investment is.

The deficit in our trade in manufactured products has grown from $9 billion in 1974 to $21 billion in 1981. These are figures for the whole of Canada, but I am sure Ontario has contributed a great deal to that problem, because we are buying a great deal of imports, including a lot of capital goods and machinery, and we are not replacing those imports.

This is one of the reasons we are opposing the bill and through our reasoned amendment are suggesting that the bill be withdrawn. If the government wants to change the name of the ministry, it should bring in a new bill but this new bill should also change the objectives of the ministry so it would concentrate on, first, increasing the degree of Canadian ownership of Ontario industry; and second, providing through joint ventures and crown corporations for the development of the key sectors of the Ontario economy, particularly where imports dominate.

The objectives of the ministry also mention that it will "participate with other jurisdictions, with associations and organizations, and with public and private enterprises with a view to formulating plans to create, assist and develop the entrepreneurial and material resources of Ontario."

If the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development is a plan, then the government does not know what planning is, because it does not provide for any sort of turning around of our manufacturing sector or for joint ventures; at least we have not seen any significant joint ventures come out of it. We did have the announcement of the Sanyo plant, which was supposed to produce nine new jobs, but when we looked at it we found there were not even nine, that some of them would be for people brought in from the parent company.

Mr. Speaker, the only party that produced a pre-budget plan this year was the New Democratic Party. I do not think you could call the budget itself a plan, because the Conservative Party just does not know how to plan. They talk about giving money to the private sector, but then they do not tell the private sector what it should do with that money in the way of providing a target number of jobs, getting into the import replacement fields and developing new industries, particularly in the high-tech areas.

We obviously have not been planning in the area of skills training, because we are still importing skilled people from other countries, and our young people are still unable to fill the vacancies that are available in the skilled fields. This is the kind of planning needed to utilize that unused capacity in our manufacturing industry, to train our young people so they can provide the skills we need and to engage in public and private investment on a planned basis.

The budget has provided what is considered to be a traditional method of increasing our development, particularly in a period of high unemployment, that is the acceleration of public works programs. Certainly I think this is a good emergency measure to get people back to work in this time of increasing layoffs, but on looking at that program one finds that it probably will not produce very much in the way of new employment.

It sounds impressive: the Ministry of the Environment is going to produce $5.6 million in accelerated investment; the Ministry of Education, $15 million; and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, $34.5 million; but all of that money is to go for labour only, therefore, the municipalities will have to find the financing for all of the construction costs and construction materials that will be needed in order to use that money.

4:30 p.m.

Most of the municipalities had already reached their borrowing limit by the time these announcements were made. Even if they had not, not many of them could afford to pay the present high interest rate to take advantage of that program. We cannot really expect much action from that program.

Even if they did take up some of it, it would all be reduced by seven per cent on the materials because of the extension of the sales tax to construction materials. The government gives with one hand and takes away with the other and, in effect, sabotages its own programs.

The government seems to work on the philosophy that it can ride out the present situation. The question is, who is riding it out? It is not the minister and his cabinet colleagues, who are going to be travelling around in executive jets. It looks like King Billy wants to imitate the multinational presidents and the oil sheikhs and separate himself from the ordinary people when he travels. I do not think the executive jet could be considered an investment in development of our industry.

I do not think one could call Suncor a planned investment, because it appears a few friends of a few members of the cabinet prevailed upon those members of the cabinet to help them solve their problems. It is hard to see what that will contribute to the development of the Ontario economy and the entrepreneurial and material resources of Ontario, which is what the objectives of this department are described as being.

That $650 million is spent on an unplanned investment, and there is a maximum of $750 million over five years under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. The priorities do not seem geared to developing an industrial strategy.

Who is hurt by this philosophy of riding out the present situation, the recession we are in? It is the sick, the disabled and the unemployable who are on welfare and who have not yet been able to get a proper increase for this year. It is the families and the single persons who have run out of unemployment insurance, who have been unable to find other jobs and who now have to apply for welfare at rates which are below the poverty level in most cases. It is the property taxpayers who are going to face increases of 10 per cent and more in many municipalities to pay for the extension of the sales tax and to pay for all the additional welfare burdens being loaded on them.

I would like to refer members to the figures for Windsor, where in 1980 welfare costs were $5 million. In 1982 they are $14.5 million; that is the budget for it, and that may not be enough. A trebling of welfare costs means a great additional burden on municipal taxpayers. It also means some burden on provincial taxpayers because the province does pay a percentage of the welfare costs.

What does it mean in terms of people? In March 1981 there were 6,600 people on welfare in Windsor. In March 1982 there were 8,500. What this means to the families and the young people in those families is a restricted life, restricted opportunities and discouragement with the society in which they live.

We must not betray those people who are the ones being hurt by the recession. We must show them we are ready to start taking action rather than just blaming it on the federal government, the Reagan government, the high interest rates or the oil sheikhs.

The minister may say he is developing his technology centres as a way of getting us into the high-technology industry, but once again he showed his philosophy in a speech he made recently to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in which he discussed his technology centres and said that once they are initiated he hopes eventually they will be turned over to the private sector.

Why should the government take the risks and do the setting up of these centres in order to develop our new industrial opportunities, and then turn them over to the private sector when profits might be generated? That is typical of the philosophy of this government.

Also typical is the private party the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) held after the budget for friends he had invited to come and hear his budget: a $6,500 private party, paid for by the taxpayers of this province. This shows the kinds of priorities the government has.

They say a recession becomes a depression when three things happen. The first is when no new investment is forthcoming, which seems to be the situation we are in.

The second is when even maintenance and normal repair is skipped. This is what is happening, particularly at the municipal level but also in a great many of the provincial ministries. When one starts to let plant and human resources go down, one is not going to have the basis for further expansion.

The third is when retail sales drop and the savings rate increases. The savings rate increases only when the people with money to invest decide it is not worth investing and are going to wait the thing out. They are not hurting particularly, but there are others who are hurting and the government has a responsibility to see that their needs and requirements are looked after by turning the economy around and by developing an industrial strategy.

I would urge all members to join us in saying this cosmetic change of name is no answer to our present problems; that we should defeat the bill and send it back for redrafting in the hope that we will get a true ministry of industry and development set up, one which will make some change in our present economic circumstances.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: I really wish the minister responsible would not pride himself quite so much on his hard-line, right-wing philosophy and would take a look at the possibilities in this particular bill with the reasoned amendment that has been put forward by my colleague.

I do not begin to profess that this is the answer to an awful lot, or all, of our problems, but with the amendment as moved by my colleague to increase the degree of Canadian ownership of Ontario industry, to provide for the use of crown corporations and joint ventures and to develop key sectors of the Ontario economy where imports dominate, we could have one of the first major efforts to tackle what I think is really one of the fundamental problems facing us in this province. I refer to the branch-plant economy that we have.

I feel very strongly that we simply have to start a restructuring of the economy with control in Ontario or we are not going to reverse what some, not just New Democrats, are beginning to call the deindustrialization of Ontario. It should concern all of us in this House.

I would like to give a couple of examples which underline the kinds of problems we are facing and speak to the need for the ministry, if we are going to change its name, to be given some particular direction as well.

When we were dealing with the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment we had a number of companies before us, two of which stand out in my mind. If members of that committee learned anything it was that there were problems with the branch-plant economy we have in Ontario.

I think the most straightforward case was that of the Bendix Corp. in Windsor. In testimony before the committee, the Canadian president of that company pointed out to us that the company had made a profit for something like 40 out of the 41 years it had been in business, that there had been some modernization of that particular plant and, at the time I am speaking of, they still had some 400 employees in the plant.

Nevertheless, the president of the Canadian company received a memo from the head office in Southfield, Michigan, which gave him two weeks to justify the continuation of that particular branch, which they planned to shut down on the basis that they had unused production capability in the American plant and could make more money by using the total productive capacity of the American plant.

He told the committee in a straightforward fashion that even though he was the president of the Canadian company he had to respond favourably to the memo from the head office; that, "Yes, they should shut it down because," to use his words, "the bottom line was the corporate profit and loss picture and they could do better, even though they were making money in the Bendix Corp. in Windsor, by doing all of the production in the US plant."

That decision took no account o