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

March 29, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

ONTARIO WOMEN'S DIRECTORATE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FLOOD PLAIN POLICY

NATURAL GAS PRICING

FIRE SAFETY IN HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

CHILD ABUSE

ORAL QUESTIONS

VISIBLE MINORITIES

COUNTRY PLACE NURSING HOME

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

SHELL CANADA LTD.

INCOME TAX REFUNDS

PICKET-LINE HARASSMENT

COMMERCIAL FISHING

RENT CONTROL

BRUCE ENERGY CENTRE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

GRANT TO HAMILTON

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION ACT

YONGE-ROSEDALE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ACT

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AMENDMENT ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ONTARIO WOMEN'S DIRECTORATE

Mr. Wrye: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, which concerns my rights, which as a member I feel have been infringed upon: During the course of my research into equal pay for work of equal value, to which the government and the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch) will know the government is theoretically committed, I found that the Ontario women's directorate is no longer making available its publication Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value. It has, in fact, only a federal and provincial paper, usually discussing it --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That has nothing to do with privilege.

Mr. Bradley: It is a point of clarification like the answer yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order, please.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FLOOD PLAIN POLICY

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we are currently developing a new provincial flood plain management policy for Ontario. I would like to touch on some of the background of this issue and then bring members up to date on where the matter stands.

The aim of our provincial flood plain policy is twofold. We want to provide the most appropriate level of flood protection to the people of Ontario and we want to encourage a co-ordinated approach to the use of land and the management of water.

We know total immunity from flood damage is impossible. We all know we have to accept some risks in our day-to-day lives. To determine the appropriate level of protection, we must weigh the potential risk to life and property against the social and economic needs of the community and individual property owners.

If our criteria are too high, valuable land could be adversely affected. If our flood plain criteria are too low, however, flood damage in the province could increase, not to mention the adverse tangible and intangible effects on people's lives. We have to strike a careful balance in making decisions about flood plain management. As Minister of Natural Resources, I have the responsibility of ensuring that we take reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary and unacceptable risks and costs.

Flood plain management in this province has evolved over a period of more than 30 years. If we look back I think we can be proud of our track record in Ontario. Ontario is one of the few jurisdictions in North America where flood damage is on the decline. As members know, however, the nature of flood risk varies from area to area and depends on many factors such as the depth of flooding, the velocity of water flow, shape of the flood plain and the type of urban or rural development.

Recently, concern has been expressed that the flood lines in some locations in Ontario do not accurately represent the risk of flooding and that the process of implementation is not flexible enough to account for unique local conditions. In some cases, the concern was that the criteria were too high and they presented an unnecessary hindrance to development on flood plain lands.

To help deal with these concerns, I appointed a committee to conduct a public review of the government's proposed flood plain management policies. The committee was chaired by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor).

From this public review process, I wanted an assessment of the concerns from a broad spectrum of perspectives. The committee included municipal representatives, a consulting engineer and real estate and insurance specialists, as well as a representative from a chamber of commerce.

The review committee travelled throughout Ontario last fall. It conducted 15 public meetings and received some 300 written submissions from the public, municipalities, conservation authorities and others with an interest in flood plain management. I am pleased to be able to table the committee's report in the House today.

I think this House owes the review committee a large vote of thanks for the valuable work it has accomplished. The committee has made an important contribution to the process of developing an integrated flood plain management policy for Ontario. As honourable members will see, the committee's 13 recommendations are wide-ranging and challenging.

One of the recommendations suggests that a minimum standard for flood protection be established for Ontario. This criterion would be based on a flood level that has a probability of occurrence of once every 100 years.

I believe it is appropriate that we head in this direction. However. I should stress two things very strongly. The first is that flooding problems can best be managed on a watershed basis. We would support changes in the existing criteria only with the consent of the vast majority of municipalities within a specified watershed. The second thing that must be stressed is that we will not support the lowering of flood protection criteria in any part of Ontario where the past history of flooding reveals that higher criteria would be more appropriate.

I want to assure the House that I do not intend to let the issue drag on too long. Flood plain management policy has a very high priority within the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I hope we will be able to reach consensus on this issue as we move towards a final decision about flood plain management in Ontario. To expedite that process, I am today sending copies of the report directly to all the municipalities of Ontario, to the 39 conservation authorities and to all the groups and individuals that submitted briefs to the committee. The report will also be made available to the general public in the district and regional offices of my ministry.

I have asked for written comments on the report within 90 days. Once I have received these comments and once I resolve some of the other issues raised by the committee, I anticipate the proposed new policy will be drafted quickly.

I also anticipate the draft policy will undergo further review before it is implemented. The final provincial flood plain policy will be developed and issued under subsection 3(2) of the Planning Act.

Before that can happen, however, we need to deal with several important issues. First, we must define the various roles, responsibilities and accountability of different government agencies -- the municipalities, conservation authorities and the provincial government. Second, we must define the responsibilities of the private sector in flood plain management -- the role of individuals, real estate organizations, mortgage companies and insurers. Third, we must define the criteria and the framework within which flexibility in flood plain management can be exercised.

Fourth, we must ensure that technical and professional people in the field work to increase public awareness and understanding of flood plain issues and their potential hazard, as well as programs which are implemented.

2:10 p.m.

The other subject I would like to bring to the attention of the House deals with the administration of conservation authorities. Recently, some discussion has occurred with representatives of the conservation authorities regarding the processes they follow in carrying on their operations.

My objective in this is to improve public awareness of the activities of conservation authorities and the manner in which their decisions are made at that level. Therefore, I will be requiring modifications to these administrative procedures, focusing on such issues as providing member municipalities and the public with advance notice and the agendas of authority meetings; ensuring that minutes of meetings are available to member municipalities and the public, and improving public access to the information contained in authority documents such as engineering reports and maps.

Also, in the near future I will be discussing with conservation authorities a more active involvement of all authority members in the decisions related to their ongoing operations. This process will ensure that through their appointed representatives all member municipalities will actively participate in the authority. I have noted in recent years that several authorities have moved away from having their executive committee as the main decision-making body. I will be encouraging other authorities to pursue this same approach where feasible.

In

summary, I believe it is in Ontario's best interests to arrive at a solution to flood plain management that everyone can live with. The government has taken major steps towards resolving the issue, but there is still much work to be done. Water is perhaps Ontario's most precious and abundant resource. It has made a lasting and valuable contribution over the years to the quality of life in Ontario and it continues to play a vital

part in our daily lives. The government is taking steps to ensure that water and Ontario's other important natural resources are managed wisely on an integrated basis.

The report I have tabled here today is an important

part in that process.

I would like to read the names of the review committee into the record: the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), chairman; Cameron Jackson, Burlington; David Murray, Cameron; Murray Berman, Chatham; Ian Hill, Niagara Falls; Norman Leigh, Fort Erie; Joseph O'Brien, Toronto, members; and Stephen Janes, London, consultant.

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring the House up to date on matters relating to natural gas pricing in Ontario.

The prices we pay for natural gas, not to mention crude oil, are of vital importance to the Ontario economy. Ontario's total bill for oil and gas from western Canada will be about $9 billion this year. Clearly, price changes of even small percentages can have significant effects on Ontario's economy. This western oil and gas represents the largest share of Ontario's total energy bill of $13.3 billion. In contrast, Ontario's wholesale electricity bill is about $3.6 billion.

With this perspective in mind, Ontario has argued consistently over the years that oil and gas prices should reflect Canada's own circumstances rather than be dictated by the situation elsewhere. Our economy functions in a very open global environment and we must remain competitive.

In the 1960s and 1970s Ontario industry paid natural gas prices that were somewhat lower than in the United States. This is no longer the case. Over the last year, in the aftermath of the 1983 reductions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the natural gas industry in the United States has cut its prices. American gas producers have accepted lower returns. Their pipeline companies have developed special transportation tariffs and other arrangements. Distributors have developed market retention programs. American regulatory agencies have shown flexibility in permitting market-sensitive pricing.

What this adds up to is that many competing industries in neighbouring states can now buy natural gas for $1 to $1.50 per thousand cubic feet less than they could a year ago. This has not happened in Canada. On the contrary, wholesale prices are about the same and returns to producers have risen. This uncompetitive pricing threatens jobs in Ontario. With our industry still struggling out of the recession, uncompetitive natural gas prices are counterproductive to that recovery.

We were encouraged by the announcement of the governments of Canada and Alberta in June 1983 that they would consider incentives to market natural gas to eastern Canadian industry. Such incentive prices could be a clear step in the right direction.

Ontario has urged that any industrial incentive pricing arrangement should be directed at both attracting new sales and maintaining current levels of sales. The Alberta government has proposed an incentive pricing scheme that offers a significant discount for new sales to large-volume customers; however, for existing sales it offers a discount substantially lower. Both the size of the proposed discount for existing sales and the proposed process for its implementation do not reflect the objectives Ontario has sought.

During this period of discussion with Alberta, a federally sponsored task force on the petrochemical industry has reviewed the state of that industry and has issued its report. One of the important recommendations of the task force is for an immediate reduction of industrial natural gas prices by 15 per cent, or 60 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. As well, the Ontario Energy Board has confirmed that United States and offshore competitors of Canadian industrial gas users have access to natural gas priced significantly lower than is the case in Ontario.

In addition, the Ministry of Energy has been conducting an informal survey of large industrial energy users throughout the province and has been continuing its monitoring of the US natural gas scene. These reviews confirm that Canadian natural gas prices are too high.

The Ministry of Energy is convening a major seminar in May involving industrial natural gas users to examine just this problem. Over the coming months we will be broadening our discussions with gas users in the province and our surveys of US markets in preparation for discussions expected later this year on future natural gas prices.

The current pricing arrangements between Canada and Alberta expire in January 1985, and new natural gas prices will have to be agreed on that reflect the market circumstances I have outlined. In the meantime, steps can be taken to give credible signals to industrial gas users that natural gas will be priced more competitively.

In our discussions we have suggested a substantially larger discount to existing industrial sales than had been proposed by Alberta. We feel this is needed in order to provide a credible market signal. By way of comparison, Alberta's proposed discount for current sales is less than 20 per cent of the price reduction called for by the petrochemical industry task force, and the proposed discount is only a fraction of the increases in the Alberta border price for natural gas over the past eight months alone.

I am continuing to urge that an incentive pricing scheme be implemented which provides a credible signal that prices are moving in a direction that reflects current market realities. As well, in order to complement a realistic industrial incentive pricing scheme, we suggested to Alberta that we would propose legislation that would ensure that Ontario natural gas distributors could be more flexible in their pricing of natural gas to industrial users.

I am most concerned that progress to date has been slow both in the discussions between Ontario and Alberta and in the separate discussions between Alberta and the federal government. The federal government and the governments of producing provinces are also discussing natural gas export prices. Canada has already implemented two price cuts for export prices in order to help maintain the level of sales to these markets. Further reductions that might result in the pricing of Canadian gas exports below domestic gas should not proceed. The priority should be to reduce our own gas prices to levels that reflect current market realities.

We have the opportunity in Canada to adjust our gas prices to reflect our abundant supplies, the circumstances of our domestic manufacturing industry and the needs of natural gas producers, both large and small, for a fair share of the revenue from sales of this vital Canadian energy resource.

2:20 p.m.

FIRE SAFETY IN HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling the report of the Public Inquiry into Fire Safety in Highrise Buildings in Ontario.

Honourable members will recall there were a number of tragic high-rise fires in the fall of 1980 and the winter of 1981, most of which occurred in the United States. One, which was in this jurisdiction, caused six deaths and 67 injuries. Considerable concern was expressed as to the safety of high-rise buildings and the public's understanding of proper procedures to follow in the event of a high-rise fire emergency.

To ensure these issues were adequately addressed within the legislative and educational framework, a public inquiry into fire safety in high-rise buildings in Ontario was established.

His Honour Judge John B. Webber was appointed commissioner on June 30, 1982, and was asked to consider evidence within the following terms of reference:

1. To assess the dangers to which occupants are exposed when a fire occurs in a high-rise building;

2. To assess the public's understanding of the action that should be taken in the event of a fire and evaluate the need for public education programs, and to assess the public's perception as to whether occupancy of high-rise buildings is especially hazardous, and if so, why;

3. To assess the value of fire safeguards required by law;

4. To examine the effectiveness of fire prevention inspections conducted in high-rise buildings by public and private agencies;

5. To recommend changes to laws or practices and procedures and make such other recommendations as may be appropriate with a view to improving the standard of fire safety in high-rise buildings.

The inquiry attracted a great deal of attention within the fire and building community, and I know the report will be read with great interest. I have asked the fire marshal and his staff to review the recommendations and advise me of considerations respecting implementation.

The inquiry received the evidence of 75 witnesses. Many of these witnesses were highly qualified in the field of fire safety, both nationally and internationally. The inquiry also received 93 written briefs, and 316 exhibits were filed. A total of 67 hearing days transpired over the inquiry period between November 1, 1982, and June 6, 1983.

The inquiry dealt with many issues, including the actual review of high-rise fires in Ontario as well as outside the province, which were considered of assistance in arriving at the final recommendations.

The report is prepared in two volumes and involves issues arising from the terms of reference and legislation. The inquiry reviewed four types of high-rise buildings: apartment buildings, hotels, offices and institutions. Each has different occupant and building characteristics as well as fire safety systems.

There are 129 recommendations contained in the report. Some of the recommendations have application to fire safety in general and are not limited to high-rise buildings. There are also some recommendations on matters which can be controlled only by federal legislation or action.

The report is comprehensive and deals with the issues of fire safety in high-rise buildings from the perspectives of both building design and use, and considers the new and old building stock within the province.

I am certain the task carried out by His Honour Judge Webber was not a simple one but was achieved in an effective time frame to be useful for deliberation and implementation. I want to take this opportunity to thank His Honour for his concern and dedication and to commend him for the excellent quality of his work. I also want to thank all those people who participated before that commission and those people who worked as staff of the commission.

I am pleased to receive the report. I am certain it will be of benefit to the citizens of this province in the years to come. I am pleased to table it before this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could have the co-operation of all honourable members in limiting their private conversations. Then we could all hear the statements.

CHILD ABUSE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on December 14 the leader of the New Democratic Party asked me to review comments by the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) in regard to the confidentiality of information in the child abuse registry.

The Ontario Provincial Police questioned the member for Hamilton Centre, the minister and a number of other persons. The police report was reviewed by senior crown law officers in my ministry. Because of the particular circumstances of this case, I did not personally participate in the process, preferring to leave the matter to the police and my senior crown law officers.

The senior crown law officers and the police have concluded that there are no grounds to lay charges in this matter. I have reviewed their reports, and I agree with their opinions. I am attaching a memorandum from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for criminal law to the Deputy Attorney General which deals with this matter and its conclusion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister is apprised now and has probably seen a copy of the federal all-party committee report entitled Equality Now, which deals with visible minorities in Canadian society. I am sure the minister would be the first to admit, as would every member of this House, that there is much progress to be made in our treatment of visible minorities in Ontario. Would he consider recommending the appointment of an all-party committee of this Legislature to look at the recommendations of the federal committee and determine the applicability of some of those recommendations to our situation in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct that I have seen a copy of the report as yet. Just as I was leaving my office today to come here, I received some briefing notes on the report, which I hope to be reading over the weekend. At this time, though, I cannot comment too much on the report. The question that has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition is one I will be pleased to take under advisement.

Mr. Peterson: While the minister is considering this over the weekend, given the fact the Ministry of Labour has no official affirmative action programs -- granted, there are some through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but there is nothing official in his ministry per se -- given the serious recommendation in the report Equality Now pertaining to youth unemployment and suggesting that resources and emphasis on youth programs must be a top priority among our visible minorities, and given that echoes the comments of his own race relations commissioner, Dr.

Ubale, in his report Working Together, calling for greater commitment from government to attack this most serious of problems, will the minister take it upon himself to discuss with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) the question of unemployment among our visible minorities and suggest to him and, it is hoped, get his positive response that there be some specific programs in the budget in the not-too-distant future designed to deal with the problems of visible minorities and youth unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would not want to leave the impression that this subject has not already been discussed. There is a cabinet committee on race relations chaired by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), and those matters come under almost constant scrutiny by that committee.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would agree at least to take this tiny step, namely, to discuss with the Attorney General, who is the chairman of the committee on race relations, the possibility of our beginning to gather statistics in Ontario, the information we need, to find out how serious the situation is with respect to unemployment. Many of us feel and believe that the unemployment rate, for example, among black young people in the city of Toronto and the metropolitan area is very high. There is a perception in that community that discrimination exists and needs to be dealt with. That is a perception we in our party share.

Can the minister at least undertake to table in this House any information the government now has or is compiling with respect to the existence of discriminatory practice in terms of the effects of unemployment on different groups in our society?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe some of that information is available. I know it is being worked on. I will have to check to see what progress there is and how close it is to completion. I will certainly look into that and advise the honourable member accordingly.

This might be an appropriate time to mention some programs that have been conducted during the past two summers and will be conducted again this summer by the race relations division of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The programs have been highly successful in the Jane-Finch area.

I have been fortunate enough to attend the closing -- I would not exactly call them ceremonies, but a time when we can assess the success of the program. All the boys and girls are brought in and given appropriate certificates. It is a very heartening experience. In another year, I see nothing wrong with inviting the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party to attend. They would have a first-hand look at some of the positive steps that are being taken in this respect.

Ms. Copps: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for the minister and his government to run poster campaigns of black women in wheelchairs. That is certainly not the answer this government needs. If it wants to look to the private sector, I think it has to start by looking in its own backyard.

Some months ago, it was suggested by this party that the Social Assistance Review Board, which has direct, visible contact with people across this great province, should consider a greater representation of visible minorities in its appointees. What kind of response has the government had to the suggestion that was made by this party some months ago regarding the appointment of more visible minorities in its own boards and agencies, including the Social Assistance Review Board?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question with explicit percentages or figures, but I know that is certainly a consideration of our ministry any time we have an opportunity to appoint people to boards and commissions.

Mr. Speaker: New question; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have an extremely important question In the Premier (Mr. Davis), who I understand either is in the precincts or will be here shortly. I beg your indulgence to stand down that question for his arrival.

COUNTRY PLACE NURSING HOME

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, if I could have his attention for a moment. The minister will be aware that over the last year members of our party have been raising problems concerning nursing homes in general. In particular, we have been raising issues concerning the Country Place Nursing Home.

Charges were laid against that home on March 21, 1984, after a couple of inspection visits by the Ministry of Health, after some correspondence I had with the minister, after a visit I paid to the home on January 31, 1984, and after a press conference at which a number of nurses' aides talked about conditions at the home.

What is the minister intending to do about the fact that one of those nurses' aides has now been fired by the owner of the home and two have been suspended for six months? What protection is the minister going to offer those workers who had the courage to come forward and talk about conditions his inspectors themselves found in their inspections?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify the sequence of events for the benefit of the honourable member.

In case the member may have been implying something different, I wish to point out that the inspections upon which the charges are based certainly preceded his press conference. In fact, the charges themselves were in preparation prior to his press conference. Had I not been away at the time, they probably would have proceeded prior to his press conference, but because of my absence, they were temporarily held up.

At this point, I am not aware, other than by word of mouth, of the events to which the member refers with respect to the nurses' aides. I assure the member that if he can give me any further details with respect to names of individuals, I will be glad to check into it further.

Obviously I am very much concerned if the legitimate complaint of a staff member leads to his or her dismissal, but it may not be within my jurisdiction to deal with that. It may be something about which I might consult with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

Mr. Rae: I have written to the Minister of Labour about it. He suggested I ask the minister, and that is why I am doing that.

The minister will know that under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, a worker who complains is provided protection. Similarly, under the Employment Standards Act, someone who complains with respect to noncompliance with that act is protected. Can he explain why someone who is working in a nursing home and has a genuine complaint about the quality of care that is being provided has no protection under the Nursing Homes Act with respect to making that information public?

Why is the minister not in there protecting the workers who have had the courage to come forward and talk about the conditions under which they are having to provide care for the senior citizens of this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I suppose the answer to that is quite simple, and the member would not tax himself too heavily in guessing what the answer might be. It is simply that it is probably not a situation that has arisen frequently in the past. Now that an incident has occurred, I think it should be looked into and consideration given to some protection being provided.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the problems that finally resulted in charges being laid against the owners of this nursing home were first identified nearly a year ago. Under the government's system of having privately owned nursing homes inspected by the ministry's nursing home inspectors, why does it take almost a year --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If those members who would like to converse with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) would please withdraw, they could carry on their conversation privately.

Mr. Cooke: Why does it take almost a year for the Ministry of Health inspection branch to take action against a nursing home when the violations have been documented and complaints have been handed in, not only by staff but also by Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities and members of this caucus? Why does it take almost a year for the ministry to take action against the owners of these homes?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member were to check a little more carefully, he would probably find that incidents that occurred a year ago would not be capable of giving rise to charges now. I cannot give a detailed report on each individual incident at this point, and I do not think it would be appropriate since the matters are before the court.

As the member might well be aware, there have been instances that might well date back for a year. Under the act there is a provision for compliance with the regulations and very often compliance is achieved. Then subsequent inspections may reveal, as in this instance, that there have been further violations, which would then give rise to a charge. The incident would not have been outstanding for a full year, because an inspection a year ago would not be capable of sustaining a charge at the present time.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, the Deputy Premier.

Given the fact that there are overall 245 employers -- not 245 companies, as stated in the speech from the throne -- who are supposedly part of his program, can the minister confirm that only 39 of these employers are prepared to go public with respect to their being involved in the program?

Six of these are federal companies that are not even in the provincial jurisdiction, such as Air Canada and a number of others, 16 are boards of education and seven are municipalities. This means that only 10 private companies in the entire province even will let their names be given out publicly. That is 10 out of a total of 216 private companies that have affirmative action programs.

With that kind of record with respect to the private sector in this province, how can we possibly gauge the progress of the minister's alleged voluntary affirmative action program?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know the leader of the third party does have a list of the names of those who have agreed to public disclosure. I assume it is the same list I have, so his information would be correct in that regard.

Second, I do not agree with the leader of the third party that this is necessarily any indication of the success of the program. One of the conditions under which we deal with these major employers is that they know we are providing a consulting service and they are prepared to utilize the resources we have and to implement this program.

I do want to correct one other misunderstanding that I may have left the last time we had the opportunity to talk about this. I underestimated the success of this program. I talked about 33,000 women being involved; that number should have read 311,000, so perhaps the record should be corrected. Approximately 311,000 women in the province are covered by affirmative action measures outside the Ontario public service and a further 28,000 women are covered by the government's own program.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we do not know how many clothes this emperor has on at all; there is no way for us to be able to gauge or assess exactly what the nature of this alleged program is. There are no clear criteria, there are no ways of assessing, there are no standards set out in any form of legislation and there is no basic criterion attached to it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware that we have been in touch with a number of companies that we have reason to believe are on his list? At the T. Eaton Co., a company of which I am sure the minister has heard, the employee relations officer, who I am sure is busy these days, said, 'We have no formal program," but, "We are doing the types of things that such a program would do," though he was not prepared to give any details.

Another company said it does not believe in reverse discrimination; it has no formal objectives, no targets, no committees, no different recruitment policies and no training specifically directed to women.

Just what are the companies doing that are involved in the minister's alleged program? If I may say so, he covers a very small percentage of the women in the work force and, of those who are covered, he is not even prepared to say exactly what the program is and what the heck it is doing.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am quite convinced we are providing leadership in this province as an employer ourselves, and the record speaks for itself in that regard; we table our reports.

As to other major employers, and I am talking about major employers outside the Ontario public service, we are providing this leadership role; we are providing a consultative service.

I have no way of commenting on the results of the member's survey of particular companies and I am not at liberty to discuss firms other than those that have agreed their involvement in these programs can be publicly disclosed. One of the conditions of our working in the private sector is that we respect confidentiality; I am satisfied that this is very important. No doubt when we have the debate which will centre on the member's bill, we will have an opportunity to expand on this.

If the honourable member is trying to suggest, and I am sure he is not, that we are in any way satisfied with the results to date, we are not. There is a long way to go. That is why the speech --

Mr. Martel: Share the results with us.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am trying to be restrained today. I promised my wife I would not get upset any more with the member's questions and I am trying to be restrained. I have not finished yet, either.

I want to point out to the member that we are far from satisfied. That is why the speech from the throne talks about an accelerated program with respect to affirmative action.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member had better have his running shoes on to keep up with this side of the House, because we are going strong on this program.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the minister's affirmative action program has been within the school boards of the province. Some have complied and some have not. I know the minister will be speaking to the board chairmen and to the directors of education later tonight at an affirmative action conference he is co-sponsoring.

The minister's speech, as he knows, comes against a backdrop of amazing progress. The number of elementary school principals who are women as opposed to men has gone from a ratio of six to one in 1972 to seven to one after 10 years of his kind of progress. That is not my idea of progress and I do not think the women educators of this province think it is much progress at all.

Can the minister stand in his place this afternoon and give us some indication of what kind of specific demands he is going to make of the school boards tonight? Is he going to specifically order them to implement affirmative action programs? If so, what targets is he going to insist they meet over the next five years?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, to tell the truth, I happen to have some notes right here which I am going to share with them. It might be fair to restrain myself and let them have the benefit of these comments this evening.

During the course of my remarks tonight, I am going to explain what affirmative action really means in Ontario. Among other things, I am going to tell them in a very quiet, well-reasoned way, because they will be very intelligent people who will understand that a constructive --

Mr. McClellan: Tell us in a whisper; we won't tell anyone.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Whisper in my ear.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I would not want there to be any misunderstanding.

A constructive and positive affirmative action program is a series of activities implemented by an employer to identify and correct systemic discrimination; that is, policies and practices which have a disparate and negative effect on certain groups such as women and tend to assign to them limited roles in the work place. That is what affirmative action really means in that general context. I am going to make some very positive suggestions with respect to what I think they could do in that particularly influential area of public responsibility.

Mr. Rae: The government has been running around this province for eight years with a program that has absolutely no substance at all. They are the laughingstock of everybody who has looked at this issue. We have information on three more companies we have reason to believe may be on the so-called list of 216. We are not sure. We do not know. We have no way of finding out.

Let me tell the minister about Acres Consulting Services Ltd. The personnel administrator told us: "We have had a program for 10 years. We do not have an actual program policy statement or action plan and we do not have any training programs, but we do have a program."

We understand the Canada Life Assurance Co. is on the contact list. We talked to the personnel administrator and she says, "We do not have, nor in fact have ever had, an affirmative action program."

We spoke to the personnel representative of General Motors, who said: "We do not have a formal affirmative action program. We have no policy statement, no target and no distinctions are made on training programs. We do have a women's advisory committee to provide opportunities for women but that applies only to salaried personnel."

This program the government has been trumpeting is nothing short of a fraud. Can the minister deny that and can he prove with statistics that we are wrong and he is right? If he cannot, he has no credibility on the issue.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is a very positive program. As I pointed out to the member, we have been working very conscientiously as an employer to put our own house in order before we went out to talk to other major employers. Perhaps the leader of the third party and the Deputy Premier could come to some understanding this afternoon. Perhaps he could give me his telephone list in advance and as he calls various representatives of the private sector, he might let me know he is calling and then we could follow up with a letter indicating we would be very glad to provide some information.

I have no idea, consistent with my responsibilities, whether he is talking to people who are part of this number or not. It is obvious he must not be. He would do us a great favour if he would agree we have a common objective in mind, equality of access and advancement in the work place, so we could continue to work together dealing with major employers, convincing them of the great advantages there.

It is better to have somebody who is doing that by way of a voluntary response than to do what the member would do in the economy of this province, start moving in with a heavy hand, pushing people around and intervening. We would rather provide the leadership, the advice, the encouragement and then move forward. Watch our progress.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: If that man could hold a portfolio longer than seven months, he would be the front runner to be successor to the Premier (Mr. Davis), instead of a follower.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

SHELL CANADA LTD.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the Premier. Can he confirm reports that, either as a result of a corporate reorganization of Shell Canada or a switch of the head office from Toronto to Calgary, there will be a net loss to Ontario and to Toronto of some 1,000 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can neither confirm nor deny that.

Mr. Peterson: A couple of years ago the government purchased a $650-million window on the industry. Presumably the Premier would be the possessor of some information on this question at this time. What is he doing to protect Ontario's interests?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know whether that is really a supplementary. I, too, have read the press reports and we will certainly be finding out what substance there is to those press reports.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, has the Premier or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) had any advance notice of any kind, any prior notification of any kind, with respect to the decision by Shell Canada? If not, does he not think it about time the workers of this province, the employees who are going to be affected, to say nothing of the public of this province, get some notification from these large companies that move around without any regard to the impact it has on entire communities?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think one is making a premature judgement here. I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) if I have any knowledge of this. The answer to that is no. When we find out, I shall inform the members of the House.

Mr. Peterson: It is absolutely outrageous that the Premier is not informed about this issue. If he is denying he was informed I will accept that, but I will not accept that he is not party to public information that is sweeping through the press and that everyone else knows about. This issue is serious. I want to know what he is doing as Premier and what initiatives he is taking to protect Ontario's interests now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only repeat what I have already said to the member. I can assure him the government will ascertain the degree of substance in what has been published in the press. He asked me whether I had been informed and I say, simply, no.

INCOME TAX REFUNDS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He understands that at this time of the year many citizens are filling out their income tax forms and are looking forward to getting refunds from the income tax department.

The minister will recall that a few years ago when there were abuses in this province, this Legislature passed legislation prohibiting tax discounters from charging the taxpayer more than five per cent of the refund. The minister will further recall, and I think it was in 1979, that the federal government occupied the field and brought forward legislation called the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. Under that legislation he is aware that, unfortunately, the deduction could be as much as 15 per cent of the refund.

Would the minister advise whether he has received complaints from citizens' groups and associations pertaining to the operations of, in some cases, very reputable firms that end up charging that full 15 per cent and, in the process, charge interest that sometimes exceeds what is called a criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code, which is something more than 60 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member points out, it is true that back in 1977, in the absence of a federal presence in this area, this government passed legislation which limited the amount that could be discounted to five per cent plus the cost of preparing the income tax report.

When the federal government occupied the field in 1979 under the legislation the member spoke of, the amount that could be kept for so-called discounting of the tax form was 15 per cent, to include the cost of preparing the form. I guess we could debate what the actual amounts are, depending on how large and intricate the preparation was.

The specific question was whether or not we have had any complaints. To the best of my knowledge, we have had very few. Those we have had we have referred to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa.

By and large, people have made individual decisions that they want cash now, rather than waiting for an indeterminate length of time and rather than going to the bank and borrowing some money to replace the refund. I have not had a large number of complaints indicating that any inappropriate type of usury might be seen by the public as taking place, but I would be interested in any complaints the member has received.

Mr. Roy: Possibly I could forward to the minister some of the complaints I have had from various groups.

The minister will understand that very often the taxpayers involved, who are anxious to get the refund, are low-income citizens. I was surprised, and I am sure the minister will be, that in many instances the refund, involving child rebate, etc. under the act, including some provincial credits, involves substantial amounts of money.

Would the minister advise whether he is aware that 15 per cent, for instance, of $1,000 or $1,200 involves something like $150 or $175 for sometimes just 15 minutes' work, which is the service component of this charge?

He might also advise whether there has been any attempt by his government or any discussions with the federal government to see whether financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, caisses populaires, etc. might be in a position to offer part of this service and, in the process, advance these people some of the refund they are looking forward to, which in many cases is very necessary, but at least advance it at a reasonable rate of interest. This does not happen, I am told, with many of the firms which are preparing income tax returns and the so-called tax discounters.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have not had discussions with any financial institutions as to whether it was appropriate for them to get into this area. Frankly, I would have to seek advice as to whether it was an area they should get into. I would be pleased to have some discussions about that issue with members of my staff.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could bring to the minister's attention some of the information I have been gathering around the province on this matter. There is a whole new business starting up, parasitic, in my view, on the poor. They are the ones who are using this the most. They cannot afford to wait for that money to come back.

We have Bentax, as it is called. We have H. and R. Block, which has now grown from just a few groups to a company competing for this huge business; I am talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 million countrywide. I am not really sure of the figures, but that is the kind of stuff we are getting back.

I had one welfare worker in Windsor tell me there was no one on her case load who had not gone to such a firm -- no one. That was in February. Just as the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was saying, it is a matter of about $150 getting chopped off of a crucial $1,000 which those people need.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would implore the minister to do two things. One would be to talk to the federal government right now about changing that 15 per cent and having a sensible kind of discount, like five per cent or something like that. That would not encourage this practice.

I also suggest that perhaps our own savings offices and other provincial institutions might make this money, which is the only money these people are expecting as a tax rebate, available to them ahead of time on a much reduced kind of scale, or for no cost at all, as a basic service to people now living in poverty.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, this is an area that was entered by the federal government in 1979. When they did so, we abandoned it because of the legislation passed by them.

The first question is whether or not the amount being charged is a fair or an unfair one. Frankly, that would vary from month to month and year to year, depending on the interest rate one might have to pay to borrow a proportionate amount of money. If there seem to be a significant number of complaints that the amount is excessive, certainly I am prepared to have those discussions.

3 p.m.

PICKET-LINE HARASSMENT

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Is the minister aware of the latest

chapter in the use of goons on a picket line to provoke violence such as has occurred in Marshall Industries in Rexdale? Has he been made aware of the use of cameras, walkie-talkies and an armoured vehicle, a virtual tank, to cross the picket lines? Does he know about the arrest of workers in that line?

Given the long history of violent strikebreaking that we have been raising in this House, particularly for the last two years, will the minister now move immediately to remove Max Security, the strikebreaking firm involved in this explosive situation?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware.

Mr. Mackenzie: It shows how the minister is on top of things.

Is the minister aware that the president of Max Security is Peter Downing, who is the brother of Paul Downing and Keith Downing, well known in the strikebreaking industry in Ontario? Can the minister not understand that the government's inaction in the Securicor case, still not resolved since last June, has meant the continuation of a vicious strikebreaking cartel in the province?

We have mentioned the interconnection between Brown Security Services, Max Security, Dependable Driver Service Ltd., KIPPS and many others. It has meant there is a free hand, or an open season, on workers in the province, particularly as we have seen in the recent Federal Packaging and Partition Co. Ltd. case and now at Marshall Industries. Is this the government's policy or is the minister prepared to stop this passive acceptance of strikebreaking goons on picket lines?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I do not accept any of the allegations made by the honourable member about the activity of this particular government. Wherever there has been a violation of the legislation that governs security firms, we have proceeded with the charges resulting from the violations. The member has mentioned one that is at present before the courts.

Mr. Mackenzie: It has been a year now.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I hear the member making objections to "a year now."

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The courts and the procedures before the courts are proceeding with no regard to any delaying factor whatsoever. They are taking their normal course. I am sure the member would want the law to be upheld in that regard and to preserve the law as we know it in this province. They are following the law as prescribed.

On the other part of it, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) introduced legislation in this House in the previous session that took care of and will take care of many of the instances on which the member has remarked. This government has 40 years of remarkable history in relation to labour legislation, unlike the comments and allegations the member has made.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe the Solicitor General can look aside when these kinds of security firm violations are going on at the same time as his ministry is prepared to bring a heavy heel down on a so-called security firm by the name of Pet Find, which employs two people, one welfare recipient and one unemployment insurance recipient, who, to get themselves off the welfare rolls of this province, set up a system to look for pets. They have been determined to be a security firm under the ministry legislation. Why the light hand on the one case and the heavy hand on two individuals who are basically looking for cats and dogs in the city of Hamilton?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question, but I do not believe it is supplementary.

In the situation the honourable member has asked about, there has been an application by the individuals. They are conducting a business according to the definition under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act; thus they need to be licensed. I am sure that member, like the other member, would ask the individuals conducting this business to conduct themselves within the law and legislation of this province.

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the Minister of Natural Resources about the commercial fishing industry. My colleagues the members for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) and Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) are also very deeply concerned about this matter.

The Minister of Natural Resources has now imposed quotas on the commercial fishing industry. What explanation can the minister give for procrastinating all winter long and then announcing a system of quotas at the commencement of the fishing season when he knows very well the difficulties, financial and otherwise, this will cause? What happened to the promise the minister made in London when he implied no one would be forced into bankruptcy by his policies?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the modernization of commercial fisheries has been going on in this province since 1978. My predecessor, the late James Auld, began the process of direct negotiation with the Ontario Council of Commercial Fisheries. In the fall of 1980 he set out in writing to the commercial fishing industry the direction in which he intended to proceed.

A modernization report authored by a joint committee of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Council for Commercial Fisheries was issued in 1982 and recommended individual quotas. Subsequent to the issuance of that report, I embarked on a process of discussion and consultation not only with the Ontario Council of Commercial Fisheries, but also with individual processors and fishing groups in various parts of the province. I travelled to Picton, Port Dover, Wheatley and up to the Owen Sound area. I also had deputations in my office at the request of the Ontario Council for Commercial Fisheries.

We engaged in negotiations over the fall months of 1983 to get a fix on the policies under which quotas would be individually allocated to commercial fishermen.

As I indicated in London, Ontario, in January in a speech to the annual meeting of the Ontario Council of Commercial Fisheries, because of the intervention of that council, we have two equally important criteria for assessing individual quotas. The first is conservation of the species and the insurance that we would have perpetual yield harvesting in place in every body of water in the province. The second is the principle of the economic viability of the industry and its individual operators. Those two principles were considered equally in arriving at quotas in the Great Lakes systems and in the inland waters of the province.

I also indicated we would be changing the process this year for individual commercial fishermen so they would not have to reject their licence in order to appeal the quota. We extended the old licence system for commercial fishermen in Ontario for a two-month period from January 1, and many of them went out and fished. I indicated we would be setting individual quotas as of March 1 and communicating with commercial fishermen.

That communication is now in place. Commercial fishermen can accept the quota or they can object to the quota and still fish under the quota assigned to them. They can go to the Game and Fish Hearing Board in an expeditious way and have the quota reviewed, based on the two principles of economic viability for the industry and the individual operators and of conservation of fish species.

I should add that, as a result of the last six-month process, the total lake allocations of specific species in most of the Great Lakes have been substantially increased. I think when the individual operators get together they will agree --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I do not remember that question being asked.

Mr. Mancini: We have just received a lecture from the minister instead of an answer to my original question. The minister well knows that for commercial fishermen to be viable they have to be able to work with the banks. The fishermen and processors have not been able to consider the exact effects of the quotas over this winter because they were only received yesterday and this morning. Meanwhile, they have been negotiating with their financiers for the oncoming season. As soon as the bankers find out a commercial fisherman does not have enough quota to meet his payments at the bank, the demand loans will be called. The minister has not taken into consideration these important matters.

3:10 p.m.

Would the minister consider accepting the resolution passed by the Lake Erie Fish Packers and Processors Association, which represents 16 Ontario companies, that the new quotas or measures he has offered be used only as a basis of discussion for implementation in the 1985 harvest year, with the oncoming negotiations to be concluded by October 31? If he does that, then the industry, instead of being in absolute chaos as it is now, will obtain some stability and these people can make some sound business decisions.

Hon. Mr. Pope: First of all, a commercial fishing licence does not flow with bankruptcy or foreclosure proceedings, as do timber licences in this province. If the banking institutions think that by foreclosing on small sawmill operators or on commercial fishermen they can obtain commercial fishing licences, they are wrong. Those assets do not flow.

Mr. Mancini: They will not be able to pay; that is the long and the short of it. Under the ministry quotas they cannot pay their debts.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: We have been discussing numbers with the commercial fishing industry for two and a half years. The quota for yellow perch, which is of concern to the member and which the warden of Essex county, Mr. Miner, raised with me yesterday on behalf of individual commercial fishermen, is 9.8 million pounds. The catch of yellow perch on Lake Erie in 1983 was 5.3 million; the catch in 1982 was 9.186 million; the catch in 1981 was 8.335 million. In effect, we have allocated more than the catch of yellow perch in Lake Erie in each of the last three years.

We established 9.8 million, knowing that 12 million pounds of yellow perch had been caught in 1980 and 1981 in Lake Erie, because there is only a viable 1982-year class of yellow perch in Lake Erie according to all the biological information. That caused us to reduce the quota from 11.5 million to 9.8 million.

We have made decisions on the basis of, first, economic viability and, second, the conservation of the fish resource of the province so it can be harvested on a sustained basis by commercial fishermen in the future.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker. can the minister confirm that a lot of the information used to determine quotas for commercial fishermen on the Great Lakes was based on catches in the past that were related largely to market conditions rather than to biological information? Would he confirm that a lot of the quotas have been set without adequate biological research being done in order to justify them?

If that is the case, is he prepared to buy back licences for operations that are no longer viable as a result of the implementation of the quotas?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member can provide me with information on licences that are no longer viable because of this exercise in the last three months, I would like to see it. Secondly, the member knows, just to take Lake Erie yellow perch again, that the average of the reported landings from 1976 to 1982 was 7.6 million pounds; so he cannot say we set a limit of 9.8 million on the basis of market conditions. That did not happen.

RENT CONTROL

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister will be aware that under

section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act, tenants of the government are exempt from rent review.

Is the minister aware that the Ontario Land Corp., which is the landlord for a number of tenants in the North Pickering area who are not in rent-geared-to-income accommodation, has given a number of these tenants rent increases over the last two years of up to 20 per cent? Does the minister think this is fair at a time when private landlords are held to six per cent without rent review and when public sector workers have been asked to restrain their wages?

Secondly, does he expect the Thom commission, whenever it gets around to reporting, to examine this issue, and is he prepared to look at this exemption of tenants of the government when they are not living in rent-geared-to-income units?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, from the previous discussions we have had I do not sense that there has been any criticism of either the process or the effort put into the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies by Mr. Thom; so I do not take that from the member's question.

I have been advised that Mr Thom has been working diligently on what will be a very comprehensive report. I expect to have the majority of that report some time in April, with further reporting to come in the summer. However, the bulk of it will come some time in April. That will be phase 1. Phase 2 deals with a great variety of other matters. I suspect part of the question the member has asked me relates to that phase.

I would have great difficulty in responding to the statement the member made with respect to the Ontario Land Corp. in Pickering without having greater information about the facts. As the member knows, by and large, that would not be a process which would be involved in generating any profit-making motive. Therefore, I will have to review the facts before commenting on whether or not I think there is any unfairness or inappropriateness in the rents which are being charged.

On this side of the House we have always felt -- and I gather this is an issue Mr. Thom will be looking at in phase 2 of his report -- it was important to have a portion of the market not subject to rent control in order to provide an incentive for the continuation of the building of residential accommodation in this province. Certainly, some of the studies I have looked at would support that premise. That has been the position we have taken. It is my understanding that Mr. Thom will be looking at that in phase 2 of his report.

Mr. McClellan: Since the minister mistakenly felt I was not criticizing the Thom commission and since he responded with respect to the timetable of the Thom commission, let me ask him whether he remembers that when he appointed the commission in November 1982, a year and a half ago, he said, "I have asked the commissioner to make his report at the earliest possible date and to pay particular attention to two burning issues: the issue of costs no longer borne and the issue of the absence of a rent registry to enforce action against illegal rent."

Can the minister explain to this House why the Thom commission has failed to publish a single interim report, contrary to the minister's statement of November 1982? Why has it failed at least three times to meet promised deadlines with respect to the phase 1 report? The minister has given us another deadline today with respect to part of the phase I report.

We still do not know when we are going to get answers to the questions of costs no longer borne, rent registry or

section 134. Perhaps the minister can tell us what the so-called phase 1 1/2 is. Why did the Thom commission fail to complete its assignments in phase 1? It is now engaged in something called phase 1 1/2 and then it will get into phase 2. When are we going to get answers to some of the questions, or does the minister really not want to see these answers? Is he simply putting off the day so that he does not have to address all the issues outstanding under his rent review legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I gather I was erroneous in my first response when I assumed the member did not intend to be critical. I find his comments with respect to Mr. Thom and the Thom reports not only offensive but absolutely unacceptable. I was not going to raise any of this, but the member knows very well I had a preliminary report from Mr. Thom in December. I spoke to the member about it, and he, I and the critic for the Liberal Party agreed it should form part of a larger report, and it will. For him to stand up in this House and make that kind of accusation does him no service.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just so we are clear: The minister made promises he failed to keep.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the government, through the Ontario Land Corp., has control of these rents, does the minister not think it is somewhat inconsistent to ask the private sector to limit its rents to six per cent or go to rent review and yet permit the government's own bureaucracy to go ahead and increase those rents by anywhere from 10 or 15 to 50 or 70 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances with respect to the rental of those premises differ greatly and vary from premises to premises. I have said it would be inappropriate to respond to a general question such as that without knowing the specific facts and issues. I have said I would look at those matters.

3:20 p.m.

BRUCE ENERGY CENTRE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this question was for the Premier (Mr. Davis), but since the Minister of Energy is here, I will try him.

I have long heard that during election campaigns the Tories will promise to build bridges where there are no rivers, but those things are peanuts compared to what is happening in the Bruce development area.

We in Bruce county are facing the catastrophic effect of losing 5,000 jobs, as against the 1,000 mentioned today, at the Bruce nuclear development. The Premier promised to take up the slack by forming the Bruce Energy Centre and that it would be a reality by the end of 1984. On the promise he made, the county of Bruce has acted in good faith and has given full co-operation to make this a reality.

It is of paramount importance that the minister finalize this immediately, through his ministry and through the Premier's promises, or we will lose the benefit of seven years of research and planning. The government has been offering this carrot for two elections. If the Premier and the minister are sincere in their concern for jobs, they will save the many jobs we are talking about. As I said, they have been using this bait for two elections now.

Is the minister playing games with the lives of thousands of families, or can I tell the warden of Bruce county and the 31 municipalities involved that signed this resolution that he will meet with them and put this major project in motion?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have not received an official copy of the resolution the honourable member refers to, but I am delighted he is finally acknowledging the considerable government initiatives taken in his riding. The member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) will want to acknowledge those considerable government initiatives as well.

The question surrounding the Bruce Energy Centre at the present time is whether one proceeds to prebuild a pipeline without a commitment from a customer to buy the steam at the other end. The government, in its wisdom and in its proper stewardship of the taxpayers' resources, felt that while a search was going on for customers for the Bruce Energy Centre it was appropriate that some guidelines be put in place to govern the time of building the pipeline and the flow of moneys from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development to Ontario Hydro to supplement that project.

The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and I have met with representatives from that area. We will be discussing this matter at the next meeting of BILD.

Mr. Sargent: You can lead a horse to drink, but you cannot make him water.

Mr. Speaker: Or something like that; now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: The question is, what the hell are we supposed to do? I wish the Premier were here. Ballard could use these guys as stickhandlers.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be more appropriate if you addressed your question to the minister.

Mr. Sargent: They put through the Bruce county official plan amendments, the township secondary plan, the Bruce Energy Centre plan of subdivision, so they could be fully approved by 1984, according to the government's promise. We are going to lose about 5,000 jobs there over the next few years. The minister is supposed to have something in place for it.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: Either he is telling the public of our area a bunch of lies, or he has to do something positive.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: I will stand by that. At this point it is not the truth.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I will not comment on the use of language by the member. I can only assure him that the commitment was made by this government and that as the projects proceed forward, as Ontario Hydro proceeds to develop customers for the steam from the pipeline and as the various other restrictions are removed -- those restrictions revolving around zoning changes, environmental assessments and matters relating to things other than the construction of the pipeline -- that commitment will be followed.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I rise under

section 28(

a) of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly to inform the House that I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the important issue of commercial fishing and that I wish to speak to this question on the adjournment of the House this evening.

Hon. Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I will be in Sudbury at a moose forum tonight.

GRANT TO HAMILTON

Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This morning three members of the Legislative Assembly were in Hamilton as members of a task force on assessment, and on the eve of our arrival there the minister announced a grant of $1.5 million to the Hamilton region and the municipalities. The members of this Legislature should be aware of the fact that it was more than coincidence that this grant was announced yesterday just before we arrived there today.

I think the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) should be aware of this and should be thanked for their efforts, because I think the people of Hamilton are indebted to them for their efforts and for their representation.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record for the member for Waterloo North --

Mr. Roy: Tell us about your personal expenses.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I trust the member for Waterloo North is not opposed to the government's making these special allocations to communities that have higher unemployment rates than the average. He forgets we not only announced it for Hamilton, which we were delighted to be able to do through the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) and those from that area of this province, but also did it for the Niagara Peninsula, down through St. Catharines and up into the Sudbury area for some 40 communities in this province. I trust the Liberals will take the opportunity to see that we do look after those municipalities that require looking after.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No. That was not a point of order, with all respect.

Mr. Epp: The government must be in chaos somewhat because of the fact --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Petitions.

lnterjections.

Ms. Copps: Even the regional chairman agrees you are in chaos.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want to carry on this conversation outside?

Mr. Roy: No. We want a statement from --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: I should not have asked the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of the riding of Beaches-Woodbine, which I represent, and by residents of other parts of Metropolitan Toronto.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition I would like to present. It is signed by approximately 150 teachers in my area. The signatures were collected by the members of the status of women committee of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads in similar fashion to the petitions already presented. It is signed by a number of teachers who are residents of the riding of Windsor-Sandwich and other ridings in the Windsor and Essex county area.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has been sent to me from Calvin Christian School, which is a very fine, independent Christian elementary school in my constituency.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance and law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

"The present education policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right. Parents of children at these schools also face a form of financial jeopardy through a lack of access to the taxes they pay in support of education. We ask you to change this situation."

I support this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, first reading of Bill 17,

An Act to revise the Election Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill is substantially in the same form as Bill 153, which was introduced in this House in December. There are a few technical changes which I will outline when we begin second reading.

YONGE-ROSEDALE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, first reading of Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting the Yonge-Rosedale Charitable Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 18,

An Act to amend the Justices of the Peace Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the subject of legislative assurances of the independence of justices of the peace has been under review by my ministry for some time now in the light of various initiatives we have undertaken in relation to the Justices of the Peace Act, including the very important Mewett report and in the light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Justices of the peace have long enjoyed complete independence in relation to their adjudicative functions. However, it seems desirable in the light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to incorporate into legislation the independence which has existed in practice. The issue of the independence of justices of the peace has been litigated twice since the charter came into effect.

In the spring of 1983, Mr. Justice Smith of the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that Ontario's legislation concerning justices of the peace provided the required degree of independence. Last fall, the same issue was argued before Mr. Justice Ewaschuk, who reserved his decision following the conclusion of argument on October 20, 1983.

I feel it would be appropriate to proceed with certain matters now in the light of our view that they are improvements which are desirable regardless of what the courts ultimately find to be required as a constitutional minimum under the Charter of Rights.

Accordingly, I have introduced a bill to address the major issues concerning the independence of justices of the peace. Because of the importance of this matter and the noncontroversial nature of the amendments, I will be asking the bill be given expedited passage.

This legislation will have no effect on the actual case pending in the courts; it will have no retroactive effect.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, first reading of Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide the means to ensure priority in preserving Ontario's best agricultural land for food-growing purposes.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. T. P. Reid moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, first reading of Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is simple and long overdue. It would entitle employees to see their personnel records and to have errors or omissions in their personnel records corrected. At the moment, only about 30 per cent to 33 per cent of people are unionized in this province and even they do not have that right unless their collective agreements provide it.

3:40p.m.

I draw the members' attention to the Consumer Reporting Act, which gives consumers the ability to see their credit reports. I think it is fundamental for employees to have this opportunity to have access to these personnel files to see what their supervisors and others have put on those records. I am sure the government House leader (Mr. Wells) will agree that in the spirit of freedom of information and access to that information, the Conservative government will accept this bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment on Tuesday, March 27, I was just concluding my description of a trip taken a couple of weeks ago to the Soviet Union. I was describing to you and to the many interested members of the House the purpose of the trip.

I will not go over the details to any great extent, but as I conclude my remarks I want to bring to your attention, sir, that I and my fellow travellers, if I may use that phrase, were visiting and wanted to show our personal concerns for those citizens of the Soviet Union who have applied for emigration visas and have been refused. They call themselves refuseniks, and are generally known as such over the world. Most of them are Jews who have applied to join their families in Israel, although there are some Germans, Armenians and perhaps some others who have applied and have been refused.

As I was completing my remarks, I pointed out that during the last years of Comrade Brezhnev's leadership, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics allowed the exit of about 50,000 of these applicants. With the change in leadership following Mr. Brezhnev's death, Mr. Andropov and his administration closed down on this, so practically no one was allowed to emigrate under those circumstances.

I think you are aware, sir, that the applicants for emigration are usually subject to substantial harassment. Many of them lose their employment. Their children also suffer by being refused admission to schools and often being forced out of senior educational opportunities.

In many cases the results were quite tragic, but the people we met maintained a good deal of optimism because they realized the approach taken by the government of the USSR tends to be cyclical. They hope that in the near future the attitude will change and the present 30,000 to 50,000 refuseniks will have an opportunity to emigrate, as is their desire.

We should point out that the USSR, like Canada and most other nations, is a signatory to the Helsinki agreement which guarantees these human rights for individuals in all nations.

We also are aware that some years ago in the United States, Senator Jackson's noted amendment to one of their statutes encouraged the trading powers and privileges of nations having human rights and civil rights at a certain standard. Actually the veto of this particular matter by the present President of the United States has, in some small measure, played a role in the changing Soviet attitude.

In closing my remarks I want to say that we had an opportunity to meet a number of these refuseniks. We were very impressed by their own optimism and their ability to cope with life under very difficult circumstances.

In determining what we might do, as four people from Canada visiting the USSR and particularly visiting these individuals, we have come to the conclusion there is little of a concrete nature we can do to assist them in the short term. We feel it is important that we, as people with some political responsibilities, have met them personally and know of their concern.

As the members are aware, this House has an ad hoc committee on Soviet Jewry. It was under its auspices that I travelled to the Soviet Union and undertook these meetings.

At the same time I should point out that one of my travelling companions was the chairman of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Canon Borden Purcell. He naturally had some special responsibilities as well, as a senior servant of the people of Ontario, with very important duties to respond to both here and, in his view, on a wider stage.

I should also point out that Rev. Stanford Lucyk, the senior minister at Timothy Eaton Memorial Church in the city of Toronto, was another member of the delegation, and Ms. Charlotte Gray, a member of the press gallery of the Parliament of Canada, was the fourth member of the party.

We came to the conclusion it was at least worth while for us to meet these people and do everything we could to bring their plight to the attention of people such as yourself, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues in this House and anyone in this jurisdiction who has the interest to respond.

I also believe the fact that Soviet officials did not interfere in any way with our travel and our attempts to meet these people on a personal basis may be an indication of some lessening of the more oppressive attitude that was characteristic of recent years.

Members might be interested to know that a similar delegation involving members of the Parliament of Canada did feel to some extent harassed during its visit. I am glad to report we certainly did not experience that during this recent visit.

It is also valuable for the refuseniks themselves to know that in other countries they have friends and people who are concerned about their livelihood and safety. From time to time the plight of these people has been raised in this House, usually specifically by name when individual refuseniks have been subject to a fairly severe penalty from the USSR courts. We can perhaps be of some assistance in getting their early release or, to some extent, lightening the load that would normally be placed upon them under these very difficult circumstances.

It is necessary that we as politicians try to persuade people in government who may respond to our views that whenever they deal with members of the government of the Soviet Union or with the eastern bloc, they should bring to their attention our concern with the plight of the refuseniks. Particularly at the higher levels of national governments where individuals meet on a one-to-one basis, there is no doubt it would be extremely useful if the members of the Soviet government were made aware of our continuing concern about this matter.

I also believe it is essential that all of us work for the cause of détente and disarmament. There is no way any of us would not be prepared to enlist ourselves in that cause, with the proviso naturally that we in the west as citizens of Canada certainly do not want to do anything less than our share in the defence of our nation and in the defence of our cause. It is essential that we should be knowledgeable of the views of the other half of the world, the eastern half of the world, which has a different economic system, a different education system and perhaps a different outlook on life and its quality.

I was interested to talk to a number of Soviet citizens who drew to my attention that under their method of government they not only have free medical care and free education at all levels to the point that an individual can benefit from it, but they also have the advantages of a society where there is no unemployment. We might very well want to argue and discuss that, but from their point of view it is true there are not people who are unemployed.

Another footnote to that is, I suppose, the very large size of the Soviet Union armed forces, which number something in excess of 12 million. As one walks down the streets of the Soviet cities, one sees almost as many men, and to a smaller extent women, in uniform as we would see in our own communities during wartime. They have accepted their responsibilities as citizens in that way with the continuing draft of large numbers of young people.

3:50 p.m.

The thing that did concern me to a great extent was the fact that there tends to be a substantial degree of ignorance on both sides in the attitudes of the citizens, the common people one meets as travellers. I have often felt the answer to many of our world problems lies with the education, in the broader sense, of our young people. I have often urged the appropriate minister, for example, to undertake a broader student exchange program with families and young people in Quebec. To some extent that is taking place. The mobility of young people in our own country is something we ought to concern ourselves with.

In a broader field, I would like someone in the government to consider the possibility of establishing a reasonable number of scholarships for young people who would be supported by public funds in travelling to other jurisdictions in the world and in broadening their understanding of the ways of life there.

I would say immediately there is no sense in even considering that unless we are going to send young people who have at least a reasonable working knowledge of the language of the nation to be visited. This would surely include Japan, but in my own arguments right now it must also include the Soviet Union.

Our dealings with these people and our relationships with them so often, in my view, are slanted by the political and propaganda considerations that are so much a part of government emanations on both sides of the east-west confrontation. Working for détente, encouraging our young people to inform themselves and establish connections across the Iron Curtain, is not entirely unrealistic and naive and, in my view, in the long run perhaps is our best hope.

Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, I want to report to you that to some degree I felt the experience on behalf of the ad hoc Ontario Legislature Committee on Soviet Jewry was an extremely useful one. It is my aim in the months and years that lie ahead to work on the special knowledge and experience I have gained, to work on behalf of relieving the cases of the refuseniks and to promote détente and international understanding to the extent of my ability.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take

part in the debate swirling about the throne speech.

What bothered those of us in this party about the throne speech was not its vagueness -- we expect vagueness from any throne speech -- but rather the promises or declarations made which indicate a real concern and interest in the whole question of job creation in the province. We simply do not believe the commitment is there. We believe the commitment does not match the words contained in the speech from the throne.

I am particularly influenced by the community in which I live, where we have a very high unemployment rate. We have had a very high unemployment rate for a considerable time. The response of this government has been to pour money into make-work projects and not to rebuild the local economy.

Two things happened to me in the last two months, neither of which was newsworthy but both of which really struck me. One evening I was visiting the home of friends. A daughter, who is about 21, came in to visit with her boyfriend. She announced in the middle of the visit that she was moving to Edmonton because she had found a job there.

The parents were quite thunderstruck. I wish I had not been there when this whole thing happened, but I was. The parents became sad and very emotional and tried to tell the daughter to stay in the Sudbury area. She finally said, "You give me a reason for staying in Sudbury." The parents were at a loss for words.

That really stayed with me because I wondered how often that was happening throughout the community. I know people move -- to go to school, to take their first job and so forth -- but this move really was not based on choice; it was based on survival. If this young person was going to have any kind of career, she simply had to move. There was no real choice on her part.

The second thing that happened was that I was in my constituency office when a man came in who was seeking employment; he wanted me to help him get a job somewhere. I do not know if members know how difficult it is to help someone get a job in the Sudbury area, but it is virtually impossible. He was very agitated, very hostile and very angry. I was trying to lift up his spirits, telling him to take hope and not give up, and I was meeting with no success. He was very angry and cynical, and he left.

Just before he got up to leave, I noticed that he had a black beard and that his beard was laced with grey. I thought to myself that this was not some young person who was simply trying to find a first job or someone who had been laid off after a year at a place; this was someone who had a major stake in the community. He was in his 30s at least, perhaps even early 40s, and he had been laid off by Inco.

Those two events, neither of which, as I said, is newsworthy or seems terribly significant, really got to me. By the way, the man had been involved in a make-work project and was at that point drawing unemployment insurance, but he knew his benefits would be running out this spring and, with very little likelihood of another make-work project, he was facing welfare; so I could understand his sense of frustration.

In the Sudbury area, as in other places, there are really two groups that can create employment: one is the public sector and the other is the private sector. Since the major layoffs and shutdowns a couple of years ago, the public sector has poured an estimated $150 million into the Sudbury basin. That is a lot of federal and provincial government dollars.

The regional municipality of Sudbury literally worked its butt off to implement the make-work programs. For example, last summer there were about 1,300 people, mostly young people, planting grass seed -- the greening of Sudbury, we call it. They were doing it by hand, building rough roads by hand to get access to where they would be doing the planting.

I found it very disconcerting to witness this. I could not help thinking of the message of futility we were giving our young people as we sent them out there to plant grass seed by hand on the rocks in the Sudbury basin as though it were back in the 1800s.

Mr. Wildman: Or the 1930s.

Mr. Laughren: Or in the 1930s, yes. But the public sector has been the one that has poured the money in there. It has reached a point where people look at the make-work projects as their hope. I think we should understand that make-work projects should be a bridge between unemployment and long-term employment, both for the community and for the individuals involved; yet in the Sudbury basin the make-work projects have become an end in themselves. If they are a bridge, they are a bridge to nowhere, because the long-term jobs are not being put in place.

It has become a weird and wonderful world of government grants for make-work projects. I could not help feeling a twinge when I read the paper called the Background, which most of us are familiar with, put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Every week they have a quote, usually from some municipal councillor, and the Quote of the Week of March 19 was: "An alderman supported a staff recommendation to hire a grants review officer. Staff indicated that a report would be forthcoming when there had been an opportunity to check into whether or not a grant is available to hire such a grant review officer."

We really have entered an Alice in Wonderland world when we have people investigating to see whether there is a grant available to hire a grant review officer. That is really remarkable.

4 p.m.

I know what the theory of this government is. Along with the federal government, it did put money into the Sudbury basin, but almost all of it was for short-term projects. We have the science centre and it is coming on stream this year. But most of the money that has gone in has been for short-term, make-work projects.

I know the theory behind it. The theory is that if we let the private sector look after employment and let the private sector generate profits, those profits will go into investment. Those investments will go into jobs that create new wealth, which creates tax revenues for the public sector, which can provide the social and health services we all like to see.

It is disconcerting when one steps back and asks, "To what extent is that happening?" One does not need to look any further than Sudbury to see what has happened in a community where the private sector has generated an enormous amount of wealth over the years. It is in the billions, not the millions.

I looked at the national figures to see whether I was missing something and to see to what extent that theory of profits going into investments and creating jobs was actually happening. I found three things that bothered me.

One was the amount of investment that is going from Canada to elsewhere, that is going abroad. In 1960 to 1969, over that 10-year period, it averaged $132 million a year. Between 1970 and 1979 it averaged $942 million a year. In the first three years of this decade it averaged almost $3 billion a year. The amount of money that is going abroad from profits generated here is skyrocketing. Those profits generated here are not being reinvested here. That should be of grave concern to a lot of us.

The second thing I looked at was the number of mergers. When a company merges or buys another company, corporate cannibalism as it has been called, that does not create new jobs. That is really shifting the wealth around among the major shareholders. The average number of mergers for those same three periods of time was 253 for 1960 to 1969; 382 for 1970 to 1979, and 522 for 1980 to 1983. For that last three-year period, it was much higher. By the way, in 1983 alone it was 608, but it averaged 522 for that three-year period. There was a dramatic increase in the number of mergers, which is not investment to create new jobs.

The third thing I looked at was the figures for profits, what happens to profits and to what extent they are reinvested. For 1983, everybody was telling us the recovery was under way. If one looked at corporate profits, one could make the argument. In 1983 corporate profits were up by 52 per cent in this country, but corporate investment was down by 12 per cent. We have this rather bizarre and unhappy situation in which profits are up by 52 per cent and investment is down by 12 per cent.

What has happened to the beautiful theory of people such as the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), who say all we have to do is free up the private sector, let it get profits and it will make the investments. This is exactly what happens. They invest it abroad, or they merge with some other company or they simply do not make the corporate investments at all. It is distributed in the form of either retained earnings or dividends to shareholders.

The beautiful theory under which these people are operating falls apart when one examines it closely. I am sure it is no different in Sudbury. We are trying to cope right now with approximately a 15 per cent unemployment rate. If it goes lower this year, it will be because people are going off unemployment insurance on to welfare and will not be counted as unemployment insurance claimants. Besides, the surveys that are done for the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission are really unreliable for a community the size of Sudbury.

What I am saying to the government is that if it thinks it can stand back now, having poured in money in the form of make-work projects for the community, and let the private sector do it, I think it is going to be disappointed. Where is the private sector in Sudbury?

Basically, what has happened in Sudbury in the last few years is that employment in mining has gone down. For example, according to the figures of the regional municipality of Sudbury, employment in the mining industry dropped from 15,700 in 1972 to 11,440 in 1981, a loss of 4,260 jobs. During that same period, employment in other sectors increased by 7,900 jobs. There was a decline in the mining industry and a corresponding increase in other jobs, primarily in the service sector. That is inevitable in our society with the shift to high technology, communications and so forth.

I understand that, but the government has to understand the private sector is not going to pick up the slack. There is no indication the private sector will pick up the slack and create the necessary jobs in the Sudbury community or, for that matter, in a lot of other communities. The government had better start treating the problem in a more serious way than it has and not be content with the make-work projects.

That is why about a year and a half ago my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and I prepared a document we entitled A Challenge to Sudbury, which laid out a couple of thrusts we thought the community should develop. This was after the major layoff and shutdown. We said Sudbury was faced with a choice between two roads: one relied on initiatives led by the private sector and the other on deliberate economic goal-setting and coherent economic planning. We knew Sudbury could once again be capable of economic growth, but we were not so sure it could be capable of economic development.

There is an enormous difference. We have had spurts of growth in the Sudbury basin for years, but it has never been what I would call economic development. There is an enormous difference between those two terms.

We felt if we were going to turn Sudbury around and make it the kind of community we think it should be and which it has a right to be, it would mean more government involvement in providing the leadership, some joint ventures with the private sector, and Sudbury doing some things on its own as well. We decided to divide our proposal into two parts. One was on how to get more out of the nickel and other minerals there now. We recognize there is still an enormously wealthy ore body there, the best in the world. The other part was on how to break away from so much dependence on that ore, to launch ourselves as a community into some new initiatives.

We relied mostly on government documents and reports. That is where we got our information. We have never been accused by anyone of having fancified any goals or projects for the Sudbury area. We sent copies of our document to all the leading players in the Ontario and federal governments, and we have not received a single reply telling us our proposals did not make sense. No one told us there was anything wrong with our proposals. I guess they recognized their own hand in the proposals since that is where a lot of them came from.

We started by saying we wanted to create an integrated nickel complex in the Sudbury basin. That comes from a 1977 Ontario document entitled Towards a Nickel Policy for the Province of Ontario. Since the present Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) was the minister then, he probably remembers that report. That 1977 report was a very fine report which has never been repudiated by the government. On the other hand, it has never taken any action on it either. It is worth while to read some of the precise language from that report.

4:10 p.m.

It recommended:

"That the government of Ontario take the initiative in proposing to the nickel industry and concerned governments that a 'world nickel institute' be formed to obtain, study and publish a wide range of objective information on nickel on a continuous basis, as is done by the small, low-cost, but successful silver institute.

"Encourage through special Ontario income and mining tax adjustments the adaptation and use of currently idle nickel refining capacity in Ontario and Alberta to refine part or all of that significant proportion of Ontario's mine output of nickel which still goes to Wales and Norway in semi-refined form for refining so as to create jobs in Canada.

"Encourage the refining in Ontario or Canada of the byproduct platinum group metals from Ontario nickel mines which now all go abroad for refining. Ontario is the world's third largest source of platinum group metals, but after 50 years still has no PGM refinery based on primary feed. This change would create new jobs in northern Ontario or elsewhere in Canada.

"Encourage consideration of direct reduction of nickel-bearing pyrrhotite generated in the nickel smelting process and utilization of the iron pellets in a mini steel plant in Sudbury, thereby creating new industry and employment -- perhaps 700 jobs."

Those are some of the precise recommendations. To this date, not one of those recommendations has been acted upon. They are as valid today as they were seven years ago in 1977, if not more so.

We recommended there be established in Sudbury a nickel institute that would undertake a separate, independent geological survey of the mineral resources in the Sudbury region and beyond, conduct ongoing market analysis, obtain and publish other information on nickel, and investigate the prospects for import replacement of nickel-based products and processes.

The reason we said that was that at present Canada exports 95 per cent of the nickel it produces. At the same time, we import an enormous number of manufactured products that have nickel in them, such as stainless steel cutlery, surgical instruments, valves, heat exchangers, dairy and milk products plant machinery, X-ray equipment, gas turbines and parts. We import an enormous amount of products that have nickel in them and we should be manufacturing some of those here. Obviously, we cannot replace them all, but we should be doing some.

Platinum group metals are one of my favourite issues. I think it is ludicrous that after 50 years we cannot refine our platinum group metals here. As a matter of fact, only about 65 per cent of the nickel and none of our platinum group metals are refined in Canada.

The Ontario government has a very neat policy in its Mining Act.

Section 104 of the Mining Act says ores should be processed here in Ontario. Then the various Ministers of Natural Resources and Treasurers enter with exemptions. They say, "You can have an exemption to that." For example, Falconbridge refines all its nickel from Ontario outside this country. It has been granted an exemption from January 1, 1980, to December 31, 1989, authorizing the company to ship 100 million pounds of nickel/copper matte per year to its Norwegian refinery.

We are going to be a long time creating jobs in the Sudbury basin and squeezing more out of an unrenewable resource as long as we have a government that grants exemptions to allow companies to ship everything out. It is an absolutely ludicrous policy, and we know it is costing us jobs. It is important that we take a look at that again. The government is always backing off when it comes to the crunch. They never change it.

Then there is the whole question of a new smelter for Inco. Inco needs a new smelter desperately and should have one. It would create an enormous number of jobs during the construction phase. If we did that, after it was completed there would be a reduction of 400, 500 or 600 jobs, depending on which figures we use. But I stress that would only be if the government were so silly and if Inco were not required to do other things with its product. For example, we should have a fertilizer plant in Sudbury that would use the acid; that, combined with the phosphate deposits near Kapuskasing and near Chapleau, would create jobs.

There are other things we should do. One thing we should do is more fabricating. As a matter of fact, that nickel policy document stated there should be a mini steel plant in Sudbury, which would create 700 jobs. Then there is the whole question of the manufacturing of machinery. For heaven's sake, we are the third largest mineral producer in the world and the world's largest importer of mining machinery. Members of the government party should put that equation together and let that rattle in their heads.

I know we now have in Sudbury something called the resources machinery development centre which is not even meant to produce mining machinery; it is more of a marketing agency that tries to get people together and encourages the production of mining machinery in the province and so forth. That is fine, but it is not producing a piece of machinery. What kind of sense does that make? It is a very lukewarm approach to a terribly important problem.

The resources machinery development centre, since it is already there, should be transformed into a crown corporation that would be capable of joint-venture manufacturing of selected mining and other resource-related machinery and equipment such as forestry equipment. We import a lot of forestry equipment too.

I guess the government is content that we should be an undeveloped country for ever. It just sits there like a lump and waits for the private sector to do it, but the private sector does not do it. The government just sits and sits and sits; it does not do anything. The government members are the laziest bunch of beggars I know when it comes to carrying out government policies. It is a lazy government.

There have been all sorts of opportunities to show some leadership and initiative in pulling together the private sector with the public sector. However, the government members sit there on their haunches and do nothing. They are a lazy bunch of beggars. That is what they are. They are not pulling their weight.

It is getting a little tiring to hear the same excuses for ever that the government will let the private sector do it because, after all, the private sector is the engine of growth in the province. Members of the government should come to Sudbury and make that speech since they are so proud of it. All government members say it where and when it is convenient, but they do not care to use the examples that prove them wrong. I find that offensive.

The next year in Sudbury is going to be a very difficult year. Both levels of government ignore the problem at their peril. I am not cooling the people off any more. When they come into my office angry, I am finished cooling them off. That is the government's problem from now on because the level of anger is rising among the unemployed and the people going on welfare.

Picture a family person who thinks he has a secure job. There is a shutdown that lays off a person with up to eight years' experience in mining He goes from being relatively well paid to going on unemployment insurance. He then gets a make-work job that does not pay very much, but it allows him to qualify for unemployment insurance for another year. But when he gets that unemployment insurance for the next year, it is based on the lower rate of pay he received on the make-work project. So we know what level of unemployment insurance he is at.

4:20 p.m.

I was trying to help a man with three children; his unemployment insurance payments were $132 a week. Members of the government party sit there smugly and wait for something to happen. A person earning $132 a week with a family of five has to go and tap the welfare system again. Picture that individual going from a job in the mining industry to unemployment insurance, to a make-work job, to a lower level of unemployment insurance and then on to welfare. What does the government say to him? Does it say to him, "Things are going to be all right; just relax"? No. The government does not say anything to him.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, we do.

Mr. Laughren: No. The government does not say anything to him.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, I do.

Mr. Laughren: The government does not. The member's government has said nothing to those people, who are facing a very bleak future. I really believe it is because the government is lazy. The government will not get off its haunches, get in there and do something. It is doing nothing.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Come on.

Mr. Laughren: Let the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) tell me what it is. The parliamentary assistant to the Premier says her government is doing something. That is typical of that member. She will always say it is doing something, but she will not tell me what it is. We are supposed to have faith that something is happening.

The government members may not like me to say they are simply lazy and content with the existing situation, but I want to tell them that aside from the money that went into the make-work projects, the work that went into that was done primarily by the regional staff and not by the province or the federal government. The region did an enormous amount of work.

I would like to know what the government is doing for the major unemployment problem that exists in that community -- and it is getting worse; it is not getting better. When the crunch comes this year -- and it is coming, because one cannot forever exist on unemployment insurance and make-work projects -- it will be interesting to see what the government's response is then.

In the last couple of years a lot of the make-work money was funnelled through the region. Now we are being told the make-work money is going to he funnelled through the private sector. Let the government tell me who in the private sector in Sudbury is going to use this money. They could not even use most of the industry and labour adjustment program funding that came into the community; it was not picked up. That is not going to happen.

Unless someone in government says to the decision-makers there, "This is not just an unemployment problem that is going to go away; it is very serious" -- well, I digress from my major purpose, which was to talk about what my colleague and I wanted the government to do in terms of the future for Sudbury.

What we said was: "Here is a challenge. We do not expect the government to endorse everything in our document. We do not expect them to give us any credit for these proposals, because a lot of them came from government reports in the first place. But we do think they should do something." It is simply not happening.

That was about getting more out of the nickel there. We also said there are new initiatives in which we should be taking some interest and things we should be doing. We divided that into about four areas too.

One area was energy conservation. We asked: "Why not use Sudbury as a pilot community, as it were?" It is in the mid-north; so a lot of savings can be effected with good conservation, and it would be a good area in which to start.

The government should establish a conservation and retrofit program which would provide low-interest loans to home owners. Under that program, Ontario Hydro would become a major conservation agency responsible for assistance and funding. There is already a natural mechanism there for paying back Ontario Hydro loans by having the loans paid back on the hydro bills. It would be a real natural.

We think we could have created a lot of jobs for relatively unskilled workers or for semiskilled workers by undertaking that kind of project. But no, even though that would seem to be a very reasonable, logical and energy-conserving move, the Ontario government would not do it.

The second thing we suggested was the rebuilding of the agricultural and food processing sector in the Sudbury basin. The Sudbury district has more farm land than most people realize -- the whole area around the French River and up through to Sudbury.

In the area I represent, for example, we used to grow world championship potatoes. There is very good potato-growing land there and other land that is very decent. But there has been a decline in the amount of jobs in food processing and agriculture in the Sudbury basin. We think that could be regenerated as a new thrust, a new initiative.

Third, I mentioned earlier the whole problem of importing products that have stainless steel in them. One such group is health care products. We have one of the highest per capita health care budgets in the world, and yet we import an enormous amount of the products we use -- everything from disposable paper products to stainless steel surgical instruments, bandages, hospital furnishings and so forth.

Already, there is a federal-provincial program called a health care import replacement program. Ontario is a signatory to that agreement with the other provinces and the federal government. Here is an opportunity to do it and to use Sudbury as an example. Yet the government does not do it, even though it is a signatory to the federal-provincial program.

Why not use Sudbury? I know the nickel that would go into it would not be large in quantity, but just think of the symbolic value in using and making a product near where the resource comes from in the first place. We thought the health care import replacement program would be a very good project to launch in Sudbury, whether the public sector had to go it alone or whether it could encourage the private sector to participate; it could be a joint venture. Surely that could be worked out. The government has to try; it has to get in there and muck it up a bit. It cannot sit back and wait for it to happen.

Our impression is that the government is not in the game; it is sitting on the sidelines. We felt there could be new manufacturing facilities to do that.

Finally, there should be what we called an institutional import replacement program. That could include anything from furniture to pens, day care furniture, audio-visual equipment -- anything that is used in public institutions such as schools, hospitals, municipal and provincial buildings. An enormous amount of furniture is used in those public institutions, paid for out of public funds, yet we import the products that are in them.

What we said was, why not be selective and launch a program in which the government would select certain items? I recall the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) had a resolution or a private member's bill in this chamber where he talked about buying Canadian and replacing imports. I remember that day very well.

Mr. Stokes: What happened as a result of that?

Mr. Laughren: I do not know what happened as a result of that. The member for Cambridge pinned that "buy Ontario" button on his Hong Kong suit.