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

April 28, 1983

32nd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

YOUNG ONTARIANS

DEATH OF HARRY BRAY

FLOOD PLAIN MAPPING

OUTLOOK AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE

DIGITAL CLOCK IN CHAMBER

PREMIER'S HOROSCOPE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

VISITORS

ACID RAIN

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

NORCEN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD.

GOVERNMENT AND THE ARTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

NORCEN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD.

SECURITY AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

CLOSURE OF CONSOLIDATED-BATHURST PLANT

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

GASOLINE PRICES

SUDBURY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

NORCEN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD.

EDUCATION FOR MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

DIGITAL CLOCK IN CHAMBER

TRUST COMPANIES

PETITION

GAS PRICES

MOTION

CITY OF TORONTO BILL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

YOUNG ONTARIANS

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think it is most important that the members of this chamber recognize the deeds of young Ontarians, particularly when those deeds are slightly different from the norm and when those deeds will bring benefits to the people of this province.

I am referring to the pending marriage of Mr. Gary McGuffen of London, Ontario, to Joan Wood, a young lady from Bracebridge. That of itself is noteworthy; I am sure all of us would wish them every success.

But beyond that, these two young people are taking a two-year honeymoon, travelling the route of our early explorers here in Canada from the Gulf of St. Lawrence up to the Arctic Ocean. During that time they will be noting their adventures and recording them for our students here in Ontario and for the Ministry of Education through a slide presentation they will be making along the way. I want to bring this to the attention of the chamber and I am sure the members present will wish, as I do, every success to these two wonderful young Ontarians.

DEATH OF HARRY BRAY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would want me, on its behalf, to pay tribute to a former vice-chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission, Harry Bray, who has served this province well and who passed away yesterday. Harry Bray's contribution is recognized by many. His role in terms of the financial industry of this province and the preservation of its integrity and of the public interest is well understood. Indeed, many would look on him as the Elliot Ness of this province. It is with great sadness that I express regret at his passing.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join, as I know my colleagues would who knew Harry Bray, in expressing our immense regret at the suddenness of his death. Over the years, I had occasion to have been associated with Mr. Bray. I did not always agree with him but he brought an unfailing courtesy to the work of the commission. He had served this province on the commission for something over 30 years. He was Mr. Securities as far as Ontario was concerned. The knowledge, skill and ability which is reflected in the Securities Act is a monument to his passing.

The remarks which he made at the end of December, when he attended the last meeting of the Ontario Securities Commission in his capacity as vice-chairman, are ones which should on an appropriate occasion be noted. He contributed to the integrity of the securities markets in this province in a way that this province must be indebted to him for his contribution. On behalf of my colleagues and others in the assembly who knew him, I would like to extend our condolences to his widow and to his children.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would rise to add a personal contribution on the passing of a most distinguished constituent of my riding, as well as a most distinguished public servant of this province, with whom I had the honour to serve both as a parliamentary assistant in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations while many of the present statutes were being drafted and again as the minister when that particular legislation and many of the administrative practices were finalized.

Mr. Bray exemplified all that has made the public service of Ontario the finest in the world. He had an enormous zest for work, in a field that is infinitely complex, infinitely challenging and where the calibre of the man and his character are virtually always under test. It is true that from time to time there were allegations that Mr. Bray was too firm, too dedicated, but if Mr. Bray had any failing it was that he was too honest, and I do not think that is a failing.

At the same time, he was a very practical, realistic and very progressive public servant. As the former minister and as his member of the Legislature for many years, I would extend to his widow not only the usual condolences but also the fact that this assembly does recognize the tremendous contribution he made to the people, the investors and the business of this province.

2:10 p.m.

FLOOD PLAIN MAPPING

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In answer to questions put by the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) and myself on Tuesday, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) said, "The honourable member knows that the flood plain policy is one of the policies that will be applied under the Planning Act. He is aware that as a provincial policy that will take effect under the Planning Act."

I just want to say that in that statement the minister has misled the House, perhaps inadvertently from lack of knowledge. The facts are the flood plain mapping is applied independently of the Planning Act unless a council takes initiative on its own --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

OUTLOOK AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am sure you will agree that as elected members to this assembly we all share the responsibility of how the taxpayers' money is spent. I learned that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) held an outlook agricultural conference on Monday at taxpayers' expense. He did not extend an invitation to the agricultural critics of the opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: He is obligated to do so and I think he is a small, narrow-minded man for not doing that. He aspires to become leader of this province and he ignores the important opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely with the number of times we have spoken about identifying points of order and points of privilege, you must understand there is nothing out of order.

DIGITAL CLOCK IN CHAMBER

Mr. Speaker: Now that we are quite through with this informal period of whatever --

Mr. Sargent: Do it over again.

Mr. Speaker: No, please don't. I would like to point out, as I am sure all members have noticed, that the new timing device is now in place. I am not going to attempt to outline all its functions, but I am sure we are going to find it very useful and I am sure it will become familiar to all members as time goes on.

For today, I just want to point out that when question period starts, 60 minutes will show on the two display panels and will count down to zero, when they will flash for several seconds before returning to the time.

In the throne speech debate, when a member starts to speak the panels will indicate how much time the party has had in the debate following the leadoff speakers and will count upwards, adding the time as he or she speaks.

I am sure you all understand that and I am sure we are going to have complete co-operation.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it planned to ring a bell after a minute of the Premier's responses or nonresponses to questions?

Mr. Speaker: I think you should ask that during the proper time in oral questions.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Dealing with the comments you have just made with regard to the timing device, I wonder, as you contemplate the use of the new timing device, if in the spirit of equity and fair play you would consider permitting a question to be answered after it is put, even as we approach the 60-minute mark.

It would sometimes appear we are endeavouring to run this place like the German railway in terms of time. In fairness to all members who would like to ask questions and obtain answers, we might have those questions entertained even as we hit the conclusion of the 60-minute mark.

Mr. Speaker: I think I have attempted to use some discretion in that regard.

PREMIER'S HOROSCOPE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I refer you to the Globe and Mail of today, Thursday, April 28, 1983. You will be aware that the Premier's (Mr. Davis) birthday is July 30 of this year -- and every year as far as that goes. I refer you to this because for Leo, July 23 to August -- 22 and I want you to listen to this, Mr. Speaker -- it states: "The field is clear for you to gain a leadership post. Keep your emotions under control. The less you say now the better. A romantic" --

Mr. Nixon: Now listen. Here's the big thing.

Mr. Peterson: "A romantic entanglement is sapping your energy."

Mr. Speaker: That is very interesting indeed, and I am sure the Premier will pay heed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the honourable members an update on the investigation into the tragic death of a six-and-a-half-month-old baby who died Saturday in the cardiac ward at the Hospital for Sick Children.

The infant, Gary Murphy of Kitchener, who had a severe congenital deformity of the heart, had been in hospital for more than three weeks. At about 6:20 p.m. last Saturday the baby went into cardiac arrest and efforts by the medical staff to revive him failed. Gary was pronounced dead at 6:37 p.m.

The first blood sample was taken from the heart three minutes after the baby was declared dead and a preliminary test indicated elevated levels of digoxin. A second test done three hours later substantiated the first. Dr. Murray Naiberg, the investigating coroner, informed the parents that elevated levels of digoxin had been found in the baby's blood and that an autopsy would be performed. An autopsy was performed at the hospital at 3 a.m. Sunday by Dr. Charles Smith. All of the levels obtained in the post mortem were above the normal level.

At 5 a.m., after consultation with Chief Coroner Dr. Ross Bennett, it was decided to call in the Metropolitan Toronto police to assist in the investigation. On Sunday morning Dr. Naiberg and doctors from the hospital met with the family and explained that further testing confirmed the high levels of digoxin and that further investigation was under way.

A team of scientists at the Centre of Forensic Sciences is still conducting tests at this time. Some 50 items, including tissues and materials from the room in which the child died, must be tested. Members can appreciate that this is meticulous and time-consuming work. To date, 15 tests have been completed. I am advised by the forensic staff that tests will not be completed until the end of next week.

My office has been in contact with Chief Jack Ackroyd and he has said that, contrary to reports, he cannot indicate that this death is a homicide. It continues to be investigated to determine the cause of death.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to share with the House as much information as I can about the death of Gary Murphy in the cardiac ward of the Hospital for Sick Children.

First, however, I wish to remind all honourable members that we have three considerations at this time. The first, clearly, is to find out why the Murphy child died, the second is to see whether anyone deliberately or inadvertently contributed to that death and the third is to scrutinize the procedures in the hospital to ensure that they meet all reasonable standards for the care and safety of patients.

The first two issues are, as my colleague has stated, within the purview of the criminal justice system and are being vigorously pursued by the coroner, the police and the forensic scientists.

The third matter is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and the subject of this report to the House. In presenting it I must ask all members of the House, the media and the public to avoid leaping to conclusions based on evidence so far available to reflect unfairly on anyone at the hospital or undermine public confidence in the Hospital for Sick Children. That would only compound the tragedy.

I say this recognizing the terrible impact of these events on the parents and families, on physicians, nurses and staff of the hospital and on the community, which certainly cannot he allowed to lose faith in the Hospital for Sick Children. As the committee under Mr. Justice Dubin observed, "It is truly one of our indispensable institutions;" and that, "It is still deserving of the complete confidence of the public."

2:20 p.m.

In considering what has just taken place, I ask members also to reflect on the observations of what has come to he called the Atlanta study, which was carried out by the staff from the Centers for Disease Control in the United States and by members of my ministry staff. In the recommendations I tabled in the House on February 21, they observed:

"For the future, it is important to recognize that no hospital is immune to the possibility of intentional harm to patients by hospital employees or others in the hospital. Situations of the sort have occurred before and may well occur again. Although absolute prevention of all possibilities for such actions would not permit hospitals to function, steps can he taken to discourage their occurrence.

In the light of the current Toronto hospital experience we" -- that is, the CDC -- "would make two general recommendations, one concerning management of medications in the hospital, the other concerning the use of ongoing surveillance mechanisms to give an early warning if an abnormal mortality pattern is developing."

The safeguards they recommended varied only slightly in process from those recommended by Mr. Justice Dubin and his colleagues, and they were in place in the hospital when this most unfortunate death occurred.

As a result of procedures and controls introduced in the cardiac wards following the discovery of the epidemic in March 1981, mandatory tests of digoxin levels were begun immediately following the death of the Murphy baby last Saturday night. The first results showed elevated levels of digoxin and these, as my colleague has indicated, were immediately reported to the coroner, who triggered the police investigation that has been referred to.

Since then my staff and I have met the senior trustees and officers of the hospital and we have reviewed all of the circumstances known to them and the procedures in the cardiac ward that might have a bearing on this tragedy.

Members are aware that the hospital board, management and staff welcomed the recommendations of the Dubin and Atlanta inquiries and have been moving towards their full implementation with great dispatch, particularly with those that affect patient care and safety.

On the basis of the information available to us at this time we are satisfied that the hospital has been faithful to its commitment to comply with the Dubin and Atlanta recommendations and that the procedures of the hospital do not appear at fault. As members know, the hospital has provided me with periodic detailed reports on the implementation of each of the review committee recommendations and it is doing a conscientious job.

Despite this, we must recognize realistically that the death that is now under investigation is bound to create apprehension and adds what I fear are increasingly intolerable burdens on the staff and administration of the hospital. As Mr. Justice Dubin noted:

"Those providing professional services at the hospital have found it difficult to practise their profession under such circumstances and the morale is strained. It is to their credit that their professionalism and skill and their work does not appear to have suffered to date even under such stress. Their ability to do so in the future will, we think, depend very much on the degree of support that the hospital receives from the public."

From my meetings these past two days I am certainly very aware of the toll these events are taking on the administration of the hospital. These are fine and dedicated people who are doing everything possible to ensure the necessary standard of excellence that is so much a part of this hospital.

From the time they originally became aware of this problem in the cardiac wards they adopted a whole range of new procedures to reinforce patient care and safety. They have welcomed outside advice from all quarters and they believe they have taken every reasonable step to protect their patients.

Let me give some illustrations. A unit dose system for digoxin has been instituted in the cardiac wards. The nursing staff there has been reorganized and expanded with the appointment of a new head nurse and two highly trained clinical instructors. They have spent $100,000 on new patient monitoring equipment for a new intermediate care unit in the cardiac ward. The medical staff has been reinforced with two staff cardiologists, assigned as ward chiefs, instead of one. A second senior fellow has been assigned to the unit. Residents with more experience are now being used there and staff cardiologists are carrying out evening rounds in addition to the regular daily rounds of the past.

In these circumstances, which have been in place for some time now, this most recent death has been devastating for them and they have asked me to see whether there is anyone who can suggest what other steps they might or could take. We are now in the process of appointing one or more persons with a high level of hospital and medical experience to bring a new, detached perspective to the procedures and operations in place or planned at the Hospital for Sick Children.

At the request of the hospital, we will mandate that person or persons to review the current procedures in the hospital and to review the implementation of changes needed to reinforce once again the capacity for patient care and safety by working with the board, administration and staff. In the meantime, the hospital has implemented a number of very specific physical and medical security procedures in the cardiac wards and these will continue in place.

I am sorry I cannot share the terms of reference and timetable with the House because these will depend to some extent on who we are able to appoint. In spite of what has happened and the events in the cardiac ward, it is important to keep sight of the fact that hundreds of children continue to be treated and restored to health every day in the Hospital for Sick Children. It is, to repeat Mr. Justice Dubin, an indispensable part of our health care system and deserves public confidence.

I have confidence in that hospital. I am sure most honourable members share that confidence and I know it is shared by the hundreds of families who daily place their trust in the skill, dedication and care which have always been the cornerstones of the Hospital for Sick Children.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, prior to my statement but clearly related to it, I would like to introduce to you and ask members to join me in welcoming to Ontario three distinguished guests who are seated in your gallery this afternoon: the Honourable Henry Williams, Commissioner of Environmental Conservation for the state of New York; Mr. Anthony Taverni, acid rain co-ordinator for the state of New York, and Mr. John Spagnoli, regional director of the Department of Environmental Conservation in the state of New York.

Mr. Kerrio: Are they going to help the minister clean up his act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: They are very co-operative people.

ACID RAIN

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, later today the Minister of Environmental -- Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) --

An hon. member: Only on Malvern.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Since he has done such a fine job on Malvern, I thought I would give him credit. I am sure he would be quite willing to leave that responsibility with me.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and I will be meeting with Mr. Henry Williams, Commissioner of Environmental Conservation for New York state. Our purpose in meeting is to sign a memorandum of understanding between the province of Ontario and the state of New York on a co-operative program to combat the present and future effects of transboundary air pollution and, in particular, acid rain.

2:30 p.m.

Both Ontario and New York state have common interests in the battle against acid precipitation. Many of their recreational lakes, like ours, have been seriously affected by the long-range transport of atmospheric pollutants. Our mutual concern is to apply the best possible science to study this very serious global phenomenon and to ensure that effective action is taken to eliminate its effects on our waters.

The memorandum will lead to standardization of methods and procedures used in sampling and laboratory analysis, the free exchange of scientific information and the opportunity for joint scientific research. Also, it will eliminate duplication of cost and effort for both jurisdictions and increase our mutual effectiveness.

Perhaps of equal importance is the fact that one of the most powerful and influential states in the union recognizes with us the seriousness of acid precipitation and is willing to co-operate with a foreign jurisdiction on this problem. Ontario has gained an important ally, in my opinion, in its struggle against acid rain.

I am confident that the memorandum will be noted and carefully considered by the US federal authorities in Washington and by various other American states which so far have shown less concern and sympathy for the need to reduce emissions that cause this problem. It will contribute to the increase and awareness of acid precipitation as a serious pollution problem throughout the United States and Canada and thereby lend more weight, I believe, to our argument for increased control of emissions by federal US authorities.

I have met and talked with a number of state legislators and officials throughout the United States, and it is my hope that this Ontario-New York agreement will be one of a series of others to follow.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the statement is missing a page. Did I miss the page where the minister invited the two opposition critics to be present at this meeting?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker. I invite the honourable member to be present, it he so wishes, for the signing of the agreement, which will be occurring at the conclusion of question period.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It's good news. You don't want to be there, Jim.

Mr. Kerrio: You've got them this far. We are willing to help you, you know.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: It is in order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of the progress by my ministry on the five-year plan for the expansion of community services and the consolidation of facilities for developmentally handicapped people in this province.

As I stated on October 28, when I announced the details of the plan, the first phase involves the closing of the St. Lawrence Regional Centre in Brockville. I am delighted to report that this phase is almost complete and we are extremely pleased with what has been accomplished to date.

When the institution closes, 74 of the 100 residents will be living in group homes and family homes in the community, and another six residents will be ready to move back to the community within two to three years, after they receive the additional training they require.

This means our earlier prediction regarding the number of residents who would be capable of community living was overcautious. The great majority will now enjoy a fuller life outside an institution. This shows what can be achieved when carefully planned community alternatives are provided.

I might add that the average age of these residents is 36. There are no children at this institution and, if our program of providing these community alternatives were not in effect, they would probably have spent the remainder of their lives in institutions.

The success of the first phase of the implementation of our five-year plan, combined with the successes my ministry achieved during the first seven years of its program of providing community alternatives to institutional living for developmentally handicapped people, reaffirms the wisdom and humanity of this policy direction.

As the Premier (Mr. Davis) indicated last week, there will be no moratorium on the five-year plan. To delay the plan would be to deny residents their right to live with dignity and a sense of self-worth in a setting that is most appropriate to their needs and abilities. It would simply deny them the opportunity for a fuller and more satisfying life.

I should point out that the Premier is one of the pioneers of community-based living for developmentally handicapped people. In addition to his personal conviction that at all times they should be afforded the greatest possible degree of participation in life, it was his commitment on May 16, 1974, to the annual conference of the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded in Peterborough that provided the long-term policy direction and financial resources for our program of community-based services.

It is because of the excellent co-operation my ministry has received from parents, from the local association for the mentally retarded and from the dedicated and committed staff at St. Lawrence Regional Centre that the first phase of our five-year plan has progressed so well in such a short period of time.

I would also like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) towards the successful implementation of this first phase. He has been of great assistance to me, my staff, the residents, their parents and the community at large.

Individual plans have been formulated for all 100 residents at the St. Lawrence Regional Centre. Already, 55 residents have been placed in new settings as follows:

Eleven are now living in existing community residences in Cornwall, Bancroft, Kemptville, Seeley's Bay, Alexandria and Rockland.

Nine are in new community group homes in Mallorytown and Oxford Mills.

Nine are living with families in family home programs in Prescott, Perth, Portland and Vankleek Hill.

Twelve are at Rideau Regional Centre because of the francophone program there and their medical needs.

Three have been relocated in their home communities, at Oaklands in Oakville, Prince Edward Heights in Picton and Muskoka Centre in Gravenhurst.

Six are at the Adult Occupation Centre in Edgar, where they will receive the additional training they need for community placement.

One is at the Ongwanada facility in Kingston.

One, who requires a specialized program, is at Southwestern Regional Centre in Cedar Springs.

Three who require short-term psychiatric care are at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

Forty-one residents have been assigned places and will move over the course of the next several weeks.

Thirty-one residents will he accommodated in community group homes operated by the Brockville, North Grenville, Lanark, Almonte, Kingston and Dundas associations for the mentally retarded. My ministry is working closely with these associations to carry out these placements.

Eight will be in new community group homes developed by my ministry in Oxford Mills and Mallorytown.

Two will go to family home settings in Perth and Prescott.

Places are now being developed for the last four residents in the Brockville area.

I am also pleased to report that of the 77 civil servants at the St. Lawrence Regional Centre, 50, who were individually interviewed, have accepted new positions with my ministry. Another seven are negotiating for positions with the Ministry of Health at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

Forty-one of the staff who have accepted new jobs with my ministry are going to the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, five are going to Prince Edward Heights in Picton, three to other facilities and one to the ministry's regional office.

Most of the remaining 20 civil servants are waiting for openings in community services units or in other community operations being developed in the Brockville area.

In keeping with my commitment that no resident will move from any institution until a properly supervised residential setting is ready, I have instructed that the necessary complement of staff remain at the St. Lawrence centre unti1 June 30, when the carefully planned relocation of every resident will he complete.

As I announced in October, rather than operating all 17 institutions at 62 per cent capacity, my ministry is consolidating its facility services. Bluewater Centre in Goderich is the second phase of this program.

I told the parents of residents at the Bluewater Centre that we would not proceed to the second phase of our program until I was satisfied with the progress in Brockville. In the light of our success there, we will be developing closure plans for Bluewater in the very near future.

Between now and the spring of 1986, my ministry will also be closing the St. Thomas Adult Rehabilitation and Training Centre, Pine Ridge in Aurora, D'Arcy Place in Cobourg and Durham Centre in Whitby. The number of residents at Oxford Regional Centre in Woodstock will be reduced from 657 to 484.

The closures will be implemented over a five-year period to ensure a gradual and orderly progression of residents to the community. This will also allow more than ample time for ministry staff to consult fully with parents and guardians of each resident to be moved, with the staff at the institutions to be closed and with the local associations for the mentally retarded which are working with us to carry out this plan. This time frame will ensure that no decision is made in haste or on an ad hoc basis.

2:40 p.m.

As I have already stressed, no resident of any institution for the developmentally handicapped will move to the community without a properly supervised residential setting and, where applicable, a work, training or activity program. Furthermore, the parents of every resident will be individually consulted before any decision regarding relocation or community placement is made. As I have also emphasized, every civil servant in the six institutions to be closed will be given preference for jobs in the remaining facilities or in other areas within the public service where they may qualify. Some may elect, however, to obtain employment on their own in new community-based alternatives.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has been providing community alternatives to institutional living for developmentally handicapped people since 1975. During the first seven years of the program, the ministry increased its budget for community services for developmentally handicapped people from $10 million in 1975 to $118 million in 1982. Between 1975 and 1982 the ministry also created 2,800 new community living places for developmentally handicapped children and adults and more than doubled the capacity of the workshop and employment training system to 7,600 places from 3,600 places.

The development of these and other resources allowed some 3,800 residents of institutions for the developmentally handicapped in Ontario to move back to the community, and it reduced the overall population of these institutions by 1,400.

The number of residents at Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls was reduced to 1,000 from 1,500, the population of Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia was cut to 967 from 1,500 and the population of Southwestern Regional Centre in Cedar Springs was pared to 654 from 894.

The success the ministry had between 1975 and 1982 with its program of promoting community living for developmentally handicapped people led us to plan an expansion of these services over the next five years. As members will recall, the five-year plan calls for the establishment of a network of new community-based services to be used by hundreds of developmentally handicapped people already living in the community and about 1,000 residents of the ministry's 17 institutions who will be moving to the community during the next five years.

The specifies of this plan are worth repeating in view of the questions raised in the past six months in this House and by members of the public. As I announced in October, we are now creating 750 new supervised community living places, 1,000 new spaces in the family support program, 244 new group home places, 1,381 new training and employment places for higher-functioning adults, 500 new training and employment places for lower-functioning adults, 200 new beds for severely handicapped children and 250 new places for severely handicapped adults.

The transfer of residents from our 17 institutions for the developmentally handicapped back to the community will reduce the number of beds needed in these institutions by another 989. Of the $33.7 million in 1982 dollars that my ministry will spend to expand community services for the developmentally handicapped during the next five years, $23.7 million will come from the closing of these institutions.

During the past six months, my ministry has written to every employee in the six institutions to be closed, to the parents or guardians of all residents and to the local associations for the mentally retarded, outlining the major elements of the five-year plan. Senior staff of my ministry have also attended numerous meetings and met privately on many occasions with parents, staff, union representatives, municipal officials and members of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and their local affiliates to discuss details of the plan. This communication will continue throughout the implementation of the closures.

I might add here that both the Canadian and the Ontario associations for the mentally retarded have endorsed my ministry's plan to expand community-based services for the developmentally handicapped. Many local associations for the mentally retarded have also expressed support for the plan and have offered to work with us to develop these local services.

As a result of these meetings and individual consultations, which will continue as specific plans for each institution and each resident are made, many parents who initially expressed concern about the five-year plan now actively support it.

I reiterate that we are delighted with the progress to date in the implementation of our five-year plan for expanding community living opportunities for the developmentally handicapped residents of this province. We are convinced that as support for this policy direction continues to grow within the community at large and among those directly affected by it, we not only will have many more success stories to relate but also will have provided a richer life for hundreds of developmentally handicapped people.

NORCEN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission, dated April 26, 1983, which I would like to table in the Legislature.

This letter concerns the OSC's handling of the Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. investigation and was prepared by the chairman with the direct involvement of the seven other members of the commission who participated in the review of the commission staff report concerning the investigation. The letter addresses a number of issues.

However, at the outset I would like to make it clear that in making certain of the statements in the letter the commission is departing from its normal practice concerning confidential investigations. It is apparent from the letter that the commission feels that in this case the departure is required to correct some fundamental misunderstandings of commission procedures.

The commission advises that it will not release the staff investigation report, but the letter does contain a succinct statement of reasons for the commission's conclusions upon the review of that staff investigation. The commission has also hesitated to provide reasons for its conclusions, because it has been concerned about prejudicing the ongoing police investigation.

However, the commission has assumed that the Attorney General's opinion is that the police investigation will not be prejudiced by a statement on the basis of the Attorney General's comments to the effect that it would be in the public interest and in the interest of the commission for the commission to make a statement.

I would like to read excerpts from the commission's letter to me.

"Upon reviewing the evidence set out in the staff report, the commission inferred that senior officers of Norcen, on behalf of Norcen, pursued the establishment of a possible relationship with Hanna over an extended period of time from January 1979 to July 1982.

"In the course of this pursuit, the officers had under active consideration a number of fundamentally different alternative courses of action, including: (1) making limited open-market purchases to provide a basis for negotiation or to accumulate securities to be disposed of; (2) making a public tender offer to acquire 20 per cent of the outstanding Hanna shares; (3) making a public tender offer to purchase 51 per cent of the outstanding Hanna shares; and (4) negotiating an agreement with Hanna similar to the agreement announced July 7, 1982.

"In the commission's view, there was not a 'material change' in the affairs of Norcen or a 'material fact' in relation to securities of Norcen within the meaning of the Securities Act until the board of directors of Norcen or the senior officers, in the belief that their decision would be confirmed by the board of directors, decided to implement a specific course of action.

"In reaching its conclusion, the commission was particularly mindful of one of the basic principles of the Securities Act, and that is to require disclosure of material changes upon their occurrence -- no sooner, no later.

"The commission has administered its laws so as to counsel equally strongly against premature disclosure as against late disclosure. Late disclosure, of course, results in uninformed trading in the market. Premature disclosure can be equally destabilizing and can create confusion and result in expensive and disappointed investment expectations on the part of the investing public."

The commission, in that letter, also addresses the importance of the confidentiality of its investigations in the following words:

"Confidentiality is essential in order to facilitate the investigation and in order to avoid either prejudicing a person's rights to fair process in the event that findings of the investigation justify proceedings or damaging a person's reputation when the results of the investigation do not support further proceedings. The effective functioning of the commission depends heavily upon the reliance which parties affected by its operations can place upon the confidentiality of the commission's administrative proceedings."

2:50 p.m.

On the issue of why I, as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, must consent to a prosecution under the Securities Act, the commission states:

"We are strongly of the view that the confidence that the financial community has in the commission would be eroded in a fundamental way if one of the basic tools for administering the act, the decision to initiate prosecutions under the act, was removed from the commission or shared with another agency."

The House may recall the report of the Attorney General's committee on securities legislation in Ontario, more commonly known as the Kimber report, after its chairman, which noted the shift in securities regulation from the time it was first introduced and was primarily directed to the prevention of fraud in the sale of securities to the position today where securities legislation is directed both at criminal and quasi-criminal law enforcement and at the enhancement of the position of the securities industry and the economic life of the province. An extract from the Kimber report is quoted in the letter.

Finally, the letter addresses the issue of the chairman's participation in the commission's review of the report of its investigators and spells out in some detail the steps he took to carry out what he believed to be the responsible course of action, which was to discharge his responsibilities as chairman if legally and practically possible.

In this connection, the letter has attached to it a letter from the seven commissioners, other than the chairman, who participated in the review of the investigation report, stating that they urged the chairman to participate in the matter because of the importance of the issues raised and emphasizing the exemplary manner in which the chairman conducted the discussion.

There are four schedules to the letter. The first

schedule is a letter from the chairman, dated April 12, 1983, describing the commission's response to the Attorney General's request of me to have the commission reconsider its conclusion on the matter. The second

schedule is a letter, dated April 14, 1983, from the chairman to me, concerning possible perceptions of a conflict of interest. The third

schedule is a letter, also dated April 14, 1983, from the seven other commissioners which I described above. The fourth

schedule is a legal opinion which the chairman obtained prior to involving himself in the matter.

I commend this material to those members of the Legislature who have been raising questions about the commission's handling of this matter and to other interested members of the Legislature. I point out, for the interested members, that the chairman. Mr. Peter Dey, is sitting in the Speaker's gallery today.

GOVERNMENT AND THE ARTS

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, today I want to inform members of the House of an important ministry initiative that may well have a significant impact on the form and direction of the relationship of the arts and government in the next decade.

Today I wish to announce the formation, under the authority of the ministry act, of a special committee to study the relationship of government and the arts in our province. The need for such a committee quite simply is that culture and the arts in our province have enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth both in quantity and in quality over the past two decades. Much of this growth has been fuelled by the funding policies of this government and in particular of my ministry.

In 1963, the province undertook a review of the relationship between the arts and government. One of the recommendations of that review was the formation of the Ontario Arts Council. In 1963, the Ontario Arts Council had a budget of $300,000, and the government's total funding of the arts was less than $350,000 that year.

Ten years later, in 1973, a further review was carried out which resulted in the Guidelines for Cultural Policy Development being approved by cabinet. Government support for the arts had then grown to $33 million per year.

In the fiscal year just ended, this government has allocated $89 million to the arts through my ministry. Since the ministry was created in 1975, this government has allocated more than $715 million to the cultural activities and facilities supported by this ministry. It would be difficult to point to another area of Ontario society that has enjoyed such explosive growth and so continuous a commitment of government support.

To maintain in the next decade the accelerating patterns of growth charted in the past two decades could place demands on the taxpayers of this province which may exceed their capacity or their desire to fill. Thus, I think it is entirely appropriate that at the beginning of a significant new decade for the arts, this government assess the directions and policies that will shape its commitment to the arts.

The special committee has the single objective of setting goals for the development of the arts in Ontario. Specifically, I have asked it to make recommendations concerning:

I. Appropriate areas for government involvement in the development of the arts in the 1980s;

2. The relationship between the ministry and its agencies and the appropriate roles for each in the development of the arts;

3. The role of the province in arts development compared to other political jurisdictions;

4. The most appropriate development and use of arts facilities;

5. The appropriate balance between government support, self-generated income and corporate and other private sponsorship; and

6. Methods of fostering greater self-sufficiency among arts organizations.

We may from time to time add other questions that are of relevance to the ministry and to the committee's work.

Committee members have been chosen for the independence of their opinions and the range of their experience. All share a considerable understanding of the arts and culture in Ontario. To facilitate both the speed and the effectiveness of the committee's work, it will consist of only three members and will keep its inquiries as informal and open as possible.

The committee will hold public hearings with artists and arts organizations across the province and then prepare a draft report for distribution to the arts community for comment. Following an open conference to guarantee the broadest possible input of public opinion, the committee will prepare its report and final recommendations. I have asked that this report be completed within the next nine months.

In closing, the committee will be chaired by Mr. Robert Macaulay, QC. Its members are Mr. Peter Day and Mrs. Geraldine Sherman. Secretary to the committee will be Mr. J. Douglas McCullough, assistant deputy minister of my ministry.

The formation of the special committee is another step in the orderly growth of the arts in Ontario. I am confident that with the assistance of the entire arts community. Ontario will continue to maintain a level of artistic activity second to none.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), today I would like to table the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Northern Affairs highway construction program for the fiscal year 1983-84.

My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has released this report this afternoon in Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.

In all, an estimated $336 million will be spent for construction on the King's highway system in northern and southern Ontario. In addition, we will be subsidizing municipal road construction for another $246 million, which will generate about $460 million in total expenditures when the municipalities' share is included.

In total, some $796 million will be spent on projects considered essential to preserve the present quality of the existing system, a system that ensures the efficient transport of goods and people in Ontario.

3 p.m.

Briefly then, we are proposing new work on a total of 868 kilometres of the provincial system, primarily on two-lane highways, including scheduled construction of 129 bridges.

As part of the government's proposed expansion program under the direction of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, $25 million is included for major highway projects in the Golden Horseshoe area.

MTC will continue to carry out the planning, design and construction of some 348 kilometres of provincial highways in northern Ontario, a system, as I am sure all members know, that is funded by the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which also sets the priorities for capital highway construction in the north.

Again, the majority of the work is primarily on two-lane highways, although the construction of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes and remote airports is also included. Details of all these projects and others are contained in the program I am now tabling, copies of which will go to all members via the legislative post office.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding. I would ask the co-operation of all members in limiting their private conversations to some place other than the chamber.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier (Mr. Davis) has a statement on Minaki Lodge I will gladly hold down question period.

Mr. Speaker: Was that your question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is his first question. I have no statement; next question.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier would not recognize it, but that was high-quality humour he just heard.

I have a question for the Solicitor General with respect to his statement today. Can the Solicitor General be specific about the levels of digoxin that were found in the investigation? Obviously, there is a great deal of confusion between his statement and a variety of statements that have come out, statements of various ministry officials as well as what has been reported in the press. I do not see any clearing up of that confusion as a result of the minister's statement or that of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) today. Can he be specific about the levels of digoxin that have been found up to this point?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, other than saying they are elevated levels I cannot enlighten the honourable member with any more information than that.

Mr. Peterson: Can he tell us if he has evidence that these were not homicides? Is that what he is saying or is he saying they were homicides? What is he saying to this House?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I have not indicated at all that they are homicides nor have the police indicated that there is a homicide here. The statement indicates the levels of digoxin are elevated enough to cause the coroner concern so that he has called in the police to investigate the matter further. Further forensic laboratory tests are being conducted on the matter.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the minister's statement today the levels that were found were higher than the therapeutic level which might have been expected, given the fact that we understand the child was receiving digoxin as part of his therapeutic treatment. Is the minister in a position to tell us whether the levels that were found were anywhere near as high as those in the instances which have been described by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, in the seven which they have said in their view could only have been caused by purposeful overdoses of digoxin? Can the minister enlighten us a little with respect to the situation?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inform the honourable member that they are above the normal levels that one would find for therapeutic purposes and they are sufficient to cause the coroner concern to investigate the matter. As to where they are on the latter part of the scale that he has asked to fit them into, some particular scale that would allow him more preciseness, I am not able to give that information at this time, as the tests are still being conducted.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying the digoxin levels were above the therapeutic level. In his statement he says Jack Ackroyd cannot indicate this death is a homicide. The Minister of Health in his statement quotes the Atlanta Centers for Disease Control, which state: "For the future it is important to recognize that no hospital is immune to the possibility of intentional harm to patients by hospital employees or others in the hospital." A spokesman for the Attorney General's office yesterday said this particular incident seemed to hear very little or, in fact, no relationship to the previous deaths that are under investigation.

Obviously there seems to he a great deal of confusion from all sources on the government side, and I wonder if the minister might take this time to clarify just what the situation is.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the honourable member has accurately quoted the spokesman for the Attorney General's office or put into the statement by the Minister of Health what is intended from the statements put forward today.

I cannot enlighten the House any more at this time, because we are still undertaking these very elaborate tests. They are not simple tests; they are very complicated. They are tests such that when you find a negative result, you proceed to another sort of positive result. The matter cannot be simplistically arrived at by saying, "Here is a scale, and here is the exact answer."

I would like to enlighten the House further on it but I cannot, because it is a very complicated forensic scientific procedure that is being conducted by the Centre of Forensic Sciences to resolve the further information on the matter.

NORCEN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to his statement today, which again sheds very little light on a subject that has become extremely complicated because of conflicting reports from a variety of sources.

Would the minister not agree with me that the statement he has given us does not give us any facts? In fact, he has prevented the public from making its own judgements on the basis of the reports of the investigators, and all we get is a gloss here off the top and have no further insight into this matter.

Given the gravity of the situation, given the aroma that this entire matter has had, why would he not use his discretion? He has gone a little bit of the way here; he has broken the principle of secrecy now. Why would he not go the entire way and lay before the public and this House a copy of the report of the investigators?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let me speak quite honestly. I think there are some very important and substantive issues at stake here. First of all I think there is the integrity and respect that I have, the government has and, I trust, all members have for the individuals and the members who make up the commission that regulates the financial markets of this province.

My own view -- and I have absolute and firm confidence in the ability and the competence and the capability of those people -- is that they have fulfilled their functions and their activities in a way that is beyond reproach.

What the honourable member is really saying is that, contrary to public policy in respect to individuals or corporations that undergo investigation, investigations in which a determination is made that no charges should be laid, those investigations should be public without regard to the effect on the individual or the corporation, or indeed on society and on the justice system as a whole. That is a philosophy I honestly cannot accept.

I know there are exceptional circumstances in this case, because it has been well publicized and because there were hearings in Cleveland and there has been a leak of the document. But that should not alter the fundamental obligation that we all feel is imposed upon and should be part of the confidentiality under which that commission operates with respect to investigative reports like this.

The commission has given this House, and therefore the public, a comprehensive review of the principles on which it reached its decision and has indicated what its decision was on the basis of the application of those principles. I feel and they feel that that is sufficient justification for the public. Remember that it is the unanimous decision of a commission which I feel is totally above reproach.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: So the minister believes in semi-confidentiality. Would he not agree with me that that could lead to the conclusion that he is being self-serving in what he chooses to share with the public?

Given the myriad of other questions involved in this matter from different sides;

Given, apparently, the different point of view the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has from the minister on this matter and the fact that we still have not had an explanation for the dismissal of Mr. Johnston, that we still have no explanation for the different points of view of the various police forces, the investigative staff, with respect to the commission;

Given the fact there is a potential conflict of interest here -- of course, I read the documents quickly and I noted the rationalization, the legal opinion, for the conflict of interest at the securities commission was dated yesterday, April 27, so it was a letter after the fact to cover the events preceding;

Given the fact that various people's reputations had been very lightly bandied about, including some by the minister and various members of his government;

Given the switch of position of the Attorney General in this whole matter over the last few months;

Given all those questions and many more, I would ask him whether it would not be fair to have an independent probe that would look at all the facts involved to make sure justice was being well served, and also to look into some of the subsequent matters with respect to the Securities Act, conflict of interest rules and a variety of other things, to make sure the minister does not again taint his own reputation and that of some of his regulatory bodies.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, I have never bandied anybody's name about, nor have I heard anybody question the integrity of any single member or group of members of that commission. With all respect, what we are talking about is the integrity of a system and the preservation of the individual's or corporation's right not to be unduly exposed.

I understand what the member is talking about in terms of the undue publicity this case has had and the amount of information that has been given to the public through the trials in other countries and through a leaked document, but to suggest a fundamental principle should be breached with respect to the release of information, when opposition members in this House have acknowledged there was apparently a thorough investigation, is beyond my comprehension.

I am thoroughly satisfied as to the process, and to suggest the fact that the letter from counsel was dated at some recent date really means -- I am not criticizing, because I know the documents are lengthy, but if the member would read the documents, they say, "In confirmation of previous oral advice I gave you." This is not something pulled out of a hat. We are talking about solid, competent, capable, responsible citizens serving a role in this province of which we should be immensely proud.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would allow me to say that his opinion of the members of the commission and mine are identical. That is not the matter at issue at present. Will the minister please consider in his capacity as minister his obligation to release the whole report of the investigation? If he does not release that report, he will continue the damage that is being done to people's reputations in connection with that investigation by the inappropriate and improper way the action of the commission was carried out.

I have read what I believe to be the report. I consider myself relatively well informed in this matter. I also consider there is nothing in that report which, in the words of the minister's statement and in the quotation to him from the letter of the Ontario Securities Commission, will damage "a person's reputation when the results of the investigation do not support further proceedings." That is the question that was decided by the commission, that there would be no further proceedings under

section 118. The report does not damage the reputation of those persons, because the evidence of those persons was accepted by the commission.

Will the minister now, in the light of the concern which is created and because of the inappropriateness of the procedures of the committee in deciding this matter, determine as minister to release that report?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more totally with the member's concept as to any inappropriateness. Let me make it very clear that what he is really asking for is that this commission, and therefore other investigative bodies in this province, be they police or be they quasi-judicial, have a precedent set for them to release investigative documents on people where decisions have been made not to proceed with any charges. I find that such a fundamental principle that to breach it would, I think, raise a disrespect for that commission and for this Legislature and I do not intend to do it.

Mr. Peterson: I would implore the minister not to be intellectually dishonest in his answers of creating straw men, such as attacking the reputations of people on the --

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: He is suggesting we are attacking the reputation of people on the Ontario Securities Commission, or he is suggesting that we are attacking some fundamental principles. He has quasi-broken the principle now and he cannot stand on it.

The issue is the regulatory capacity of his government. This is the issue of the trust companies, where he stands up and says, "I have looked into it, we are having an internal review and everything is fine." He knows damned well that for two years there was complete incompetence right under his nose.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: We do not take his word for it. He has lost credibility with us in this House.

I am asking the minister, on the basis of the confusion that surrounded this case -- the various noises that have come from the Attorney General, the police and a variety of others -- would be not feel he was serving the system better to make this information public so we can form our own judgement? Surely that is fair in the circumstances, given the support of that position from the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I suggest that the Premier (Mr. Davis) may want to dig out the horoscope on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson). I do not know what he is taking these days, but he is showing a degree of irresponsibility that I think behooves him not very well and which his party should be very distressed about. He can talk all the lovely talk he wants, but there is a very fundamental principle here. For him to suggest it should be breached, should be shocking to individual citizens and to the public in this province.

SECURITY AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It concerns the statement he made today and the one made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman).

Can the Solicitor General tell us whether or not there were physical security measures in effect after March 1981 at the Hospital for Sick Children? Can he tell us whether there has been any change with respect to physical security at the hospital since that time? In particular, can he tell us whether there have been any changes as a result of the decision of the government to stop the criminal investigation and to move towards the establishment of the Grange commission?

I am sure the Solicitor General will understand the importance of that question in the light of many other questions which are being asked about the events which took place on Saturday. Can he tell us whether there have been any material changes in the nature of the physical security at the hospital from March 1981 until today?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am not apprised of the exact information the member is desiring, thus I cannot give him an answer to that precisely. It is a question he had better put to the Minister of Health, who is more familiar with the exact information on that question.

Mr. Rae: Could I ask the Solicitor General to redirect that question to the Minister of Health?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I outlined in my statement some of the steps that had been taken. I would assure the honourable member that other steps have been taken by the hospital which I think it would be inappropriate to disclose, because obviously if the hospital made public the security measures that have been taken it would make them virtually ineffective.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I think the minister has slightly misunderstood the question I was asking. I was asking the minister whether he was aware of precisely what physical security steps were taken by the hospital from the time Susan Nelles was charged in March 1981. Can the minister tell us whether there have been any changes since that time?

I think that information is relevant in terms of what has happened over the last while. Can he tell us whether there have been any changes as a result of the decision of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) not to proceed with a criminal investigation and to shift over to the broader-range inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have understood the question and I would refer the honourable member to pages 5 and 6 of my statement wherein several changes, but not all the changes, are listed. Again, to repeat, there are other changes that have been implemented to ensure patient safety, patient care and security, but it is not in the public interest to disclose those because it would make them ineffective.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it seems in the statement the minister tabled in the House today, if he would refer to recommendation 96, there is a fairly lengthy discussion of security measures that should have been taken as a result of the Dubin inquiry. The recommendations specifically state, "Identification of all hospital personnel and visitors should be required as an additional security measure."

I note the response of the hospital to date has been that it is accepted in principle and is being studied. I ask the minister why is it being studied? Why has it not been implemented, when adequate time certainly has transpired over the last few months for these changes to have taken place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Centers for Disease Control recommendation, dealing in the same area, expressed some concern about the particulars of the Dubin recommendations with regard to that. The hospital felt it was in the best interest of patients and families to go cautiously in that area from the standpoint of wanting to keep the hospital accessible while providing appropriate security.

Because of some other steps they have taken, which again we are not prepared to disclose, it is the hospital's opinion that just about an equivalent level of security has been maintained without needing to go to that sort of system which would undoubtedly change the atmosphere and feeling of care and openness that is available and most important to the patients in that particular area.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps I can phrase the question even more directly. Can the Minister of Health tell us whether, to his knowledge, any physical security measures that had previously been in place were relaxed at any time between March 1981 and Saturday? Can he tell us whether the physical measures that certainly would have been in place in March 1981 were relaxed? Can he tell us under what circumstances they were relaxed?

I am speaking specifically of physical security measures, and not in relation to many of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Dubin and implemented by the hospital with respect to medical security.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If I have followed that phrasing carefully, I would report to the honourable member that all the measures in place as of last week, before this recent incident, were substantially better and more secure than they were in March 1981. In other words, there was no relaxation from March 1981 until last Friday.

Subsequent to the events of last Saturday, as a precautionary measure, some further rather extraordinary measures have been taken to increase the level of security once again.

CLOSURE OF CONSOLIDATED-BATHURST PLANT

Mr. Rae: My new question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) who, along with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), now has disappeared.

Mr. Speaker: He is not in his seat.

Mr. Rae: It would appear they are ready to stay here for extraordinarily lengthy statements by ministers, but not ready to stay for --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: He can hear you.

Mr. Rae: He is not here so it does not matter whether the honourable member can hear me or not, does it ?

Interjection

Mr. Rae: There he is. Fine.

Mr. Speaker: Put your question, please.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister was present, as were a number of other individuals, at a meeting that took place this morning between officials of Consolidated-Bathurst and the Minister of Labour and himself.

I would like to ask the minister, given the fact he is aware the company refused even to meet with its own employees to make any adjustments with respect to its plans to close the plant in Hamilton, it refused to respond to the request by the employees that it consider an offer to sell, it would not "countenance any competition," as it put it -- and how ironic in the light of the minister's halcyonic statements to the free market system that he gives to the Empire Club from time to time; given these facts, does the minister not think it is time the government stopped meeting on its knees with these companies and that it simply pass legislation that would require companies, first, to make an offer to purchase to employees any time they are considering plant closure, and second, to justify their plant closures to a committee of this Legislature?

Does he not think it is time we had that kind of legislation in place?

Hon. Mr. Walker: No.

Mr. Rae: The minister is nothing more nor less than a pathetic apologist for the corporate barons of this province.

As a shareholder or as a trustee for shareholders in Massey-Ferguson, how does the minister feel about a statement made yesterday in response to a question from another shareholder at the Massey-Ferguson annual meeting? How does he feel about the statement by Mr. Rice that there is a plan that the company be closed in Toronto, probably within the next two years?

Does the minister not think it is high time the companies told the workers their plans before they dropped them casually in conversations to shareholders? What steps does he intend to take, as somebody who is acting as a trustee for the people of this province with respect to their shares in Massey-Ferguson, to make sure that jobs are protected in this province?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker. I think something should be kept in mind here in respect to jobs in Ontario. Brantford is still in the province, and it was indicated that the jobs and the plant in essence would be moved to Brantford, Ontario, where, of course, there is equal need.

If we are talking about the plant itself, it is considered to be, and is, a very old, somewhat antique plant. It is a turn-of-the-century plant and, in the essence of efficiency, the company is presumably making some decision to change. There has been a rationalization by this company that has been substantial worldwide, with a whole host of companies closed all over the world in this particular firm.

Relative to the question of notifying people in advance, I think it was probably somewhat cavalier on the part of the individual not to have mentioned it first of all to the employees directly involved. On the other hand, to quote Mr. Barry Million, the acting vice-president of the United Auto Workers local: "I suppose we have more or less been expecting something like this, but it still comes as a surprise."

I admit a certain expectation has been going on here. I think the company was somewhat cavalier in not going to the employees first and explaining to them, rather than having it come out in the newspaper in the way it has. I think that is a mistake on the part of that corporation.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister was at the meeting this morning along with the rest of us, and I am sure he was just as shocked and surprised at the intransigence of Consolidated-Bathurst. Does he not agree that legislation should be brought in to make sure that when a company closes a plant, as is happening in the city of Hamilton, at the absolute least that company should give the workers first right of refusal at jobs in Consolidated-Bathurst plants in other areas -- even that small concession that we were not able to wring from this company?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would say that I too was somewhat shocked, and I think somewhat surprised, at the intransigence of the company. I thought it would be a company somewhat more co-operative. As a matter of fact, the member will recall I stressed the view that I thought perhaps there was a major gap the company had failed to fill when shocking everybody with the announcement, because apparently at Christmas it was a plant that was going to continue and suddenly on March I there was the announcement it would close.

I do think, frankly, they should be offering some first right in terms of succession or of transfer of employment in other parts of the province, and that it is a mistake on their part not to do that. They have shown some intransigence through all of this, indeed a great deal of intransigence throughout, and I think they have paid the price, as the member referred to it when he spoke at the meeting. They have suffered the price of corporate citizenship in this process.

3:30 p.m.

As to whether there should be a law to force them to sell to the employees, in a case like this I would have to disagree with that. I do not feel that would be the appropriate thing. It would be wrong under the circumstances to force a company to sell to the employees.

It is in the essence of that company's best interest and, therefore, that of the employees of that company on a province-wide basis. There are three other plants in the province, in St. Thomas, Etobicoke and Belleville. I am sure it is in the essence of maintaining those three plants as strong, viable components that they ultimately rationalize.

At one point they offered to open the books to be looked at. At another point, after I had to leave the meeting, they indicated they were not too anxious to have anyone look at the books. That is something I would be prepared to pursue with them to determine whether there are the losses they are maintaining there are. I think such information could be supplied to employees and, therefore, there might be some understanding on their part.

The mistake that company is making is in not getting the message across to people that there may be a problem. They claim poor sales and they claim the company has been losing money for more than five years. The mistake they are making is not getting that message out. I think the member would agree with me.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware that the recovery we seem to be talking about in our economy appears to be a profit recovery and not a recovery as far as workers are concerned.

The minister is aware that at that same meeting the company officials not only refused to give any preference to the workers in terms of transfers to other operations of Consolidated-Bathurst but when they were asked if they would intervene in terms of Reed, the company they are selling it to, as to whether they would attempt to get some preference for the workers in that plant, the company's answer was it would not interfere, it would not make that recommendation, and that company would get its labour on the market just as they did.

Are we now considering the workers in an operation like this are nothing but a market commodity? Is that exactly what we are down to in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, there is no question this company has made a botch-up of its public relations, of its employee relations and of its labour relations. There is no question that has happened.

Mr. Cooke: They just follow your philosophy.

Mr. Rae: They are just doing what you tell them to.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, would you invite the noisy one in the second row to desist for a moment until I finish the answer? I think it is sincere concern.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister proceed with his answer?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I feel there should be some preference extended to the employees in terms of other operations. I do not think that extends to dislocating people who are already working there, but in terms of any potential employment elsewhere, perhaps because of increased work load in the other centres, that should be extended to them. I feel they are making a mistake in that regard.

I do feel there was some positive aspect to this in respect of Reed, the neighbour, as a possibility. I would like to see that explored. I will put the services of my ministry fully at the disposal of trying to help that situation.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), to whom I might have put this question, I would like to direct this question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, who was kind enough to stay.

On many occasions, members of the Legislature have expressed their frustration with the lack of adequate opportunity to deal in a detailed way with the very complex issues that confront education. When Bill 127 came for rd and when other legislation such as Bill 19 came forward, we noted that people used those occasions to bring all their frustrations about the educational system to the attention of the members of the Legislature.

Would the Provincial Secretary for Social Development be prepared to endorse the suggestion that a select committee on education be struck to deal with the many issues, such as the implementation of Bill 82, the implementation and recommendations of the secondary education review project report, the pooling of assessment of a commercial and industrial nature and the entire funding issue as it relates to education? Would she be prepared to support that to members of the cabinet?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will know, of course, that this government has always attempted to provide a great deal of opportunity for consultation, regardless of the programs or the legislation that was being introduced. He will also know that I am not in a position today to make any such endorsation, but I will certainly pass it along to my colleague.

Mr. Bradley: Would the minister, as the policy minister in that entire area, not agree with me that a select committee on education, which the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and I have advocated on many occasions as a reasonable vehicle to deal with educational issues, would be a good forum for the public to have the kind of input it deserves on education issues ?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As I have indicated, I will pass that suggestion along to my colleague.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the intent of that question was, but ever since 1978 this party has been calling for a select all-party committee on education. The government has bucked that and does not want to do it.

What fears do the government have about the way the education system is in this province that lead them to the conclusion that they do not want parental involvement in the educational process in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think if the honourable member will recall the hours and the days that were spent in consultation before that legislation was implemented, he will appreciate that we have nothing to fear. We welcome as much consultation as possible.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given the fact that as recently as last Sunday No. 2 gas was selling for 21.9 cents a litre in Thunder Bay, 53 cents a litre in Schreiber and $1.40 a litre in Fort Severn, all in Ontario, will the minister and his colleagues consider establishing a commission of inquiry to investigate the ridiculous pricing of gasoline, an essential product, in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows, as all of us do, that there are certainly pricing differences, usually based on competition and the presence of --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, competition within a large centre. You know that. Go to Sudbury from a smaller community and you know there are gas wars going on and they bring about lower prices. If you are opposed to that, then stand up and say so. You want all the prices to be high. I mean, state your position. Or would you just nationalize everything and solve the whole world's problems and have everybody out of work ?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Seriously, I would suggest to the honourable member that the federal government already has a commission of inquiry into petroleum marketing and pricing at the present time and I have no doubt that they will address those matters in their report.

Mr. Stokes: Given the fact that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, more than any other of the 27-odd ministries in this government, has the responsibility for consumer protection and for making sure there is some semblance of order in the marketplace, does the minister not feel it is part of his responsibility to the consumers of this province, when he gets wide discrepancies such as I noted in my original question, to bring about some semblance of order with regard to the price of gasoline in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can only reiterate what I have said in the past when this question has been asked. If there are those in this Legislature who feel that in our constitutional makeup in this country we should duplicate activities, nevertheless disregarding the obligations we have to taxpayers, then so be it. This government's position is very clear. With the federal government's commission of inquiry into the marketing of petroleum products taking place, we see no reason to duplicate that process.

3:40 p.m.

SUDBURY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Today we had an announcement dealing with acid rain. A couple of statements made in that announcement indicated that the mutual concern of New York and Ontario is "to apply the best possible science to study" and then it goes on, "to ensure that effective action is taken," Is the minister prepared to make a statement now that he will be following some of the recommendations or observations that followed from the Sudbury study on Inco and Falconbridge, which will require the reduction of emissions by the use of the most up-to-date technology available to eliminate those emissions?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows that from the outset the objectives of this province have been very clear both in general terms and with respect to the situation in Sudbury. Surely he is also aware that we have been awaiting the detailed review of the consultants' work or the task force's work on the most appropriate technology to carry the smelter operations to the next step in terms of reductions. As of this year they will have been reduced by 70 per cent from their peak emission periods.

Obviously the next phase is becoming much more complex and costly, perhaps requiring some very substantial rebuilding of the plants. I can tell the member that I have now begun to receive the analyses of the companies involved.

Mr. Elston: How costly?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the member they are very substantial. In fact, the companies have put several millions of dollars into detailed consultants' work on appropriate technologies as well.

That is going to take a little further time to review, but I hope in the relatively near future I will be in a position to discuss the whole issue more broadly with my federal colleague the Honourable John Roberts and with my other provincial colleagues. Obviously we have been engaged for some time now in developing an overall Canadian strategy of which we are a significant part. This information will be critical in determining the allocation of reductions on a broader basis in Canada so that we can live up to our already stated commitment of a 50 per cent reduction in sulphur emissions in this country.

Mr. Elston: I realize there is a great deal of restudying and rehashing of the material that went into that study. So that we know what the minister is up to, is he prepared to set a time frame for its implementation or at least for the making of recommendations with respect to this study? It seems to me that for years on end we have been getting nothing but study after study and no time frame. As a result, no action is being taken.

Lion. Mr. Norton: That is a very self-serving question on the part of the member. He fails to recognize that this jurisdiction has taken some very decisive action on this issue. If he only did his homework a little more thoroughly he would have a better grasp on the complexity of the issue as far as the next step is concerned.

Could the member name any other jurisdiction in which there is in law, by way of regulation, a requirement that the major utility must reduce by 43 per cent over the next seven years? No, he could not. Could the member cite other jurisdictions that have already achieved the kinds of reductions we have ? No, he could not.

I think it is important that he recognize at least the commitment that exists in this province and, furthermore, take the time to look at the report in some detail so that at least he can understand, or I hope have somebody explain to him, that it really is a very complex issue that involves not only specific measures with respect to Inco and Falconbridge but, on a much broader base, other corporations in this country. Therefore, it has to he part of our broader strategy for achieving the further 50 per cent reduction.

Mr. Elston: Since the minister has asked me, I can provide him with some answers if he requires my help.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I think not.

Mr. Elston: I am willing to give that to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I shall try not to offend the sensitivities of the Minister of the Environment.

Having read the report very carefully and, on behalf of my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and our Environment critic the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), having presented our options to the minister -- since he has had our position since January -- can the minister tell us why he will not seriously consider our option, which was to have Inco reduce its acceptable levels from the present 1,950 tons a day to 43 tons a day, and because of the cash-flow problems of both Inco and Falconbridge that there be upfront money provided now on the part of this government in the form of either loan guarantees, loans or equity participation?

First, why has the minister not responded to our position? Second, will he tell us what his position is in regard to those options which we presented to him?

Mr. Speaker: The question is, why have you not responded to their position?

Mr. Laughren: No. no. That is not the question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it was inviting a little more complete response to that, even though the honourable member perhaps failed to express it as articulately as he might. One can surely extrapolate a little from that question.

Mr. Speaker: Not really.

Mr. Elston: Keith, do you want somebody else to answer it for you?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. I know the answer precisely. The fact of the matter is that the member's proposal, which even if he were being candid he would have to admit was not really based upon any in-depth analysis but really quite a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the report, although I do give him credit for having read the report; I am not sure that anyone in this party over here has --

Mr. Elston: Wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We will give the member a chance to recite the critical passages.

Obviously his input will be taken into consideration in the overall deliberations. In terms of the specific strategy for dealing with the next major step, which I am sure he, if he has read the report. understands may cost up to SI billion, that strategy is something which will be an integral part of the ongoing meetings that I am having with my other provincial colleagues and my federal colleague in order to try to develop a comprehensive strategy across the country.

NORCEN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In the statement he made today, when he got to the bottom of the page and said they wanted to depart from their tradition in order to correct some fundamental misunderstandings of the Ontario Securities Commission's procedures, I thought they were going to own up to the fact that they had goofed in their process, but apparently that was not so.

When the commission has stated, as it has throughout, that its decision was not to prosecute Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., Conrad M. Black and Edward G. Battle on certain counts under

section 118 of the Ontario Securities Act -- offences which if committed would result in jail sentences or fines or both -- in his capacity as minister and as a lawyer I want to ask the minister if he calls that an administrative decision of the commission or a judicial, or as we lawyers like to say, quasi-judicial decision? Which of those two alternatives does the minister call a decision with respect to the prosecution of a citizen?

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it may be a subject that the honourable member wishes to debate somewhere at some time, but I think the answer is very clearly put before him in the documents I have tabled in the House today, where it is clearly viewed by the commission under its statutory obligations for due administration of the act as an administrative process at that stage.

Mr. Renwick: The minister in his responses in this House on two or three occasions constantly refers to it as an administrative decision, but I noticed in the report in the Globe and Mail yesterday morning by correspondent Sylvia Stead that he referred to it as a quasi-judicial decision. He knows it is a judicial decision; he knows it is not an administrative decision.

My supplementary question to the minister is --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I do not know that, and the documentation I have put before the House from the securities commission supports the position I have taken. So the member cannot say that I know that is not so.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Riverdale place a supplementary, please.

Mr. Renwick: I was curious to hear the minister's colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) on the Metro Morning program indicate the other day, in his delightfully facile, ad lib way when he is dealing with intricate legal problems, that the commission has a prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not it will make a decision with respect to prosecution.

Does the minister know of any prosecutorial discretion in the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to whether charges, when evidence is available, will or will not be laid? If so, would be point out to me where that prosecutorial discretion is conferred on the commission?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the act, as the member will know, really speaks for itself. A determination is made by the commission, who are advisers to me with respect to matters before them, when it is necessary to consult me as a result of the statutory obligation they have. Therefore, the act clearly states that if a decision is made to commence such a prosecution, they must have the consent of the minister. So I do not understand what the member is saying. It is clearly laid down in the legislation.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the exchange of the minister with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and I understand the minister's concern about establishing what he considers a bad precedent, that when an investigation is made and no charges are laid one does not usually release a report. I understand that; I think most of us understand that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Your leader doesn't.

Mr. Roy: My leader understands that perfectly.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Roy: What my leader does not understand is that you change your position. That is what he does not understand.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please place his supplementary?

Mr. Roy: I was provoked. You noticed that.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister be afraid of establishing a precedent when he himself has bandied about certain names and some of the individuals involved here feel they have not been properly and judicially treated by the ministry by having their names bandied about?

Second, how can the minister fear establishing a precedent when we have a situation in which a commission is challenged by the police force and challenged by the law officers of the crown and, in fact, the minister has refused to allow the Attorney General to proceed with a prosecution? That is not an ordinary case.

Why is the minister afraid of establishing a precedent and why is he afraid of giving us the evidence? He wants us to accept his word. We want the evidence that the decision not to prosecute was justified.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Once again, Mr. Speaker, and I realize it is Friday tomorrow and we may all be planning to leave very shortly, there seems to be a fundamental -- well, I have got to get my pen out if I am going to copy. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. I want to say this to the member straight out and with full force.

Let me just clear the record with respect to some of the issues raised. I have got to get my pen out again, or can I get along without that?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not need the pen.

I have not bandied names about, and if the member reads that statement and reads those letters, there have been principles discussed. No names have been bandied about. I think to say so is inappropriate. With respect, to suggest I have refused to allow the Attorney General to proceed shows a total lack of understanding of the process and shows the member has not read anything; not a thing.

Mr. Roy: You refused through the commission.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Attorney General clearly wrote to me, as I have said and he has said, asking that the commission review and reconsider its decision, acknowledging as he does and as I do that the legislation in this province creates a securities commission to perform a quasi-judicial and judicial role, and that it is the adviser to the minister who reports on behalf of its administration of that statute to this Legislature.

There has been no refusal to the Attorney General with respect to the laying of charges. Let us have that clear. The member has raised that before and he does not understand the issue.

With respect to the challenge by the police. there is no such evidence I know of. Clearly there are members of the Attorney General's staff who have a view with respect to the inferences that may be drawn from investigative documents. In the view of the commission, it is its obligation, with the knowledge it has and with the guidelines and understanding it has of the industry, to apply that knowledge to the information available and the inferences that can he drawn from it. It has done that and reached its conclusion.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think it is important at this point, given this discussion, to make the record clear.

I quote from information filed today, a letter from Mr. Dey to the minister, which says on page 3: "The commission's unanimous decision was not to recommend a prosecution under the act and was not varied following the special meeting earlier this evening. The commission also decided that, although it would not actively oppose your consenting to any request for a prosecution made by the Attorney General, it would inform you of its clear decision following the special meeting."

I think that sheds some light.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think it is entirely inappropriate. I appreciate there has not been much time to read all the documents, but a full and complete reading of the documents would make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the commission sees its role as one of advising this minister. Any role for the Attorney General with respect to requesting that a charge be laid by me is not within the scope of that legislation, nor their view of how the act should function.

What they have said is they would not contemplate any vigorous public objection if such a request were made, but they clearly see it would have been an improper request.

Mr. Peterson: On the point of privilege, it is just being patently silly --

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

Mr. Peterson: Clearly he has an authority to do so. That is what the letter says. He has no right to stand up and misrepresent --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

EDUCATION FOR MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As he is aware from the question asked of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) last Friday by my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), parents of profoundly and severely mentally retarded children are extremely concerned about the implementation of Bill 82 and its effect upon their education.

Would the minister give consideration to attempting to persuade the Minister of Education to amend the necessary regulations or legislation necessary to permit these children to continue to be educated in the developmental centres operated by associations for the mentally retarded and funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

Mr. Riddell: Frank Drea wants to close them down.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, before I answer that, I will handle the aside.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the aside, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He and his leader got run out of Bluewater the other night after they abandoned the parents. They should not forget it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They abandoned them. They walked out on them.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no privilege. The member for Huron-Middlesex --

Mr. Riddell: That is a misrepresentation of what went on. There is no way we abandoned the parents. We stayed there until the bitter end. Now tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

lnterjections.

4 p.m.

Mr. Eakins: You sneak your information, like Larry.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind. The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Eakins: Larry must have told you how to get the information.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjection, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the interjection seeing it is from the calibre of person it came from.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: And where he spent his day before he came here.

Quite honestly, I do not think there is the problem the member raises and, I believe, the member for St. Catharines raised last week. As far as my ministry is concerned, we do not think Bill 82 will make any difference in the funding arrangements or in the ability of the particular children to receive the education they have received. There is already the commitment, which I believe was given last Thursday or Friday by the Minister of Education, that if there is a problem, she will move to remedy it.

While I do appreciate the concern of the member, any fears that have been raised are unwarranted.

Mr. Bradley: What the minister is saying is that the situation for those children as it exists will not change. They will still go out to the developmental centres, they will still be educated in the developmental centres and nothing will change, despite the implementation of Bill 82. Is that what he is saying to us? Because if it is, they will be quite pleased with it. If it is not, is the minister prepared to persuade the Minister of Education to amend Bill 82 to permit it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not agree with the phraseology used by the member. However, in terms of the principle, as I said just a moment ago, neither the Minister of Education nor I sees the difficulty that is perceived by the group in Niagara concerning this matter. However, as she has already stated, if there is that problem, she will move to remedy it. In essence, as to who pays for the education and how it is arranged and provided, there will be no change.

DIGITAL CLOCK IN CHAMBER

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Not only am I offended as a member of this House, but I think the people of Ontario will be offended. When they come to this chamber, they expect to see a chamber that has some history and some tradition to it. When I look at those digital obscenities across the way, I can only come to one conclusion: the only thing that did not happen a few minutes ago was for a siren to go off.

Whoever is responsible for them should take them out. Nobody on our side asked for them that I am aware of. I did not hear any member of my caucus stand up and say, "I want a clock." I notice the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the former Leader of the Opposition, is not here today. I am sure if he were here, he would be up saying something about those digital obscenities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Catharines, on the same point?

Mr. Bradley: Yes. The same point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It is not really a point of privilege.

Mr. Bradley: Whatever you consider it to be a point of, I am prepared to comment.

Mr. Speaker: It is not even a point of interest.

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: The member is totally wrong in his assumptions. and it is just not correct.

Mr. Roy: He usually is.

Mr. Gordon: Nobody consulted me.

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to argue. Order.

[Later]

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It would be useful for all members, because I have an entirely different understanding from that of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), for you to explain to us how it came about that we have this timing device in here. I think I fully understand why it is here and what prompted its installation in the chamber. But perhaps you could explain for the member for Sudbury just how this came about, because there is a very logical explanation. I think it would be very useful.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say on the point of order that it is interesting the member for Sudbury has revealed the basic attitude of his party towards technology, change and progress in the province as a whole. Now that we have digital time recorders in the House, we might even dare to have real television in the House in order that the people of the province would know what was happening in this place.

Mr. Speaker: All these decisions, of course, will be made by the members.

Mr. Gordon: How about a cuckoo clock?

Mr. Riddell: All we need to do is hang you on the wall.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to point out to you, sir, and to the House, that I notice what is probably an error in the sheet headed Business for Thursday. The standing committee on resources development, it says, was to have met this morning at 10. However, the Orders and Notices is correct when it says eight o'clock this evening. I would like to point out to members of the House that we did not meet this morning; we are going to meet this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I am sure we are all better informed.

TRUST COMPANIES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege with respect to my statement of April 19 regarding the trust companies. I would not want members of this House to think I had misled them with respect to the --

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

A hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like a point of order to his point of order to his point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could just calm down. I ask the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) to resume his seat, please.

Mr. Kerrio: You haven't heard my point of order.

Mr. Stokes: Sit down, Vince.

Mr. Speaker: Come on, sit down. Resume your seat.

The minister rose on a point of privilege, which takes precedence over a point of order. I will hear the minister, and then I will hear anybody else who wishes to rise on something.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the members of this House to think I had misled them in my statement of April 19 with respect to the net amounts of money that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. had been required to advance to date with respect to the three trust companies.

The amounts I gave with respect to Seaway Trust and Greymac Trust were reversed. They should be Seaway Trust $7.5 million and Greymac Trust $33.5 million, instead of the reverse. The amount for Crown Trust is as stated.

PETITION

GAS PRICES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition directed to the Honourable John Black Aird, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and I would like it directed to the attention of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). It is signed by 375 petitioners from my area, and it reads as follows:

"The undersigned wish to" --

Mr. Martel: The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) should stay and hear where it came from.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, do I have to listen to that interjection? This is a pretty important petition.

Mr. Speaker: Of course it is, and I ask all the honourable members to give the member for Niagara Falls their undivided attention while he presents this petition on behalf of his constituents. Will the member for Niagara Falls please address the chair?

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by 375 constituents from the great riding of Niagara who wish to signify their dissatisfaction with and strong disapproval of the grossly escalating gas rates. Many of these people are on fixed incomes. I concur with their feeling about the gas rates and support their position. I hope the government will take the necessary steps to reduce those costs.

MOTION

CITY OF TORONTO BILL

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I move that in its consideration of Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto, previously before the House in the second session of this parliament as Bill Pr13, the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments may consider the proceedings taken before the standing committee on administration of justice on Bill Pr13 in the second session.

Motion agreed to.

4:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wiseman moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Grande, first reading of Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, among other things, is to give parents and interested citizens the right to appeal school closings to the Ontario Municipal Board.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on 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. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in this afternoon's debate and a timely opportunity to qualify my strong support for the throne speech. I recognize that the members opposite will disagree with the brief comments I shall make this afternoon, but I understand that their role is to be negative.

Today I would like to be positive -- positive about one particular industry that is of special interest to my Lakeshore constituents and positive about the role this government would like to see the industry take. I am referring, of course, to the province's automobile industry, the nucleus of Ontario's manufacturing sector.

As all members know, automobiles account directly or indirectly for one out of every six jobs in the province. An estimated 20 per cent of Ontario's economy depends on the industry. Moreover, 95 per cent of the country's auto manufacturing is concentrated here in Ontario, a testament to Canada's dependence on the vitality of our province's auto sector.

These statistics underscore the significant contribution that automobiles make to the provincial economy and, indeed, to the national economy. But it is no secret that the industry throughout North America has fallen on hard times. Beset by a slumping economy, high interest rates, rising energy costs and changing consumer preferences, North American auto makers have also had to contend with intense competition from low-cost imports.

Currently, imported cars account for approximately one third of the market, with Japan alone enjoying 22 per cent of the market share. In fact, Japanese penetration into automobile markets is a world wide phenomenon: auto production throughout western Europe has fallen dramatically as a result of increased Japanese competition.

From 1980 to 1981, French output was down by 11 per cent, British production fell by 12 per cent and Italian output decreased by nine per cent. By comparison, North American production in the same period was down by only 1.8 per cent. Clearly, the problems affecting the province's auto industry are prevalent in a global context.

What is of interest to this government is the timing and structure of a recovery strategy. To this end, our government has taken an active role in the rebuilding process of the auto industry, outlining in precise terms the policy that we as a country should be following to get the industry back on its feet. Sadly, leadership has been lacking from Ottawa; and make no mistake about it, we are dearly paying the consequences.

On page 10 of the throne speech, presented last week by the Lieutenant Governor, our government reaffirmed its commitment towards a more just policy on automobile trade. The two brief sentences read as follows:

"In this regard, as a short-term measure, we continue to advocate, in the strongest possible terms, restriction in the number of imported cars to allow domestic industry time to adjust to the new circumstances and, more important, to permit time to obtain agreement from foreign manufacturers to increase significantly Canadian content in their products. Since we are not satisfied that federal officials are acting vigorously enough on this matter, we intend to increase our own efforts."

Our government's resolve to improve the deal that Canada gets from the world's major auto makers is both a sound and sensible policy. Foreign automobile exporters oppose import and content restrictions because of the added trouble it causes. None the less, manufacturing countries the world over have in place tough, broad trade measures which protect their domestic industries and their national interests.

For example, Italy has a one-for-one trade agreement with Japan, up to 2,000 cars each. France allows only three per cent of the market to be taken by the Japanese, while the Australians, who require 85 per cent local content, restrict imports to 20 per cent of the market by levying duties of 58 per cent.

Last year, the Japanese agreed to hold exports to the United States to 1.68 million units, the same level as 1981. At the same time, the Americans were promised $300 million annually in parts purchases. Moreover, two Japanese auto firms, Honda and Datsun, have undertaken construction of vehicle assembly plants in the United States. The Japanese volunteered concessions because impending legislation was already in Congress. It is the old American logo of a little bit of arm-twisting.

There are two elements to these trade measures which are worth emphasizing. First, Canada should not be hesitant in its negotiations with Japanese car manufacturers. This country is the seventh largest market for motor vehicles in the free world. It is our responsibility as a country to ensure that the Japanese return a portion of their earnings to Canada in the form of investments and jobs for Canadians.

If we are not going to stand up as an equal partner in this trade relationship, as every other industrialized country already has, we should not expect the Japanese to volunteer benefits to Canada. I believe in fair trade, not free trade.

4:20 p.m.

Second, the misguided notion that Canada is not in a strong trade position with Japan is just that: misguided. Like Australia, Canada by and large exchanges raw and semi-processed resources with Japan in return for processed and manufactured goods. But

whereas the Australian government has successfully negotiated an intelligent, effective agreement with the Japanese, the Liberal government here in Canada appears to be ready to act only when it is too late. If Australia can do it, why can we not?

I have spoken at length about this particular facet of the automobile trade, because I feel very strongly that Canada is simply not getting a fair deal. Our government has tabled several proposals in regard to the auto trade which would improve the country's trade position so as to give Ottawa much-needed direction and purpose. However, it should also be evident that until the federal government of this country comes to grips with the gravity of the situation in the auto sector, little can be accomplished and negligible progress can he made.

This is not to say that responsibility for the current difficulties being experienced by the auto industry is solely in the domain of the federal government. Even the current federal government and its Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, deserve fair treatment. In fact, the hard times that have befallen Canada's automobile makers are also the responsibility of the unions and the industry itself.

To illustrate my point, I would like to recall briefly the events of a strike at one of the major auto makers in 1979. At that time, the issue was money to the unions and automation to the company. The unions believed that higher wages were appropriate because, among other things, the small car being built at the plant was popular in the United States and the Canadian dollar had been dramatically discounted as a result of the exchange rate. The company was adamant that a new production process incorporating significant robotics technology was necessary for the plant's long-term viability.

When the smoke had cleared, the unions and management could not co-operate on a strategy mutually beneficial to each: the unions won higher wages, although they were later outstripped by rampaging inflation in 1980, 1981 and 1982, and the company decided against a $100-million investment plan for the Ontario plant. Today, every unit of that same popular car is being made in Wisconsin.

The reason for this shift is simple: the workers and management in Kenosha, Wisconsin, realized that Japanese penetration into the North American car markets was a long-term threat to their job security. As a result, the unions negotiated for job security instead of wages, and management went ahead with the necessary automation. Thus, while American plants are correcting productivity problems to compete with the Japanese, Canadians are failing to realize that parity in productivity is the key to international competition.

In the early 1970s, when the Japanese wanted to know more about robotics, where did they go? They came to the National Research Council in Ottawa, which at that time was among the world leaders in basic robotics. All this knowledge was free for the asking, but Canadian industry did not seize the ideas and build them into practical, money-making enterprises. As a result, 10 years later, we are in a position of catching up with the nations that have been using our own expertise to capture world markets.

The moral of the story is quite brief. In today's world, unions and management will be made obsolete if they compete against each other. The real competition is outside our borders.

Moreover, technology is here and here to stay. Robotics technology is one of the big reasons Japanese imports are so competitive. A recent study conducted in Canada found the hourly wage of an assembly-line employee is three to four times as high as the combined capital and maintenance of a robot.

Furthermore, the adaptation towards robotics improves production flexibility and quality control. This fact is particularly evident given the prevalence of small cars in today's market. Because tolerances are much more precise, the need for robotics has become even more crucial.

With the competitive realities of robots and automated production systems a matter of record, our government is increasing its commitment to research and development in the field. The $40-million centres for robotics and computer-assisted design will accelerate the pace of research into these most powerful of productive processes.

Moreover, the $25-million auto parts technology centre in St. Catharines will promote technological development in the industry and integrate the increasing contributions from computers, new materials and design procedures with current production expertise.

Robotics represents the future, but we need to preserve our auto industry to make it relevant.

I would like to conclude my remarks by summarizing the key determinants of Ontario's strategy for long-term stability in the auto sector.

I. Protecting Canada's interests: Our government is on record as favouring temporary import restrictions to enable negotiations between foreign auto makers and Canada on the subject of content requirements. It is imperative that Ottawa act now on behalf of all Canadians to protect jobs and incomes here in Canada.

I also want to add that I am personally in favour of an investigation by the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce into questionable trade practices by the Japanese government. In fact, I have recently forwarded a letter in this regard to the minister, the Honourable Ed Lumley, and I want briefly to relay its significant passages to the House.

"Currency manipulation: Between the years 1978 and 1982, the Japanese yen depreciated by more than 50 per cent in the US despite modest inflation and high rates of growth in Japan. This result has favoured Japan because their exports have become cheaper in American and Canadian markets.

"Structural protectionism: Once again, consider the Japanese experience. In that country (and increasingly several others), key industries with high export potential enjoy preferential domestic treatment until they are strong enough to compete overseas. Regulations prohi