Journal des débats 1983-nov-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Questions were put to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) some two to three weeks ago in relation to the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) and his letting of contracts to the tune of some $400,000 without tender, and the minister promised he would look into that situation. I understood him to say he would report back to the House.

In his estimates last Monday, I believe, responses by the Chairman of Management Board to questions by me and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) were to the effect that he would respond later to any questions that were asked or during his estimates. It seems to me that, having made a commitment at that time to respond, he should respond during question period so that we would have further opportunity to ask questions.

The second point of order is that the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) indicated to the House, the public and the civil service that he would introduce legislation and give a statement concerning the government's approach to his new restraint bill for this coming fiscal year. He indicated he would do that on November 1, although I am now informed that his statement, in fact, said "around November 1."

In view of the importance of and interest in this matter, I think the Treasurer should quit hiding in a closet and should come forward. I was expecting, frankly, that he would make that announcement here in the House today. I wonder if this is another sort of French-language issue, where it will be announced in the farthest reaches of the province and where it will not get out to the public.

Mr. Speaker: Those are hardly points of order. However, I would think that both ministers will take note of what you have said and will react accordingly.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, will you adjust the clock? We have taken three minutes already on this.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to you that the standing orders say quite clearly that points of order will be part of the question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEMOLITION CONTROL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for giving me time to get in my seat. Thank you very much.

I will ask the first question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the demolition control bill. He is aware, after all, of the discussions we have had and he has had with Toronto city council for some time and that the council has now indicated it would like a two-year delay period with respect to the legislation for demolition control. Would he support the city's request for the power to delay demolition for up to two years? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the House is aware that the city of Toronto submitted to this Legislature a private bill relating to the rights to control demolition and to restrict demolition permits. We clearly indicated to the mayor through my parliamentary assistant, who met just last week with the mayor, I believe, that as a government we were not prepared to accept the bill as it was drafted. We clearly indicated to him what we felt was a reasonable avenue by which to approach the subject. At the time, we also indicated to him that the two-year period was not one we were receptive to at this time at all.

As a result of the discussions with the mayor and the members of council, I understand they are in the process themselves -- that is, the council -- of reviewing the bill as to amendments or changes they might make and then they will come back for further discussion with us.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware they are requesting a two-year delay because they are intimately aware of the problems which are being created by these demolitions or potential demolitions, given the housing squeeze.

In the 134 apartment homes at 790-840 Eglinton Avenue West, they have lived in insecurity for some 1,272 days now -- a large percentage of them are older people -- not knowing whether or not their building would be demolished. It is 572 days since the original version of the bill was first introduced in the House. They have been living with perpetual insecurity, and I know the minister will understand the human problems which are being created by this.

I ask the minister what advice he has for these people. Where are they going to go when he tears down their building?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think we are now trying to run two situations into one. We are talking in one case about an individual and his property rights in this community. The other situation is the tenants who had the opportunity of looking for other accommodation.

I am fully aware that in the Metropolitan Toronto area and, in particular, the downtown area there is some difficulty in trying to find units at the same relative rent. I understand that some of the tenants -- and I do not wish to get into the specific cases because it is not part of the responsibility of this ministry -- have been there for only a relatively short period of time.

There are opportunities. As I follow the Toronto Star and the other publications that come out indicating tenancy opportunities, they would seem to be rather extensive, not only in the outlying areas of Metropolitan Toronto, but there would also appear to be a fair number of units available in the downtown community as well.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would tell us where they are.

By way of supplementary, may I ask the minister if he would clarify the proposal that was put forward to the public accounts committee when his colleague the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) came in and torpedoed Bill Pr3? Can he explain to us whether or not the government, as part of this proposal, intends to make financial assistance available to the city of Toronto to assist them to purchase properties which would be affected by the minister's revised version of demolition control, which requires the city either to grant a demolition permit after the expiration of a specified period of time or to purchase the building.

Does the minister intend to make financial assistance available to make sure the housing stock can be purchased and will remain available for low-income people, or what?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the bill was being proposed by the municipality, not by the government. It was their intention to try to restrict some of the property rights of the individuals who own the buildings, limiting the ability of the individuals to do with the property as they see fit and their capital investment in it. I said we offered to look at the possibilities of amending the bill, to put similar conditions into that bill as those that exist in the heritage bill for the preservation of heritage properties, something basically along the same lines.

In the field of financing and financial help, if those buildings can fall under any of the current federal or provincial programs that are offered to municipalities, then obviously they would be entitled to that assistance.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister realize there is a crisis in housing in the city of Toronto? We have a current vacancy rate of 1.1 per cent, which represents roughly 888 units in buildings of six or more apartments. No doubt he is aware that on average we have added to the housing stock in the city only 380 units per year for the last five years. He is aware that unless these demolitions are stopped, roughly 1,000 units will be demolished in the very near future.

We will have a zero vacancy rate or possibly even less than that. My question again is, where are all these people going to accommodate themselves? We have a crisis on our hands and the minister has to respond.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am always interested in the Leader of the Opposition when he says we have a crisis on our hands.

A moment ago the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) said, "Show us where there are some units." I trust the members and their researchers will take the opportunity to read the local press in relationship to the availability of units in this community.

I cannot say to the Leader of the Opposition or to the third party that we are going to be able to make sure the same number of units at the same rate of rent that exists at present in those units is going to be available, but there are units in the marketplace. Very clearly and very frankly, I believe there has to be some degree of respect for property rights in this province as well.

HYDRO GENERATING CAPACITY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend the Minister of Energy. The minister is no doubt aware that Ontario Hydro has mothballed $1.167 billion worth of installed plant capacity, representing 6,916 megawatts of production of electricity in the last four years.

In the last two or three months we have experienced a series of incidents that have detracted substantially from the generating capacity of Ontario Hydro. Could the minister confirm whether or not the press reports, the Ontario Hydro reports, are correct that Ontario is going to have to import electricity this winter from outside our provincial borders?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) want to answer that question?

I am very pleased to be able to comment on the press reports. The Leader of the Opposition is again posing a question based on research by Mr. Claridge in the Globe and Mail. Mr. Claridge quotes quite freely from a staff member of Ontario Hydro and seeks confirmation of his information from that staff member.

I want to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the evidence Mr. Claridge is presenting in his article, based on statements made by that staff member, is not the corporate opinion of the utility, that the exchange of electrical energy with US utilities is something that is constantly under consideration, and that the utility will endeavour to get the best price and the best case in terms of supplying electrical energy to the people of this province.

If that necessitates purchases from the United States as a result of difficulties in transmission or generation, then the purchases will be made to the best advantage of Ontario consumers.

Mr. Peterson: What the minister has answered is yes. He has said they will be importing power from outside our provincial borders. I think that is what he said, although he has an opportunity to clear that up.

Is the minister aware that the shutdowns in nuclear plants and nuclear generators since August 1 this year, plus his projections for the next little while of how many reactors will be out for how long, given the cost projections he has used, will cost us $192.2 million just for those shutdowns? Is the minister aware of that, and how much more is he going to spend on importing power from outside Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: In respect to my comments, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not putting words in my mouth. I said it is normal practice for Ontario Hydro to exchange electrical energy with US utilities. The sales go both ways. That has been going on for a number of years and is not likely to change.

The whole question of cost related to the outages at Ontario Hydro's nuclear plants is speculation. It is based on a figure in terms of replacement energy. That figure is often loosely bandied around by those who want to pinpoint those costs down to what would apply to a normal utility bill. It is pure speculation. The Leader of the Opposition must realize that in Ontario Hydro's nuclear program the budgets are cast, based on an 80 per cent efficiency level. That allows for about a seven-week outage each year.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister. How much power is Ontario Hydro going to have to import from the United States and possibly from Quebec as a result of the mothballing and the shutdown of some of the nuclear stations? How much power is it going to have to import and how much is that importation going to cost?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting observation and a very interesting question. If the leader of the third party can tell us how much power is going to be used in the province in the next 12 months, then I could give the member those precise details.

Mr. Rae: Do not give us this nonsense. They are going to have to place the contracts, and the minister knows it, whether they use the power or not.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I refer these figures to the minister. It will cost $118 million for alternative fuel, $72 million in ongoing carrying charges while the reactors are down, and $1.5 million in heavy water loss, for a total of $192.2 million in losses just in the last three months and over the next month's projections.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question to the minister is this. We have been asking many questions in this House for the past few weeks. The minister has not chosen to share the answers with us. We asked him the potential cost of tube replacement at Pickering unit 2. He did not share the answer. We asked what methods were available to reduce workers' exposure to radiation during any tube replacement work, a critical question. He chose not to answer. We asked, on more than one occasion, whether the garter spring migration had occurred in the operating reactors at Bruce A. He chose not to answer. We asked whether the technology is in place to correct the problem with the garter spring. He chose not to answer.

When is the minister going to answer these questions that are so very critical? Is the minister going to come forward in this House and tell us what is going on at the various reactors?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous questions posed to me over the last two weeks that require specific details. I wanted to make sure the Leader of the Opposition had accurate details. I did not have those accurate details at hand when the questions were posed. I took the questions as notice and I will provide those answers when those details are forthcoming.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Given the fact that it now appears possible that this winter Ontario will not even be self-sufficient in electricity, let alone self-sufficient in energy, as was much parroted and touted in the Energy Security for the Eighties document a short couple of years ago, I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us whether the government will reconsider the decision to mothball the number of plants that have already been mothballed and could be brought back on stream and would provide electrical generation in substitution for the nuclear power that is not being generated at present.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, on the question of reconsidering the mothballing, the advice I am offered by Ontario Hydro is that, according to the best projections it can make, the mothballing of those plants is still economic.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is going to act here as a messenger boy for Hydro, perhaps he would have the decency to provide us with the facts and figures on which Hydro is basing its decision. What are the figures available to him from Hydro with respect to these so-called economic efficiency decisions? Is he prepared to present them to the House today or at the earliest opportunity so that we, on behalf of the citizens of this province, will be able to have a look at this kind of mismanagement?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Several of these questions were raised by the leader of the third party in a submission he made to the standing committee on public accounts. I am advised by that committee that a number of these questions will be dealt with. If he requires further detail, I will be glad to provide that detail.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now saying it is cheaper to import electricity than it is to generate it here at those installed plants? If that is the case, how does he ever expect to export power, as was the original plan in going on and building Darlington? How can he have it both ways, or does he expect the consumers of Ontario to subsidize those exports if they ever come along?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall saying it was cheaper to import electricity than it was to mothball plants. All I am saying is that the exchange of electricity is part of a normal pattern in dealing with the supply required by the province. If it is more expedient for a short time to buy electricity to service a certain sector of Ontario than it is to bring on new generation or extend transmission lines, that is the kind of scenario Ontario Hydro will weigh in meeting its mandate to supply electricity to Ontario consumers.

Mr. Rae: The Tory party talks about efficiency. Let us look at the miracle the Tory party has wrought. They have given the people of Ontario the capital costs of a nuclear system and the operating costs of importing energy from the United States at inflated rates. That is the kind of efficiency the Tory party is touting.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm that as a result of what has happened in this province and the mismanagement by the Tory government of a vital resource of our province, Hydro-Québec is going to be exporting electricity energy to the United States and we are going to be importing excess energy from the United States? Is that the logic of what the government is proposing now?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: With respect, I think the Tory party has given this province a most dependable, efficient and world-class public utility. If the leader of the third party looked at the rates offered by Ontario Hydro and at the record of Ontario Hydro in terms of dependability and the efficiency of its nuclear operations, he would make that observation himself.

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a question of the Treasurer with regard to controls. The Treasurer will be aware that in 1973 the inflation rate was 7.7 per cent and the government did not feel it required controls. In 1974, the inflation rate was 10.9 per cent and the provincial government did not feel there was a justification for controls. We then had three years of federal controls.

There was an 8.8 per cent rate of inflation in 1978 and no apparent justification for controls; 9.2 per cent in 1979 and no justification for controls; 10.2 per cent in 1980 and no justification for controls; 12.5 per cent in 1981 and no justification for controls. Then we had controls when inflation dropped to 10.8 per cent. Now inflation is running at around five per cent.

Standards have been set by the Divisional Court with respect to the justification for a control program that limits compensation in the public sector. The Treasurer is well aware of those standards. He is also well aware of the tests that have been established by the International Labour Organization. If he is not aware of them, he should be, because they have been adopted by the Divisional Court and the Supreme Court of this province.

What justification can the Treasurer make to the people of Ontario and eventually, as he is going to have to do, to the courts of this province and of this country for a compensation control program at a time when inflation is running the lowest it has ever run since 1972?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, very simply I think the greatest risk we face as we begin to come into a recovery period is to have another round of serious inflation in this country. We also have to remember that the American rate of inflation is running at 2.5 per cent. Therefore, a circumstance where Canadians are pretending to say -- if indeed they are; I think only the honourable member is -- "Five or six per cent is an okay rate of inflation; let's accept it," is a very dangerous policy to follow.

I think most people would agree that, if anything, we face a risk of inflation on the upward side. If we take a gamble and lose, we will end up in a seven or eight per cent inflationary period again while the Americans are at 2.5. The fantastic job creation trend we have had in the past year, with about 170,000 new jobs in this province alone in the past 12 months, will stop in its tracks. Instead of debating public sector compensation in this House, we will be debating once again 12 and 13 per cent unemployment. That would be a tragedy, and that would be ultimately and clearly the wrong policy for this government to follow.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer can parade all the horrors he wants of what various Halloween monsters are going to emerge from the night if the government places some confidence in a collective bargaining system it is supposed to have had confidence in since the Second World War.

But given the opinion of a very senior arbitrator, Martin Teplitsky, and a number of other legal observers, whom I know the Treasurer must have been speaking to in the past couple of weeks with respect to the Divisional Court decision, I want to quote from Mr. Justice Smith when he talked about how the Supreme Court would be making a decision with respect to the control of compensation: "The decision would then have to be made in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time, and a new balancing exercise would have to be engaged in by the court, a very new balancing exercise depending on a very different set of facts."

Why is the Treasurer introducing a program before referring it to the Court of Appeal of this province to determine its constitutionality, when its impact is going to be devastating and serious on the collective bargaining rights of half a million workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take some exception to one of the premises in the member's prelude to that question. I will not go into his remarks of yesterday, which I thought were, to put it mildly, a little immoderate. Had any member on this side of the House said those kinds of immoderate things about some of the positions the member takes and interpretations of them, I would suggest he would have been up on a point of privilege earlier today.

None the less, I just want to say that no one on this side has said we do not respect or have confidence in the collective bargaining system. In the whole exercise, which I would say to the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has delayed us somewhat, just two or three days, in bringing in this legislation, we have been trying to accommodate the maximum amount of collective bargaining, with which we agree, in this new program.

In answer to the member's direct question, notwithstanding the views of others, all of whom he has named, we are not about to abandon our responsibility to make some of these difficult, but right, decisions to anyone else in society. Others may think that decision wrong. We find these decisions difficult to take, but that does not mean they are not right, and it does not mean they are not our responsibility. Also, quite frankly, it does not mean we are not prepared to face up to the consequences of bringing in what we believe to be appropriate legislation. These are our responsibilities; we are going to fulfil them.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer should not tell us he believes in collective bargaining. If he does, why did he turn down our amendments to the bill last time, which would have struck down clause 13(b) and which would have restored the right to collective bargaining?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: We anticipate. It was all there in front of him. It was plain in front of his nose.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: How is the Treasurer going to get any support whatsoever for his restraint program if he does not restrain prices as well? If he does not restrain Ontario Hydro prices, if he does not include doctors and bring fundamental fairness and equity, how can his program, whatever it is, be deemed fair in any respect at all?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure, so to speak, of reading the contributions and amendments by the Leader of the Opposition and his party to last year's discussions over Bill 179, and for the first time during this discussion I share some of the catcalls he got from the third party when he put that proposition a moment ago. I look forward to the honourable member's contributions this year.

Since he endorsed a two-year program and said we were too soft last year in having a one-year program, I find it a little bit unusual that he is now taking these kinds of positions this year. Since he asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) a couple of weeks ago why we were introducing a second year of restraint and took the position last year that we should have had two years of restraint, not one, I wonder which direction the member is going in this year.

If it is his opinion this year, as I think it was last year, that we need full wage and price controls in the public and private sectors, then I should like to hear that, because this party believes we do not need full wage and price controls in the private sector.

Mr. Rae: I simply want the Treasurer to understand the implications of what he has said. The Supreme Court of this province has in a unanimous judgement set out a very specific decision with respect to the legal, political and social rights of the working people of this province in terms of the meaning of freedom of association. The government now intends to proceed without regard to the meaning and the implications of that decision and without wanting in any way to refer this question to the Court of Appeal of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: How can the Treasurer justify ignoring a decision of the Supreme Court of this province? How can he justify running roughshod over the rights of working people, which for once have been protected by the courts of this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the member putting forward the premise that every bit of legislation that is brought into this House should first go to the courts? That is an unusual proposition for him to make.

Mr. Rae: You already have a ruling.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, the member has not seen the legislation. He does not know whether that ruling comes anywhere close to this legislation; he has not seen it yet. So on a sight-unseen basis he is telling us we should refer something he has not seen. He does not know how close it comes to the court decision; he has not read it. Yet he is saying, "Would you mind delivering it to the courts before you introduce it," which is a rather extreme and unusual proposition for him to put.

If he wants to put that proposition next week, after seeing the legislation, I suggest he may still be wrong, but at least he may be better informed before reaching the conclusion, having looked at the court decision and having looked at nothing, that nothing should be referred to the courts. That would be unusual, and it is not going to happen.

BEEF PRODUCTION

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When his deputy minister was interviewed by the news media following the agrifood conference his ministry sponsored a week or so ago, he said:

"There really wasn't ever a recession in agriculture compared to the other natural resource sectors, construction, mining, forestry, manufacturing industries. We did not have idle capacity of any description other than a few very minor, frankly, supplying industries. We did not have significant idle people or layoff. We really rode this one out, in Ontario particularly, very effectively in total output terms, in value terms. If somebody looks back 10 years from now, they would not have said there was ever a recession '80-'83 in the Ontario farm community."

How does the minister reconcile that with the comments made by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) following his recent tour of farms in Dufferin county as reported in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record:

"'We're not going to let the beef industry die,' he said. 'We're not going to let any part of the agricultural industry die.' Grossman said he was 'really quite touched and concerned' about the plight of area farmers after learning that many are now teetering on the brink of financial ruin through no fault of their own. 'It was distressing for me to see fine farms, first-class operations which will be lost, not because (the owners) borrowed too much money but because of current market conditions,' he said."

How can the Treasurer get a clear picture of the state of the beef industry in this province within a few short hours, whereas the minister in his second year as Minister of Agriculture and Food does not seem to understand that our beef producers need a shot in the arm from this government to help them fight an economic malaise which caught them without any immunity whatsoever, unlike the beef producers in the other provinces?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the results of the meeting between my cabinet colleague and the local farmers. Obviously, the repeated submissions by the minister and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food have been rubbing off. I submit that if one looks at the list of new programs which this minister and this ministry have initiated in the past year or so -- the beginning farmer assistance program, the proposals to improve the farm tax rebate system --

Mr. Riddell: How is that going to help the beef producers?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections. Just refer to the first question, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is interesting, though, that to date we have approved 118 applications for the beginning farmer assistance program, and the five counties with the heaviest concentration of successful applicants are Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth and Middlesex. I submit that the majority of those are likely to be in the livestock industry.

I am glad the honourable member raised the point, because I was not going to make a statement on it, but he will know that after months and months of diligent work on the part of the staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and myself, if I may be immodest, we have been successful in getting an agreement with the federal government and several other provinces to initiate a red meat stabilization plan.

Part of those discussions, and this gets to the latter part of the question, has been on the matter of whether there should be any retroactivity or another one-time fix. I have reported to the House repeatedly and to cattlemen all over the province, including in the counties of Bruce, Grey and Huron, that throughout those discussions it has been made clear that we would jeopardize the chance to establish that stabilization program and help the beef industry now and for the future if we were to do that.

Further to that, the member is aware that the ministry has done a lot of intensive work with the red meat industry, and particularly with the cattlemen of the province, in working out some proposals that are currently before cabinet for further initiatives to assist the red meat industry, and particularly the cattle industry, in the future. I was pleased to see the comments of my colleague, because I would hope they would signal a rather generous review, if I can put it that way, when they come up for a decision.

Mr. Riddell: I am well aware of the meeting the minister had with the other provincial ministers and the federal Minister of Agriculture and that they did reach an agreement. I am also well aware that the national stabilization plan will not come into effect until next year. I am fully aware of that.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: What assistance does he, as the minister responsible for the maintenance of a viable agricultural industry in this province, intend to render to help the beef producers to overcome their present financial difficulties, which difficulties, as the Treasurer stated, came about through no fault of their own?

How does the minister intend to help the beef producers to survive this year so that they will have a chance to participate in the national stabilization program next year? If the minister believes it is going to become retroactive, then he believes in tooth fairies. That simply will not happen.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member is right; he has obviously been talking to the federal minister. That is part and parcel of the discussions that have been going on. If the member is saying he is prepared to throw away any chance of the stabilization program and do nothing about the future of the industry beyond November 1983, then he is dead wrong.

SUDBURY HOUSING

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the problem of affordable housing in Sudbury. The minister is aware that we have had negotiations concerning this problem. Recently, I received a letter from Romeo LeBlanc, which makes the following point.

"Based on a review of the current Sudbury situation, I would recommend that municipalities pursue the municipal nonprofit approach. Such a corporation would be in a position to acquire mortgage insurance fund properties as well as others. If the province were prepared to match the federal assistance, the bulk of the units could be made available on a rent-geared-to-income approach. Such a corporation would be in a position to acquire mortgage insurance fund properties as well as others. If the province were prepared to match the federal assistance, the bulk of the units could be made available on a rent-geared-to-income basis."

In view of the negotiations that are going to take place tomorrow with respect to this between the minister's staff and some people from the city of Sudbury, is the province prepared to indicate that it is going to match the federal assistance promised by LeBlanc, purchase the mortgage insurance properties that are available and others, and then make these units available on a rent-geared-to-income basis?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member also has a letter from the regional chairman which acknowledges some of the recent discussions both Mr. LeBlanc and I have had with that municipal council.

My letter to the regional chairman of some days ago clearly indicates that I am on side, and have been for some period of time, suggesting to either the city of Sudbury or to the regional government, one or the other, that they should establish themselves in a municipal nonprofit housing corporation to be able to participate in the allocation process of the municipal nonprofit units that are given to Ontario, which in turn we reallocate to the various communities across Ontario.

I indicated that to the chairman and I understand the region is not interested in forming a nonprofit corporation. The city of Sudbury, as the member said, will be reviewing further tomorrow with our ministry people the possibility of establishing one. Obviously, if Sudbury does come along, we will assist it through a funding program to put the corporation together financially. If they qualify for units, and I have indicated they would for 10 or more units, Mr LeBlanc has now indicated the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. is prepared to do one of two things, either to sell or to get into a rent supplement program.

Yes, we in the province will participate with the federal government in accordance with the agreement we have signed.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the provincial minister of housing has not been prepared to do even as much as the federal government has done in the last couple of years in terms of subsidized housing in Sudbury. There are 174 crisis housing cases right now in Sudbury. Those are families with over 60 points out of the 100 required for public housing.

Since the minister is apparently offering assistance on only 10 units to CMHC-owned homes, which would still leave 164 families in crisis, why is it that he has not been able in the last couple of years to match or come even close to matching the federal contribution?

If my figures are correct -- perhaps the minister would tell me I am wrong in that -- in the last two years the provincial Ministry of Housing has put in place only 69 subsidized units while the federal government, through CMHC, has put in 328 units.

What is the minister prepared to do in the short term to reduce that problem of 174 crisis cases, beyond the 10 units that he has already offered? Second, what is he prepared to do about that waiting list of 600? What is he going to do about that long-term problem?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have been over this question about Sudbury, as I have been with other communities. It is very clearly spelled out as to how a community can participate in trying to secure some of the allocation relating to the nonprofit program.

It has been Sudbury's decision not to get into that program. At the same time, we have CMHC, which has the right to allocate -- let us make it very clear; CMHC has the right to allocate units in the private nonprofit --

Mr. Rae: Stop passing the buck.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The leader of the third party should know about passing the buck. He was in Ottawa for a while.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The federal government has the right to allocate to private nonprofits and co-ops. Those groups have participated in that community. If the member would look, there are a number of those units that were built by the co-ops and private nonprofits, and we would get into a rent supplement program with them through the provincial government program.

We have offered to Sudbury, as we do to every other community of this province, the right to participate in the municipal nonprofit program, the right for the provincial government to participate with the private nonprofits and the co-ops through a financing program with this government. We have 115,000 units in this province for the support of those less fortunate and we as a province have participated fully, in a very frank, forceful way, with the federal government within the terms of reference that we agreed to in 1978 and have fully lived up to ever since.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister will recall that in the estimates I mentioned he should not be blamed for the sins of the previous ministers who were recycled. Three or four days ago, the first minister of the province stated that the opposition was dragging Ontario into the Dark Ages.

In view of this, how does he defend the fact that in the United States of America the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered the cancellation of 70 nuclear plants, amounting to billions of dollars, because they have no solution for the disposal or the storage of spent fuel rods? We in Ontario, as the minister knows, have thousands and thousands of spent fuel rods stored in swimming pools and these all have a radiation life of 2,000 years.

We are rapidly reaching the point where we will have to mothball some of our nuclear plants which have a life of maybe 20 to 30 years. Can the minister tell the House, or get the information to tell us, what is most important at this time and place in view of what is going on in America and the free world on nuclear power? How do we mothball a nuclear plant, not the coal-fired plants the government has now? There is no way to mothball a nuclear plant. How is he going to do that in the next three, four or five years?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy.

Mr. Sargent: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I heard a question.

Mr. Sargent: I am building up to it. How can the minister leave the spent fuel rods in swimming pools and the plants we have to mothball, all this garbage, for our children to find the answers to?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, this is an area with which I have some familiarity, in particular as parliamentary assistant. I had some affiliation with the work of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. at Whiteshell and the kind of research it is doing in terms of the disposal and storage of nuclear waste.

2:50 p.m.

Before we go too much further, I think I should correct the record because there is a misconception here that the United States has cancelled every nuclear reactor program that is under way. There are currently some 70 plants under construction. In the Tennessee Valley Authority -- which is often quoted as the model of a United States utility, a model for the rest of the world to follow -- some 5,000 megawatts of electrical nuclear generation are currently under construction.

I can assure the honourable member that AECL has a very well-funded, very forward-looking program in terms of disposal of nuclear waste which is being shared with other nations of the world which have a similar problem, including the great nation of France, for which the third party no doubt has some affection.

I can only assure him that the program is ongoing and that it is a program which involves the participation of Ontario Hydro in terms of high-level waste as well as low-level waste.

Mr. Sargent: The minister knows that with the federal program, AECL says it will be 1990 before we will have a place to bury the spent fuel rods. This is the target date.

One of the senior Ontario Hydro officials, in defending the decision to proceed with Darlington, made a statement to the effect that, "We must have Darlington, even in view of our 40 per cent surplus of power, to use up the surplus uranium contracts because of the long term."

Does the minister agree that we should force the people of Ontario to compound this $7.5-billion unbelievably scandalous contract by compounding this, by tying it in with a $20-billion package that will be the cost of Darlington?

Why does the minister not take steps right now to cancel or renegotiate the contract with Denison, for which the time is now ripe?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The whole question of the uranium contracts was recently reviewed by the public accounts committee at the request of the member. I am told the member failed to appear at that committee when, in fact, he had made the request for the committee to do the study. In appearing before the committee, Ontario Hydro personnel answered forthrightly all the questions put to them with respect to those contracts.

If the member wishes to suggest that Ontario Hydro renege on those contracts, perhaps he would like to give some perspective on what the results would be to the Ontario industry?

SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The minister knows that Downsview Acres at 2195 Jane Street was initially a limited dividend building which was transferred in 1977 to the Metro Toronto Housing Authority and converted to rent-geared-to-income scales.

Is the minister aware that the rents in this building went up 24 per cent in 1982 and 25 per cent in 1983, for a total of 49 per cent? Also, because of the fact that the transfer provoked an increase of the income portion going towards the rent from 20 to 25 per cent, does the minister not agree that senior citizens with fixed incomes should not be subjected to those types of increases? If it is going to apply to those senior citizens after a review, I would hope he will ensure that the senior citizens' rents will be subjected to the same ceiling as the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) wants to impose on the public service workers of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will have to take notice of the question in relation to the particular unit of which the honourable member is speaking. I only want to comment that if it is on a rent-geared-to-income basis and is basically occupied by senior citizens, there has been a policy in this province and in this country for a fair period of time that on rent-geared-to-income units the rent has always been predicated on 25 per cent of income.

While it might not please the member for Downsview, the fact is it has been an accepted policy in all of the municipalities in this province and in all the housing units we have and I am not about to recommend to this government or to the federal government that it should be altered.

Mr. Di Santo: I would like to ask the minister if he will not agree with me, when he checks the facts, that this increase from 20 to 25 per cent was phased in over three years and that is why the rents were increased 50 per cent between 1982 and 1983. I would like him to ask the Metro Toronto Housing Authority at least to phase in the increase over a longer period of time than the three years it chose, so that the impact on the residents of that building will be less onerous than it is now.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As I said earlier, I am prepared to review the situation. I only want to caution the House once again that the implementation of phasing-in whatever differences there are between the rent-geared-to-income factor of 25 per cent and the lesser factor that the member is speaking of has to be absorbed 100 per cent by the municipal organization or by the province.

The federal government made it very clear to us that in calculating rents in relationship to cost, it will calculate them all at 25 per cent of income. Anything falling short of that, either the provincial or municipal government can make up. I will review the particular building the member mentions to see exactly how it is involved, but if it relates back to the 25 per cent rent-geared-to-income factor, the policy will apply.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the provincial government espouses a policy of restraint, does the minister not think it would be wise and consistent if the ministry were to follow the edicts of the cabinet and the provincial government and pass down that restraint to these rent-geared-to-income properties rather than have increases of 20 to 25 per cent, which the minister has defended with great difficulty in the past and very embarrassingly to his ministry and to the government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, never with any embarrassment to myself, my ministry, my government or the federal government. I think the people of this province and this country have done an outstanding job in trying to put units in place for senior citizens at a reasonable rent. We have accepted the principle for many years that a figure of 25 per cent of income for rent for senior citizens was a reasonable position in which to find ourselves and it has been accepted by the senior citizens of this province and by the families in those public units as well.

The cost to the people of Ontario and Canada for the units in Ontario alone this year will be some $350 million. There is no apology from this minister on behalf of the taxpayers of the province who have honoured their position in trying to give people a decent place to live at a reasonable rent. The fact is we have accepted a 25 per cent rent-geared-to-income factor. If the member's party wants to recommend to the federal minister that there should be a drastic reduction for which they are going to pick up the charge, I would be delighted to hear the outcome.

CURRICULUM GUIDELINES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. During consideration of the estimates, when I raised the issue of the opposition of the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters' Council to the implementation of the proposals in the document, Ontario Schools: Intermediate and Senior Divisions, in September 1984, the minister said:

"The principals made it very clear to us that as long as OSIS was in their hands in early October of this year there would be sufficient time available for them to do all of the planning they needed for the introduction."

She also contended during the estimates, "This is an important activity and we would like to get on with it," quoting the Ontario headmasters' association.

Despite these statements, how can the minister come to the conclusion that the headmasters support her position of implementing OSIS in September 1984 when N. E. Sliter, chairperson of the headmasters' council, stated in an October 4, 1983, letter to all headmasters: "We still oppose implementation in September 1984 because curriculum documents are not yet available, particularly in basic and general levels and in Ontario academic courses."

How does she square those two statements?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the statements we had from the headmasters through all consultations last spring and in the early summer of this year demonstrated very clearly that their position was that if the OSIS document were delivered early in the fall of this year, it would give them adequate time to plan for the implementation of the renewal program in September 1984. That was certainly the position which was translated and transmitted to the Ministry of Education.

3 p.m.

I do not have a copy of the letter of October 4 because the chairman of the council did not send me one. I would be delighted to see the letter, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Bradley: I would be pleased to provide the minister with a copy of that letter and also the comments of the central region of the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters' Council. Will the minister undertake to provide specific written documentation, and will she show us in writing where the headmasters agree with what she says about the implementation of OSIS, because nowhere in writing have I seen the headmasters agree with her position?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is interesting to note that the honourable member has suddenly -- did the member say the chairman of the central region, headmasters' council --

Mr. Bradley: I added that on. That is another group.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for St. Catharines did not say that the first time. I shall be glad to try to determine where that is, if it is in writing, and I am not sure that it is, because most of this consultation was carried out around a table with headmasters, teachers and all sorts of people.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence is clear enough and the locations of the places of the statements that were made are clear enough. The member for St. Catharines has cited for the minister a statement of the chairman of the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters' Council of October 4, and he has quoted that quite accurately. The minister ought to have in her hands a resolution passed by the central regional organization of the headmasters' council in which it specifically indicates five very difficult areas in which they will have a great problem in implementation, and the northwestern headmasters' council has done the same.

Will the minister please table any documentation she has of any kind which indicates the headmasters at any time wrote officially to her saying they would be pleased to proceed in the fall of 1984 with that implementation? If she cannot do that, was she not misleading the House when she told me a week ago that was the case and they were agreed to that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I said, all the information which had been transmitted to me, all the information which I had heard directly on a verbal basis from the representatives of the headmasters' council demonstrated to me that they were supportive of that introduction. It is not necessarily wrong, but if there is a change of position, we did have consultation on a regular basis with groups of headmasters who expressed specific concerns. All of those concerns have been addressed. It is my contention that --

Mr. McClellan: Apologize.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not have to apologize. That was the information.

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not mislead the House. The member for Hamilton West has no right to say I did because the information which was transmitted to me was in support of the position I presented at the estimates discussion. That remains a fact.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

If I may draw the minister's attention to my understanding of the question put by the member for Hamilton West, he did not indicate or suggest you were misleading the House. He asked a question, in effect asking you if you had misled the House and you replied quite amply to that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, may I simply say that asking a question in that tone implied to me he was suggesting that was so.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think I would want to insist, as any member of this House would, that all of us have a right to accurate information. That was the point of my question.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, just as a passing comment, I think the Minister of Education would make a good auctioneer.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the comments.

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This was signed by teachers from the following schools in the riding of Huron-Middlesex: Centennial Central, Plover Mills, Caradoc North, Oxbow, McGillivray, East Williams, Biddulph-Lucan and Caradoc North.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition. I will not bother repeating all the preamble. It is signed by a number of teachers from the following schools: Saturn Avenue, Hemlock, Rawn Road, Marks Street -- my old alma mater in Atikokan -- Sixth Street in Fort Frances, Sturgeon Creek, Burriss, and J. W. Walker, also of Fort Frances.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition is from 21 different schools in the city of Windsor. The schools are: Child's Place, Brock, Cavell, Coronation, Dougall, Eastwood, Forest Glade, Gilmore, Hetherington, King Edward, Marlborough, McCallum, Gordon McGregor, McWilliam, Oakwood, Parkview, Princess Ann, Princess Elizabeth, Roseville, Southwood and Taylor.

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This petition is signed by 32 teachers from Meadowlane Public School, Lincoln Avenue Public School and William G. Davis Public School.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 14 petitioners from Bertie Elementary School, Ridgeway, Ontario, as follows:

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition signed by, I am told, 133 teachers from six elementary schools, including William G. Davis, and one secondary school in Cambridge.

3:10 p.m.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Shymko from the select committee on the Ombudsman reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $5,473,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Robinson from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984:

Ministry administration program, $4,131,700; tourism development program, $28,181,500; parks and attractions program, $20,992,100; and recreation, sports and fitness program, $57,327,100.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Kerr from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Roitman Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, may I present a petition?

Mr. Speaker: We have been through petitions.

Mr. Laughren: I know, but I was talking to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

Mr. Speaker: All right. Do we have the consent of the House to revert?

Agreed to.

PETITION

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Education Centre and the Whitney Public School in the Timmins area. I believe the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) is not in the House at this time, so I will present this petition on his behalf.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MASSEY HALL AND ROY THOMSON HALL ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, seconded by Mr. Kerr, first reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Corporation of Massey Hall and Roy Thomson Hall.

Motion agreed to.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Di Santo moved, seconded by Mr. Samis, first reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to set up a standing committee of the Legislature for the purpose of reviewing all aspects of the performance and policies of the corporation and to appoint one of the directors by the same standing committee of the Legislature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONTROL OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Nixon, moved resolution 20:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should limit and control the growth of crown corporations and subsidiaries in the province of Ontario and make them accountable to the Legislature for the province of Ontario; and that all Ontario government agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and their subsidiaries should come under the direct control of the Legislature of Ontario; and that no new crown corporation or subsidiary or joint venture involving the expenditure of tax dollars should occur without the approval of the Ontario Legislature; and that every board, agency, commission, crown corporation or subsidiary should be subjected to the auditing provisions contained in the Audit Act of Ontario; and, further, that all detailed financial transactions and budgetary matters of the aforementioned should be included in the budget of Ontario, and the Manual of Administration for the province of Ontario should apply to all of the aforementioned.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ramble on for a little while and reserve the balance of whatever is left, if there is anything.

I have been awaiting this day for a long time, not necessarily to advance this particular resolution, but consistently when we draw in these lotteries, I seem to end up very low on the totem pole. Maybe it is fortuitous that that is the case.

My good friend and associate the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) indicated to me in the west lobby that he would be unable to join me, but had he been able to join me, he would have supported me in this endeavour. Unfortunately, he is taking a lie detector test in the justice committee, and I am quite confident he will pass.

I beg the support of my honourable colleagues on this resolution, which frankly is something I have been thinking about for some time. I should say to all members of the House that I was prompted to sponsor this resolution as a result of comments that have been made on the subject of crown agency operations by our auditor in his last two reports. Those would, of course, be comments made by two independent auditors because we have had a new one appointed more recently. They have indicated in both the 1980-81 and 1981-82 reports that there are some concerns, particularly about the extent to which wholly owned crown corporations, and especially their subsidiaries, fell under the Audit Act.

I am assured by my good friend the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) that all the subsidiaries of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. do report to the UTDC and that, in turn, UTDC reports to him. But those crown corporations and their subsidiaries do not report to the Legislature, to which I believe they are accountable.

It is my concern that in the past 10 years we have had a very extensive and rapid growth in the number of boards, agencies, commissions, crown corporations and their subsidiaries. Indeed, I do not think for a moment that it would be presumptuous to say there is not a member of the Legislature who could give an accurate number with regard to how many boards, agencies, commissions, crown corporations and subsidiaries there are. I do not necessarily say that is a fault of any of us, but more a reflection on the fact that there is a large number of them.

Some would refer to this kind of phenomenon as the growth of government; some would refer to it as hidden government. In my view, it is often a form of government that is difficult to get at. I am not saying that every board, agency, commission and crown corporation is not worthy of our support. In fact, were we a little more aware of their existence and of the extent of their responsibilities and the good work they do, we might even be more supportive. But I would submit that there are growing difficulties with them.

I would like to quote from this year's auditor's report, page 105, where the Deputy Attorney General, through a letter to the auditor, advises as follows: "It is our view that there is some difficulty in characterizing the subsidiaries...you refer to as crown-controlled corporations. It is our view that ownership of the shares of the subsidiaries would be held to be vested in the parent corporations and not in Her Majesty in right of Ontario. This interpretation is not free from doubt," and that provision is, of course, always contained in an advice from the Attorney General. "I would recommend that the matter be clarified by an amendment to the legislation."

This is something I have raised in the House. I think the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts has made his concerns known. I believe, in general, that members of the public accounts committee have this particular concern. It is something that, frankly, I think should be addressed by way of legislation. In the absence of that, I am advancing this resolution today.

3:20 p.m.

On page 105, the auditor refers to some of the subsidiaries; for instance, subsidiaries of the Northern Ontario Development Corp. such as Minaki Lodge Resort Ltd., Minaki Development Co. Ltd. and Thunder Bay Ski Jumps Ltd. Subsidiaries of the Ontario Energy Corp. include Ontario Energy in Transportation Ltd., Ontario Energy Resources Ltd., Ontario Alternate Energy Ltd. and Ontario Powershare Ltd. -- members may not have heard of that one; possibly they have -- and the Trillium Corp. Then there are the subsidiaries of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Ltd.: Metro Canada Ltd., Toronto Transit Consultants Ltd., UTDC Research and Development Ltd., UTDC Services Inc. and UTDC (USA) Inc.

I should add that many of us were surprised, if not astounded, to see not long ago that a Conservative government -- and the members of the Legislature had to read this in the paper -- through the Urban Transportation Development Corp. arbitrarily acquired, if not nationalized, 80 per cent of Hawker Siddeley Corp. in Thunder Bay.

During the course of the estimates we can get into the minutiae of why that situation had to occur and just what circumstances on the part of this government led to what ultimately, I hope, is the protection of a few employees in Thunder Bay. But it is a very strange circumstance where the chairman of the UTDC can get up some morning, wander off, do as he merry well wants and ostensibly we, as members of the Legislature, are powerless in controlling that.

In the next week or so, as members of the Legislature, we are going to be requested to support some restraint legislation. I certainly support the notion of restraint, but I have some difficulty when I feel the object of the exercise in the program is to restrain those on lower incomes and the lowest-paid individuals in society, who may or may not be civil servants, while at the same time we allow this growth of boards, agencies and commissions to go on unfettered.

If we showed some leadership and could make the Legislature and our committees a little more relevant in this regard, we could find out where there are areas of waste. Perhaps the extent to which we have to be so miserly in this province would not be so evident in the payment of workers' compensation benefits or the manner in which we support those who would make application under family benefits or a myriad of very worthy causes. In part, I believe a little more discipline by those of us who are entrusted with the responsibility of power could see some very real improvement.

While the economy has been growing at a very slow pace, the growth of government continues to outpace it. Members might be interested to know that prior to the Second World War, for every person over 65 there were nine people in the work force. There were nine people working to assist someone over 65. As of today, that figure is one in three. For every person who is over 65 and retired, we have three people working to assist them. Of the three, I suggest one of them is employed by a board or agency within the civil service or within a crown corporation or its subsidiary. I do not know what that figure will be like by the time we get to 1990.

As legislators, we are required to make this process more relevant. I believe that when we are entrusted with the powers of responsibility, our constituents expect more from us; they expect more from the process. They look at the televised proceedings in Ottawa with incredible disdain. If we televised the debates of this place, their feelings would be similar; they do not feel relevant.

Occasionally, as we are driving or flying back to our constituencies on weekends, we must feel not particularly relevant to the process. We see things going on that we do not like. We see the power vested in areas where we have no control. We feel that maybe for the course of the week we have not been particularly relevant.

In the past two or three years, unfortunately, we have seen the public accounts committee rendered impotent, almost absolutely useless, in terms of restraining waste and citing waste when we see it. This should be a meaningful committee for protecting the taxpayers' money, which is held in trust.

Today, we were treated to an unfortunate situation. For reasons I cannot understand, a referral to the Provincial Auditor of the matter concerning the member for London South (Mr. Walker) was denied -- a referral even to the auditor.

I do not know what some members say to their constituents when they go home and they are asked why the Urban Transportation Development Corp. took more than 80 per cent of Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc. "Was there a vote on it?" "Did you know about all these boards, agencies and commissions?" "How could you describe or justify what the Globe and Mail columnist Mr. French writes today?"

I must admit he wrote with some humour about the interesting situation regarding the Board of Funeral Services and the Funeral Services Review Board. Until I read that column, although I knew there was one board, I did not know there were two. Certainly, I did not know what the distinction was. I still do not know why we need two. I really do not think anybody does.

Some cynical people say that these boards, agencies, commissions and crown corporations are often run by friends of the government. Of course, they are not elected; they are chosen. Some of the people who run them are unelectable, in fact. This has been the basic qualification for their appointment.

Mr. Kerrio: Create jobs for the old Tory horses.

Mr. Cunningham: That may well be.

What is our purpose here? We are not going to be able to continue to reach in and take more from the economy using the method we have. Maybe these reports will be reflected somehow in Ottawa at some time, but I sense, by virtue of the polls I read in the public press, that there may be a change of administration in Ottawa at some point.

Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Cunningham: It may happen. I have seen nowhere in the New Testament or the Old Testament that the Liberals are destined to run things forever up there. Should that change happen, I would suggest to my friends opposite that this money train that has gone on in the context of grants to the province may be curtailed. We may find ourselves in the sad situation where we are going to have to start to demonstrate some leadership with these crown corporations.

I am going to summarize and reserve the balance of the time. I beg the support of my colleagues. This is not some licence to get into something similar to what is going on in British Columbia, which I genuinely abhor. A division such as that which is occurring within one of our provinces is a terribly unfortunate situation, and it need not occur.

If we were to discharge our responsibilities as members of the Legislature, if we were to make our committees more relevant and bring these boards, agencies and commissions under the control and authority of the province to make them accountable to the Legislature -- and I think of one agency in particular, Ontario Hydro -- then we would be doing people a great service. We would reduce the cost of government; we would increase the efficiency of government and eliminate the need or minimize the extent to which we have to perpetually put our hands in people's pockets.

With those brief comments, I beg the support of my fellow members.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I speak, among other things, as a recently appointed member of the standing committee on procedural affairs, which has some responsibility for reviewing agencies, boards and commissions and, presumably, crown corporations.

I have taken an interest in the subject for some time, and I think the concerns of the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) are extremely legitimate. I certainly share those concerns, and I think all of us in this House should share them.

I have to say to the member for Wentworth North, perhaps with regret, that I personally cannot support the resolution as a whole. Some of the solutions that are offered are so constrictive and so constraining that the network of crown corporations, which we or any other Legislature has to have, would find it extremely difficult to operate effectively and to do what they are there to do.

However, if this debate provokes a discussion about how to ensure better accountability for crown corporations and for agencies, boards and commissions, it will have been valuable. For that reason, I thank the member for having put forward this notice of motion.

3:30 p.m.

I think all governments and all parties, perhaps with the exception of British Columbia, share my belief that crown corporations are a necessary means by which the public can intervene and can be involved in the economy to achieve social and sometimes economic goals that cannot be achieved, or are not being achieved, through the private sector.

It is certainly not only a left-wing solution. Canadian National Railways and Petro-Canada were inventions of federal Liberals. Air Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. were inventions of the Progressive Conservatives when they were in power back in the 1930s. Pacific Western Airlines was a Conservative invention, the Potash Corp. was an invention of the New Democratic Party, and the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and Ontario Hydro both came from the Conservatives at various epochs here in Ontario.

In the specific motion the member for Wentworth North has put forward, he says two things: first, there should be accountability -- I want to talk at length about that -- and, second, there should be control by the Legislature of crown corporations.

If there is to be direct control, then the government does run into the problem of effectively killing the concept of parliamentary accountability. I think we have to have a bit of both. I think it is probably unworkable in our parliamentary system to try to graft on to it what would amount to the kind of congressional system that exists in the United States, where various agencies and what we would call crown corporations do account directly to the legislatures in that country.

I think there is a mistake there. The member may be perhaps a bit blind to the actions of his federal Liberal colleagues. They have quite specifically circumvented the kinds of things he says would be desirable in the course of this resolution. He says there should be no new crown corporation "without the approval of the Legislature." At the federal level, the Canada Development Investment Corp., which is the new maxi-corporation created in Ottawa a few months ago, was created without specific approval from Parliament.

He says every board, agency and commission "should be subjected to the auditing provisions contained in the Audit Act of Ontario." The federal government -- the Liberals -- specifically rejected that when it came to Canadair and other crown corporations.

He says all detailed financial transactions should be part of the budget, and the crown corporation should be subject to the Manual of Administration for the province. Surely that is not the case with the federal government.

I would have to argue that this is not just a matter of which party is which. I do not think one can ask crown corporations to operate like government departments. One of the reasons that all parties eventually supported the creation of a crown corporation for Canada Post was that the post office was not doing an effective job as long as it was trying to be run as a civil service department.

There is, however, no question of the need for accountability. The Auditor General in 1976 talked about the federal Parliament losing effective control of the public purse. The Lambert commission talked about a grave weakening and, in some cases, an almost total breakdown of the chain of accountability with respect to crown corporations, among other things.

The Management Board of this province said in 1974, "A general picture emerges of agencies as having been insular with a high degree of autonomy created in an unsystematic, ad hoc fashion, with a low level of interaction with other government activities and often funded without detailed scrutiny."

In the wake of that report 10 years ago, some action was taken by the government. There are sunsetting reviews every three or four years. The ministers have always had informal powers of influence over crown corporations. There are meant to be memorandums of understanding about the role of each crown corporation which are to be negotiated with the relevant ministry. Those memorandums, however, have been few and very far between. It was a good reform idea, but it has not been carried out in practice.

There is a very serious problem as regards accountability of crown corporations to government in this province, let alone accountability to members of the Legislature or the Legislature as a whole. I take, for example, Ontario Hydro. Hydro has become an instrument all on its own. It is hard to know whether the government is leading Hydro by the nose or whether Hydro is leading the government of the people of Ontario by the nose. Maybe they are each doing the same thing to the other.

Up in Arnprior a few years ago, I saw Hydro blow $100 million on a dam that was not needed. It was offered as a kind of political promise by the chairman of the day to help get the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) re-elected. We now have Darlington, which is a $12-billion investment, being built in large measure because in the last provincial election the Premier (Mr. Davis) thought he needed something to show the folks down around Oshawa that he was going to be worthy of getting re-elected.

That is not good enough. That is an irresponsible use of crown corporations. I greatly fear that Hydro, which has been a very fine, forward-looking and progressive crown corporation in Ontario, will come on the reefs of disaster because of the degree and the nature of political involvement and intervention with Hydro in respect of what it should be doing, which is providing power at reasonable cost to the people of Ontario.

There are very real problems there, but there are also real problems, as the member has pointed out, in the lack of accountability with respect to Ontario Hydro since the return to majority government.

We in this province had a model of accountability -- which I am certainly aware does not mean we have control, but at least we can make agencies and crown corporations account for themselves -- in the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. It did a damned fine job, but it was never able to finish its job before we moved back to a majority government in 1981.

Since the 1960s we have not had any other effective review of the work of most crown corporations, although the standing committee on procedural affairs is making a valiant attempt. But the procedural affairs committee is too little, too weak and too ineffective in being able to go through what we should be doing and providing the kind of accountability that the member for Wentworth North and I would like to see occur.

My time is beginning to run out but I want to suggest that there are one or two examples we could look at usefully. The British Columbia crown corporations committee -- which had statutory jurisdiction, was a small committee and was appointed and sat for three years at a time, for the life of the BC parliament -- is a model that would be useful for Ontario. Unfortunately, that committee has been disbanded as part of the actions of the Bennett government to destroy parliamentary democracy in British Columbia. That I regret very much, because it was the only effective model we had in the country, apart from our select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, for accountability from and oversight over crown corporations.

Several things should be done that would be in the spirit of this resolution. I agree that where a new crown corporation is to be created, it should be by action of the Legislature. I think that when new subsidiaries are to be created, they should be reviewed probably by a crown corporations committee. If we were to have a crown corporations committee, it should be small enough that it could be collegial, like the public accounts committee and the procedural affairs committee; that is, where the members are able to develop an understanding and to work together on a basis that transcends to some extent their party affiliations.

There has to be a right to know. I do not think the auditing need necessarily be done by the Provincial Auditor, but I think the crown corporations need to report fully, their audits have got to be available and their strategic planning exercises, their plans for the future, have to be made public or at least made available to a crown corporations committee of this Legislature charged with reviewing what those crown corporations are actually up to.

I will close on this note. The federal Lambert committee recommended that crown corporations should adopt a strategic plan that included not just objectives and long-term goals but also short- and medium-term financial plans. Each minister should have the power to issue directives to crown corporations, but these directives should be tabled in parliament or made public. The commissioner to the public accounts committee or a relevant standing committee of parliament should have the automatic right to examine the annual report of crown corporations and to question the management and not just the responsible minister without having to seek consent of the government.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: Those proposals, adapted to Ontario's needs and funnelled through a crown corporations committee, would certainly be a start in ensuring more effective accountability for crown corporations in Ontario.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, the questions regarding government agencies that this resolution raises have been largely dealt with in the standing committee on public accounts. A number of valid points have been made in our committee, and I know full well that the government is aware of them.

The question of accountability was also considered with what I thought was general satisfaction as it related to both legislative and ministerial control. I do recognize that the topic of out-of-control agencies is a popular one for academics, the press and politicians. It is one that members on this side are as concerned about as anyone else.

3:40 p.m.

While we should maintain our vigilance and concern, we should also recognize that Ontario has the most comprehensive policy for establishing, administering and reviewing agencies of any Canadian jurisdiction, and that includes the federal government itself. I do not think there is a problem here that even remotely approaches the mess we have seen in Ottawa.

The fact there is one fewer agency in total as of September 30, 1983, than there was on December 30, 1982, goes a long way to showing that Ontario has been able to keep the growth of agencies under control. This is the second year in which the sunset review process has been used to determine whether specific agencies are continuing to serve useful purposes.

As the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) noted in estimates, 24 agencies were reviewed during the 1982-83 fiscal year and six of those were terminated. In this 1983-84 fiscal year, 28 agencies have been selected for review and in a few months we shall know how many of these things will be allowed to continue for a further defined period of time. Of course, this is only one way which has improved the control and accountability of agencies.

Another recent tool which our government has adopted is the memorandum of understanding which establishes financial and administrative arrangements between the agency and the responsible minister. Our memorandum also clarifies the roles and responsibilities of both the minister and the agency, specifically addressing:

(1) Purpose of legislative authority of the agency; (2) roles of the minister and agency; (3) financial arrangements; (4) audit arrangements; (5) operating relationships; (6) administration relationships; (7) staffing requirements; (8) sunset review; and (9) reporting. These memoranda are required for schedules 1 and 2 operational and regulatory agencies.

Before I continue, it might be best to summarize for the record this government's agency policy, the general rules of practice for government agencies as set out by Management Board in section 25 of the Ontario Manual of Administration. Ontario agencies are placed in one of four schedules depending on their characteristics.

Schedule 1 agencies receive all or part of their money directly from the consolidated revenue fund and are the most closely related agencies to regular government operations. Examples of these are colleges of agricultural technology advisory committees, the development corporations, the Civil Service Commission, the Ontario Police Commission and the Ontario Economic Council.

Schedule 2 agencies are intended to be completely funded out of their own revenues, though money may be given for startup costs as well as for money-losing activities undertaken because of government policy demands. Well-known examples of schedule 2 agencies include the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Ontario Hydro, Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Waste Management Corp. technology centres and Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Schedule 3 includes agencies which operate with public funds. They provide their own staffs and operate under their own management principles. Examples here are the Art Gallery of Ontario, CJRT-FM Inc., Workers' Compensation Board, Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation and the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation Professional Advisory Board.

Finally, schedule 4 agencies are not subject to Management Board administrative policies and manage their own staff and administration. They include the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Toronto Stock Exchange board of directors and the Council of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Given the nature of many of these agencies, and in particular schedule 3 and 4 agencies, there is not one single sound argument that can be made for placing them under the direct control of the Legislature. Likewise, the schedule 1 agencies are essentially ministry operations and their actions can be examined at the same time as ministers have their estimates.

Finally, there is a handful of schedule 2 agencies. These agencies are commercially oriented and in order to remain free to operate should not be tied down by this assembly. We have neither the time nor the expertise to do it. Everyone in this House is aware of the obsession of the member for Wentworth North with UTDC. As a schedule 2 agency, the legislation governing that corporation expressly states that it is not to be a crown agent or covered by the Crown Agency Act of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Why not?

Mr. Kolyn: That is not to say UTDC is not accountable to the Legislature. As the member opposite knows full well, UTDC is accountable to the Legislature through the Minister of Transportation and Communications. UTDC, as members of the procedural affairs committee know, governs its affairs in accordance with the memorandum of understanding as required by Management Board of Cabinet.

Both the UTDC president and the chairman of the board meet monthly with the transportation minister to report on all progress and activities. The minister can be questioned and has been questioned, both in the House and during estimates, on UTDC activities. In addition, UTDC is already covered by the Audit Act and should public money be appropriated for UTDC that appropriation must be approved by the Legislature.

As well, any of UTDC's obligations that are guaranteed by Ontario are subject to cabinet scrutiny and approval. UTDC's financial statements are also open to scrutiny and are published in the Public Accounts of Ontario. UTDC is audited by an auditor other than the Provincial Auditor. However, the Provincial Auditor has full access under the Audit Act to the audit reports, working papers and other related documents.

Mr. Cassidy: This is the most naïve speech the Legislature has heard for years.

Mr. Kolyn: As far as placing UTDC under direct legislative control is concerned, which I am sure the member opposite would want to see done, I believe we would be seriously limiting the corporation's freedom. UTDC has a mandate to compete in the world marketplace, which so far it has done. The imposition of direct legislative control would seriously impair its freedom to operate both in the domestic and world markets. While the member opposite might be willing to shackle the corporation in this manner, I am not willing to see that happen.

For other agencies, the situation is similar. If the provisions of this motion were put into effect --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. To the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), I distinctly recall the courtesy shown the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Kolyn: If the provisions of this motion were put into effect, the result would be the destruction of the entire rationale for the creation of government agencies. That might be something the proposer of the motion would like to see but I sense this is not what most members want. I believe our current system of accountability and control is working well. Agencies are already under constant scrutiny, not only by the assembly and its committees but also by the responsible ministries, ministers, the Provincial Auditor and Management Board.

As I said at the beginning, Ontario has the most comprehensive policy for establishing, administering and reviewing agencies of any Canadian jurisdiction. We should concentrate on maintaining and improving that policy and not on destroying it, as this motion would do. I cannot support this motion.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no hesitation in supporting the resolution. I feel the members opposite might very well give it more consideration than they have, or at least as has been indicated by the last speaker in support of present government policy. There is a feeling in this community that the agencies, boards and commissions are quite beyond the ambit of public control, and it does not have to be that way.

Many people in this House can recall when Ontario Hydro, for example, had as its vice-chairman a member of the government party. It seems to me that John Robarts and the Premier themselves began their rather tortuous political careers in this Legislature as members of the board of Ontario Hydro. That really meant that when these matters arose in the Legislature they could go to committee or rise in their places in the House and report directly from the board and directly carry back to the board the views expressed by members of parties on all sides. I saw no problem with that procedure whatsoever.

The honourable member who just spoke from the government party might feel that was unacceptable interference with the freedom of action of the board of Ontario Hydro, but we are not so concerned about it being free of the kind of interference, if it might be called that, of having to respond to the wishes and views expressed by the members of the Legislature and specifically by the government of the day.

There was a time when, instead of being a crown corporation, Ontario Hydro was a commission and it functioned very well as far as reporting was concerned. This party, after considerable discussion, voted against the legislation which converted the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission into the power corporation.

3:50 p.m.

It is interesting to note that even though the members of the New Democratic Party protest about it being out of control, they voted for the elevation of the commission into a corporation, in spite of the arguments cogently put forward at the time by myself and my colleagues that they were creating a monster far beyond public control. As a matter of fact, we predicted all of the problems we have seen occurring with the power commission even to this very day. It is another clear example that we were right and everybody else was wrong.

Interjection.

Mr. Nixon: Very good idea. As a matter of fact, I have read the reports of the standing committee on procedural affairs, based on its review of the agencies, boards and commissions it has had time to look at. The reports were quite good, but obviously the committee has other responsibilities, a very broad travel requirement and so on, and does not have sufficient time to undertake the continuing review of any significant number of these agencies.

I suppose there is a tendency for politicians getting long in the tooth to look at "what we used to do," but there used to be a standing committee on commissions which did nothing but call before it representatives of these various bodies for the kind of review considered adequate at the time. Frankly, it would not be adequate now because those committees really do require independent staff if there is to be a significant review of the commissions' business practices, goals and procedures.

I remember, as a member of the old committee on commissions, reviewing Ontario Hydro. Of course, Hydro was then a provincial sacred cow. It was a commission, a member of the government sat on the board as vice-chairman and the wheels all turned perfectly. Our hydro rates were the lowest in North America and there was very little complaint about what was happening. All was right with the world. The hydro consumption grew at a regular seven per cent a year, we were doubling our hydro development every decade and that appeared to be cast in bronze or chiselled in stone and never would change.

On the occasion I recall, the commission took us out to the Lakeview plant and showed us all the puffing boilers and whirring turbines and then said, "What about lunch?" The commission thought that was an excellent idea and so did the members of the committee. A very fine time was had by all and we were able to report to the House that Hydro was working at its usual efficiency and the only thing perhaps added to the cost of power that shouldn't have been was the cost of the excellent steaks we had in the boardroom of whatever that place is where the four tall smokestacks are, west of Toronto -- Lakeview.

Of course, much has changed. I was a member of the select committee chaired by Don MacDonald, along with the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) or Port Arthur, one of those nice towns that used to be. Actually, I thought the committee did good work, but members will recall, while there were those who thought the committee should have been extended ad infinitum, the final report, in at least one of its minority manifestations, called for a continuing supervisory group in this House to which the board of Ontario Hydro had to report regularly. Among other things, they had to report all the significant outages and accidents so that by law these matters were given to the Legislature and for our information.

As a matter of fact, things are so tough at Hydro it even seems to be having trouble getting a chairman. It may be that these days they are paying the chairman only $75,000 and I understand a civil servant working up here can get more money than that. If they are looking for a chairman, it seems to me they ought to look at Don MacDonald. We had some arguments in the committee about the profligacy of the committee's expenditures. As a matter of fact, I think we paid one lawyer close to $400,000 before he went on to higher responsibilities, doing good work, but really only former Ministers of Finance doing royal commission work at the federal level are worth that kind of money.

Don MacDonald is the sort of person who might work for the $70,000. It is more generous than what the New Democratic Party caucus gives him. He would certainly bring to the commission an approach that would be very interesting. I would like to see him as chairman of Hydro defending the policy of power costs before a committee of this House. That is something we could certainly look forward to.

Mr. Conway: He will be chairman when there is an NDP government.

Mr. Nixon: No. That is not the sort of approach we take.

It is interesting to note that even with this supposed arm's length of the new power corporation, the government tells it what to do whenever it can think of something constructive. Members may recall that it was after the corporation was established that the Premier indicated that he thought it was time for a new headquarters for Ontario Hydro and that his friend Gerry Moog ought to get the contract without any tenders being called.

The alternative that was put forward, once again by the thoughtful segment of this Legislature, was that the Hydro board ought to move out of Toronto entirely. The fact that it is taking up the most expensive piece of real estate in downtown Toronto with this beautiful glass box is ridiculous. Its corporate headquarters ought to be out somewhere in Brant county or some other suitable location.

Even though the power corporation was supposed to be independent of government influence, we see the headquarters where it is. We know how it was financed, how it was built and who is making the profit from that decision. So they should not give us the naïve approach that because it is a corporation the government or the people supporting the government do not in many respects dictate the final policies.

The same is true of the other corporations. Most of them are not interesting or important enough to warrant the day-to-day supervision of anybody in government. My own feeling is that the best solution would be to revert to the position of establishing commissions that are directly reportable and responsible to this House. We represent the people and it is up to us by our majority votes to establish the goals of these corporations. It is up to the House to see that they are properly audited and staffed and accomplishing the purposes for which they were established in the first instance.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Wentworth North for bringing forward this resolution. The question he brings before us is one to which I as a democratic socialist have had to give a lot of thought. It is one of the central questions before us as legislators in Canada where the crown corporation is so ubiquitous.

Certainly the question of accountability of crown corporations has to be one of the central questions facing a democratic socialist. The basic reason our party supports public ownership is because as a mechanism it is possible for it to be more accountable to the public generally than are private corporations.

The sad fact is that does not happen, either under Tory governments in Ontario or Liberal governments in Ottawa. The sad fact is both the Tory government in Ontario and the Liberal government in Ottawa have given public ownership a very bad name simply because they have not made crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions accountable either to them or to the Legislature or Parliament they represent.

I do not think it much matters whether the formation is a crown corporation, commission, agency or board. The key question is that it must be accountable. The only defence so far offered by the government side is that the Management Board of Cabinet has categorized the agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations into four categories and that it has control.

4 p.m.

This question has been bothering me for some time, and over the summer I had the legislative research service of the legislative library, which is as objective a group of people as one can get, do some work for me about strengthening the accountability of crown corporations. When it comes to Management Board, their report simply says:

"It has been suggested that Management Board, as it is presently constituted, simply does not have the capabilities to properly exercise this control function. Given the plethora of agencies and agency types and the limited staff at Management Board, the sketchiness of this policy is not surprising, though it does have significant implications.

"First, the main Management Board scrutiny of agencies focuses on fairly routine administrative concerns rather than on the more fundamental questions, such as whether certain agencies are doing a worthwhile job and whether they really need to exist as separate entities. Second, 'small chickens' are perforce left pretty much alone.

"The classification procedure is a necessary first step in establishing accountability. In Ontario, however, the procedure may be weak for at least two reasons. In the first place, the procedure itself, including its definition by activity component, is weak and has led to a fairly sketchy policy. Second, because limited resources have been available to it, Management Board itself cannot scrutinize in a detailed and critical fashion the functioning of agencies."

Basically, there are two questions before us. One is whether or not there should be direct legislative control of agencies, boards and commissions, and the second is whether or not there should be government control. I would argue that in Ontario at least there is neither. There is no government control.

One only has to watch the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), who has been swaying in the wind for the last two weeks, to see just how vulnerable he is to the information given to him by Ontario Hydro and to hear how apologetic he is, to realize he has no direct control over Ontario Hydro. He is simply the minister through whom Hydro reports. He has been left dangling in the wind because of inadequate briefing and inadequate information and because Hydro has gone back to the secretiveness it displayed before the days of the select committee.

I would like to make four or five suggestions about mechanisms we could examine in a realistic and honest way to make crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions more accountable.

First, for huge crown corporations like the Workers' Compensation Board and Ontario Hydro, there should be established a select standing committee on crown corporations, as in the British Columbia model. Ironically, the BC model that was established in 1977 has been done away with by the legislation Bill Bennett has brought in to curtail the growth of government. He has abolished that committee, and the staff was fired the moment Bill 21, I believe it was, was introduced in British Columbia. If we establish such a select standing committee to examine and review the major crown corporations, we would have a permanent review mechanism available to the Legislature.

Second, I think we need to have a beefed-up procedural affairs committee to conduct a review of agencies, boards and commissions so that it will get through that review in less than the 600 years it currently faces. At the latest count, there were 782 crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions which had been established by the government of Ontario.

Third, I think a permanent standing committee on energy to deal with Hydro would have some effect. As well, it does not seem to be unreasonable, with a huge corporation such as Hydro, that some kind of elective mechanism could be established so the board of directors of that corporation, which serves all this province, would democratically represent trustees from every corner of this province and they would not merely be appointed by government but elected much as local commissions are. Local hydro commissions are often elected. Why can the board of directors of Ontario Hydro not be elected from the various regions of the province? It is not beyond the wit of man if we put our minds to it.

Further, I think the principle of ministerial responsibility has to be established and accepted by this government. It has to be established in law that the minister is directly responsible for every agency, board and commission under his or her jurisdiction so that when questions are raised in the House, when legislation comes before the House, when scandals have arisen in public, the minister is directly responsible and cannot slough off that responsibility.

Next, there is the method of appointment, the patronage committee established under Ed Stewart, the Deputy Premier. The member for Brock (Mr. Welch) is not the Deputy Premier of this province; Ed Stewart, who is the deputy minister in the Premier's office, is the Deputy Premier of this province. As for the patronage committee, the appointments committee that appoints thousands of people, the Tories have established the Leninist cell system across Ontario through their appointments to all these boards, agencies and commissions. There is no Senate, so they have this method of rewarding their friends. I think that committee under Ed Stewart should be abolished.

Further, I think no system of accountability or mechanism will be effective in this province unless we have freedom of information laws, because one cannot make them accountable unless one has as a right of access to the information for which each of these boards, agencies and commissions has been established.

Next, I believe that as well as a strict financial audit as proposed by the member, there should be some mechanism of establishing a social audit. Is the commission or crown corporation performing a worthwhile social function as well as a worthwhile economic function? It is not just a matter of dollars and cents; it is a matter of service to the people of Ontario. If we did that, would we not at least call a halt to the establishment of useless agencies, boards and commissions that are simply used as a Senate for retired or failed Tories?

I think if we took those seven or eight concrete steps I have suggested, we would be on the road to establishing accountability, but we cannot have accountability of those commissions unless we have a truly democratic government. When one has a government in power for as long as 40 years, one simply does not have that accountability. One has arrogance instead of democracy.

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment briefly on the resolution proposed by the member for Wentworth North.

The topic he has chosen to consider is in its wider implications one of considerable interest to us all as members of this Legislature. I think it is fair to say that the question of financial control over various government operations also interests the public and members of the media. As has already been noted, that interest was sparked to a considerable degree six years ago when the then federal Auditor General, J. J. Macdonell, reported that "Parliament, and indeed the government, has lost or is close to losing effective control of the public purse."

However, over the years, revelations regarding loss of financial control, particularly those applying to government agencies, have tended to involve federal agencies, not those of the government of Ontario. For instance, on a recent trip to Ottawa with members of our public accounts committee, we witnessed sessions of the federal public accounts committee and the efforts of Auditor General Kenneth Dye to obtain information relative to CN Marine from representatives of the Department of Transport and Canadian National. Mr. Dye indicated his frustration that the chairman of CN had refused to provide him with the information he required. He expressed his concern, his worry about parliamentary control and "the impact on the reliability of government expenditures."

4:10 p.m.

Therefore, for this and other reasons which I will attempt to list, I find little in this lengthy resolution to support and much that I cannot support. In particular, I think the first sentence in the resolution should be singled out for criticism, not just by members on this side of the House but by all members, since it leaves two very erroneous impressions. The first is the impression that for some reason or other the growth of government agencies in Ontario may not be under control. The second is that our provincial agencies may not be accountable to the Legislature.

While the proposer of this motion may not have intended this interpretation to prevail, I am afraid that some people would accept this as a statement of fact, no matter how erroneous it actually is.

Ontario is not in the position of having to face a situation of uncontrolled growth in government agencies or of a lack of accountability of government agencies. Far from it. The thought that agencies may not be accountable to this assembly is simply ridiculous. Any member who has served on any committee considering ministry estimates or the annual report of an agency knows better. Any member who has participated in the deliberations of our standing public accounts and procedural affairs committees knows that there are many opportunities for agencies to be made accountable for their actions.

To help us in these activities, this House through the Audit Act has created the office of the Provincial Auditor. Subsection 9(1) of that act states: "The auditor shall audit, on behalf of the assembly and in such manner as the auditor considers necessary, the accounts and records of the receipt and disbursement of public money forming part of the consolidated revenue fund whether held in trust or otherwise."

To suggest, therefore, that agencies should be made accountable to this assembly ignores entirely the fact that they are already accountable. The member for Wentworth North knows that full well.

The other proposal, that agencies should come under the direct control of the Legislature, defines the very reason for establishing those agencies. What the member opposite is advocating is direct political control over organizations such as the Law Society of Upper Canada, the police complaints board, the art galleries, the Royal Ontario Museum, governing bodies at universities, the Ontario Securities Commission, the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Ontario Board of Parole.

That is a very brief list of some of the agencies reporting to just seven government ministers, as set out in section 25 of the Ontario Manual of Administration. It would also include the boards of directors of various health professions, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Police Commission and the Civil Service Commission.

The agencies of this government have in many instances been created with the main aim of establishing their autonomy and removing them from direct political control and the departmental structure of government ministries. Placing them under direct political control would violate one of the very important reasons they were established as agencies in the first instance.

While this resolution can be opposed solely on principle, it has other major weaknesses, weaknesses that relate to practical considerations. As members know, this Legislature can devote some 16 hours per week to business after allowing time for question period. There are several hundred agencies of record. Even if we were to spend no more than an average of one hour considering or controlling, as the member for Wentworth North would have it, the activities of each agency, an additional 17 weeks, or more than four months, would have to be added to House sittings.

To exercise this control function, each participating member would be required to read 16 background papers each week over that 17-week period. Even then I doubt very much if we could really exercise any form of control over an organization to which we could devote only one hour of our time per year. The imagination boggles at the notion of maintaining control in such circumstances. It is ludicrous, to say the least.

To conclude, I would re-emphasize the fact that we as members already have an efficient system at our disposal to ensure the accountability of our government agencies. Let me remind members that we have the public accounts committee, the Provincial Auditor, the procedural affairs committee, the ministry estimates and the annual reports of agencies, which can be examined. Very clearly, additional mechanisms are unwarranted. The suggestion that we need them detracts from the very good work of all members of this House who participate in the process.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the time I have. Could that be shared with me?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): You have 10 minutes.

Mr. Kerrio: I was not sure if we had eaten into that time. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to join in this debate regarding the motion of the member for Wentworth North. This particular private member's motion has been criticized by members on the government side. After 40 years of convincing themselves that all these great and wondrous things that have grown out of the Tory government should be protected at all costs, that attitude is shown on every issue of any consequence when we want to bring various boards, commissions and other children of this government under public scrutiny.

While I am not going to touch on too many of these boards, two or three come to mind immediately. I suppose it is because those are the ones that have abused the system in the greatest degree. I suggest, at the outset, that while the government has supposedly risen above having these boards and commissions dealt with here in this assembly, it has not removed that discretion from the Conservative government.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has proved that beyond any question. When the Hydro building was going to be built here on one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in all of Ontario, it seemed that Hydro did not really make that decision. It was strictly a political decision of the very first order. I do not think anyone with any integrity would question where that decision was made. It was there for all of us to see.

When we talk about management and whether the public is being served, that also brings to mind that the moment Hydro moved to its new building one would have thought there would have been a tenant for the old building. That was not so. The other building Hydro vacated was vacant for a good number of years. Certainly, that is not what I would consider the kind of management this government continuously beats itself on the breast about and talks about as one of the wondrous things of Tory government for all these years.

Those things are generally forgotten quickly and, in fact, they are supposedly elevated to a position where we should not criticize them because they should not be political involvements. They have been removed from this arena and we should not have anything to say about them.

When the government on that side, I believe it was in 1975, decided that Ontario Hydro had taken off and was running at a tremendous rate to what appeared to be very foolish executive decisions, the then minister, Darcy McKeough, pulled that big lever and put the brakes on Ontario Hydro. If that is not interference of the kind that, one might say, brought that huge machine to a slower pace, I cannot imagine having any more influence on a corporation than having the government decide it would slow it down.

In reality, what has happened to the members on this side is that the government over there has been able, in one way or another, to convince the public that it does not want some of these boards and commissions to be used as a political football. On the other hand, it certainly wants to maintain a position where it can pull the strings and have those various boards, commissions and all of those other entities, what some people refer to here as the Senate for tired Tories, function.

4:20 p.m.

We on this side, when we ask for more accountability, have good reason to do so. Today, we had Lawrence Solomon from Energy Probe appear here to suggest that the results of a poll show the public out there has now become aware it is time we had public accountability by Ontario Hydro.

The fact is that Ontario Hydro, in one way or another, frightened the people and held a bludgeon over their heads, saying we were going to have blackouts, brownouts and all sorts of terrible things if they were not given a full mandate to go ahead and do whatever they chose. It has actually resulted in what we see now: a giant bureaucracy grown beyond any kind of accountability -- not control, because I think it has been proven that it is controlled by the Tory government -- to the Legislature and the people of Ontario.

One might quarrel with some of the people who would recommend a private corporation. I am not suggesting Hydro should be a private corporation; however, a private corporation has to report to its shareholders, the shareholders can attend at meetings and those people who hold enough shares certainly do have an influence on how the company is run.

Most of the people in this province think Ontario Hydro is an entity that is owned by the citizens of Ontario in one fashion or another. Such is not the case. The fact is that under the Power Corporation Act, Ontario Hydro has to answer only to a board of directors that has been chosen by the Progressive Conservative government. In this way, it very effectively gets around any kind of mandate that it should really respond and answer to the so-called owners of that corporation. It is one of the very few cases in any kind of involvement in which this does not happen and where the are not accountable to only a very select few of some 12 board members and a chairman of the board.

We often talk about the Tennessee Valley Authority. This is one of those huge generating companies in North America. I suggest it is one of the very few that might be compared to Ontario Hydro. Its board of directors is chosen by participation by both parties in the jurisdiction. The Democrats and the Republicans in their assembly choose the members of the board.

It is about time the people of Ontario were taken into account and given some kind of decision-making role when it comes to choosing those people who should sit on the board. It should be more representative of people across Ontario and not the political football which the Tories have made it, strictly a one-party political football. There is just a little difference.

Many things come to mind when we talk about Ontario Hydro and the grossly unfair position it is able to obtain because of the Power Corporation Act. I can think of a situation where Ontario Hydro can appear before the Ontario Energy Board, make a presentation to the Ontario Energy Board and not have to abide by the decision. The Ontario Energy Board could recommend an increase in rates of 6.3 per cent and Ontario Hydro could decide, on its own, that it was going to go for 7.8 per cent.

The fact remains that when one puts any kind of an agency into competition with other energy distributors of any kind, it should have to play by the same set of rules. Such is not the case with Ontario Hydro. It is not only not accountable to this Legislature; it is not accountable to anyone.

I can think in terms of another situation where there was going to be province-wide bargaining for the construction trades. Ontario Hydro is one of the biggest employers of the construction trades, but it did not have to meet the criteria that all construction people across this province were obliged to meet.

One can see that Ontario Hydro, in the first instance, is not really a corporation that answers to its shareholders. It is not accountable to this Legislature. It is strictly an offspring of the Tory government, and all of the members over there, I am sorry to say, are apologists for a situation that should have been corrected before now.

When a resolution is put before this Legislature that has as much going for it as this one has in making Hydro accountable, it is a real disappointment to me that we are not getting more support from the government that initiated Hydro in the first instance. I hope they will reconsider and support this resolution.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, initially I would like to say in very brief rebuttal that the suggestion by the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) that my resolution is an intention to cause us to interfere with the judicial process or to supervise the activity of the courts or parole boards demeans what I think is a rather sincere resolution. In fact, it is one of the silliest suggestions I have heard in my eight years in this place.

I appreciate the remarks made by my friends to the left. The member for Ottawa Centre has certainly spent a great deal of time and effort, I believe constructively, endeavouring to examine the functioning of crown corporations, which I believe have a genuine purpose in government today.

It is not my suggestion for a moment that we should wipe them out holus-bolus. But as might have been said by our former Treasurer, now the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) -- and he is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, although I did hear about some of his encounters in cabinet, which may have bothered him occasionally -- the bottom line is accountability. If an agency, board, commission or crown corporation is funded directly or indirectly by taxpayers' money -- money collected by our Treasurer -- then it is responsible to us in some way or another, and we should be able to make it accountable to us. Simply put, the current process is not functioning.

Unfortunately I see that the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), a three-time unsuccessful federal candidate, is still preoccupied in his remarks with Ottawa. I say to him that the current process is not working. It is not working when the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) or the Premier of Ontario finds himself driving down in a car either from Brampton or from Forest Hill and reads in the paper that, unbeknownst to him, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, overseeing the Urban Transportation Development Corp., is authorizing or permitting the taxpayers' subsidization of some yacht club outside Kingston called the Loyalist Cove Yacht Club and that they are subsidizing the memberships of senior executives of UTDC. What abject nonsense.

The member said that of course UTDC has monthly meetings with the minister. Why then, during the course of those meetings, did the chairman or the president of UTDC not take the minister into his confidence and say, "By the way, Jimmy, we are into this yacht club thing"? The minister did not know about it until the deal was signed, sealed and delivered six months after the fact, and that is a matter of record.

When the Premier picked up his Globe and Mail, by the time he got to the outskirts of Brampton he must have fallen off his pipe to see that kind of activity, because in my heart I do not believe the Premier would condone that kind of activity.

Considering the conduct of some of these crown corporations, the members over there are giving socialism a bad name. They really are. Their colleagues in Ottawa -- whether it be Mr. Huntington, who spent a great deal of time in his previous capacity as chairman of the public accounts committee, or even the new leader -- would be attracted to the logic of this motion, not because we want to do a hatchet job on every board, agency, commission or crown corporation but to make them accountable.

I made reference specifically to page 105 of the public accounts report that was favoured to us last year by our Provincial Auditor, who has quoted the Deputy Attorney General as feeling that there is a legal deficiency in the reporting process of the subsidiaries of the crown corporations. I raised it here in the Legislature. The auditor was sufficiently concerned that he raised it and his predecessor raised it. I do not think we could be characterized as being particularly partisan in this regard. I am merely quoting what the Deputy Attorney General said in the context of the legality of these arrangements.

I am glad we were able to hear the contribution of my friend from the Thunder Bay area, who mentioned that we had 732 of these things, because frankly I did not know that. I suggest that you probably did not know that either, Mr. Speaker.

4:30 p.m.

The member for Lakeshore spouted on about the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Perhaps he missed an article that was in the Toronto Star yesterday. I briefly quote the comments from Mr. Foley:

"'So what do you do with it now? I'm not so sure that UTDC has to be owned by the Ontario government. It's a philosophical question. Has it grown past the point where it needs public involvement and should be sold?' And if it has, he said, 'Who do you sell it to?'" I would ask, who would buy it?

"'The issue of public ownership is a real question for us,' he said. 'It needs to be debated. I haven't got a "for sale" sign hanging on the door but I'm not so sure I shouldn't.'"

Perhaps the member for St. David missed that in the Toronto Star yesterday. If she did miss the article, she would have missed one of the concluding parts of the article where it quotes Mr. Robert Abrams, formerly the number two individual with the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which paid for up to 80 per cent of those transportation projects the Premier is fond of bragging about that we have in the United States.

He says in this article: "There is no interest here in the United States for it at all...Nobody's even asking for bids on it. It's terribly complicated and really not well designed. No one is going into these unproven things because they're too elaborate."

We have a preponderance of these boards, agencies and commissions. To paraphrase my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), we have more of these boards, agencies and commissions than we have deer in Algonquin Park. The time has come for us to start to discharge our responsibilities as members of the Legislature to the people who elect us and give us their trust, who expect we are going to deal with this stuff, whether it is the fiasco involving the member for London South (Mr. Walker) or the difficulties I have described with the Urban Transportation Development Corp., and bring these things under control.

If everything is hunky-dory, we have nothing to worry about. I sensed in the remarks from the member for St. David that she was somewhat concerned about us working a little longer. I do not know what is wrong with that. Perhaps we should sit an extra six weeks longer, or the odd evening, to deal with these boards, agencies and commissions. I can think of a number of things both she and I would like to see on the agenda of the public accounts committee. But instead it would appear that some members around here, because the place has become so irrelevant, are more concerned with the soup of the day than with protecting the taxpayers' money.

AUTOMOTIVE TRADE

Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, resolution 18:

That in recognition of the importance of the automotive industry to the economies of Ontario and Canada, of the vital necessity of preserving the more than 100,000 jobs in the national industry and of the pressing need to realize the 40,000 direct and 90,000 indirect jobs which could be created by adopting a new automotive trade policy, this House endorses the recommendations of the report of the federal Task Force on the Canadian Motor Vehicle and Automotive Parts Industries and urges the Parliament of Canada and the legislative assemblies of the other provinces to do likewise; and, further, that this House recommends that the government of Ontario, as an indication of its willingness to share the costs as well as the benefits of a restructured industry, should institute an automotive industry assistance program to be administered by the Ontario Development Corp., with the aim of providing low-cost capital to Ontario companies in this sector.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve whatever time I have left.

I am pleased to offer this important resolution to the House today for its consideration. It is long overdue that we, the elected representatives of the people of Ontario, speak out on this critical matter for the future economic wellbeing of our province and our country.

If the issue today is jobs, then this resolution speaks to that issue. It speaks to the preservation of present employment in the auto centres of Ontario, and it speaks to the creation of new employment in those sectors and elsewhere.

If the issue today is technological change, then this resolution speaks for Ontario's auto industry being on the leading edge of that change. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to tour Windsor's rebuilt Chrysler assembly plant, the one assembling the so-called van-wagon. What was so impressive about that tour was to see the extensive use of state-of-the-art robots and all the other technological firsts in that plant. This resolution speaks of continuing and expanding that initiative.

It might be useful to review the critical recommendation contained in the report entitled An Automotive Strategy for Canada. Before doing so, however, I want to remind members of the assembly who might not be as familiar with the makeup of the task force as those of us in automotive centres in Ontario that this unanimous recommendation came from a group of individuals with the widest of backgrounds and with the most divergent of constituencies.

Most of us have spoken of the need for a new climate of co-operation, for a new dialogue between business and labour. The so-called White-Lavelle report represents a breakthrough in such dialogue. The critical recommendation of the report, the one still being considered by Ottawa, is this:

"The task force recommends that the government of Canada pursue a trade policy that will require all vehicle manufacturers who sell vehicles in the Canadian market to make binding commitments comparable to the commitments now being made by the vehicle manufacturers operating under the automotive products trade agreement.

"A step-by-step arrangement and an effective compliance procedure must be developed by the Canadian government that will ensure that these comparable commitments will be fulfilled by 1987.

"For those vehicle companies already manufacturing in Canada under the APTA, the existing compliance procedure will remain in effect. However, once a comparability of commitment has been achieved by all vehicle manufacturers selling in Canada, then the government of Canada should negotiate an agreement with all vehicle companies to increase the level of minimum commitments to the Canadian economy.

"As part of this new trade policy, incentives should be established to encourage the further development and expansion of a world-competitive indigenous Canadian automotive parts industry."

That is the recommendation which has caused so much controversy and which has been attacked by a number of sources as being self-serving and half-baked in its conclusions.

The Financial Times, for example, weighed in with this comment: "What the task force delivered was a recommendation that Ottawa initiate protectionist trade measures to shield the industry from Japanese competition."

The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association went even further. In its reply to the report, it said: "The underlying purpose of the task force proposal is a thinly disguised attempt to restrict Japanese imports in the Canadian market. The effect of the proposal would be so harsh against Japanese imports that the intent to discriminate against can be inferred."

There is a certain irony to such a reaction. The Canada-US auto pact, while not without its difficulties, has always been hailed as the model free trade agreement between two civilized countries. Along comes the task force and says in effect, "We believe that the 60 per cent Canadian content rules adhered to by companies based in the United States should be extended to all companies selling cars and trucks in Canada." Immediately there are cries of protectionism and a suggestion that this dastardly proposal is an attack on the Japanese for their efficiency.

Such a view makes no sense. Why is there one set of rules for American companies that have about three quarters of the market and a completely different set of rules for those that have the other 25 per cent of that market? Quite frankly, we in Canada have been the international boy scouts of the world for long enough, and this recommendation and the resolution before the House today simply says, "Enough is enough."

I rather liked the analogy that Bob White, Canadian president of the United Auto Workers union and co-chairman of the task force, offered on this matter at a press conference in Ottawa last May. Said White:

"When the game started in 1965, there were only a few players at the poker table. Over 18 years, the number of players has changed. Some new fellows came along and asked if they could sit in. When you remember the billions of man-hours invested in our industry by Canadian workers and the billions of dollars invested here by the manufacturers, it becomes a little hard to accept that kind of approach. You buy your chips to play poker. You don't have them handed out for free."

I happen to support Canadian content on television and radio, in movies, in our oil and gas business and in military contracts, and I believe we must have such content in our automotive sector -- not just in part of it, but in all of it.

In case we do not take this matter seriously, let me tell members that without content or quotas -- and I certainly do not view quotas as the preferable option -- Japanese imports could control up to 50 per cent of the North American market by 1990. That means jobs all right -- jobs in Japan, and unemployment in Windsor, Oshawa, Oakville, St. Catharines and, indeed, throughout this province where more than 100,000 people look to the automotive industry for a living.

4:40 p.m.

In offering this fair trade policy, we would not be taking a step in Canada that has not already been taken the world over. France, Italy and the United Kingdom all limit Japanese imports to 10 per cent of the domestic market. West Germany has a gentleman's agreement with the Japanese and the list goes on and on.

One of the most interesting developments has been the Japanese reaction to legislation introduced in the US House of Representatives by a New York Democrat. The very threat raised by the introduction of such a resolution has brought about $1 billion of Japanese investment and the creation of some 26,000 jobs. That is what this issue is all about.

I want to deal with the issue of costs to the Canadian consumer before I turn to the question of Ontario's role in seeing this recommendation is implemented and the province's commitment to an expansion of the auto industry. There has been a suggestion that compelling those who sell in Canada to invest in Canada will somehow make the total automotive market less competitive and will limit consumers' choices in motor vehicles.

On the latter point, the task force has proposed a modest exemption for those importing a small number of vehicles. For the remainder, however, it is their choice. It is hard to imagine, for example, that the Japanese, with a potential market of more than 200,000 vehicles per year in this country in return for an investment in it, will choose not to play by our rules.

The other argument on price is more dangerous for it seeks to divide Canadians from what should be our common purpose as legislators and citizens. That purpose is employment for every person who wishes to work, and the auto sector offers a great potential for that new employment.

The Japanese auto manufacturers, in their rebuttal to the task force, raised the spectre of huge price increases, warning that the sticker price of a Japanese car could rise by at least $4,500 and that under the artificial umbrella of domestic content requirements the North American auto makers will become less efficient, less responsive to consumer demands and, finally, less competitive in the marketplace.

Recent history indicates little foundation for these concerns. The report itself points out that since 1981, when Canada had voluntary import restrictions on the Japanese, the prices for passenger cars, including full-size cars where the Japanese do not compete, has risen at a much lower rate than the Canadian consumer price index. The reason: fierce competition in the marketplace and reduction of costs through rationalization. It could be argued that the immediate reduction in Japanese car prices by an average of $600 through the removal of import duty charges will offer to the Japanese another advantage and will force the North American auto makers to respond.

But even if we were to agree with the Japanese analysis of the consumer price effects of protection -- and I do not -- it conveniently overlooks the important aspect of economic policy in the automotive sector. That aim should not be simply to minimize consumer prices. It should also be to achieve the fullest possible employment and the greatest growth in our ever-changing world economy.

That is the goal of our economic policy in the automotive sector and it is one we should never forget. We are not just talking about car assembly. We are talking about many other sectors with vital interests in this matter. We are talking about steel, rubber, plastics, textiles, glass and aluminum, to name but a few.

I want to turn to Ontario's role in this debate and the commitment it must make to make implementation of the report a reality and to ensure that we get our fair share of the benefits of a fair trade policy. I want to begin by congratulating the new Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) for some of the initiatives he has taken. In my view, the minister has shown a sensitivity towards this important issue that has been all too lacking from this government in recent times.

But I warn this government of a major area it has overlooked. It is fair, I believe, to suggest that the national policies implemented in Ottawa must provide a balance for the diversity of views throughout this country. There is no doubt that the provinces of Canada are not speaking to Ottawa with one voice on this matter.

The time has come for the minister, indeed for the Premier (Mr. Davis), to take the initiative. This report and its key recommendation must be sold in western Canada. To that end, I believe a few phone calls from the Premier's office directed at his political counterparts in western Canada would be most appropriate. I might suggest the Minister of Industry and Trade might head out of town on a new trade and sales mission and that he take his message on this issue to Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver.

Ottawa knows the views of Ontario and it is reasonable to suggest there is much sympathy for those views in Mr. Lumley's office. But there is little sympathy in Mr. Bennett's, Mr. Lougheed's or Mr. Devine's offices.

I want to say to the minister and the government that this is our Crow rate issue. Let their voices be heard and their persuasion be directed at those parts of Canada that have reacted thus far in a negative fashion to this proposal for a fair trade policy in the automotive sector.

Let me now turn to the second part of the resolution, to the challenge facing Ontario to put its money where its mouth is, to indicate we are willing to put some of the short-term cost for the long-term benefit of a fair trade policy whose major recipients will be the workers of our province. While there must be an overall commitment from the national government, we have a crucial stake in the future health of the industry right here in Ontario.

I might say again that I am encouraged when I hear the Minister of Industry and Trade speak, as he did in remarks in my community in mid-September, of a proactive investment incentive program for the industry. The minister indicated such an initiative is being actively studied. It is long past due.

Let me begin by suggesting that a recommendation rejected by Ottawa may be appropriate for Ontario. I believe an office of automotive affairs should be established right here in Toronto, perhaps at the assistant deputy minister level, to help co-ordinate responsibilities from this province in the auto sector and to deal on an ongoing basis with the auto companies, the auto parts industry and indeed with the automotive section of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa.

We have failed thus far to recognize this industry for its importance to our economic wellbeing in Ontario. Indeed, the funding of the automotive tech centre, for example, is the only Board of Industrial Leadership and Development money specifically and solely targeted to the auto industry. Its five-year funding is only $14.5 million -- less than one per cent of what the government claims will go into BILD from all sectors over the next five years. The centre's funding is less than that of any other tech centre except for farm equipment.

It is also interesting to note that transportation was one of the six priority areas under BILD, but of the total projects in that sector as of February this year not one dollar is automotive-industry related.

In the last 13 years, the total amount of assistance going to companies in the automotive sector is, to use the words of one information officer at the Ontario Development Corp., not a significant figure. Indeed not; our research shows it has amounted to 132 loans for a total of $28.5 million. Even then, those loans helped create more than 7,000 jobs.

To be fair, these figures do understate the case in that the total does not include supplier groups to the industry who may have fallen under another category. But it can be safely argued that the ODC aid to the industry has fallen far short of matching the industry's key role in our economy in Ontario.

My resolution proposes that this be changed. We must make a commitment now to provide capital at low cost to the auto manufacturers and the auto parts sector for expansion, indeed for new plants, to ensure that we get our share of the new technology, to ensure that we get our share of the research and development component and, finally, to ensure that our industry is internationally competitive.

Last year, for example, capital expenditures in the industry were 59 per cent lower than in the two previous years. This is a trend that must be reversed now.

It is my view that the lending activities of the ODC and the parts industry should be limited to Canadian-controlled parts manufacture. By doing so, we will fulfil the objective of having Canadian-controlled business in the manufacturing sector, of stimulating indigenous research and development, of encouraging a more sophisticated domestic entrepreneurial group to develop and, most important, of providing more jobs for skilled workers.

Whatever direction we ultimately take -- and I know there will be philosophical differences between the parties in this Legislature -- we must move quickly. Just as Canada should no longer be the international boy scout in its trade policies, Ontario must end its attitude of accepting a free ride to the new technological era. There is no free ride. With no investment, there will be no return in tax dollars, technological sophistication or ultimately in jobs.

I want to conclude my remarks on a note of national unity to show that throughout this country there are many people who understand the potential impact of the strategy proposed in the automotive task force report and to urge once again that this government use the adoption of this resolution as a springboard for a fall offensive for Ontario and its people. Let us get out and sell this fair trade policy in every province of Canada and in every corner of Ottawa. We need a domestic sales job now and this resolution offers that opportunity to us.

4:50 p.m.

Shortly after the release of the report, the Victoria Times-Colonist wrote an editorial about it -- a courageous editorial when one remembers that opposition to the task force proposals is nowhere stronger than in British Columbia. Said that newspaper:

"Canadians should not be frightened by the threat of retaliation against Canadian exports. Canada is the seventh largest car market in the world; Japan has about 25 per cent of that market. That is a lot to lose in any trade war. Canadian car makers would happily fill the shortage and the Japanese know it. They also know that they would have to start shopping around the world for the raw materials so essential to their industrial strength."

The editorial concludes on this note: "If we accept the statement by the BC lumber industry that its prosperity rests to a remarkable degree on housing starts in the US, perhaps we should remember that unemployed auto workers are not good candidates for buying homes."

That is what this proposal is all about. That is why Ontario should make its voice heard all over the country in favour of the report and with a commitment to ensuring that it will make its own investment to make fair trade a reality.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate -- this is very difficult for me -- the member for Windsor-Sandwich for bringing forward this resolution, which to some extent is similar to one I introduced a couple of years ago but takes out the parts that the Liberal Party is philosophically opposed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody gutted that resolution.

Mr. Cooke: Yes. The important aspects of my resolution have been removed, but none the less the motherhood aspects of my resolution have been reintroduced and therefore I will be supporting this resolution with -- I was going to say great enthusiasm -- some enthusiasm.

The perception of the problems in the auto industry by a great number of people in this province, and a great number of people in this government that we see every day and that has governed this province for 40 years, is that many of the problems have gone away. The reality of the situation is that the problems and the crisis in the auto industry are as difficult today as they were two and three years ago.

Some of the plants have called people back to work, but when one talks to companies like Chrysler Canada they will say they have no one on unemployment or layoff, while the reality is that a great number of them have lost their recall rights and their seniority rights, and the number of jobs has vastly decreased in the automobile sector in the last number of years.

I do not want to spend a great deal of time talking about the Japanese import problem because I think all of us here in the Legislature understand that problem and agree that in terms of Ontario's economy, action simply has to be taken. What I would like to do is spend a little time talking about history and why the auto task force at the federal level not only addresses the Japanese and offshore import problem, but also addresses the North American automobile problem as well.

In 1970, 70 per cent of the auto parts imported by the United States came from Canada. In 1979, the last year for which I have figures, that was down to 43 per cent. Now over 50 per cent of the auto parts that are imported into the United States for assembly come from countries other than North American countries, other than Canada. Most of those auto parts, a great number of them, come from Japan. Some come from Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea -- all over the world.

The auto report produced by this government and released just before the last election predicted that these trends will occur and that they will continue to occur without government action; and these predictions have come true. Many jobs have been lost in the auto parts sector as well as in the assembly sector. The reality of the world car is here today. Unless action is taken at the federal level, the Big Three -- General Motors, Chrysler and Ford -- will continue to source abroad more and more of their auto parts for assembly that formerly were built here in Canada.

They will now import those from offshore countries. That means not only loss of jobs, but loss of hi-tech jobs, research and development and a great deal of Canadian value-added, because much of the wealth that is created in the auto industry is in the auto parts sector. The implication of the federal government's lack of action in response to the auto task force is simply, in the next 10 or 20 years, virtually the end of the auto industry in Ontario.

I have some difficulty with a resolution such as this being put by a member of the Liberal Party because the action needed to be taken can clearly be taken by the Liberal government in Ottawa. All they need to do is accept the auto task force report put together by both industry and labour.

I think one needs to look back at some of the commitments made in the past by the Liberal Party, by Mr. Trudeau and by our own homegrown Mr. Gray. I refer specifically to a speech written by Mr. Gray and made by Mr. Trudeau on February 14, 1980, in the city of Windsor. I have forgotten the day of the election that year but I think it was the last week before the election. He came in a few days before the election.

Let me just take a few quotes from Mr. Trudeau's speech in Windsor. He said, and I quote: "We can say that autos are as important to the province of Ontario as oil and gas is to Alberta.

"But there is also another reason I want to mention why that sector occupies such a critical place in the Liberal Party's strategy for industrial development. Automobiles can be an industry for the future if we begin to act now" -- that was three years ago and we are still waiting -- "because we all know that the new generation of automobiles is coming forth; we all know that there are problems in that industry but there are immense opportunities.

"A new Liberal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will meet immediately with the heads of the domestic auto companies and with the chief executives of the multinationals to obtain greater sourcing of auto parts in Canada and increased research and development. We will expect major manufacturers both to stimulate the development of a high-technology parts industry in Canada and to begin to do more research and development in Canada.

"In the Reisman report it has been estimated that subsidiaries of the major American automobile manufacturers contributed $375 million towards the head office research and development budget while spending less than $5 million in Canada; $375 million for research and development to the head office, $5 million in Canada. That record, I say here in Windsor, is a disgrace and it must be changed."

So said Pierre Elliott Trudeau in February 1980. He went on: "If there is resistance to this national objective, we will examine the possibility of limiting the amount of research and development payments to head offices which may be deducted from tax programs."

He concluded his speech by saying: "Two years ago, the Liberal government introduced the duty remission program to encourage the sourcing of Canadian parts by Volkswagen. Well, this scheme has been successful. It has resulted in Volkswagen increasing its purchases of Canadian parts, so we will expand this program to other foreign manufacturers or take equally effective steps to ensure that Canadian-manufactured parts gain entry to foreign markets.

"Now that is our commitment to Canada's automotive industry. So I am telling you tonight that we want to expand the industry and we particularly want to expand the Canadian-owned part of that industry. I repeat, our goal is a fair share for Canada, whether it is automobiles, whether it is energy, whether it is industry generally. We want to form the next government as a positive step towards building a better Canada for Canadians."

So said Pierre Elliott Trudeau three years ago. He seemed to understand the problems then. Yet it has now been six, seven, eight months since the auto task force reported to his Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and we are still waiting. Even yesterday in Windsor, Ed Lumley said, "We are going to do something. We really do not know what we are going to do but we are going to do something."

It seems to me that while they are fooling around, while they are fiddling, the auto industry is completely crumbling. I wait, I beg, I ask and I hope that the federal Liberal government will finally come through and deliver on its promise to bring in an automotive strategy in order to save an industry that is crucial to Ontario and certainly crucial to the city of Windsor where three federal cabinet ministers reside.

They are cabinet ministers now, but I assume that after the next federal election, unless they deliver on their promises on this task force, they will be unemployed like so many people in this province have been, thanks to the mismanagement of the federal government.

5 p.m.

In my last minute I want to indicate to the government across the way that it has also not fulfilled any of its responsibilities in getting legislation passed at the federal level. Surely to God, since 95 per cent of the auto industry resides in this province, this government has a responsibility to put much more pressure than it has on the federal government to implement content legislation.

It seems to me one of the things the Premier, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Industry and Trade should have done would have been to call a summit with the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They should go in a very high-profile way publicly and put pressure on the federal government.

We know that Brian Peckford -- I have said this before -- would never allow the federal government to treat the fisheries in the way the federal government has treated the auto industry. The same goes for the west in the oil and energy industries. It is time this government took the necessary steps to protect the industry as well. I wait for both the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister to show the leadership we expect, demand and need to save this industry.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak on the resolution of the member for Windsor-Sandwich. If there is one issue that all parties in this House can agree upon, it is the importance of the auto industry to Canada, particularly to Ontario. We may not be unanimous in our suggested solutions, but we certainly recognize the magnitude of the problem.

We have already heard the honourable members before me describe the significance of this sector of our province. Some of these facts bear repeating. The vehicle and parts industry is the largest manufacturing industry in Canada with a value of shipments of more than $15 billion. The industry has 10 assembly plants, 23 major international parts and component producers and more than 250 small and medium-sized independent parts suppliers. It accounts for more than 100,000 direct jobs in Canada and approximately 150,000 jobs indirectly created in associated industries such as steel, aluminum, electronics and plastics.

About one in six people are directly or indirectly dependent upon the auto sector. It accounts for eight per cent of all factory goods manufactured in Canada and 20 per cent of the total merchandise exports, including 60 per cent of the manufactured end products. Most significantly for our debate today, 95 per cent of Canada's auto manufacturing is concentrated here in Ontario.

I must interject here that although the Canadian auto industry is based primarily in Ontario, it is national in scope. The parts used in our plants are drawn from all of Canada. Throughout Canada, dealers, repair shops, parts warehouses, etc., are connected with and dependent on the auto industry. Therefore, the problems in the industry also leave a mark on communities across the nation. So it is fair to say the fate of the auto industry is a Canadian concern. Actually, it is probably more accurate to say it is a North American concern.

The 1965 auto pact changed the Canadian auto industry into an integrated North American industry operating on a continental basis. Despite the often-pointed-out problems Canada has had with the auto pact, this agreement provided the underpinnings for an internationally viable auto industry in our country. Therefore, the question we are considering today is not so much what is happening to the Canadian car industry, but what is happening to the North American car industry.

The full answer to this question, as far as policy is concerned, involves an appropriate response from both the Canadian and United States governments acting together. The Ontario auto sector is thus, unfortunately, subject to a focus beyond our provincial borders. Despite this fact, the Ontario government has always acted and will continue to act to protect the investment and the production base of this industry upon which the livelihood of so many Ontarians depends.

The Ontario government has shown leadership in the technical development of new products and processes in the auto parts industry. We have the establishment of the auto parts technology research centre in St. Catharines. The centre is designed to reduce the manufacturing process costs, to improve production quality and to resolve design problems. At present, the centre has several project-related, cost-subsidy programs which assist firms in their productivity improvement efforts.

I would also like to remind this House that our government has assisted the auto sector by offering sales tax rebates in 1975-76 and in 1981-82 on the purchase of vehicles.

The auto industry in North America went through a very tough period in the past three years. The difficulties were intensified because of the consequences of several phenomena: changes in gas prices, strong import competition and high interest rates. These, of course, coincided with the recession.

The proportion of domestic market supplied by imports has reached an extremely high level. Do the members know that from 1979 to 1981, the time when auto sales worldwide declined, the Japanese share of Canadian auto sales had almost tripled? In effect, Canada and North America contributed to Japan's economic growth and indirectly supported its export expansion by maintaining a generous free trade policy.

Granted, the reasons for the success of the Japanese vehicles lay in Japanese technological superiority, efficiency and cost effectiveness. This is a matter which the North American auto industry must come to grips with and is coming to grips with. We must work with the United States to create a strong North American position on the international market.

Large capital investments have been made in Ontario by the auto companies. These investments are crucial to the wellbeing of the province as a whole.

It is our responsibility, or the responsibility of our governments, both federally and provincially, to ensure that international trade operates fairly and that it does not discriminate against our auto industry. How do we approach the problem? In designing fair policies with respect to the auto industry, the role played by the six participants must be considered: the vehicle manufacturers, the independent parts and material suppliers, the trade unions, the vehicle and parts importers, the consumers, and, finally, all levels of government.

Each of these groups has had its own interest and expectations: each has placed its own demand on the auto industry. The first hurdle we must cross is to ensure that all participants work co-operatively together towards a common goal. Too often in the past our auto industry has been divided by misunderstandings and conflicting approaches.

However, I believe we are well on the way to crossing the first hurdle. Everything I have read recently points to the industry upgrading quality and techniques, including changed management tactics and more worker involvement. All of this indicates a real effort is being made on the part of industry to work together.

Our government must do its share as well. I want to point out that we have never shirked from this responsibility. The Ontario government's objective for the car industry, stated time and time again, is to see an increase in the Canadian value added in world auto production, to achieve increased research and development in Canada and to expand capital investment and job creation in the automotive sector.

As far as imports go, the Ontario government believes in free trade. However, it also believes in fair trade. Therefore, the government supports the main contention of the federal task force report. For years we have been pointing out a need for Canadian content requirement in imports. The members may remember that last year's speech from the throne addressed the issue.

As far as Japan is concerned, we would like to see the Canadian value added in Japanese vehicles. We would also like to see the Japanese establish assembly plants in Canada. The point is that if Japan wants to continue having unfettered access to our market, then it should also do something for us. The Premier is very concerned about the response of our federal government to the task force report and, generally, about future federal agreements with Japan. We wrote to the Prime Minister this summer pointing out our province's position.

Our government concedes that the number of imports has diminished by Japan's voluntary agreement with Ottawa to limit the number of imports. We acknowledge this; yet we feel the restraint commitments should also have included trucks and small station wagons.

Our government believes that although import restrictions have been helpful, they provide only a short-term solution to the import problem. Content regulations are also necessary. Some people think these would be most successful if imposed in parallel with the United States. Canada and the United States together must make it clear that if foreign countries wish to sell their products and service the aftermarket in North America, they must also start purchasing parts in North America.

5:10 p.m.

The Japanese must also be prepared to participate in our market if they want continued access to our consumers. A long-lasting solution can only be achieved if there is new investment in Canada by foreign parts producers and auto manufacturers.

This particular task force report has been supported in my area by our municipality, our chamber of commerce, our UAW local and other groups interested in auto work.

I would like to refer to the subject of sugar beets, which does not have very much to do with autos. The last year sugar beets were grown in the province was 1976. Farmers from southwestern Ontario went to Ottawa and asked for a sugar policy which said that if 20 per cent of the sugar consumed in Canada was grown in Canada, they could maintain a sugar-beet industry in Canada. The federal government failed to act. The industry was not revamped.

Regardless of all the other things, we have a current policy in the federal government which says a certain percentage -- in fact, the new figure is to be 80 per cent -- of the TV we watch must be produced in Canada. I hope the car industry does not come to the same fate as the sugar-beet industry in southwestern Ontario for the same reasons.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support ballot item 15, the resolution introduced by my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich concerning the automotive industry in Canada. It is most fitting that a member from the birthplace of the auto industry in Canada did so.

Because of our proximity to Detroit, Michigan, the original home of the industry, we in the Windsor area know the vagaries of the industry. We know its ups and downs. We know the effects the downturns have on the economy and the effects they have had on the economy of Windsor in particular. We know the effects of transferring the manufacturing operations from Windsor to other parts of Ontario, even to other provinces or countries. We know the adverse effects of manufacturing shifts and we know the effects they have had on the economic life of my community.

The effects go beyond Windsor, the city that put Canada and Canadians on wheels shortly after the turn of the century. We in the Windsor area know the tremendous importance of auto manufacturing and assembly, and parts manufacturing, not only to the prime auto centres in Canada but to many small associated industries scattered throughout the province.

I received a letter from Dan Bryan, president of Kendan Manufacturing Ltd. in Windsor. I wish to read just one paragraph from that letter. He says: "We are writing to you today about a very serious matter. Over the past few years the automotive parts industry has undergone a tremendous restructuring brought about by the internationalization of the automotive industry in general, but particularly in North America.

"Our company is making every effort possible to meet the new competitive mould of the successful 1980 components manufacturer, but has had difficulty for a number of reasons, not the least of which has been unfair competition by the Japanese. The federal government established a task force to study these problems and, as an industry, the parts manufacturers worked hard to make sure that the task force came forward with good analyses and workable solutions. We would like to see the recommendations of the task force fully implemented."

I also received a letter signed by Mr. W. C. McIvor, president and secretary-treasurer of Kelsey-Hayes Canada Ltd. I will read a portion of it. He says: "Our company is a manufacturer of automotive parts located in Windsor and we also have plants in Woodstock and St. Catharines, Ontario.

"As you know, we manufacture wheels at Windsor which we sell primarily to customers in Canada and export to the United States under the auto pact. Our current employment in Windsor is approximately 800 and we are pleased that our company helps to provide for a more prosperous and viable economic climate in this area.

"We are writing to you today about a very serious matter. Over the past few years the automotive parts industry has undergone a tremendous restructuring brought about by the internationalization of the automotive industry in general, but particularly in North America. Our company is making every effort possible to meet the new competitive mould of a successful 1980s components manufacturer but has had difficulty for a number of reasons, not the least of which has been unfair competition by the Japanese.

"The federal government established a task force to study these problems and, as an industry, the parts manufacturers worked hard to make sure that the task force came forward with good analyses and workable solutions. We would like to see the recommendations of the task force fully implemented."

I received the third and final letter from Mr. Walter A. Hadden, president of Champion Spark Plug Co. of Canada Ltd. in the Windsor area. Part of that letter reads as follows: "I am sure you would agree that nothing is much more important to the economic wellbeing of our community than the health of the automotive vehicle and parts-producing industry. You know that Champion has had a vital stake in this community for a great many years and remains a strong supporter of its economic and social life.

"In recent years our company has faced very difficult business conditions concurrent with a major restructuring of the automotive industry. The entire industry has been moving through a period of dramatic change, accompanied by severe competition, particularly the penetration of imported vehicles, along with component parts, from Japan.

"Earlier this year, as you know, the federal government, upon the initiative of the Honourable Ed Lumley, established a task force to study the serious problems facing Canada's automotive industry. For the first time that I am aware of, representatives of labour and industry, along with government, set aside their differences and worked together in a spirit of co-operation to address mutual industry problems.

"We, along with other parts producers, participated to help ensure that the task force came forth with constructive recommendations that would prove to be fair and workable. In my view, if Canada is to broaden its industrial base and create employment growth, then a strong automotive parts and vehicle manufacturing sector is a vital element to that kind of economic development.

"Conversely, without effective trade policies and economic strategy in the key automotive industry, the country and of course our own community may never realize their tremendous potential. I am sure you fully recognize all that is involved as well as the urgency for positive measures to be taken on this vital issue."

The city of Windsor, as well as the chamber of commerce in the community, passed a resolution called the Windsor resolution, which reads as follows: "It is an objective of great importance to the North American automotive industry and to the Canadian economy that a basis be devised for fair competition among all manufacturers marketing in Canada.

"The chamber of commerce, while arguing against protectionist measures directed at the Japanese automobile industry, does accept that Japan's trading practices have not always reflected an adherence to the principles of free trade.

"The Japanese, as a government and as a society, have not exhibited a willingness to allow manufactured products into their markets. The concept of importing raw material only and exporting finished products has been a cardinal rule in Japanese economic practice.

"The North American automotive industry, including labour, subscribes to and endorses free trade. It asks nothing more than fair trade under which all participants abide by the same rules. The federal government does not impose the same taxation on vehicles imported into Canada as it does on those manufactured domestically.

"General Motors President Hackworth said recently: 'We need taxes on vehicles in Canada to be levied on the same basis. We could end further inequities if Canada would impose the same set of conditions upon Japanese manufacturers, now that Japan has become a significant automobile manufacturer, as it does on American manufacturers.'

"Japanese companies currently have an additional cost advantage in excess of $1,800 per car. This cost advantage is the result of manipulation of foreign exchange rates, lower wages, higher productivity, lower tax burdens and export tax rebates.

"The establishment of fair competition for vehicle trade in Canada requires a realistic analysis of the arrangements under which the North American automotive manufacturers are allowed access to the Canadian market versus the requirements for Japanese and other offshore manufacturers to gain entry.

"A new arrangement for vehicle suppliers outside of North America needs to be made whereby there will be equality of treatment for all sellers, domestic and foreign, in the Canadian market. We believe only this kind of arrangement will equalize the burden on all vehicle manufacturers and serve the best interests of Canada.

5:20 p.m.

"Manufacturers reaping the benefits of major sales volumes should be required to invest in the Canadian economy in the form of plants, jobs and the purchase of component parts, thus contributing to the wellbeing of Canada."

Therefore, the resolution contains the three following recommendations:

"1. That the Canadian Chamber of Commerce urge the federal government to standardize the rules for all automotive manufacturers, foreign and domestic, so that there would be equality of treatment for all sellers in the Canadian market;

"2. That the federal government be urged to require investment in the Canadian economy in the form of plants, jobs and purchase of parts by all vehicle manufacturers who enjoy major sales volumes in Canada; and

"3. That the federal government be urged to continue with negotiated restraints on imported vehicles until such time as fair and equal competitive conditions are established relating to both vehicles and parts."

As the resolution suggests, we should institute an automotive industry assistance program, to be administered by the Ontario Development Corp., with the aim of providing low-cost capital to Ontario companies in this sector. I suggest that all members in this House should support this resolution.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution before the House today, as I have done on a number of other occasions in a number of other places, because I think the problem it attempts to deal with is one that affects the basic economy of the country.

It affects the economy of Ontario a little more dramatically, but I think without question -- and perhaps this is something that is not well understood from coast to coast -- this is the guts of the Canadian economy and for the last few years essentially has been what is wrong with the Canadian economy.

Because I do speak to this issue with amazing regularity -- and for the most part in talking to auto workers -- from the workers' perspective of jobs, I thought it might be interesting this afternoon if I took a few minutes and spoke to it from a slightly different perspective, that of the manufacturers.

I am normally not a fan of large corporations but I, for one, am impressed with the work that has been done in the private sector in terms of recognizing some things that are wrong and taking some steps to correct them. Not the least of that work was their participation in the federal task force with the United Auto Workers and others to try to assess what might be done in a positive sense to correct the situation.

One basic theme is repeated by just about every corporate citizen I see when they talk about the automobile sector and particularly about problems they are having with offshore competition. It is best summarized by a line in a London Free Press story that quotes Kenneth Harrigan, president of Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. His basic complaint is that the offshore competitors are "playing in the same ball league, but playing by different rules." I think for the most part that kind of sums it all up.

There is a plea on the part of the auto makers, on the part of the auto workers and on the part of interested governments in this nation to have some fairness brought back into the auto industry in Canada. For many people, the initial response is to try to examine who is bringing in this unfairness and what it is like to try to do business in Japan.

Many of our producers who have gone to Japan, whether they are parts producers or people interested in selling assembled vehicles, soon found out that it is not easy to sell cars there. As a matter of fact, it is not easy to sell anything in Japan.

Many observers have been trying to assess how it is the Japanese have succeeded in going from almost a zero economy to something that has become a worldwide power in many sectors and particularly in the automotive sector. Even a casual examination gives one a good clue. For a long time the Japanese have been where our auto producers are now. They have understood the need to kind of integrate the private and public sectors. They had a good examination of all the levers that governments could pull to protect their industry and make it grow and develop. Most of their technology is North American, which they have taken and refined and done a better job at. They have identified problems in management and gone to work on that. At least our people are beginning to understand that.

One of the interesting developments reported in today's papers was that there is now a new US-Japan deal on cars; a quota system has been established. For many people, there is an appeal in talking about quotas or protectionism. The appeal is short-term in nature, and I admit wholeheartedly that sometimes if you want to negotiate something with somebody you have to get his attention first. Probably one of the ways the world has traditionally done that is to move to some kind of protectionist policy.

The difficulty with quotas or tariff barriers, or whatever other technique one wants to use, is that they have two major flaws. First, they tend to be short-term in nature, because it is difficult to maintain that over a lengthy period of time. Second, although it may hurt the Japanese producers, it does not do anything for Canadian workers or the Canadian economy. By penalizing someone else, one does not help oneself.

The quota system, tariff barriers and those proposals have limits to them. In the long term one wants to do what the task force says ought to be done: to move to something which at its centre has content legislation.

To get an idea of how big the problem is, one has only to look at statistics published yesterday in the Globe and Mail which show that, for example, Toyota, one of the most successful Japanese car operations, has gone from 41,827 units in 1980 to 53,429 units in 1982. The sales increase for all offshore products and Japanese products in particular has been dramatic.

If one looks at the words of Moe Closs, the president of Chrysler Canada, who was quoted in the Windsor Star, one gets some sense of the urgency of it. One sees an admission by the president of Chrysler Canada that the North American automotive industry may turn to foreign countries, not only to build components but also for finished vehicles.

The threat is real. It is not an imagined thing. It is an examination of how to do business, how to make money, what governments do that will affect the automotive sector and what options the automobile makers themselves are considering. It is one that I believe is real. The damage to the Canadian automotive economy has been done. Jobs have been lost. Some of our plants are back in production, but there has been a substantial shrinkage.

In fairness, I want to point out that I am impressed by some of the analyses that our auto makers are making around their related costs. Closs says in this article that there is about a $2,000 advantage to the Japanese producers. Most of that advantage is not in labour costs, as the traditional argument would have it; most of it is in the effect of government policies in Japan around the value of the yen and about when and where they apply taxes. They have identified where the problems are.

In the private sector, one can look at a little article from the St. Catharines Standard quoting Jeffrey Dickinson, who is director of purchasing for General Motors. He talks about the elimination of paperwork, from the receiving schedules to shipping information and the payment of invoices, and the enormous amount of waste and lost productivity in matching bits of paper.

The other side of the coin is presented most often by people who are interested in selling and making money from the Japanese cars in Canada. Here is a quote from Robert Attrell of Brampton, the president of the Canadian Association of Japanese Automotive Dealers. "In the automotive task force the deck was stacked against us. There were no offshore manufacturers consulted, no dealers. We didn't have any say in the matter." One of the problems is that if one wanted to talk to offshore manufacturers in Canada, one would have a long wet walk because they are not here. That is what the task force talks about.

Here is another cute little thing -- all these clippings came in today -- quoting Industry Minister Ed Lumley as expressing anger that the Japanese have ignored Canada but are building an auto plant in Italy where they are allowed to sell only 2,000 annually. It seems to me that minister has a more positive way to express his anger than by quoting that.

5:30 p.m.

Here is another cute little bit from the Financial Post. It sums up the investments of Japanese offshore producers in Canada. The bottom line of this story is that, so far, Canada has only managed an aluminum wheel plant in British Columbia built by Toyota. So we get some sense of where people are going in this industry and how far we have come in that regard.

Much of the damage that has been done is shown by a summary of what kinds of cars one can buy. I think it is fair to say that the North American auto industry has been given a bit of a dirty deal by those folks who write reviews on cars. If we go through this review of what cars cost, we will find that offshore imports are not cheap cars any more, they are not any better designed and their technology is no better than much of what is here and available in North America. In fact, we are now beginning to beat them back on prices.

I want to conclude by quoting from a source I respect a great deal. This was done some time ago, in October 1960. It was calling for an assessment of the auto industry and said it should involve questions of adequacy, minimum levels of Canadian content in assembly operations and, generally, ways and means of unleashing incentives to increase the degree of processing and fabrication of Canadian materials in Canada.

One other little quote I want to work in from this report is the recommendation: "We recommend that the government of Canada and the motor vehicle companies re-examine existing policies with a view to: (a) increasing the Canadian content in the Canadian vehicle; (b) providing a more satisfactory market for Canadian automobile parts; (c) establishing research in Canada; and (d) allowing the Canadian company to participate in world markets on the basis of price."

That is a quote from the Honourable Leslie M. Frost, QC, Prime Minister of Ontario, in a submission of the government of Ontario to the royal commission on the automotive industry. The only problem with it is that it was made in October 1960, more than 23 years ago. The government of Ontario clearly indicated it knew what the problem was. The tragedy is that in nearly a quarter of a century, neither the government of Ontario nor the government of Canada has managed to do anything about any of those particular recommendations.

Mr. Cureatz: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to speak on the resolution before the House. But before doing so, I want to allude only briefly to my past reincarnation as Deputy Speaker. Possibly at another time, in a budget debate, I will relate some experiences and the concerns I had in that position. But I would like the record to show the wonderful experience I had as Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the Speaker on the job he did. We worked well together. I congratulate my assistant, the present member who is sitting in the chair.

I also want to thank all the clerks at the table. When I started off fresh and new -- as the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) first related to me -- it was a totally different and new experience: unless one is sitting there, one does not know what it is like. I certainly had my fill of what it was like. The clerks were always most helpful when I ran into the problems we encounter from time to time when making difficult rulings. I want to thank them.

Last, and most important, I wish to thank all members of the House. At times I was on pins and needles, but it was heart-warming to think we were always able to work out our difficulties no matter how strenuous and high-tempered the tempers were. I see the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) nodding. I can remember a particular situation we had one evening, not to mention the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). But bygones will be bygones; we will not mention any names. I want to get into the resolution, and I will reserve further comments about my past experiences for another time.

I apologize for being a little late. I had a meeting with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and school board officials in my area. However, I had the opportunity of catching the remarks of some of the honourable members.

I want to tell the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) at the outset that I am supporting the resolution.

Mr. Bradley: Are the people who met with the minister bruised and bleeding?

Mr. Cureatz: We have all had our experiences from time to time with the Minister of Education. I do not think I have to answer that question, because the member probably already knows the answer to that question.

I want to speak from a personal perspective as to what I see in the resolution and what I see happening in the city of Oshawa. Many people do not realize that my wonderful riding of Durham East represents not quite half the city of Oshawa. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) might dispute this with me, but my riding represents at least a third but not quite half of the city.

Mr. Di Santo: How many polls?

Mr. Cureatz: I have almost 100 polls, and about 86 polls in the rural area. It is funny, and interesting; I have always won in the city of Oshawa. The member for Oshawa is no doubt always amused by that. But let me get down to the point of the resolution.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: I want to outline for the member for Windsor-Sandwich the plant layout in Oshawa. I do not know whether he did that. I am sorry; I missed his opening remarks and he might be saving some remarks.

In the north end of the city, which interestingly enough is part of my riding, we have a small assembly parts plant where they put together the radio components and form the plastic moulds. I am speaking generally; I do not want to get into detail. At the south end, we have the major parts assembly plants -- for cars, trucks and batteries. Then, and I am leaving the best for last, in the north end we have the huge, wonderful General Motors headquarters, which houses the president of General Motors of Canada.

I mention this because I tour the plants from time to time. I pride myself on inviting myself, I might add, to see what is happening. I have been in this assembly almost seven years, and I am getting a little worried about what is happening in terms of technological advancement in those plants.

Take robotics, for example. The new plant has a section where they dip the whole car body into a great bathtub-like unit. One looks down a huge aisle, which must be close to an eighth of a mile long, and one does not see a person. Of course, the executives of General Motors are quite pleased about this. I remember when they made their opening remarks, they talked about what a wonderful assembly plant it is and the number of pieces of machinery they had located in the plant. But my worry is, where are the people?

That ties into the film I saw last week in the NDP caucus room about the effect of what had taken place in the Windsor area. I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) would be most interested in the layoff problem that happened in Windsor. The film depicted very well the problem of the people who had lost their jobs on a long-term basis. Happily enough, some of those people are being hired back, but the problem is that many of them are not. Why not? Because of what is taking place in the high-technology field.

I am sure the member for Oshawa will appreciate my giving a couple of whacks to General Motors of Canada Ltd. We all appreciate that they are fine corporate citizens. In my riding, we certainly appreciate the number of people the plants employ. I was amused this afternoon when I heard the member for Oshawa say that he talked from the perspective of the worker. I am talking from the same perspective --

Mr. Breaugh: They do that with me regularly.

Mr. Cureatz: The board of directors do not call up good old Sammy Lawrence Cureatz in his riding office in Oshawa and say: "Sam, we just want to touch base with you. Here's what we are planning on doing. What do you think about this?"

Mr. Martel: All the time.

Mr. Cureatz: Let me tell my friend, they have never done it.

Mr. Martel: They haven't got any faith in you.

Mr. Cureatz: What does my friend know? I am getting to the point on this. I am saying that with the involvement of industry in my community -- and it is the same in Sudbury East -- we must start having better community co-operation between high management and some of the elected officials --

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: If I could interrupt the member for Sudbury East -- I know the new Deputy Speaker will do that in a moment.

The Deputy Speaker: That is an excellent idea.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Cureatz: The interesting thing is that they do call me up from time to time when they let me know the number of people they are going to hire or the number of people they are going to lay off. They phone me up five minutes before the announcement. I do not appreciate that. I appreciate the fact that they have a person there handling what they call government relations but they are not having much of a relationship with me.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Am I being forceful? I have done all I can in terms of calling them up and paying visits to the respective plants. Who do they call when they have troubles with the Ministry of Labour? Do they call the member for Oshawa? No. They call the Conservative member for Durham East to help to sort out their problems.

Mr. Martel: I thought you said they never called you.

Mr. Cureatz: Do they call me to ask: "What is happening in the community, Sam? What can we do to alleviate the whole perspective of layoffs and hiring?" No, they do not. I think they have a greater responsibility to do that.

I have a minute and a half left. Let me jump to one other thing. Here is something else I want to mention to the member for Windsor-Sandwich. In the seven years I have been there, I do not think I have seen a Canadian president of General Motors yet. There was McPherson; then there was Smith, the member from Georgia; then we had another fellow who was there for six months and he went to the Euclid business; and now we have Mr. Hackworth.

I have seen Mr. Hackworth from time to time. I bumped into him on the first floor and asked him, "Were you coming to visit me?" No, he was going to see the Premier (Mr. Davis). I am saying it would not be bad if he called me up from time to time and said: "Hey, Sam, what do you think? How are we doing?" I would relate to him some of my thoughts and concerns about what is happening in the city of Oshawa and the surrounding area and the region of Durham.

Notwithstanding all that, it would not hurt if we had, even in my humble time, be it so short, a Canadian president of General Motors. Is that too much to ask? I can remember Mr. Hackworth's first speech. He related everything in the automobile industry to football. I thought to myself, at least he could relate it to hockey. I mean, who knows about football?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I wish I had more time. I am very pleased to support this resolution by the honourable member.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a representative of a constituency that is heavily dependent on the automotive industry to support this very progressive resolution on the part of the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

I know that member, as well as others from all parties who have spoken in the House, has a great concern about the future of the automotive industry, particularly in the light of the fact that there have been prophets of doom and gloom who have indicated that it will disappear within the next 15 or 20 years.

I am sure that view is not shared by those of us who are members of this House. We want to ensure in every possible way that it is not only an industry that will maintain its present level of employment and economic importance but also one that will increase both in terms of employment opportunities provided and in terms of the economic impact on our province and our country.

There is no question that this automotive task force report points in the right direction as far as those of us who represent those constituencies are concerned. I know the auto workers -- the majority of the people who live on my street are auto workers -- would very much appreciate the action of this Legislature in suggesting to the federal Parliament the implementation of the provisions of the automotive task force. It was made up of people from both the automotive labour side and the automotive industry side and had input from others who had what some might say would be a more objective viewpoint on the industry.

It is important for those of us who are representing those areas to speak up, because it is difficult to see those who represent, for instance, Red Deer, Alberta, or Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, speaking with the same degree of vehemence as do those of us who have people who rely so much on the automotive industry.

One need only witness the recent downturn in the economy to see the devastating impact on a community such as St. Catharines in the Niagara area, which on many occasions has rivalled and surpassed Sudbury as the capital urban area as far as unemployment is concerned. We have certainly brought to the attention of the people across the floor the need for policies to improve the situation.

We can call upon the federal government to implement the provisions of the task force but as my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich has appropriately pointed out, the provincial government has a role to play as well. I am pleased to see that he has indicated that the provincial government should institute an automotive industry assistance program to be administered by the Ontario Development Corp. with the aim of providing low-cost capital to Ontario companies in this sector to ensure that we have a strong industry.

At the same time, we must ensure that the rules governing international trade as they relate to the automotive industry are fair rules. No one in the Canadian automotive industry has said that he or she wants to compete on an unfair basis. No one has said they would erect barriers which are going to prevent automobiles coming in from other countries. All they have said and all we are saying is: "Let us do it on a fair basis. Let us have our main rival in world trade as far as automobiles are concerned, the main threat to our automotive industry, the Japanese threat this time, let us have that competition on a fair basis." Surely all members of this House would agree with that.

We have to ensure that when this kind of a program is implemented it is done so taking into consideration at the same time, the American automotive industry and the common market that exists between the US and Canada. To implement a kind of program which would call for Canadian content and so on at the expense of the Americans would invite the kind of retaliation which would be devastating to our economy. That is why this has to be done in the context of that North American common market in the automotive industry. If it is done in that context, it will have a positive effect on jobs and job opportunities in this country and in this province.

It is the responsibility, it seems to me, not only of those in this House to ensure that this point of view is put forward, but most particularly of those in the federal Parliament and, most particularly of all, those who do not represent the automotive industry areas because that is where the support is needed. We have to see across our country a realization that the automotive industry is one of the most important, that its impact is positive when the economy is booming and negative when it is not. Therefore, I implore members of this House to support this very progressive resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich has three minutes.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment very briefly on the speeches of the other members. I want to thank the members who have spoken in support of this resolution. I think it is significant that members who have spoken are all from auto centres and realize full well the importance of this resolution for their communities and, indeed, for the entire province.

I want to make a couple of remarks on the comments of my friend the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). I want to suggest to him I am aware that the Premier wrote this summer to the Prime Minister. I think I dealt with that in my speech. I think it is important that the Premier of Ontario do more than that. He must begin to pressure not just the government of Canada, but the seven or eight provinces who are not yet on side in this very important matter.

I regret that my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) is not here but I want to remind him, lest he think that Ottawa has done nothing, that it is the government of Canada that deserves the major credit, and indeed received the major credit yesterday -- he was in Windsor to hear that -- for the very survival of Chrysler Canada. I think that is a crucial matter, not only to those of us in Windsor but to all of us in Ontario.

Debate on this very important matter has been too long delayed in this Legislature. In fact, I can remember my friend from Windsor-Riverside suggesting a joint resolution. I am glad that we have jointly agreed to have this debate today to support this matter.

I hope that today's debate, with the support of all sides of this assembly, will bring back into focus the vital stake that all of us in Ontario have in the fair trade policy proposed by the task force. Those involved in the report have made significant concessions of their own from their previously stated policies. They have offered to this Legislature, to the people of Ontario, to the Parliament of Canada and to the people of Canada, a middle road towards more jobs and more prosperity for the industry, the workers and the citizenry in general.

It is now our role in Ontario to convince the government of Canada and the governments of each province that the way has been shown for us.

5:50 p.m.

With leadership from our province, with firm and unbending support for the recommendations of the White-Lavelle task force and with positive encouragement to Ottawa to move forward boldly on its current round of negotiations with the Japanese, those goals can be realized. To do any less would be to fail our own people on the one promise that we all too often easily make: the promise of a government sensitive to a desire for more jobs, better jobs and more prosperity and wellbeing in their lives.

CONTROL OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 20:

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Cousens, Cureatz, Eaton, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kolyn, Lane, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Mitchell, Piché, Pollock, Robinson, Scrivener, Sheppard, Stevenson, K. R., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Williams -- 30.

AUTOMOTIVE TRADE POLICY

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wrye has moved resolution 18.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 5:53 p.m.

3 novembre 1983