Journal des débats 1985-déc-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Curling: A priority of this government since it took office a little more than five months ago has been to come to grips with the very crucial issues we face in housing.

Today I wish to inform honourable members, and through them the people of Ontario, of a major change in direction and attitude towards housing in this province. This change is designed to accomplish a number of objectives, including the need to bring certainty back into all elements of the housing market.

It is designed to protect tenants and give confidence to landlords and the building industry -- in short, to provide a housing policy that is fair and just for all. Our commitment is to ensure that the supply of housing from the public and private sectors meets both short-term and long-term needs through a farsighted and consistent policy by government.

Our goal is to put in place a balanced system: one that recognizes the valid worth of the building industry and its investors and one that will be a living housing policy to ensure that all Ontario residents have access to a basic need -- adequate housing at reasonable cost -- now and in the future.

Today I am pleased and proud to announce a new direction in housing policy for our province. I call it Assured Housing for Ontario. At this time, I would like to table two documents dealing with our new policy.

The first is a position paper detailing the current housing situation and outlining the key thrusts of our assured housing program. The second document outlines the reforms to rent review contained in legislation that I shall be introducing into the House shortly.

Our government proposes to achieve an era of assured housing for the people of Ontario through a program based on five main elements: (1) a fair and effective system for protecting the rights of tenants; (2) a policy of equitable treatment for owners of rental property in a climate of increased confidence; (3) prompt measures to meet essential housing needs, with the government assuming an active role; (4) a commitment to a dynamic, efficient building industry which will continue to be a major source of employment in Ontario; and (5) an era of improved co-operation and conciliation among governments, producers and consumers of housing throughout this province.

The challenge we face is to make basic, affordable housing available to all in Ontario. That is what our assured housing policy is all about. This policy rests on four pillars: an improved housing supply; a new rent review system; a building industry strategy that will promote employment; and, finally, the effective use of government-owned lands for housing.

Despite the high level of home construction, we are still confronted with low vacancy rates in rental housing. Our studies indicate that if we are to meet current demand, some 320,000 rental and ownership units will have to be built during the next five years. That would just maintain the status quo. We have to do more.

Our policy, assured housing for Ontario, tackles the problem of insufficient affordable housing head on. During the next five years, it will produce a total of 43,000 rental units, including 32,000 social housing units. It stimulates the private sector to build a further 5,000 units of rental housing for low- and moderate-income tenants and it encourages the creation of a further 6,000 affordable units through conversions from other uses.

However, the government by itself will not be able to undertake the massive investment that will be needed. For this reason, we will reform the rent review system to provide fair and just treatment for both tenants and landlords in order to get real movement on rental construction in this province.

I will deal first with the reforms to rent review that we are proposing as a key component of our assured housing policy. In doing so I wish to stress that the government has consulted extensively with all sectors of the community that could be affected by our new policy, particularly tenants and landlords. I am pleased to advise the House that we have obtained the support of both tenant and landlord leaders from across Ontario for our reform measures.

As the first step in creating a new atmosphere of trust and confidence, the Rent Review Advisory Committee has been established. It consists of equal representation from both landlords and tenants. I am pleased to announce that this committee will be co-chaired by Mary Hogan, director of Parkdale Community Legal Services, and William Grenier, chairman of Pagebook Holdings. I think he is in the gallery today.

The Rent Review Advisory Committee will have a crucial role to play in providing policy advice on legislative and procedural changes that will benefit landlords, tenants, the building industry and the public. I look forward to receiving the committee's input.

Under the new legislation I will be presenting to the House, the government proposes a much more effective system of rent review. The fundamental change we are proposing involves a restructuring of the operations of the Residential Tenancy Commission.

First, a network of rent review advisers will be set up throughout the province to process rent review applications and conduct tenant-landlord meetings in a thorough but less formal way.

Second, a new Rent Review Hearings Board will be established. Only those cases that cannot be resolved directly by the rent review advisers will go before the Rent Review Hearings Board. It is our expectation that fully 70 per cent of all disputes will be resolved through the more informal and much less costly services of the rent review advisers.

2:10 p.m.

Our new legislation will fulfil this government's commitment to extend the rent review process to virtually all rental housing in the province and to establish a ceiling of four per cent on annual rent increases, retroactive to August 1, 1985. Thereafter, the guideline will be set at a rate linked to, but not as high as, the rate of change in inflation. Given the prospect of continued low inflation, I foresee a four per cent guideline for all of 1986.

In addition, the legislation will fulfil this government's commitment to extend and make permanent the existing five per cent cap on rent increases that landlords can pass on to tenants after purchasing and mortgaging a building.

As well, we will establish a province-wide, phone-in rent registry, which will enable tenants to confirm the legal rents of apartments in Ontario.

In regard to our decision to extend rent review to all properties, including post-1975 construction and units that rent for more than $750 per month, we believe all renters are entitled to the protection of rent review. I should add, however, that under the system of rent review prevailing up to now, these tenants could still be subject to very significant rent increases. We have, therefore, devised a system that will hold any increases on those units to a fair and just level.

We also recognize that the private sector cannot be expected to accept the uneconomic operation of rental housing. This is important if our present housing stock is to be saved from further deterioration and new housing stock is to be brought on to the market. We will, therefore, be making provision in our rent review legislation to allow for the elimination of economic losses for units constructed after 1975.

This will be done on the basis of formulae to be developed by the advisory committee. In addition, we recognize that some buildings in the pre-1976 stock are locked into chronically depressed rents. An interministerial committee is being established to examine ways to permit more realistic rents in these cases without increasing the cost to renters with affordability problems.

It will be the goal of our assured housing policy to achieve the construction of 345,000 new units, both rental and ownership, over the next five years. This level of activity, which represents some 69,000 housing starts per year, will be required to meet new family formations, to replace housing stock being removed from the market, to raise the vacancy rate to a competitive and manageable level and, perhaps most important, to make up the existing shortfall that has resulted from the current situation.

To achieve these goals, a combination of legislative initiatives and direct government action will be required. Our program of assured housing for Ontario calls for action in both these areas.

In support of these goals, the government will commit more than $500 million over the next five years to a variety of measures. These range from helping in the production and upgrading of rental housing to the funding of housing alternatives for seniors and to providing additional subsidies for lower-income tenants.

The government will commit $72.6 million over the next three years to ensure that more than 20,000 new nonprofit and co-operative units are built, representing $1.2 billion worth of construction. They will include 15,000 units with rents geared to income.

Under the rental supply initiative called Renterprise, the government will provide $75 million in interest-free loans for the construction of an additional 5,000 units.

The government's convert-to-rent program to encourage conversion of nonresidential buildings to rental housing is being expanded. Loan assistance for the production of hostel-type accommodation for single persons, as well as new rental housing within single family accommodations, is now eligible. Six thousand units of moderate-cost housing have been added to the program.

The assured housing program also provides for the rehabilitation and upgrading of older rental units in both high-rise and low-rise buildings. This is an important initiative, because we cannot allow existing housing to fall below a standard that is acceptable for decent housing in this province.

We are providing more than $88 million to a low-rise rental building renewal program that is designed to upgrade 17,000 units over the next five years. Loans will be available at $5,000 per unit for pre-1960 buildings.

In the high-rise field, we are earmarking $11.3 million for a high-rise rehabilitation project to cover upgrading for 1,500 rental units. This project will also assess the amount of rehabilitation work that is needed in older high-rise buildings and its potential impact on tenants and landlords.

On that point, working with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), this government intends to take a strong stand against efforts to remove sound affordable rental stock through conversions and demolitions.

Our assured housing program includes many other initiatives, which are described in the papers I have tabled today. In addition, the program addresses ways in which the government can provide encouragement to the building industry to improve its efficiency and productivity. As part of an overall building industry strategy, we will be undertaking an in-depth reform of construction regulations involving 281 different provincial acts and 422 sets of regulations.

I want now to make reference to Ontario's investment in social housing. Through the Ontario Housing Corp., we are the second largest landlord in North America. We support a total of 121,700 rental units, which provide homes for more than 300,000 people at a cost of roughly $1 million a day. This is a great responsibility on both a fiscal and a social level. Today we are opening a new chapter in the administration of Ontario Housing in this province. We have done well, but we must do better still.

One major effect of our assured housing strategy will be to increase the supply of moderate-income rental housing and thereby reduce the long waiting list for subsidized housing. In addition, through my ministry, I am determined to improve the living environment of our clients in order to reduce the sense of social segregation many Ontario Housing residents have felt in the past and assure them a place in a broad community with the full dignity and respect they deserve.

We have honoured fully our commitments during the last provincial election. We have also achieved the commitment of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to this House of July 2.

I believe we have been able to respond to the fundamental issues raised by the different groups most closely affected by our housing policy: tenants' associations, the owners of rental properties, nonprofit housing groups, municipalities, builders' associations and the public at large. This process of consultation will continue so that all of us can participate in the process of developing policy that is fair, just and responsive.

In my opening remarks, I said today marks a major change in the direction and attitudes toward housing in this province. The overall effect of this comprehensive policy is to establish formally the provision of housing as one of the highest priorities of this government.

I believe every member of this House, regardless of political affiliation, will share my concern that we move ahead with determination to address the housing problem in this province. For that reason, I am confident I will have the support of every member of the Legislative Assembly for this policy.

We owe the people of Ontario nothing less. We believe decent, affordable housing is achievable for all Ontarians. We believe that equitable treatment is the right of all, whether tenant, landlord, home buyer or builder.

2:20 p.m.

This government has set a new course in open dialogue and made a new commitment to the people of Ontario. We begin now to introduce a new era of assured housing for the people of Ontario.

Allow me to say thanks to the civil servants who worked tremendously hard to bring about this policy and to the tenants, builders and developers, as well as some of my colleagues in the House, who have worked to bring about the most comprehensive housing policy we have seen.

REPORT ON PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This statement concerns the Ministry of Revenue. The members will recall that on November 8, I tabled a report on property assessment called Taxing Matters, which was prepared by my parliamentary assistant the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). At the same time, the report was distributed to all municipalities, as well to many other interested organizations and individuals, for a total of more than 3,000 copies.

Since that time, I have had the benefit of views on the report expressed by various members during the review of the Ministry of Revenue's 1985-86 estimates and the passage of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Assessment Act. In addition to commentaries in the press, my parliamentary assistant and I have received responses from municipalities and other interested parties. While these reactions are inevitably of a preliminary nature, I am very encouraged by their positive nature.

As I said on November 8, the report advances 53 recommendations that constitute a comprehensive program for reforming Ontario's municipal assessment systems. Consequently, I fully realize that many of the report's major recommendations will require careful consideration by the government, members of this House and our municipal partners before it is determined whether, when and how they might be implemented.

In the meantime, I am pleased to inform the members that I have decided to proceed with the immediate or early implementation in 1986 of eight recommendations that do not require legislation. While these measures are primarily administrative, they nevertheless represent material improvements in ongoing assessment practices and customer service. They will also provide a sound basis for the subsequent implementation of other recommendations.

For the benefit of the members, I am providing fuller details of the recommendations being implemented as an attachment to this statement. Briefly, however, they can be summarized in three groups.

First, in line with established practice and recommendation 27, I have authorized the release of 59 impact studies requested by municipal councils that are considering the implementation of section 63 reassessments in 1986. Parenthetically, I should also remind the members that in July, I released the impact studies on reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto that had been prepared in 1982 but were subsequently withheld.

Second, the ministry will implement three recommendations, recommendations 11, 12 and 40, that will clarify and provide more information on our policies and practices on internal inspections and that concern the exemption of assessment of improvements to residential properties.

Third, the ministry will proceed with four recommendations, recommendations 26, 28, 33 and 35, that involve significant improvement and increased public availability of a wide range of assessment manuals, guides and bulletins as well as the design of supplementary and annual assessment notices to ratepayers.

Most of these measures will take effect early in January, while the remainder will support specific events during the 1986 assessment cycle. In addition, most of the measures involve improvements that actually go further than the recommendations in the report.

Finally, I wish to remind the House that I have already acted on a number of the recommendations in the report of my parliamentary assistant. Apart from the release of the Metro Toronto impact studies, these include the continuation of the freeze on assessments under Bill 57, which is recommendation 18, and my decision not to appeal the ruling of the Ontario Municipal Board concerning 48 Russell Street in the city of Toronto, which is recommendation 44.

In conclusion, I am optimistic that it will be possible to reach a widely based consensus on the implementation of the remaining recommendations in my parliamentary assistant's report without protracted delays.

Of particular importance is recommendation 52 concerning the establishment of a consistent and sound assessment system in Metropolitan Toronto. In this connection, I wish to commend publicly the initiative taken by Chairman Dennis Flynn and other municipal leaders in Metropolitan Toronto in establishing a task force, under the chairmanship of the chief administrative officer of Metro and with the participation of Metro's municipalities, with a mandate to prepare proposals for consideration by Metro and area councils early in 1986. This should then allow us to move to the establishment of an expanded task force, as recommended by my parliamentary assistant, which would be charged with resolving key policy questions concerning reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto and the establishment of an implementation plan and schedule.

REPORT ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to announce the release today of the final report of the Task Force on Financial Institutions.

As some members will recall, the task force was formed in June 1984 to examine the organization and operation of financial institutions in Ontario and to determine what pressures on that financial system might require attention from government. Dr. J. Stefan Dupré chaired the three-member advisory group. The other members were Alexander Macintosh and Rendall Dick.

The task force issued an interim report on January 30, 1985, which put forth a number of proposals for consideration by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As well, it set out the timetable for the process of open consultation. Public hearings were held by the task force this past summer. My staff and I are carefully studying all the recommendations.

I am most appreciative of the work that has been done by Messrs. Dupré, Macintosh and Dick. These gentlemen have brought together a wealth of knowledge and experience concerning the economic and legal issues in the financial arena. I feel certain their discussions and recommendations will have a major effect on this government's development of overall policy in the very complex area of regulation for financial institutions.

I hope members will review the report and find it informative.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The development of regulations for the control of worker exposure to toxic substances is a vital part of the Ministry of Labour's occupational health and safety program. This government and this ministry believe that while there is much to commend the toxic substances regulation development program in place, improvements can be made.

On November 21, 1985, I announced that section 145 of the industrial regulation would be revised so there would be in place a general regulation for toxic substances which is explicit, stringent and enforceable. In addition, we believe workers should have a statutory right to receive better information and training concerning toxic substances in their work place. I plan to make an announcement on this initiative in the near future.

I would like to inform members of other recent advances made in this important area. Shortly after I assumed the ministry, I reviewed the process then in place to develop designated substance regulations and determined that a tighter timetable was required if the number of these special regulations were to increase at a more acceptable pace. To this end, the occupational health and safety division has prepared a detailed schedule for the development of designated substance regulations with a series of deadlines. I have informed the division, labour and management that these deadlines will be adhered to.

Today, I am pleased to inform the honourable members that the Lieutenant Governor has now signed the regulation respecting asbestos on construction projects and in buildings and repair operations. This regulation will be filed today and will take effect on March 14, 1986.

Let me take a moment to highlight the essential features of the regulation. The regulation is different from the existing asbestos regulation in that it sets out specific controls for different types of work. This approach is suited to the dynamic character of the construction industry. The regulation also requires building owners to establish a comprehensive maintenance program for asbestos in buildings. Where it is apparent that friable material containing asbestos is deteriorating and falling on to building surfaces, the regulation requires that the building owner take appropriate remedial action.

The regulation also contains other key features. It prohibits the spraying of materials or the installation of boiler or pipe insulation material containing more than one per cent asbestos; it sets out procedures for the use and care of respirators; it provides for instruction and training of workers; and it sets out the record-keeping and medical surveillance requirements.

The new asbestos regulation was developed with the assistance of the provincial labour-management health and safety committee of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario and others. It incorporates some 20 recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos. The regulation was reviewed by my Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety, which offered positive and timely advice.

2:30 p.m.

The asbestos construction regulation is the first of the designated substance regulations for the construction industry. Proposed regulations for lead and silica on construction projects were published in the Ontario Gazette in September 1985. I plan to transmit these regulations to my advisory council in April and May of 1986, following open review meetings in January and February.

Additional construction regulations for the control of mercury and coal tar will be published next month with a view to holding open review meetings no later than May and July of 1986 respectively. I expect to send these regulations to my advisory council in August and December of 1986.

In the nonconstruction sector, I have accelerated the pace of development of designated substance regulations. In September, I sent the proposed arsenic regulation to my advisory council for review and comment. Once council's advice is received, I will proceed immediately to enact a regulation for the control of exposure to arsenic. In October, an open review meeting was held on the ethylene oxide regulation, and notices of possible designation were published for welding fumes and polychlorinated biphenyls.

I shall proceed in the near future with the generic approach to regulation development for substances such as irritants, solvents and carcinogens. This will increase dramatically the number of toxic substances covered by special regulation.

The timetable for the development of toxic substance regulations establishes uniform comment periods following the publication of notices and proposed regulations. It also reduces the time periods between stages in the process so the regulations will proceed at a steady but accelerated pace.

In closing, the important developments outlined today demonstrate this government's commitment to ensuring that workers in this province are protected from harmful exposure to these substances.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. Pursuant to the undertaking he gave to this House last week on the sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., can he tell us, among those job guarantees, how many of the 1,750 UTDC jobs the government will be trying to protect?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand there is a rationalization program going on at present as a result of the previous government's option of cancelling the GO advanced light rail transit program. I cannot be precise; I wish I could be. I am sorry. I can check that information out for the honourable member. I cannot tell him the present complement, let alone what UTDC's plans are at the moment with respect to the current operation.

Mr. Grossman: Let me share with the Premier the plans his government has with regard to those employees. I have in my hand a copy of a draft letter sent out by Wood Gundy, the people he used to try to conduct this fire sale for him. The letter says --

Mr. McClellan: It is a draft of a copied letter.

Mr. Grossman: It is a letter.

Mr. McClellan: How can he get a draft of a copy?

Mr. Grossman: Does the member remember when he used to be able to get these? Does he remember when he was in opposition?

Mr. McClellan: I always get the final copy. I do not need a draft.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The letter his government had sent out, protecting the 1,750 jobs which he said would be guaranteed says, "As a minimum level, we will maintain employment of 600 people at Thunder Bay and 200 people at the UTDC facilities at Kingston for a period of not less than five years following the closing."

Since this is the job guarantee his agents are providing, which is to provide guarantees for 800 of 1,750 employees, can the Premier tell us what he is going to do with regard to the 950 employees whose jobs he is not prepared to guarantee and whom he is prepared to jettison in his rush to sell UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member forgets the history. Again, I remind him that his government cancelled the GO-ALRT program, and as a result of the rationalization programs brought about by his government, UTDC started looking at the staff. We are going to protect all the staff we possibly can.

Mr. Rae: When the Premier wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada concerning jobs at de Havilland, he talked about protecting employment levels at the Downsview plant. I would like to ask the Premier specifically why the government is anticipating further layoffs at Kingston and lower levels of employment at Thunder Bay and why he is not anticipating a growth in employment in both places and insisting on a guarantee for those workers and their families in both communities?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is that we are not anticipating fewer. We are looking at this company to make it grow, not to allow it to wither quietly. The reality, and I am sure the honourable member understands it, is that one can employ people only if one has orders and if one is selling and growing. When one looks at the order book and at what is ahead and at potential contracts available to gather up around the world, then we are looking at the options to enhance that employment, not to see it wither.

I am sure even my friends opposite, the free enterprisers, would agree that if there are no orders, one cannot automatically keep that employment going for ever. They chose to cancel GO-ALRT and they chose to lay off hundreds of people from UTDC. We are trying to protect those people, bring them back into the employment mainstream and give them jobs; to do that, we have to sell.

Mr. Grossman: Let me first inform the Premier that the cancellation of GO-ALRT affected 100 to 150 jobs.

Let us talk about heartless. Let us talk about the answer the Premier gave in this House last week. The question was, "Did the 21 letters require of prospective purchasers job guarantees for the UTDC workers?" The Premier will forgive me, but I meant all the workers. The answer he gave was, "Yes, that is my answer."

Can the Premier explain to us specifically how he could have given the answer to the House that he would require job guarantees for the UTDC workers, when what he meant was that this letter sent out by him did not even set a target of protecting all the jobs but said he wanted a guarantee that fewer than half the jobs would be protected?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is coming in here today and trying to rewrite the question he asked last week. I say with great respect that this is not a very competent way to ask questions.

No deals have been signed. We are looking at maximizing that employment. The Leader of the Opposition can get as excited as he wants. He can change his questions every day if he wants to, and that is fine. Everything we do will be subject to scrutiny by him and by anyone in this House who is interested.

However, I want to say what I said last week. We are looking at the options. The preliminary 20 letters that were sent out -- not 21 -- were just feelers, as they say; they were not contracts. I think the member knows that.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: The question is the Premier's credibility in answering questions in this House on this important deal.

The Premier will know that in recent years, UTDC has been committing approximately $2 million from earnings to research and development. The provincial government has been kicking in another $1.5 million each year. We are informed that he has received an offer from Bombardier, reflected in this letter which refers to Bombardier, which stipulates that it will carry on only research funded by the government.

It will carry on only research funded by the government, specifically $2 million supplied by the province and $2 million it will seek from the federal government. Can the Premier or Mr. Kruger confirm, therefore, that under the Bombardier offer -- I know it has not been accepted yet -- none of the company's earnings would be spent on research and development?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is getting all tied up in a knot here about something that has not even happened. I do not know why he chooses to do that.

Why does he not look at the things we have done and criticize those, as opposed to criticizing the things we have not done or something that may or may not happen in the future? If the member wants to stand in this House and criticize some hypothetical occurrence a month or two or three from now, that is fair enough, but my friend is getting all upset about nothing.

Mr. Pope: What are 900 jobs? Just shrug them off.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier washed his hands of de Havilland. We do not want to see the same thing here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Last week the Premier said no foreign companies had been contacted. Four days later, he read out a letter that he had sent to a foreign company. This week, we discover that the job guarantees he said were in place last week are, in fact, job guarantees for fewer than half the UTDC workers.

We are talking not about the future but about things the Premier has said in this House when trying to inform this House and the public what he is up to. In the light of that, we want to know whether there is a Bombardier offer and whether it indicates the company is not prepared to spend any of its own money on R and D. Is the Premier going to undertake to this House he will not accept an offer of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To help out my friend so he is clear, I was just given a note with respect to employment. The union employment in Thunder Bay is 696 and management employment is 121. In Kingston, the union has 315 and management has 536. The member can see quite clearly that the discussions were about union employment, not management employment. That clears up his --

Mr. Grossman: Forget about that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend has redrafted his question. He is putting certain propositions to me in this House. I have no idea where he is on this issue. He is the one who has turned down money; he is the one who turned them down in the past; he is the one who said he would not contribute any public money to the situation.

Let me tell him that no deals have been signed and no formal offer has been received. There are letters going back and forth, but nothing has happened. If and when it does, we will be very happy to share it with the members.

Mr. Rae: Let us see how close we are getting here to an agreement. The Premier says no offer has been accepted and no formal offer has been received. Can the Premier give us a time frame? Mr. Kruger has said he thinks things should be clearer by the end of the year. When does the Premier anticipate that some kind of a deal will be arranged and what are his plans with respect to presenting this proposal to the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand there will be a meeting with British Rail Engineering Ltd., perhaps tomorrow and/or the next day. There are ongoing discussions with a couple of Canadian parties, as the member is aware. Nothing has been signed at this point. There have been pieces of paper passing back and forth stating certain intentions but nothing in a legal form that anyone could construe as a contract. I cannot tell the member when that will happen for sure. It might be by Christmas, and then again it might not.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is running the most secretive, deceptive operation I have ever seen in this House. He is playing word games with his answers on this matter which directly impacts on employment.

Mr. Pope: What are 900 jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: I would like to come back to the jobs. The Can-Car Rail plant in Thunder Bay has 815 employees; VentureTrans in Kingston has 398; Metro Canada Ltd. In Kingston has 345; Transportation Technology Ltd. In Downsview -- the member will be interested to know -- has 135, and UTDC in Toronto has 70. The management the Premier refers to in Kingston includes 300 engineers doing research and development. The Premier remembers R and D.

Once again I ask the Premier, why is he is not prepared to guarantee jobs for more than half of the UTDC employees?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my friend wants to continue to beat this dead horse, go ahead. He is welcome to do it. That is not where we are coming from. He has his figures confused again. He wants to redraft a question he asked last week.

We are anxious to protect all of that employment and that is the approach. No contracts have been signed. How long does it take him to understand that? We are looking at the survivability, at the ongoing viability of that company, and that is the approach we are taking. There is no question about it.

We are looking for orders. We are looking at how to make sure we can keep those contracts going. As the member knows, I was in Vancouver last week and it was very exciting to see that technology there. We have to make sure we get other contracts for it and therein is the crux of the problem.

Mr. Rae: The technology is so good the government is determined to sell it right away. It does not make any sense and the answers do not make any sense.

Is the Premier aware that Wood Gundy, the firm handling negotiations for the government, is the same firm that is currently underwriting a share issue for Bombardier and the same one that has underwritten shares for Bombardier for 15 years? What has he done to ensure there is no conflict of interest with respect to this deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I was not aware of that. I say to the member, I assume they are acting professionally and there is not a conflict of interest in this situation.

Mr. Rae: Bombardier has on its board Mr. Simon Reisman and the Honourable Jean-Pierre Goyer, a former Liberal cabinet minister, with well-known connections to the Liberal Party.

Can the Premier tell us precisely what he discussed with Mr. Bourassa last Thursday at his dinner meeting with respect to Bombardier? Specifically, can he tell workers in Ontario that their jobs, R and D, and Ontario's interests are protected if UTDC is sold to a corporation based in Quebec and of which the whole raison d'être to the present has been the expansion of employment in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response to the member's question, I had a delightful dinner with Mr. Bourassa. He asked me why the New Democratic Party was doing so poorly in Ontario, as it was in Quebec after the election. He could not understand why the NDP was not asking better questions in the House. Of course, he was regretting the fortunes of the Tories right across this country. We had a nice chat in that regard.

He asked me about UTDC. No details were discussed. I said we were looking at privatization options. He is aware that Bombardier is one of the firms concerned, but there are others, as I said before, and that was the full extent of it. There were no conversations other than that.

Let me make one point that is important. The member assumes that in its present form UTDC is just going to continue and get bigger and better. He assumes those jobs and R and D are going to be protected if nothing happens to it. Let me tell him, that assumption is incorrect.

Most people, including the former minister in charge, Jim Snow, and others, believed that company was ready to be privatized, at least in some form. It is at a critical stage in its development. It must grow rather than contract. It is in a fiercely competitive international business. There is competition from all around the world. Because of the cutbacks in transportation subsidies in the United States, fewer and fewer major contracts are being given out.

2:50 p.m.

The member has seen the problems of UTDC and I do not want to get into a discussion of those in this House. The member is aware of them and has seen them in the past. I believe we have to protect that asset and should try to enhance it and build it. That is why these discussions are going on. What I do not want to see is that company wither on the vine; I want to see it grow and go into new areas, areas it can go into if outside expertise is brought in. As I told the member before, there are certain areas it could compete in if it had some private sector help.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I was enjoying the imitation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil). You should not have interrupted him, Mr. Speaker.

With all the Premier's devotion to UTDC, I suppose he is aware that the result of all the meanderings he and Mr. Kruger have been up to is that US purchasers now are refusing to conclude negotiations with UTDC because they are confused as to who is going to own the company and whether the company has any future whatever. That is the Premier's responsibility.

Therefore, I ask him a very simple question: Has he received an offer to purchase, or notice of intent to purchase or notice of intent to make an offer to purchase, from Bombardier? We have learned about the Premier and we have learned about the word games he plays to leave one impression when he means another.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: When we talk about all the jobs, he means half the jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Why does the Premier not tell us what he has from Bombardier? Is he prepared to tell us?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It was my honourable friend who some time ago brought the principle to this House: "I am not going to negotiate through the media. Look at my record on the Chrysler negotiations and others. I refuse to negotiate publicly." That was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), not me. He accuses us of being a secretive government. I do not understand how he can stand up in the House and say that. I have trouble understanding my friend. He is changing his position.

I can assure him that we are concerned about UTDC's best interests. We have had a lot of discussions and there are things on paper, but there is no signed formal contract.

Mr. Rae: It is precisely the continued secrecy surrounding the de Havilland deal, where a letter of intent was signed and yet no documents were placed before the Parliament of Canada and very little information was placed here, that forced Liberal members provincially -- I believe the member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano) was there -- and federally to demand a very different approach.

What different approach are we going to see with respect to UTDC by the Liberal government in Ontario? Specifically, before any final deal is signed, is the Premier prepared to bring all proposals before the Legislature so that we can scrutinize them and discuss them with the workers involved so they can have far greater information? Let the people and the parliament of this province see what the heck the Premier is doing before he does it, and not afterwards.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is presumably asking us to go out and collect a number of proposals, bring them into this House and then all 125 of us can have a very thoughtful discussion as to which is the best proposal, and then some of us will go and sign the deal. That is what he is asking. I say to him with great respect that is most impractical in the circumstances.

As to the analogy with de Havilland, the difference is -- and I share the member's frustrations about that deal -- here we are a week or two after the deal has been made and we still do not know the facts. The friends of the Conservatives opposite are still not sharing the information with the people of this province.

That is not my view; my view is that with every deal we sign, we have the responsibility. I assure the member that the responsibility we take is open to complete scrutiny by him and everyone else. All those documents will be shared, as they have been on the Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. I invite the member to look at every single piece of paper the Stadium Corp. has looked at. That is open to scrutiny. Now that the board and the technical committee have made a decision, I think that is open to every single bit of scrutiny the member or anyone else in this House wants to give it, because it is in the public purview.

If and when a deal is made, I will invite the member to do the very same thing with UTDC. Barring proprietary, exclusive trade secrets, I think we are prepared to share that deal, because it is taxpayers' money, not mine, not the member's, not theirs, and we have too much respect for the taxpayers to treat their money promiscuously. We have too much respect for those employers and employees to see them lose their jobs. We want to see it grow and build and we are prepared to share with the member the various alternatives and the reasons for the judgements we make, if and when we make them.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Housing with respect to the statement he made today.

First, we are proud of the fact that he has lived up to the commitments in the accord. We are very proud of the achievements that are there. I think we have gone some of the way. There was a seven-year drought in housing and it is high time we ended it. We have waited long enough.

The document says, "The government intends to take a strong stand against efforts to remove sound affordable rental stock through conversions and demolitions." Yet I do not see anywhere in the vast documentation which the minister has very kindly provided to us, any indication of what legislation the government plans to bring in with respect to either conversions or demolitions. Can the minister tell us where that is and when it is coming?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The reason the document indicates only my concern is that it does not fall under my portfolio. The Minister of Municipal Affairs will be bringing in a statement very soon on that matter.

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of detail about one of the more welcome aspects of his housing policy: the announcement that the government will be committing $72.6 million over the next three years for the construction of 20,000 nonprofit and co-operative housing units. I am sure the minister is aware there are many thousands of nonprofit units which could be built right now and many dozens of municipal and co-operative nonprofit housing developers who are sitting on proposals for his ministry --

Mr. Speaker: Could I have the supplementary, please?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, you can.

Can the minister tell us when he will be in a position to accept proposal calls from the nonprofit sector?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will be in a position to accept proposals in January.

Mr. McFadden: I have a supplementary to the question of the member for York South (Mr. Rae), not the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), with regard to demolition control.

I have raised in this House on a couple of occasions in the last month problems faced by demolition control. In particular, three buildings at Eglinton and Bathurst are scheduled to be demolished in the next month or so and the tenants, many of whom are senior citizens, are scheduled for eviction on December 31. Further to that, we have another group of four buildings which I raised with the minister about a month ago in which approximately 100 tenants, two thirds to three quarters of whom are over the age of 70, are also scheduled for eviction within the next month or two potentially. Yet a month has now passed and we still have heard nothing.

I awaited with great interest what the minister was going to bring in today. We find there is no mention of demolition control. We hear that another minister may bring it in due course. The fact is there are hundreds of people who could be thrown out on the street within the next month or so.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McFadden: When is the government going to act on that matter? Can he give us some idea what the timetable is?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not think the honourable member was listening very well. As I said, the matter does not fall under my portfolio. It falls under the portfolio of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The member said there was no mention of it in my statement today. It has been mentioned that I am concerned about the loss of buildings in those situations.

3 p.m.

I know and can appreciate the member's anxiety. I hope he had the same anxiety when his party was in government and had the chance to do something about it. Now he wants us to do something immediately. In a very short time, we will have legislation to control those demolitions.

Mr. McClellan: I have to confess I was confused about why the government would have repeated the mistakes of the previous government, which introduced the birdbrained Ontario rental construction loan program. Why has the minister brought in a successor to the ORCL program, which he is calling Renterprise --

Mr. Rae: Son of ORCL.

Mr. McClellan: Yes. Renterprise, son of ORCL, will be receiving $75 million in interest-free corporate welfare grants. Can the minister explain to us why he has chosen to follow the totally foolish path of his predecessors in giving away this kind of money to the private sector, which is not necessary, which does not provide affordable housing and which has been subject to the most incredible ripoffs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is hardly a supplementary. However, there was a quite a large statement. Does the minister wish to answer?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Curling: "All things are relevant," he said.

The member may ask why we are copying. We did not copy the previous program at all because in this instance we have the confidence of the developers.

[Laughter]

Hon. Mr. Curling: I know that is almost a laughable situation for the opposite side because it had no confidence in that. Now that we have this trust or confidence on the standards situation, they will direct their efforts towards bringing about affordable units. That is where the difference is. We will make sure affordable units are built and are accessible.

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Some months ago he said he was going to do away with the housing crisis and the confusion. Then he went out and immediately contradicted himself on rent controls. Now he says he is going to inspire a new measure of confidence and trust in this whole system; yet he is stripping tenants of 10 years of rights of going before an impartial and independent agency. Can the minister tell us what he is doing in these new proposals that does not turn the tenants' rights into a rubber-stamp for the landlords?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can sympathize with the member. He was late and did not get a chance to read the brief. I hope he gets a chance to read it properly tonight. Since it was in all the papers that I was making this statement today, I am very disappointed the Housing critic on that side was not early enough to be here to listen and that he had no chance to read it.

We are not doing away with tenants' rights. The system that was in force had 180 days for the first year. If there was an appeal, there was a further 190 days. We are bringing about a less adversarial position in which tenants can bring their concerns through this administrative process. This will be done much more efficiently and in a less formal way. If not, the decisions arrived at from this position can be further appealed to the Rent Review Hearings Board. I assure the member it will be done in a much more efficient and less costly way.

Mr. Timbrell: A week ago today in this House, in answer to a question from the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), the minister said tenants' rights to public hearings on "rent hikes," as my colleague called them, would not be eliminated. Yet today he has confirmed in his statement and in his answer minutes ago that he is abolishing those hearings on initial rent review applications. How is it that has changed in one week's time? Did he mislead the House one week ago today?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the member finds I misled the House, it is the way he heard it. I said this situation has not abolished that position at all. As a matter of fact, they are in a better position to bring their cases and to be heard properly.

Mr. Timbrell: The minister said the hearings would not be abolished.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The hearings are not abolished. A Rent Review Hearings Board is being set up for all of the hearings. It is the same way.

Mr. McClellan: Now that the minister has announced his rent review policy and has stated government policy with respect to tenant protection legislation and many other matters, can he explain to us why he is permitting the Thom royal commission to continue another second? Why does the minister not simply get on the telephone this afternoon -- perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) would help him -- and cancel the royal commission so we do not waste any more money?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member knows, the Thom commission was set up by the previous government. I think it has done a very effective job in phase 1. The member will also realize that we have encompassed some of the recommendations that were in the report. We realize that we cannot wait around, because there are some situations that have to be dealt with. Hence, we have this policy.

I am sure the Thom commission is doing some very effective work in its second phase, which could be used by our Rent Review Advisory Committee, and we will include it as we go along.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since his government is clearly on record that Workers' Compensation Board pensions will be automatically indexed as soon as possible, and since injured workers have suffered as few others have during the years waiting for this basic right, will the minister tell this House why he says the bill is ready and he is prepared to proceed, but the House leader tells him there is no time on the agenda before Christmas and that there is no legislation because the minister has not produced the legislation for the House?

Who is really holding up automatic indexing of Workers' Compensation Board pensions and why?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have made great progress. I am hopeful we may be able to move matters ahead in the next few days.

Mr. Mackenzie: Since we in this party are prepared to facilitate the passage of index legislation for recipients of WCB pensions this week, can the minister assure us we will have them before Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The commitment of this government to injured workers in this province is unequivocal. In the election of last May, this government ran on a platform of indexing pensions and all benefits to the injured workers of this province.

We have had consultation during the summer and into the fall with both the trade union movement and the business community. These matters have been reviewed thoroughly by a number of cabinet committees and with my colleagues. As we draw close to the Christmas adjournment and as we draw close to a season when it is better to give than to receive, I hope that before Christmas this Legislature will be able to give indexation to injured workers in this province.

3:10 p.m.

HOUSING POLICY

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Housing, who has just told this House that the rent review hearings will presumably be set up in the same way under his new proposal as they are now. I am very troubled by this and I would like the minister to confirm for me that his proposal has removed the right of hearing at the first level and confined the right of hearing on appeal. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Curling: In the administrative process that had been set up, many things were going to the Residential Tenancy Commission that could have been dealt with outside that process. We felt too much time was being wasted there, and time is money for both tenants and landlords. If it could be resolved in a less formal way, we would do that.

There is no taking away of the hearings for tenants or landlords. If they do not like the first decision in the process, they can go to the Rent Review Hearings Board. I will say that again so the honourable member can understand it. They still have the right to go to the Rent Review Hearings Board.

Ms. Fish: I understand the question very well; it is the minister who does not. The minister has taken away the right of a hearing at the first level and substituted it with a bureaucratic stamp. He has then taken away the right of the full appeal hearing by going to what he calls a rent review hearing at a first level with a commissioner, with no further appeal beyond that. Has he then compounded this withdrawal of rights from tenants by establishing, at the point at which they do finally get a hearing, if they are concerned, that they may be liable for the costs of the hearing?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I repeat that it will be much more efficient. If the member listens a bit more, she may get the answer. Many of these issues can be resolved in an informal situation. Like the previous questions I have been hearing, it is hypothetical. I am confident it will work more efficiently than the system the Residential Tenancy Commission had in place in which it took more than a year to get a final hearing.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Premier. I assume the Premier had the opportunity to see the report of the select committee on energy on the Darlington project or at least a summary of that report from his staff. In July the Premier stated some concerns about the amount of money which might have been spent on Darlington and whether it was still feasible to consider cancellation of that project. Can the Premier explain to the House why he allowed Ontario Hydro to spend or commit an additional $1.1 billion on the Darlington project while the committee was attempting to look at the options around that project?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Hydro has to go on and run itself even while the committee is deliberating on the whole matter. As the member knows, it is an independent crown corporation. I chose not to issue an edict, pending the deliberations of the committee. I had no idea how long it was going to take. I did not ask it to hold up things. It had to go on and build those factories according to its own plans until it was given orders otherwise. That is what happened.

Mr. Charlton: The Premier's answer does not reflect the level of concern he expressed in July about the extent to which that project was committed. Since the Premier has shied away from his former position on Darlington since the election, and since the question on Darlington has been hooked almost exclusively to the economic questions of its cost and the cost of cancellation, can the Premier tell us in the light of the fact that the province's credit rating has been downgraded, what the new estimates of the total cost for Darlington will be and how much he is prepared to see that cost escalate before he does something about stopping the project?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I cannot give the honourable member a calculation of what the re-rating through Standard and Poor's would do. My guess is it would be quite small, if anything at all. Over a long time, it adds up a little more, but I do not expect it would be very significant. It would not be significant with respect to the $11-billion figure people are talking about as the ultimate cost of Darlington.

Mr. Cureatz: In regard to the committee's report, might the Premier indicate to this House the time period in which he and his cabinet colleagues would be acting on the report, or would he be waiting until the select committee brings forward its second report on the supply options, after reviewing those aspects of Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot give the honourable member the precise cabinet agenda today, but we hope to deal with that in the very near future. I am sure he is aware that this government has been extremely busy dealing with a number of pressing public policy issues. The cabinet agenda has been very full on every single cabinet day, but it is my intention to deal with this matter sooner rather than later.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Gregory: My question is for the Minister of Housing in regard to his announcement today about his government's position on rental housing. A major rental housing developer in the region of Peel, Kaneff Properties Ltd., has expressed concern to me and to many in regard to the proposed policy to extend rent controls to include all previously exempt buildings, including those built after 1976 and those containing units renting for more than $750 a month.

[Applause]

Mr. Gregory: I know that goes over very well with my friends to the left.

Mr. McClellan: And the tenants. Do not forget the tenants.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are waiting for the question.

Mr. Gregory: This developer is a major developer and a public benefactor in the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel. He has explained and demonstrated that since the policy initiative was first hinted at, he will not build any new rental housing anywhere and has totally drawn away from the market.

If this was an isolated incident I would say okay, so be it, but it is not. The minister's claim that he has talked to representatives of the building industry and that they all agree with him is total nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Gregory: What does the minister intend to do about the rental market to encourage developers to build rental units, apart from throwing public money at them?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not quite sure I understand the question. At one moment, I thought I was going to redirect it to the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), but I think I know what the member is asking.

If that individual developer said he would not build, I presume he must have said that prior to my announcement of the policy. I would advise him to read the policy and then the member can direct that question to me.

Mr. Gregory: I suggest the minister should listen to the questions as well as he expects us to listen to his nonanswers. He did not even listen to my question. I was referring to the retroactivity and to the imposition of review on rents of more than $750. That is what I was addressing and he did not address himself to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary, please.

Mr. Gregory: What specifically does the minister intend to do?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I heard the member's question quite well. I wondered whether the developer he mentioned had read the policy. If he made the comment before the policy was there, I could understand that because he may have been going on the previous government's record of what rent review policy was all about.

The policy I present gives fair treatment to developers. After reading that policy, he can then make a comment to me on whether he will build under those conditions. It is an entire package, not the one the previous government brought forth here.

SUPPORT STAFF

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. It was reported in the press last September that approximately 2,000 part-time support staff in Ontario's 22 community colleges were in a no man's land as far as having the right to bargain collectively is concerned. That right is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When will the minister end this discrimination against employees, many of whom are women, who perform very essential services in the colleges? When will he bring in legislation to repeal the exclusion of these employees from the coverage of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend makes a very good point. The exclusion of part-time staff is indeed governed by legislation, the same legislation that governs all collective bargaining in the community colleges.

Some months ago I made a statement in the House and in the press dealing with collective bargaining with community college faculty and support staff. I mentioned we were looking at the whole process of collective bargaining in the community colleges but we would not undertake that exercise while negotiations were going on, and they still are going on, with faculty members.

We are developing a process to look at collective bargaining throughout the system, and the issue of part-time support staff will be one of the things we look at. The results of that study will perhaps end up in legislation if it is our decision at that time to give part-time staff the right to bargain.

3:20 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: It seems unfair that the part-time support staff should have to wait until the minister finishes bargaining with the faculty. Is the minister aware part-time support staff in at least 10 community colleges have applied for certification but the Ontario Labour Relations Board is unable to process their applications because of this exclusion? How can the minister justify further delay in granting these employees a basic human right, which was taken away from them by the previous government in the schedule to the act?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If the question is whether I am aware of it, certainly I am keenly aware of it. Indeed, I have met with Jim Clancy, the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, on a number of occasions and we have discussed this very issue.

I do not take responsibility for making the exclusion; that was done in legislation passed many years ago by a previous government. We now have to look at the collective bargaining process in the community colleges, and it is one of the things that is very high on my agenda.

I realize the predicament that part-time staff are in. The fact is that when the legislation was passed, there were very few part-timers; now the numbers have changed substantially. However, I am not prepared now to make a commitment one way or the other; it has to be done in the context of a broader review. That review will take place, and I hope to get it under way as soon as possible.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In his position paper, he tells us he is going to have 44,000 rental units built across Ontario during the next five years. Exactly what assurances does the minister have from developers that they are going to build those 44,000 units during the next five years when he has rejected a fair return on investment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I cannot recall rejecting a fair return on investment.

Mr. Gordon: In August, the minister told the public that 80,000 private rental units would be needed during the next five years. What has happened in the interim that reduced it to 44,000 units?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will have to take the figures the honourable member is quoting and find out where I had spoken about those units. In the meantime, I want to assure him that when I said today that I had the support of the tenants and of the landlords, I meant that the approach of the government has given them confidence that they can come in and build once more and they are sure of the direction this government is going.

EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It has now been three months since the tragedy took place at the Extendicare London Nursing Home, where 19 people died. Why is it that, as of today, my understanding is that the Ministry of Health still has not decided whether charges are going to be laid against that nursing home, where 19 people died?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. It is a tragedy that occurred at this nursing home and, as the member well knows, the information is being assembled even now for the coroner's inquest, which is to take place on February 24, I believe. We are looking at all the information being generated, and it will form part of our decision-making process.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not know what that has to do with whether the ministry is going to decide to lay charges under the Nursing Homes Act and under the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The minister will understand that two reports were written by Dr. Styliadis. He cited 25 violations in the first one after he visited the home on September 20. He cited several other violations after he visited the home on September 24. When 19 people died in that nursing home, why on earth can the minister not take a strong stand and lay charges under either the Health Protection and Promotion Act or the Nursing Homes Act?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As the honourable gentleman knows, we talked about this last week in estimates and some concerns were expressed about the report. Some concerns were expressed by the member that we had not acted on the report. That study may very well form part of the review of the entire operation that was carried on during the deaths that resulted at the Extendicare facility.

The information we have is being reviewed thoroughly for the purpose of determining the question of charges. I know this member and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) are quite interested that a final determination be made. I can tell them both that we are moving very quickly to finalize our decision in these matters.

Mr. Pope: We are talking about 19 deaths. We are talking about events that occurred more than three months ago. Based on the minister's answers last week in estimates, he has not even seen the information on which to base a decision as to whether charges are going to be laid.

Why has the minister refused to expedite this matter in his ministry'? Why has he refused to make a decision on whether charges will be laid? Is he planning to delay his decision until after the inquest is held?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have seen the reports the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) has mentioned. I have seen other data and material. I have not, as the honourable gentleman has expressed it, seen them all at one time.

The two gentlemen who are quite concerned about this have not expressed their desires in the matter, other than that we should move quickly to make a determination. Neither of them has indicated he wants to ensure that the Ministry of Health has all possible details and material that would be of use to it in making a decision.

I have requested all detailed information be made available to us so we can sensibly and thoroughly review the matter before making a final determination.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I know every member of this House shares my disappointment at the very limited reference to the Ontario home renewal program in his statement today. As the minister knows, it has been one of the most popular programs in this province. In fact, it has been so popular in Burlington that about 35 families are on the waiting list. Will the minister please tell this House what plans he has to put new money into this program for home owners waiting for assistance?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I presume I can say that anything is better than nothing. The honourable member said he is disappointed we did not put in more. Previously, there was nothing --

Mr. Bennett: Not quite nothing; come on.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Not quite nothing; maybe one or two. However, we have put enough there to start stimulating it.

Mr. Bennett: I had a program, and there were millions left over.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: I am not sure whether I received an answer to my question. As I said earlier, about 30 families in Burlington are waiting for this assistance. As the minister knows well, my community is also represented by his colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight).

I wrote to the minister on this question during the summer and he replied on November 18. I will quote. In part he said, "The revitalization of OHRP is one of my short-term objectives, and I expect to announce initiatives in this regard in the very near future." Why would the minister mislead communities such as Burlington by saying there would be new, revitalized funds for the program? When is he going to come out with some support for this program?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I did not mislead the community. There is money sitting in municipalities that has not been used.

Mr. Bennett: Exactly what did I say two minutes ago? The Liberals have a great way of playing it both ways.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there any further reply?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member needs to be told about the remark that I have misled the community. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is working with me to identify municipalities that have inactive programs. If we can transfer some of that money in his area --

Mr. Jackson: That is not new money.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am saying that if there is no more action on the money that has been sitting there, we are trying to generate some activity there and direct it to places that need it more.

HEPATITIS VACCINE

Mr. Reville: I have a 39-second question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware of concerns raised in this House by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) that the high cost of hepatitis-B vaccine may be exposing Ontario residents to a health risk.

The city council of Toronto today is considering a report from the local board of health that recommends an immunization program for the household contacts of hepatitis-B carriers. Will the minister assure this House that he will respond favourably to a city of Toronto request for 100 per cent provincial funding for this immunization program?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is asking me to guarantee a response to a report I have not yet seen. I will take a look at the recommendation. I do not even know whether they have made a decision. Does the member know whether they have made a decision? If he does not, how can he ask me to respond to a decision that has not yet been taken?

When they report to me, obviously I will review it, as we do with respect to a number of reports, but I refuse to be locked into saying I will guarantee a favourable response to whatever is in the report. I cannot do that, and the member cannot realistically ask me to do that.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition signed by 174 residents of Middlesex and London. It calls on the government not to extend public funding to Roman Catholic separate secondary schools. The text of the petition is the same as several that were presented in the Legislature last week and before and I will dispense with the reading of all of it.

Mr. Harris: I too have a number of petition cards -- I estimate about 450 -- many from teachers who are members of District 33 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in the district of Nipissing, with others from some of the parents in the district of Nipissing.

The petition states:

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to Roman Catholic separate secondary schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group. We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal."

A big heading says, "Preserve Public Education." I am pleased to submit this on behalf of the 450-odd residents of Nipissing.

FLOODING

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 18 people, who are not odd, from the Goulais River area:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Honourable Vincent Kerrio, Minister of Natural Resources, and the Honourable Bernard Grandmaître, Minister of Municipal Affairs:

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

"That the residents of Goulais River, an unorganized area, who have been adversely affected by the high water level of Lake Superior, be eligible for the same technical and financial assistance as are residents of municipalities under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act."

FAMILY LAW ACT

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, both sponsored by Fathers for Justice, an organization concerned with the rights of noncustodial parents. The first one is signed by 403 people and reads:

"We, the undersigned, agree that the Family Law Act should be changed to the benefit of both parties in a divorce, separation and custody action."

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OFFICERS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The second petition comes from a belief and understanding that I think has been clarified since the petition was taken. It is signed by 242 people and reads:

"We, the undersigned, agree that the justice of the peace office in Kitchener-Waterloo should be investigated to determine why the JP officers are biased in their decisions when it comes to laying charges."

As a result of discussions held as recently as last Saturday with the organizers of that group, I understand they are now in agreement that the justice of the peace office in Kitchener is following directions in accordance with the law and recent court decisions in terms of their refusal to lay contempt charges in certain situations in which noncustodial parents are having difficulty in obtaining access.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Runciman: I have a petition from Leeds and Grenville District 37 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. The wording is similar to that outlined by the member for Nipissing, and it is signed by 217 members of district 37.

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition from the OSSTF Seaway Valley District 21. It is a petition like the ones we have seen around lately and last week. It is also from the Coalition on Public Education, which comprises many sectors of our society; it has been distributing petition cards, which have been filled out and signed by many residents of the Cornwall area. The petition is signed by Elaine Kennedy, president of District 21, OSSTF.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's interim report on the domed stadium finances and moved its adoption.

Mr. Harris: The standing committee on public accounts held a considerable number of meetings throughout the extended recess that the government provided us with during August, September and a good part of October. We had many witnesses appear before us.

There are several recommendations in the report as well as a great number of concerns that the committee members have included. The key recommendation is that the province's contribution should not exceed the $30-million figure originally announced by the then Premier, William Davis. As well, concerns are expressed in the report by all members of the committee as to the exclusivity of the funding arrangements by the public sector consortium. The committee is urging that the private financing package be opened up to more sources of private sector funding.

In view of the very urgent business I believe is going to be before this Legislature this afternoon, I would move the adjournment of this debate.

On motion by Mr. Harris, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet today following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Curling moved, seconded by Ms. E. J. Smith, first reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend certain acts respecting Residential Tenancies.

Motion agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curling moved, seconded by Ms. E. J. Smith, first reading of Bill 78, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents Charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Kerrio, first reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This legislation will clear the way for municipalities to provide assistance to business incubator facilities, either through the government's community small business centres program or other programs that receive cabinet approval.

Municipalities will now be able to encourage and assist the initial growth of small businesses by providing startup funds to community small business incubator centres, acquiring land and buildings as premises for these businesses, entering into leases with nonprofit corporations and new small businesses at less than market value, and offering counselling services to local small businesses. This is intended to help these enterprises emerge as profitable ventures and create many new jobs throughout the province.

The legislation will also clarify what constitutes a bonus under section 112 of the Municipal Act by spelling out specific types of assistance which councils may not give to businesses. This clarification will be helpful to municipal councils in determining whether their proposed actions to encourage economic development are permitted under the Municipal Act.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Van Horne, first reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to introduce an amendment to the Planning Act, 1983. The change I am proposing will allow amendments to be considered to joint official plans in southern Ontario continued by minister's order.

By way of background, when the new Planning Act came into effect in August 1983 it provided for all joint planning areas in southern Ontario to be disbanded. The existing joint official plans for these joint planning areas, which are made up of two or more municipalities, were continued in force for two years until August 1, 1985. At that time the plans ceased to exist unless they were allocated to the affected municipalities or continued in force by order of the minister.

It was expected that all plans could be allocated within the two-year period. Therefore, no provision was made for amendments to those plans beyond that time. However, what has actually happened is that many more municipalities than originally anticipated have chosen to do complete reviews of their land use planning policies rather than simply to assume their parts of the joint plan. As a result, on August 1, 1985, 29 joint plans covering 82 municipalities were continued in force.

Amendments to these plans are inevitable as appropriate development proposals are made to the municipalities. In fact, 33 amendments to these continued plans have already been adopted by municipal councils and submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval.

Unfortunately, as the act now stands there is no clear provision for dealing with these amendments. The amendment to the Planning Act that I am now proposing is urgently required to allow for such amendments to the continued joint plans. The Planning Act amendment will be retroactive to August 1, 1985, in order to permit the appropriate consideration of the amendments that have already been submitted.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I could remind the minister for any future occasions that if there is a lengthy explanation it is usually given during ministerial statements.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just before I call the notice of no-confidence motion 1, I would inform you that the three parties have agreed that the time available would be evenly divided among the parties and that we expect the motion to be called at 5:50 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Grossman moved, seconded by Mr. Hams, no-confidence motion 1 under standing order 63(a):

That this House condemns the government of Ontario for its incompetence, specifically its failure to discharge its duty to protect the overall interests of the people of Ontario, the Canadian aerospace industry and the employees of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., its failure to apprise itself fully of all relevant details of the sale of de Havilland to the Boeing Corp. and its failure to make any adequate representations whatsoever on behalf of those Ontario and Canadian interests, and therefore, for these reasons this government lacks the confidence of this House.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I particularly wanted to read that with some care so our friends sitting to our left might listen carefully to the words we used, because we used many of the words their federal colleagues used in moving a motion of no confidence in the federal House. Their colleagues in Ottawa, of course, are prepared to put their own seats and their own jobs on the line for the de Havilland workers. We in this party are prepared to do the same, although I admit for us there is less risk --

Mr. Foulds: Only one person applauded that statement. Let that be recorded.

Mr. Grossman: The third party has only two members here interested in the debate.

As I travelled the province, and Lord knows I have had ample opportunity to do that in the last 12 months, I had an opportunity to speak to many people who are concerned about finding new jobs and new employment for this province. Whether talking to a high-school audience, a group of unionists or on an open-line program, I found that employment, economic growth and stabilization and maintenance of job technology are right at the top of the agenda.

People are interested in free trade discussion, as they should be, and they are interested in more than rhetoric on free trade discussion. They are intrigued and interested in things such as the announcement of a new auto plant in the great community of Cambridge, so well represented in this assembly by our colleague. The people of this province --

Mr. Harris: The lobbying of the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) paid off.

Mr. Epp: Great job the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) did.

Mr. Grossman: I will convey that to Premier Davis. For years the homework on the Toyota deal was done by him.

Mr. Epp: He is not here. He has left. We have a new Premier. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick may as well face it. He will learn.

Mr. Grossman: It would look good if the government once in a while acknowledged that some of the things that have happened, such as the opening of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. in Vancouver or the Toyota plant in Cambridge, had a little bit to do with the previous administration; in fact, those things would not have happened without the previous administration.

The people of this province are interested in those developments, as they were intrigued by the budget the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) brought down a short time ago. I suppose they were intrigued more because it took $700 million out of their pockets than because of any job creation programs. The Treasurer said to the public with a shrug: "Job creation programs? Just wait until next May when there is an election coming. We do not have them for you now."

There is an absence of job creation measures in the budget. The odd measure of good fortune comes to this province, mostly because of the hard work done by the previous administration. Then we get the matters that require not good cosmetics, not pretty speeches, not posturing in front of national TV cameras, but actual day-to-day competence in administration within the government of Ontario. The people are wondering what the government of Ontario -- save us from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- did to protect the jobs at de Havilland.

One may wonder where the member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano) was during all these activities. One may wonder what our good friend Odoardo Di Santo is thinking today, wherever he has gone to be rewarded bythe Grits, as he listens to his former colleagues who say to him: "So long, Odoardo. We would like to have you back, but we are not prepared to risk our own seats to fight for your former constituents."

Candidly, we have always been fond of Odoardo in this party. We are seeking candidates of his calibre. If he should see the light and join the one party in Ontario that is prepared to fight for the people in Downsview, his former constituents, we will welcome him.

I should like to spend a modest 34 or 35 minutes talking about the activities and answers given by the current government on the de Havilland débâcle. I was in the House, and with some astonishment heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology say that the announcement came as a surprise; they did not quite know it was coming. One wonders how he could make that statement. The federal government indicated its intention to review its crown corporations more than a year ago, and indeed, a year ago it was no secret to the then opposition that de Havilland might be sold. Fortunately, I just happen to have with me a Hansard from November 2, 1984.

Mr. Foulds: Guess who asked the question?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, I will read it. Remember when Jim Foulds used to be worried about the workers? Remember that?

The Deputy Speaker: Might I ask the Leader of the Opposition to address the chair. That way the interjections probably will not bother him.

Mr. Grossman: I think you are wrong, but I will try.

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked this question of the then Treasurer: "Now that the federal government has put de Havilland on its hit list and auction block" --

Mr. Foulds: Right.

Mr. Grossman: He should have told the new government about that, since they did not know it until it was sold.

He said: "Now that the federal government has put de Havilland on its hit list and auction block, will the Treasurer...take it upon himself to keep de Havilland in the public domain to maintain jobs?"

It would have been terrific if they had thought to ask this question in the last month or two of the new government here in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: We did.

Mr. Grossman: We will get to that.

The answer by the then government, which was concerned about these jobs, was clear: the issue of de Havilland had been raised many times with the government of Canada and many ministers had spoken to the Prime Minister about it.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was on his feet. Even he knew de Havilland was about to be sold and he asked us what we would do to make sure we were ready for that eventuality. Indeed, the member asked us to establish some sort of cabinet committee to protect Ontario from the fulfilment, as he put it, of those threats to sell de Havilland.

It is interesting that when the current Treasurer, who clearly is running the auction sale of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Urban Transportation Development Corp., got into government he forgot to hand out instructions to strike a cabinet committee to work on de Havilland.

Mr. Haggerty: What about the Leader of the Opposition's 1984 budget? They were on the auction block then.

Mr. Grossman: Yes, but the Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology did not know it until last week. The member for Erie should have told the minister.

Even earlier, on May 15 of last year, the former member for Lake Nipigon was showing the kind of commitment and dedication formerly shown by the New Democratic Party when it did not have anything to risk on issues of this kind when he raised the matter of de Havilland, asking again what we were going to do to protect those jobs. However, the current Premier and the current Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did not know about the sale of de Havilland until just recently, apparently.

Mr. Epp: It did not occur until a few weeks ago. That is when they found out it had actually been sold.

Mr. Grossman: That is right. Who said that? Get that on the record. The member for Waterloo North admits that the government did not know about it until a few weeks ago.

Mr. Epp: That it was actually sold.

Mr. Grossman: I want to refer him to the newspapers, a source of information. It says here in the Toronto Star on August 1, "Two US Firms May Vie for de Havilland and Canadair." The Star even knew it was Boeing.

What was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology doing on August 1? I have his list of what he was doing on de Havilland right here before me. Let us see. He was doing something on August 1. Let us hear it for the minister.

[Applause]

Mr. Grossman: He met with the Honourable Sinclair Stevens, Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. What did the minister do after August 1, after this newspaper article? Let us have a look. It must be here somewhere.

Mr. Gillies: Very little.

Mr. Grossman: Just wait a minute; it must be here somewhere. I know it was here somewhere.

Here it is. The day de Havilland was sold he had a meeting with Robert de Cotret, the federal minister. Is that not something? It is interesting that the minister responsible for protecting Ontario's interests did nothing on it for three or four months, when that very same article in the Toronto Star warned him that letters of intent to purchase de Havilland "might be coming in two to four weeks after August 1."

4 p.m.

One might have thought the government would have been a little more interested after that article appeared in the newspaper than to have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology do nothing until the announcement was out that the chickens had flown the coop.

Mr. Ferraro: One might have thought Brian Mulroney would have done something.

Mr. Grossman: The member should be careful or I shall call the Guelph Mercury again. He will get angry. I know only the Premier is supposed to talk to the media.

Mr. Ferraro: The way the member performs he should go ahead. He needs all the help he can get.

Mr. Grossman: I understand we are not supposed to go into the member's riding.

Mr. Stevenson: We will have lunch with Norm Jary.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: We want to get on to some later events. The minister was busy during those months. On November 2, again in the Toronto Star, a newspaper I am told members opposite read once in a while -- Oh, no, wait. Before I get to the Star, I want to talk about one other thing.

I have here a letter written by the Premier. He expresses his very great concern to the Prime Minister of Canada with regard to de Havilland. This is the famous letter that sets out four things the Premier wanted to see guaranteed on the sale of de Havilland but about which he did not care a twit when it came to selling the Urban Transportation Development Corp. We shall get to that on another no-confidence motion one day.

I want to talk about the degree to which the Premier raised this very important matter with the Prime Minister. On this shallow list of activity of the Ontario government, it says that after he read in the newspapers that de Havilland might be sold, there was a dinner meeting between the Premier and Prime Minister Mulroney on August 9. When I read about that, I was sure the Premier had raised important matters; that de Havilland, having been on the auction block and being about to be sold, would have dominated the discussion. One would have thought that; or perhaps he was asking advice on how to conduct a garage sale of UTDC.

What do members think they discussed over dinner? We do not know. Did they discuss de Havilland? Let me read the letter from the Premier to Mulroney. It says, "Of course, in the time we had, we were unable to deal fully with a number of important matters." I suspect the Premier might have been talking about the QC list, or he was occupied discussing beer and wine in the grocery stores, or maybe he was discussing his trip to Hollywood. Maybe he had urgent matters. He wanted to know what the Prime Minister knew about Hollywood.

Let us see what he said about de Havilland.

Mr. Epp: The member is still upset about losing his QC. He really got to the member, did he not?

Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes, he really --

Mr. Epp: He really got to the member. He lost his QC and he cannot take it.

Mr. Grossman: He may have taken away my QC, but he took away the member's cabinet spot. To be honest, he deserved a cabinet position more than I deserved a QC.

Mr. Gillies: Where is the limo for the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini)?

Mr. Grossman: I did not say that about the member for Essex South.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I want to get back to this famous letter in which the Premier really stood up for de Havilland. At that dinner meeting he was there pounding the table of the Prime Minister saying, "There is no way you are going to sell de Havilland and not protect the jobs in Ontario." What did he say in this letter? He said, "One of those items which we were unable to deal fully with, one which we touched on briefly, was the bidding for de Havilland Aircraft." They were talking about the trip to Hollywood, beer and wine in the grocery stores and QCs, but at no time --

Mr. Ashe: Hollywood again.

Mr. Grossman: Probably Hollywood again. That is right. However, there was no time to discuss de Havilland. Let us go back to the Toronto Star of November 2. It says, "Sale of de Havilland Aircraft to Boeing Expected Next Week." I know the Treasurer is cutting back, but he should get the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology a subscription to the Toronto Star; then he would have known. Perhaps from November 2 to November 29, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology might have done something, anything, to protect jobs in Ontario.

Ms. Fish: Do not count on it.

Mr. Grossman: It is probably better that he did not.

On November 25 the Globe and Mail still knew about this ahead of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. On that date the Globe and Mail speculated about what it referred to as the imminent sale of de Havilland to Boeing.

Let us go back to the list of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Did he do anything after the Globe and Mail had it bang-on that it was going to be sold to Boeing? November 25, nothing; November 26, nothing; November 27, nothing; and November 28, nothing. On November 29 the minister, for the first time since August 1, got on the telephone and spoke to someone about de Havilland.

The matter came up in this House that same afternoon. It was raised by the member for York South (Mr. Rae); we must admit he raised it. I know he probably raised it because he was embarrassed about headlines such as, "NDP Vows to Block Sale of de Havilland." Boy, when I read that headline in the Toronto Sun, I knew the New Democratic Party in Ontario was willing to block the sale of de Havilland at any price.

Mr. Gillies: That means Ed Broadbent.

Mr. Grossman: Wait a minute. It says Broadbent. Things have changed, have they not? In any event, the member for York South, hoping and praying we would not move a no-confidence motion, asked the Premier whether he and his government had considered any other options beyond a sale to Boeing.

The answer -- we will loosely describe it as an answer -- was that the Premier had written to the Prime Minister once and had spoken to him once. Let us hear it for the Premier; he wrote to him once and spoke to him once. The Premier said, "I am not sure of the details of each." This was in reference to the two or three bids the Premier said he had heard something about.

Mr. Gillies: Who wrote those letters?

Mr. Grossman: Hershell wrote them.

The problem is that, even working forward from November 25, the government incredibly is still not aware of the details. Aside from a meeting or two and a couple of telephone calls, they had not done very much to get themselves involved or informed until the two opposition party leaders demanded an opportunity to be briefed by the federal government. It was quite evident from the day we were briefed that it was also the first time the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was briefed.

I will look at the chronology of events. It is again the self-serving evidence put forward by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. One would hardly call this a substantial or weighty volume of activity, given that the present Treasurer spoke a year ago about the sale of de Havilland and the press has been writing about it all year.

4:10 p.m.

There are no telephone calls listed to anyone in Ottawa after the November 2 article that referred specifically to this sale. There are no telephone calls from the government of Ontario to Ottawa. Let us look at the chronology. The last time the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology found time to devote to de Havilland, which was, as members will remember, on August 1 --

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: That is right. There was the famous dinner meeting where, just as they were having dessert, the Premier mentioned it and then wrote a letter.

In September there were meetings with Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology staff, two or three of them. In the entire month of October, what do members think occurred in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology?

Mr. Ashe: Zip.

Mr. Grossman: No, there was something. They received a letter from J. Dornier. That was for November.

Mr. Eves: Did they respond to it?

Mr. Grossman: In November they opened it. They received a letter in October. That was October's activity.

In November they had a meeting with the people who wrote the letter. Some 30 days after the letter was received, they had a meeting with the people who wrote the letter. Then on November 20 they got a letter from the federal government to the Premier of Ontario.

There were no phone calls from the government of Ontario to Ottawa. There were no letters written by the government of Ontario to the government in Ottawa. There was nothing. Not even a phone call to the Guelph Mercury, l would say. Nothing. Zero.

Mr. Ferraro: The lines were busy.

Mr. Grossman: They are going to be.

The Premier never raised any concern about the sale of de Havilland anywhere in this province or in California until he read about it in the newspapers and was questioned about it in this House. Once the deal was announced, the Premier and his ministers kept coming to this House day after day, telling us they could not really be very helpful because they did not have any of the details. They had not been properly informed.

I would pose this question to the Premier and his colleagues. Indeed, it is a question posed in this House by the leader of the New Democratic Party a few days ago. The question is, why does the Premier not take a position today? Why not indicate that position firmly in this House and indicate what it is? Is the sale of de Havilland to a multinational such as Boeing acceptable to the government of Ontario or not?

I see the member for Downsview has been kind enough to join us this afternoon. I know he will have been fighting with some vigour in his caucus to get the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to do anything in this matter or for the government to take a position, as was requested on December 5 by the member for York South.

If the member for Downsview wants to speak his mind and tell us what he thinks, I can say as a member who once sat in the same row in which he is sitting, in a seat farther removed from the Premier's seat than his, as a member who had been elected for only six months, as is the member for Downsview, it is the right thing, the acceptable thing, the honourable thing to do to stand up and fight for one's constituents even in the face of a decision made by one's own party. Have the courage to stand up.

Mr. Cordiano: That is what you are forgetting. You did not make that decision. Talk to Hughie.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps he got a call from Don Smith. I understand the pressures he is under, but he should not take that. He should stand up for his constituents as the NDP member, Odoardo Di Santo, once did, and as our next member for Downsview certainly will.

Come the next election, we are going to be campaigning in Downsview, and it will be unacceptable for the current member to be saying, as the Premier did: "We could not do anything. We did not have any information."

My question to the member and the voters of Downsview is very simple. Did that lack of information prevent the Premier from writing another Dear Prime Minister letter? Did it prevent him from travelling to Ottawa to ask for the details? Did the lack of information prevent the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology from travelling to Ottawa to get the information, to ask for a sharing on a confidential basis of the offers the government might have received or the negotiations that were going on? Did anything prevent the Premier from coming back from Hollywood and standing up in front of the Conference Board of Canada, where he offered to sell more crown corporations, and saying, "Here are our concerns about the de Havilland sale"? Nothing prevented him from doing that. All he needed to do was read the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Cordiano: Do you mean to tell me that Hughie Segal did not tell him they wanted to sell it to Boeing right from the very beginning?

Mr. Grossman: Everyone knew but the Premier and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister's federal counterpart, Robert Kaplan, knew, but the minister did not know.

Mr. Timbrell: Is the member on the Speaker's list for this debate?

Mr. Cordiano: I have already spoken.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Not in this debate. The member's party will have 40 minutes and he can stand up and stake out his firm and independent ground on behalf of the people of Downsview. I know he will do it.

Mr. Timbrell: If he cares about them at all.

Mr. Cordiano: I did not wait until today. I have spoken already.

Mr. Grossman: We on this side of the House remember well when the Premier scored some political points saying that the former Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), did not count for much in Ottawa. Unfair as it was, the current Premier said it time and again. He also was fond of saying that on a wide range of issues he would stand up for Ontario. Indeed, I even recall him saying -- can one believe this? -- that if he became Premier of this province he would be down in Ottawa the next morning seeking a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada to offer Ontario's views on a number of matters. That is what he said.

He is now the Premier of Ontario. He has managed to go to Hollywood to visit the stars. He has been to Vancouver to take credit for a transit system he opposed for years and is now trying to dump at a garage sale. He has even managed to find the time to attend quite a few cocktail parties where the privileged few can write a cheque and then, and only then, can whisper sweet nothings in the ear of the Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Obviously, he is overdosing on sweet nothings.

What he and his own beleaguered Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have not found the time to do is travel for one hour to Ottawa to talk to the Prime Minister, to Mr. Stevens, Mr. de Cotret or anyone else about de Havilland.

With respect, it is not good enough to say to the workers at de Havilland in Downsview: "I am sorry. We did not have the information. We did not try. We were busy writing the statement on QCs. We were busy in Hollywood. We did not have the time to go and ask for the information." May I remind the member for Downsview that this statement, prepared by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, is the indictment. It does not only show that he did not have the information, but it shows that he did not ask for it, that nothing was done. Talk about asleep at the switch; it is more like a coma.

What we have here is a government that does not even know where the buttons are on the telephone, let alone being asleep at the switch. There is no question this government can find the government aircraft when it wants to get to a LEAF function in Windsor or a tribute to the Premier in London, but it could not even manage a phone call to Ottawa. It would not even bother with a meeting with anyone to express its concerns about Ontario's jobs.

The Premier's own principal secretary, the infamous Hershell Ezrin, summed it all up in one quote, which can be found in the Globe and Mail on October 19. We will send it out to the residents of Downsview. When asked about the federal-provincial arrangement on the sale of de Havilland, Mr. Ezrin replied simply, "I do not know." The Premier's office did not know then. It did not know as much as the Globe and Mail knew and it has not bothered to find out since.

While the de Havilland matter itself is serious, what is even more disturbing is the pattern of "we do not know" and the attitude that they do not seem to care. That is what has happened on every item we have raised in this House with this government with regard to the loss of Ontario jobs at Hyundai, Petro-Canada, American Motors Corp. and others.

Every time we have asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the answer has been, "We do not know." There have been no statements of concern, no meetings, no efforts to keep jobs in Ontario. There has been only a series of lame, apologetic answers from the minister offering excuses and the famous, "You had 42 years to do something about it." That may wash for a few more weeks while the honeymoon is still on, but I say to the six members of the Liberal Party who have chosen to stay and listen to this debate on de Havilland --

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Leluk: No ministers.

Mr. Harris: None of them ministers.

Mr. Grossman: No. There is one. The jury is out, but I think there is one.

The people are slowly beginning to realize, whether they like it or not, that the Liberals are good at press releases and at posturing, but they have a responsibility for leadership. Leadership is not standing up in the House and blaming the former government for everything, including the weather. The public of Ontario is going to want to know what the government has done when it comes to events that arose months after it took office. They will want to know why the government did not ask for the information. The question is not only why they did not have it, but also why they did not ask for it.

We are delighted about Toyota, but let us take a look at the way the government handled that, contrasted with its handling of de Havilland. I am sure any account of the government's dealing on Toyota would stretch far beyond the three flimsy pages we were given on de Havilland. I am not being critical of that for a moment; that is the way it should have been done. They inherited a strong situation and a strong potential investment in Ontario and they worked at it --

Mr. Epp: What did we inherit on de Havilland? Tell us what we inherited.

Mr. Grossman: We on this side acknowledge that the government worked on the Toyota deal and helped deliver what we started, but on de Havilland, there were no phone calls, no letters, no speeches, nothing; it was asleep at the switch.

Mr. Epp: The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Grossman: Let us talk about both ways. The government committed $30 million to the Toyota project. What about de Havilland? Were they standing up and saying: "Here is a government loan. Here is a $30-million grant if someone will come forward. Let us hear from Canadian firms. Here is the offer"?

Mr. Cordiano: Where was the Leader of the Opposition when they asked for all these things?

Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology made that accusation, but he has not produced a twit of evidence -- to use an appropriate word -- to back up that unsubstantiated claim. I repeat the challenge today. I invite the minister, if he shows up in this House again, to produce the evidence that shows we were unwilling to help a potential Canadian purchaser. Every time we have asked him, the evidence has turned up to the contrary.

The member should ask the minister. If he will table it in this House, as he tabled this marvellous document, then he will have substantiated that claim. The member should call the company, which will tell him it was delighted with the assistance it got from this government when we were there. They were quite satisfied that we offered to help.

It would have been good if the government had been aggressive, standing up and saying that we in Ontario want Canadian purchasers and are willing to help. The leader of the federal New Democratic Party, speaking to his own no-confidence motion, said, "The third option which could have been considered was more rigorous pursuit of a private Canadian owner." That is what Ed Broadbent said. The bottom line --

Mr. Epp: Ask Hugh Segal and his company how they happened to get a Canadian owner.

Mr. Grossman: If the member for Waterloo North were to read the newspapers he would find that the Premier was dead wrong. He has had a letter from Mr. Segal's lawyer. The Premier was proven once again to have resorted to unsubstantiated, legally wrong, innuendo rather than answering questions; the old Trudeau tactic.

The bottom line of the challenge Mr. Broadbent put out is that this government is too weak, too asleep, too naïve and simply too incompetent to go out and properly represent the interests of the people in this province. They will not do it.

The Liberal members here can take back a message to the Premier, the Treasurer, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), none of whom thought this debate was important enough to stay in the House for this afternoon. Tell them it is not good enough to say they do not know. Tell them it is not good enough to say they wrote one letter. Tell them it is not good enough to say the federal government will not meet with them. Tell them it is not good enough to wait around for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police courier. Tell them it is not good enough to say it is not their responsibility. Tell them the people of this province expect this government to fight for their interests, not to wait for the courier to arrive. The workers at de Havilland do not think it is good enough to say, "Nobody told us," or that it was out of the government's hands.

Let me say to this House and to my friends to the left, the New Democratic Party used to be a great deal more enthusiastic and far more vocal in telling us, when we were in government, those excuses were not good enough. If they believed they were not good enough then, they should stand up and be counted this afternoon.

When we were over there, when they were not worried about losing their ridings, they would not have hesitated to introduce a motion of no confidence in an instance where something was handled as absolutely poorly as the sale of de Havilland has been handled by the Ontario government. The NDP would have told us the government had an important role to play in a series of events such as this. They would have condemned the lack of action and knowledge.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: What do we have today? The members should tell the United Auto Workers workers in Oshawa --

Mr. Breaugh: Even the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is wearing a red tie.

Mr. Grossman: First we are taking their ties, and then we are taking their offices.

Before I conclude, let me predict what the rest of the afternoon holds. It holds some of the same players sitting in some of the same seats on the NDP benches, saying in advance, as they did last week, that it is an emergency debate item, but not one on which to vote against the government; they will vote with it. They will say yes, the Progressive Conservatives are to blame for this. They will accuse the Conservatives of being hypocrites. They will say we are arrogant. They will try to lay all of this at our doorstep because the federal government is Progressive Conservative.

That may allow this government to survive the afternoon, with the help of the formerly tough, union-oriented, worker-oriented NDP; but UAW members in Oshawa, in Thunder Bay, at UTDC and de Havilland know there is one party in this House that has fought from day one, that has worked on this matter and put their interests ahead of the party's.

The record of this government is one that deserves criticism and censure; that is why we have brought forward this motion. We want to determine in this House who really believes there are no matters in this province -- not protecting one's riding or one's accord -- more important than the protection and maintenance of jobs, research and development and technology in Ontario.

4:30 p.m.

There are always excuses and explanations, but ultimately one has to stand up and be counted. I say to the New Democratic Party, to Odoardo Di Santo's former friends and the member for Downsview, 51 members of the Progressive Conservative Party are prepared to stand up and be counted and say this government has been incompetent and asleep at the switch.

No member of this House should stand up and support the inaction of this asleep government of Ontario. Stand up and be counted; vote for this motion. Let the workers know we care more about their jobs than avoiding an election.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to speak on one of the strangest no-confidence motions I have seen in this Legislature in the past 15 years. First, let us give it its due. It deals with an important and serious subject: the selling off of a crown corporation and the sellout of one of Canada's major industries. It also deals with failure and incompetence.

Unfortunately, even the most elementary school child with a preliminary knowledge of civics in Canada would understand that it deals with a subject that is primarily a federal responsibility, at which level the New Democratic Party federal leader, Ed Broadbent, has fought so hard. What and who is the federal government these days? Surprise, the federal government is Conservative.

A Conservative government is trying to sell off de Havilland to Boeing. Interestingly enough, never once in the past 40 minutes did I hear the previous speaker say he was opposed to the Boeing deal. The federal Conservatives would have the public invest dearly and sell cheaply, as would the Ontario Conservatives.

I recall one or two simple matters of historical record. Every time the Conservatives get into office federally they try to cripple the Canadian aerospace industry. In 1979, Sinclair Stevens announced his intention to sell off de Havilland. Fortunately, thanks to my colleague, now the leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party and the member for York South, the federal Conservatives did not stay in office long enough in 1979 to sell off de Havilland.

Previously, under John Diefenbaker, the Tories successfully killed the Avro Arrow project. That set back the Canadian aerospace industry a number of decades. Last fall, when Sinclair Stevens made his plans public about selling de Havilland, we in the New Democratic Party asked the Ontario Tories what they were going to do about it. I raised the question with the then Treasurer, the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

The Leader of the Opposition did not quote his answer in Hansard of November 2, 1984, one which he does not deny now and did not deny then. The then Treasurer and now the current Leader of the Opposition said: "It is their view" -- the view of ministers of the federal government -- "that it is appropriate to look and see if a private sector option is available. That is one I do not think we" -- the provincial government -- "can quarrel with so long as we ensure the economic viability is the guiding light."

What do we have here? We have an exercise in childishness, frivolity and hypocrisy. We have a very serious matter being dealt with frivolously because the Conservative Party of Ontario does not seriously believe the people of Ontario want an election on January 30, and it does not believe they are willing to go to an election on January 30. This is a bit of game playing, the likes of which we have not seen in a very long time.

There are weaknesses in the current government's position, provincially. If this no-confidence motion were addressed to the federal government, I would have no problem supporting it, as my colleague Ed Broadbent at the federal level had no problem supporting it. If this provincial government were to go on record at its convention -- if it ever discusses matters of substance at its conventions -- and move a motion of no confidence in its federal counterpart, I am sure that would have the support of the people of Ontario. What this government is doing is not taking the right target.

I will not be supporting this motion of no confidence because it is a frivolous one; unfortunately, it is over a serious subject.

As I have indicated, there has been a failure on the part of the provincial government. It has not stood up strongly enough, spoken loudly enough and worked actively enough to undercut the sale of de Havilland and the selloff of a Canadian asset. That is true. It has not done its job with respect to negotiation, being tough with and contacting the federal government. That failure pales in comparison with the failure of the Conservative federal government, because what is happening is that it has committed what I would call a sin of commission. This government has committed a venial sin of omission by failing to take action.

The federal attempt is a giveaway, and I think it is very serious because it deals with an industry that is at the cutting edge, has developed a new technology and by all reports is viable.

I will not take all the time to speak. Unlike the other party, we believe in sharing an opportunity to speak on these important matters. However, my other colleagues will document and indicate the areas in which this aerospace industry at de Havilland has been an investment for the future on the part of the people of Ontario, and now that we are in a good position, having invested extensively, there is a selloff that is cheap and should not happen.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that while there has been failure and inaction on the part of the provincial government, there has been a far more colossal failure on the part of the federal government because of its ideological stupidity and mindset in insisting it will sell off this company that should not be sold off. The federal government is selling off a company that has made its name internationally and it is not taking the steps to protect the jobs it should be protecting.

Such a motion, if it were placed and passed in the federal House, would receive not only my party's support but also that of the people of Canada and Ontario. In this House, I want to say frankly, a pox on both your houses.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House today on behalf of the government on this very important issue and, I think, a very important motion. At the outset, I must say it is with some degree of incredulity that I find myself addressing this motion of no confidence tabled by the official opposition. I say that having witnessed and carefully reviewed the previous government's less that sterling record of performance on the matter now before us.

Likewise, I say that after witnessing recent events in the past months preceding the sale of de Havilland; events that have seen the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology continue to present Ontario's concerns to the federal government in a most forthright and vigorous fashion.

4:40 p.m.

While some of the points I intend to make have already been mentioned during the previous debate on this issue, a number of them warrant repeating today. It goes without saying that Ontario has a vital interest in de Havilland. The firm employs more than 4,100 workers at the Downsview facility and continues to be a major player in the Canadian high-tech aerospace industry. For this reason I find the present no-confidence initiative on the part of the official opposition to be most puzzling.

I want to elaborate on that. I suggest they have the wrong venue and that they really should change the venue from Toronto to Ottawa. It is quite obvious why they have done this, why they have brought it here rather than down there: they do not want to embarrass their brethren down there.

The previous government was called upon by de Havilland for direct financial assistance in 1981. That was the government of which the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. It asked for financial assistance for certain capital projects: to implement computer-aided design and manufacturing hardware and software for new aircraft development and concessional financing to strengthen domestic sales and to meet competition from Brazil and France. That government, now the official opposition, took absolutely no action.

While I am speaking, it is nice to note that on this very important issue, which the official opposition has raised and which I consider to be important in some respects, only four members are supporting the leader in the House at this moment, a very sterling record of support for the Leader of the Opposition.

Further, as recently as March 1985 the former government was approached by a Canadian consortium requesting provincial involvement in the potential purchase of de Havilland and the former government chose not to participate, not to give any assistance to that consortium.

These points of interest have all been tabled by my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. They have all been highlighted for the record. However, they have apparently failed to register with the members opposite, or they have been conveniently forgotten for reasons they know best. I doubt we would find ourselves here today addressing this motion if those same members across the floor were to take a lesson from their own previous style of leadership on this issue.

Similarly, their insistence on laying responsibility for the final terms of sale and for the sale itself at the feet of this government remains somewhat baffling. The House need not be reminded that de Havilland remains solely the property of the federal government. It is theirs to sell.

I have already outlined what the previous Tory government in Ontario did to prevent the sale to Boeing. That being said, the decision was made without provincial consultation, despite federal assurance that such consultation would occur. Both the Premier and the minister took the federal government at its word that it would disclose those details to them before any public announcement. This the federal government did not do.

Despite this lack of federal consultation, we have witnessed repeated and persistent actions by the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and their respective staffs to try to protect the best interests of this province ever since they assumed these responsibilities on June 26 of this year.

We are all familiar with the Premier's letter of August 16, 1985, in which he advised Ottawa to consider Ontario's interests carefully in the sale of de Havilland, interests that included retaining Canadian control, maintaining an airframe manufacturer in Ontario, preserving and enhancing employment levels and increasing the level of research and development.

When the province became aware and concerned that Canadian-owned firms were not being given a complete hearing in Ottawa, this government intervened on behalf of Rimgate Holdings Ltd., the only Canadian-based bidder for de Havilland, to ensure it received a full hearing by Canada Development Investment Corp. president and chief executive officer Paul Marshall. In this regard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology made direct representation to the Honourable Sinclair Stevens to make sure Rimgate received full consideration.

On this same issue I would like to remind the members of a comment made by my colleague the member for Essex South during our previous debate on de Havilland. The member made reference to a news article in which a senior Rimgate official described the reception Rimgate received from the federal government.

The member suggested: "Initially, the people in Ottawa treated them with some tolerance. Later on, they treated them as if they were an irritant." That is the attitude the federal government showed to a Canadian-based company that wanted to purchase de Havilland and keep it in Canadian-owned hands.

This overall lack of consultation by the federal government, to which I referred earlier, appears to have been a consistent theme throughout the entire handling of this sale by the government of Canada. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has already indicated that upon hearing rumours that certain information would be announced by the federal government on Monday, December 2, 1985, the minister took the initiative himself and requested a meeting with his federal counterpart.

The minister has likewise suggested that had it not been for his action at the Premiers' conference on Friday, November 29 of this year, they likely would not have been party to any further details on the following Monday.

The concerns of this government have already been reiterated on numerous occasions. Both the loss of Canadian ownership and the final selling price will continue to call into question federal competence in the handling of this sale given the sizeable investment of tax dollars in the firm to date.

The lack of firm job guarantees is likewise a matter of concern to this government, a matter which was specifically addressed by this government prior to the sale but unfortunately one which was not accommodated in the final terms of the sale.

Finally, I might suggest that the official opposition's energies would have been more fruitfully spent had it directed its criticisms and concerns directly at the feet of its counterparts in Ottawa. If they had done so with even half the tenacity and fortitude displayed by this government's representatives, this province would most surely have applauded their efforts.

In any event, this government will continue to closely monitor the progress of this deal to ensure the various employment, research and development, and sales commitments are maintained.

In summary, I want to say it is important for the Leader of the Opposition to rethink and refresh himself on the meaning of a motion of no confidence. If there is a lack of confidence in this matter, it surely should be directed at the federal Tories. It is a rather large measure of hypocrisy that the opposition should be trying to deflect criticism of its own party, both in Ottawa and right here at home at Queen's Park, given its own failure to act while in government.

As we all know, this motion amounts to nothing more than a sorry attempt to point a finger at the government in an attempt to cover up the failings of the Conservatives. Everyone in the chamber and beyond this chamber knows that fact. There is an old saying, "The names have been left out to protect the innocent." In this case, the correct names have been left out to protect the guilty.

Mr. Mackenzie: I cannot resist a few words in the course of this debate. I notice the Tory benches have emptied now that their leader has made his pitch. I guess it shows how interested they are in the observations of members of this House.

I heard that frantic appeal coming from the Tories to the New Democrats to please consider the principles and please consider voting with them on an issue like this. The crocodile tears next door are really something to behold.

4:50 p.m.

I would like a privately owned aircraft industry in this country and I would like to see an extension in some of our key industries of crown participation or ownership. However, am I going to get that out of a no-confidence motion in this House? Not on your bloody life.

In Ottawa, we have a federal government that not only is responsible for the sale of de Havilland but is in the process of undermining our research facilities at Chalk River, cutting back $100 million of the $200-million budget over the next five years. It seems to me, if my history is correct, that it was the same Conservative Party that did the job on the Avro Arrow operation a number of years ago in this country.

It seems to me that among the Tories there is a fetish for selling out Canadian resources, Canadian research and expertise and Canadian crown corporations. It is almost a mania to invite the moneylenders into the temple to see what they can do and what they can make on the resources of this country.

I do not particularly like voting confidence in either a Conservative Party or a Liberal Party. There is no question in my mind on that. But I want to know what I am getting when I vote on such a motion. I want to know what is behind it, what the meaning is, what it is really all about. It is not very hard to see through the hypocrisy of this motion. Sure, I suppose the members have to do it as an opposition party, but for them to try to make a major case out of a no-confidence vote in this government when it is their kissing cousins in Ottawa who are responsible for what is going on, is to me little short of a laugh.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about workers and how they were not going to be too happy about this. In the last number of years, and certainly in the last few months, I have not talked to very many workers who have been happy with anything the Conservatives have done over the last number of years. It seems to me their reaction to or their belief in being a little bit more progressive is to turn the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) loose in the Labour estimates and tell him he can be as pink as he wants.

My golly, the other night when I heard him talking about the need to do something about severance pay for workers in plants of fewer than 50 employees, I wondered if I was correctly hearing what he was saying. This is the same member and the same party that gave us one heck of a time when we tried to move amendments in this House to reduce the qualification for severance pay to fewer than 50 workers. Who do they think they are kidding? Who do they think they are fooling? If we do get them, what are we going to get out of it?

If there was a possibility of making a change and seeing to it that we kept de Havilland and some of our other resources, I would seriously consider this motion. But what I know to be fact is that it would be sold out even quicker with a Conservative government. It probably would be sold out with an even worse deal, if that is possible, than the current de Havilland deal. As well, if it were possible that the Tories could go back in Ontario, we would get a return to the arrogant, outright contempt for the rest of the members of this House that I saw over the last four years.

I am not one who wants to go back to that. I will take my chances for a while. I will pick my own time when I am prepared to decide we have gone as far as we can go with the current government of Ontario, if indeed it does not pick its time first. I recognize the political realities of the situation.

I am not going to vote on a motion proposed by the Conservative Party without any hope of seeing a change that means anything to working people in Ontario and in this country. That is just hypocrisy of the top order. The Tories have a bit of a surprise coming if they think their current action is going to win them very much support in Ontario. They are dead wrong. I have not seen a star fall as rapidly as that of the current federal Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney. When I look at the makeup of the Tory benches here and their approach to workers -- let the member for Brantford be as pink as he wants to be in the Labour estimates -- I begin to realize what happened to that once responsible and fairly great party.

Where are the so-called red Tories? I do not think there is one left in the whole doggone caucus. if they think the motion they have here is going to win them any friends or get them back in power in Ontario, they are dead wrong. It just is not going to happen.

I am saying it is a matter of credibility. The issue is an important one. As I said clearly, I am not happy having to vote for either of these two parties at any time, but I know that in this case I would probably be looking at a much worse case scenario if the Tories were in power. I am not prepared to give them even the chance to make this kind of run at it.

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to reply to some of the comments made earlier in this no-confidence motion.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Sit down before we change our minds.

Mr. Mancini: My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside is going to applaud enthusiastically after I have completed my remarks.

I want it on the record that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is not here today because he is ill. He is suffering from a viral infection and we hope he regains his health quickly.

I also want the record to show that the member for Downsview is attending the official opening of the new Portuguese consulate in Toronto at this time. He spoke during the motion put by the leader of the New Democratic Party and made his views known very clearly at that time when he stated emphatically that he was against what the government of Canada was doing. The people of his riding know what the member feels about the situation, as recorded in Hansard at that time. The member also attended a meeting in his riding when he publicly disclosed his point of view against the sale of de Havilland and against the way the government of Canada has handled the whole matter.

The Leader of the Opposition made several remarks earlier in regard to the handling of the de Havilland matter. During those remarks, he seemed to indicate to the House that he had not received any information whatever as to the previous government's lack of interest in helping people in this province who might have been interested in at least making an offer for the de Havilland plant.

I want to go through some of the notes that have been prepared by the staff of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in regard to some of the activities of the past government.

On October 4, 1981, it states, "An internal MIT-Treasury memo indicating Ontario" -- I want the Leader of the Opposition, wherever he happens to be at this moment, and I want the five Conservative members who have stayed to participate in the motion of no confidence that their party has put forward, to continue with this motion of no confidence so they will know that when they were in power, when they had the opportunity of exercising the responsibility of government in this province, Ontario declined to pay $32 million for de Havilland site development costs and $90 million for capital project proposals.

February 16, 1983, a letter from Barnett Danson, then chairman of de Havilland, to Bernard Ostry, the deputy minister, asked Ontario to support a flight-simulator training program and Ontario declined. Furthermore, there was correspondence on January 3, 1985, between the minister, the member for Muskoka, and mathematics Professor Anderson, University of Toronto, regarding a possible scheme for purchase of de Havilland. Do the members know what the minister did at that time?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I thought the Conservative Party would show more interest in its no-confidence motion than it obviously has. Perhaps you could determine whether a quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

5:04 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): A quorum now being present, I will ask the member for Essex South to continue.

Mr. Mancini: We had four Conservative members in the House when the quorum was called on a motion of no confidence put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. That is how concerned and interested they are, and it is their motion of no confidence.

Mr. Timbrell: There were no ministers present when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: I was going over some of the information we had accumulated in regard to the de Havilland sale. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition stated there was not "one twit of evidence" to show his former government was not interested in helping the de Havilland people.

I have already mentioned two points and I will go on to the third. On January 3, 1985, there was correspondence between the then minister, the member for Muskoka, and Professor Anderson, professor of mathematics at the University of Toronto, regarding a possible scheme for the purchase of de Havilland.

Can members imagine or guess what the then minister did with these very important letters, what these people who are now across the floor and who consider this matter so important did? I will tell members what they did. Members should listen to this. These letters were referred to the Honourable Sinclair Stevens, the guy who sold them out, who pulled the rug out from under the de Havilland company. The former minister of the Conservative government in Ontario sent these very important letters to Sinclair Stevens.

Further, in regard to the unfounded and wrong comments made by the Leader of the Opposition when he stated there was no evidence of their complete disregard in the case of de Havilland, I will quote from a letter dated February 21, 1985, from Rimgate Holdings Ltd. and signed by the chairman, John J. Shepherd. This letter is directed to Dr. E. Stewart, Office of the Premier. All of us remember Dr. E. Stewart, of course.

The third paragraph states, "In the course of the discussion with you, it became evident that in the context of your understanding of our position the option itself and the then current electoral situation tended to preclude any action on the part of the Ontario government."

What does "the current electoral situation" mean? Does it mean that a month or two prior to a possible election the whole government of Ontario freezes; that in order not to embarrass their Conservative friends in Ottawa, the government here did and said absolutely nothing? I think that is exactly what this letter received from Mr. Shepherd means and that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong today when he made those allegations. He was wrong again.

I want to refer to another letter that is in our files. We must acknowledge here again that de Havilland is a wholly owned crown corporation under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada; it is not owned by the province. We have made our representations.

Mr. Baetz: What about UTDC?

Mr. Mancini: We have not done anything with UTDC.

I am going to read this in particular for the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada to the Premier of Ontario, dated September 23:

"Dear Premier" --

Some hon. members: What year?

Mr. Mancini: It is 1985.

"Dear Premier:

"Thank you for your letter of August 16, 1985, concerning the sale of de Havilland. First, allow me to say how useful I found our August 9 meeting. I too believe that the government of Ontario and the government of Canada" -- listen to this -- "will continue to seek and achieve a higher degree of co-operation.

"I note your government's interest concerning the sale by CDIC of de Havilland. With respect to Rimgate Holdings, I can assure you that their interests have and will continue to be given all due consideration and will be fully evaluated with other offers to purchase de Havilland."

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: It is a sacred trust.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, a sacred trust.

Putting the letter aside for a moment, we know what the people of Rimgate had to say on their treatment in Ottawa. The senior officials from Rimgate have stated publicly, and it was recorded in the daily papers, that initially they were treated with some tolerance and then later on treated as if they were an irritant. That quote is in some of the same papers that the Leader of the Opposition quoted today.

To get back to the letter, it says: "I want to reinforce our view that de Havilland is a vital element in the Canadian aerospace industry and that disvestiture is intended to produce a stronger, better company, able to grow and prosper in the future. I share your desire that disvestiture result in a full-scale aerospace company which will continue to contribute to the Ontario economy."

Now for the clincher. This is from the Prime Minister of Canada to the Premier. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition, who is not here now, what the Prime Minister says:

"I have asked the Honourable Sinclair Stevens to ensure that the government of Ontario is notified and appropriately briefed prior to any announcement concerning the sale of de Havilland"

"Your sincerely, Brian Mulroney."

We have a letter signed by the Prime Minister himself wherein he promises in writing, signs his name to the letter and states we will be briefed and we will be told in advance of anything being done with regard to de Havilland, and he broke his word. We trusted the Prime Minister and he broke his word.

The Leader of the Opposition today, as he usually does, reads things from the record, but only certain sections, usually to help make his own case. He very seldom reads --

Mr. Gillies: Why else would one read from the record?

Mr. Mancini: I have never done this. If the members can point out such a situation, I will await to be judged by them.

I refer to Hansard of May 15, 1984, page 1535, when a former member of the House, Mr. Stokes, asked a question of the then Minister of Industry and Trade, the member for Muskoka. He said: "Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Can the minister, who feels neglected lately, confirm whether he has heard rumblings from his federal counterparts that they are prepared to dump Canadair and Hawker Siddeley? Can he tell us whether he agrees with people such as Michael Wilson that they are just not viable and not worth supporting?"

The then Minister of Industry and Trade replied: "Mr. Speaker, I am glad the honourable member looked at me today when he posed the question, because I have been a bit embarrassed about somebody imitating me in the back row." Who that could be, I do not know.

He went on to say that he did not know about Canadair, but he was certain de Havilland was the firm that was at the top of the list for the government of Canada. He stated: "It is a company with high world-class technology, one we cannot afford to see close or move elsewhere."

How could he say those things in May 1984 when the record shows that any other previous communications with the government indicate the ministry is not concerned. What he said in the House does not square with the memos that are at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Mr. Villeneuve: Who was the government in Ottawa in May 1984?

Mr. Mancini: The Liberal government saved de Havilland; it did not sell de Havilland. The Liberal government in Ottawa poured hundreds of millions of dollars into de Havilland and suffered great political penalties to save it. It did not sell de Havilland as its Conservative friends in Ottawa have.

We go to November 2, 1984, when the Leader of the Opposition, as he does on a regular basis, quoted --

Mr. Gillies: Is this a history lesson?

Mr. Mancini: No, we are moving along rather rapidly. Hang on tight.

He quoted the member for Port Arthur, who had a very sensible question on that day. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) responded to the member for Port Arthur by saying -- and I want all the Conservative members to hear this --

Mr. Hennessy: She is telling you to be quiet.

Mr. Mancini: The member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) told me that I should be tougher on the Conservative opposition, and I told her that I am trying my best.

An hon. member: Do not hold back.

Mr. Mancini: I am trying not to hold back.

"He said: I think the important thing is that we are committed to doing everything possible to maintain the jobs at de Havilland." The member for Brantford should listen; this is his leader speaking. "I think it is quite another step to take to say the only way that can be done is through public ownership." The Leader of the Opposition said that. He is not here right now, but that is all right.

He said, "I have spoken to the ministers of the federal government." He spoke to the ministers, my goodness, and he spoke to the Prime Minister. Is that not wonderful? He went on to say in some other answers: "The particular mix of public, public-private or private is something the federal government is looking at. I think my colleague is absolutely right in saying that, if necessary, public ownership ought to be maintained." It can be maintained, however, by the government of Canada, which now owns de Havilland and is in such a hurry to get rid of it.

The record is very clear; the government of Canada has decided to have a fire sale on de Havilland for no reason whatsoever and these Conservatives who now sit in opposition find themselves in the very embarrassing position of having to defend their cousins in Ottawa. I know what it is like. It is something they have to live with, but it is one of those decisions they are going to have a hard time explaining. It just will not wash out there.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time in this debate.

Mr. Rae: This motion was moved by the leader of the Tory party on Thursday, December 5. Friday comes after Thursday and one would have thought that on Friday, the day after he moved a motion of no confidence in the government, a barrage of questions would have faced the government with respect to the de Havilland deal. We had silence from the Tories on Friday, December 6.

They then showed their concern by remaining silent on the subject of de Havilland on Monday, December 9; Tuesday, December 10; Wednesday, December 11; Thursday, December 12; Friday, December 13; and in question period today there was not a peep on the subject of the de Havilland sale. That is just one example of the degree of real concern the Tory party in this province has for the sale of de Havilland, which is about to be negotiated by the government of Canada.

5:20 p.m.

The Tories moved this motion for only one reason; they thought they were being very clever. "You move an emergency debate, aha, and we will do something even more clever. We will move a motion of no confidence and then we will see what happens."

The only people who have looked foolish, who should be embarrassed, whose cynical insincerity and massive and synthetic concern is so obvious to the people of this province and to the workers of de Havilland are the members of the Tory party of this province, which has embarrassed itself by moving this motion. Jack Pickersgill looked better in 1957 when he urged Mr. Pearson to move his famous motion against Mr. Diefenbaker, which exploded in his face.

This motion is going to explode in the face of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick as surely as anything else should, because the people of this province simply do not believe the leader of the Tory party when he says he cares about these jobs.

If he cared about those jobs, why was he not once down at the de Havilland plant last week? Why was he not once meeting with the union? Why was he not once talking to the workers about it? Why did he not once hold a meeting about it? Why did he not once give a speech about it, apart from the one he gave in this House? Not once did he do so.

There is something in politics called sincerity and there is something in politics called concern. I am not one to say, "The federal Tories did it; therefore, you have no right to say anything." All I am saying is that if the leader of the Tory party were really concerned one iota about this issue, we would have more than this fatuous motion and the monument to insincerity that we heard today from the Tory party with respect to the sale of de Havilland.

We have had nothing but silence for the past 10 days. Why have they been so silent? Because they have no credibility, because nobody believes them.

Mr. Ashe: Look who is talking.

Mr. Rae: I have obviously touched a nerve, and I am glad there are more than four Tories in the House today.

I have been involved in debates where we have defeated governments, and I have been involved in many no-confidence motions in my life, but I have never heard of a no-confidence motion in which we had to call a quorum because the people who were moving the motion could not turn up in the House. That is the degree and the extent of their concern. That is how deeply and passionately the Tory party cares about these jobs.

That is the kind of insincerity that is going to become the hallmark of the Tory party. If the leader of the Tory party is not careful, it is going to become his hallmark. It is something that is going to do considerable damage to the Tory party, because people simply do not believe them when they say they are concerned.

We have an accord that was signed by our party with the Liberal Party, and if I may say so, today of all days, when we have laws on rent regulation and a new policy on housing -- and my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and those who negotiated the accord and others involved can take considerable credit, I believe, for what has happened -- I take some real pride in the achievements of the accord. One of the key elements of the accord was the commitment of this party to an element of stability in the life of a minority government.

I have defeated two Tory governments, and I think I have had something to do with changing the careers of two Tory leaders; so I am not going to take macho lessons from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick in who can bluff better, who can go one up better and who can do one more better. I am not going to play those kinds of games --

Mr. Shymko: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: There is a danger that we may be misinformed or misled by the leader of the third party, who in talking about the so-called alliance does not state that he is being challenged for the leadership by a man who says he has sold out the New Democratic Party.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Rae: If the leader of the Tory party had not taken up all his party's time and monopolized the entire 40 minutes, I am sure the member for High Park-Swansea might have been allowed to get in. However, that is something he will have to negotiate with his own leader, perhaps in subsequent debates when his leader, feeling a little more confident in his role, will want to share some of his time with some of his colleagues. I am sure that time will come in the next decade.

What we are debating today -- and one has to appreciate something of the irony of life to appreciate the irony of this motion -- is a motion moved by the same individual who said the following on November 2, 1984. For some reason, when he quoted from the question my colleague the member for Port Arthur asked him when he was the Treasurer in 1984, the present leader of the Tory party chose not to quote his own answer. I do not know why.

Mr. Grossman: It was a question of time.

Mr. Rae: He had only 40 minutes. That is right. It is tough to get all one's thoughts out in 40 minutes when one has so much to say. I know it is difficult. However, I want to say to the leader of the Tory party, there are times when I think it is only fair to quote answers as well as questions.

Let us hear what he had to say. He said they had talked to everybody; they were in touch with everybody. "The Premier (Mr. Davis) has spoken to the Prime Minister." This is how he described the position of the government: "They" -- the government of Canada -- "have indicated to us unfailingly that it is their desire to ensure that de Havilland continues to be economically viable and productive and employing a lot of people. It is their view that it is appropriate to look and see if a private sector option is available. That is one I do not think we can quarrel with so long as we ensure that economic viability is the guiding light. I believe we will find out those jobs can be maintained in the private sector." That is the end of the answer to the question.

There was no mention of ensuring a domestic content. There was no comment there about how the government would object to any foreign investment. There was no mention of the fact that, if it were an American company, the government of Ontario would be up on its hind legs screaming and hollering that this could not be allowed to happen.

There was no mention of any of those things. Why not? It was simply because the Tory party in this province started the ball moving in Ontario with respect to privatization. The Tory party in this province is as ideologically committed to the selloff of valuable public enterprises as its cousins in Ottawa. I dare say it appears it is almost as committed as the Liberal Party in this province, which is a problem I want to come to in a moment.

Mr. Ashe: It is about time.

Mr. Rae: I know it is hard for the Tories to listen, and particularly for the member for Brantford, when he has been part of a party that has done this country an enormous disservice.

One should talk to people on the street, as I have done, with respect to de Havilland and Boeing. I was Christmas shopping on the weekend. I did not get people coming up to me saying: "Bob, why are you not fighting like Larry to protect those de Havilland jobs? Why are you not doing what the provincial Tories are doing to protect those jobs? Why are you not going to cause an election on January 20? We are all desperate to get out there and express ourselves in a de Havilland election, and the only way we can do that is in the provincial context."

Somehow, I do not get that on the street. I have not taken a poll. I do not have a Decima ticker-tape in my office. I do not have access to Allan Gregg and his crystal ball. However, I go down the street a lot and talk to people as I go shopping, and I have not been getting that.

What I have been getting is this: "Who do these guys think they are? Whom do they think they are kidding? They are not kidding anybody." If we are going to fight the de Havilland sale, we are going to fight it by fighting hard.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I listened to the leader of the Tory party speak for 40 minutes, and not once did I hear him say he believed the sale to Boeing was wrong and he was going to do everything he could to fight it. Not once did I hear him say he was on the telephone every day to Brian Mulroney. Has he telephoned Mr. Mulroney? I did not see a nod, nor did I see a shake. Did he ask Hugh Segal to telephone?

Mr. Grossman: The member should ask his friends.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I am not embarrassed. I am not embarrassed by Ed Broadbent. The fact is that on Thursday, Mr. Broadbent and I were having a press conference together to talk about what realistically could be done. Do members want to know the one thing that was not on anybody's agenda? It was a provincial election as the solution to the problem of the workers at de Havilland.

Nobody in this province believes, and correctly so, that an election would have an effect on a single job at de Havilland. We know when it comes to those matters, it does not make any difference with respect to the Tories. The Tory party in this province is not committed to doing things any differently, and that degree of patent insincerity is evident to the people on the streets of Ontario.

I was in the briefing on Monday with the leader of the Tory party and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I want to express to the Treasurer, who is here today representing the government, how appalling I think it is that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is not in the House to speak, to respond, to listen and to deal with what can only be described as his extremely sorry, inadequate and marginally capable performance.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Before the leader of the New Democratic Party goes further than he might wish, I must inform him that the minister referred to in the member's last remarks is ill and under a doctor's care. We hope he will be back later in the week, but that is not sure. He is ill, however.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of order.

Mr. Rae: I take the Treasurer's point. We all wish the minister a speedy recovery and hope he can be back in the House before question period is over on December 20. We look forward to seeing him then.

I was in the briefing with the leader of the Tory party. We were briefed by Mr. Marshall, whom I would describe as a hard-nosed, western Tory businessman, who was eager to rid himself of this asset and took some time to convince us that whatever was done was all for the best.

The leader of the Tory party left before the end of the briefing. In fact, he left rather early in the proceedings. I was quite surprised. Then I realized he was leaving just as Mr. Marshall was indicating very clearly to all and sundry that there was absolutely no difference in the message he had been getting from the officials of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology before May 2, after May 2 and through the summer.

As far as he was concerned, there had been no change in government. As far as he was concerned, he could not detect a difference. He was getting the calls from the officials. He was in touch with George MacDonell. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology came into the briefing and looked longingly at his own picture on the wall of this marvellous boardroom. The Leader of the Opposition came in and looked longingly at the pictures of all the former ministers. There was a picture of his father on the wall. He called all the officials by their first names: "Hi, Harry. Hi, Mike. Hi, Harvey. How are you? Sit down." They all sat down.

Mr. Gillies: Who in the ministry is named Harvey?

Mr. Rae: I do not know. I think it was Harvey. I cannot remember. I think Harvey was there. It might not have been Harvey. I could be mistaken.

Mr. Gillies: There is no Harvey in that ministry. Admit it.

Mr. Rae: Mike.

As we got into the briefing, it became clear from Mr. Marshall that nothing had changed. The briefing revealed something else. It revealed there had been no difference in what they had received from the Tory party here, but it also revealed some things that point to a very sorry record by the Liberal Party in this matter. It is to that I now want to turn quite specifically.

I want to make it very clear that I am supporting the idea of giving confidence, because that is what our party agreed to do in the accord. I am not going to play games with confidence, but my commitment to the Liberal Party does not go above and beyond that. I honestly believe the people of this province have political maturity. They understand the New Democratic Party is not going to play those games. In particular, we are not going to play those games when it comes to a motion moved with such patent insincerity as this one has been.

What was revealed and what we have seen is a record that is not a good one. It is not a record of which this government can be proud any more than the Tory party can be proud of what it has done with respect to de Havilland.

Mr. Villeneuve: The member has never been wrong in his life.

Mr. Rae: When it comes to matters of privatization, I think the record will show that federally and provincially we have resisted moves by government to sell off public enterprise at fire-sale prices, whether those governments are Liberal or Tory; that is a record of which I am proud as the leader of the New Democratic Party.

On October 30, three offers were put to the board of the Canada Development Investment Corp., and the decision was made on that day to choose Boeing rather than the other two offers that were made, one by Rimgate and the other by Dormer. It does not appear that throughout the month of November this government was aware of that meeting, of the results of that meeting or of the fact that the process was to go from CDIC, a board decision, through the cabinet committees to cabinet for a final decision.

To say that I was disturbed to find that level of neglect of Ontario's interests and of the interests of the corporation by the government of Ontario is to put it mildly. We find that throughout the month of November, letters are going back and forth which do not clearly indicate the CDIC board has made a deal. At the same time we find that meetings are going on with ministry officials, with the minister himself and with Mr. de Cotret on November 29, at which point some final word does appear to have been given that a deal was in the works.

On November 25, for example, when I asked the Premier a question about this matter -- and even going back this far, I still do not find any particular interest from the Tory party in this matter -- the Premier said: "We have been assured a deal has not been made and we will be given a chance to look at that before it is consummated, if it is. I understand there were two or three different bids. I am not sure of the details of each."

That was the Premier's answer on November 25. It seems clear to me that the Premier and the minister were in the dark on this matter; indeed, from the evidence it would appear that many of his staff members were in the dark on this matter. It is also clear that the people of Ontario expect more; they expect protection and advocacy, they expect interest, they expect attention and they expect a government that is going to represent them seriously in the face of the loss of a corporation from Canadian ownership that surely deserves to be maintained as a Canadian company.

I am still not clear on the position of the Tory party of this province or, indeed, on that of the Liberal Party in this province. I have not heard the Tory party say it believes that the sale of Boeing should be blocked, that it should be stopped, that there should be a different deal, that some other party should be awarded the sale or that the company should be maintained in public ownership. We are equally unclear about the Liberal Party. The view of the Liberal government appears to be -- and I do not think I am being unduly cynical about the approach of the Liberals -- that a sale was inevitable and: "We have some public assets we want to dump as well. We had better be careful about how critical we are of the Tories for doing the same thing."

5:40 p.m.

Every comment I have heard from the Premier on the subject of public enterprise and public ownership is one of scathing opposition, in which he shows himself to be slightly to the right of Genghis Khan on the issue, determined to show he can be an even better and more convincing advocate than Margaret Thatcher of selling it off to the public.

Mr. Runciman: It did not bother you this spring.

Mr. Rae: The comment by the member for Leeds is that it did not bother me this spring; it has bothered me all my political life, which is why I am a member of the New Democratic Party and not a member of some other party. That is a simple fact.

Mr. Runciman: New Liberal.

Mr. Pope: New Liberal.

Mr. Rae: I seem to have stung something; I am not sure what.

I hear the member for Leeds, who makes Margaret Thatcher look progressive on the subject of state and public enterprises and who longs to become a member of the Libertarian Party but is not sufficiently attached to his principles to do so. When he is the one to be critical of us, I take it all not just with a grain of salt but with several bags thereof.

Surely we are facing something here that is not just a parliamentary game but something more than that. We are facing a very dangerous orthodoxy that has grown up and captured the hearts and minds of governments, both federal and provincial, not simply in Ontario but across the country.

Somehow the notion has taken hold that if the state sells off enterprises that for a variety of reasons it has been involved in for generations, it is somehow going to create new jobs, is somehow automatically going to induce far better performance, is going to protect the Canadian economy and is going to enhance life in and of itself. I cannot imagine a clearer example of a fuzzy, ill-thinking ideological point of view that is not consistent with the facts.

The facts of modern political life are that a mixed economy is essential and that it is essential to have and to protect for Canada assets that have worked for Canada. After a generation of fighting against foreign ownership and trying to reclaim sectors of the economy that we lost for generations, for the Tories in Ottawa to be selling those corporations to the Americans and to be selling de Havilland to Boeing is a travesty of what it is to be a Canadian.

It is a travesty of what it means to have a strong national economy and what it means to have a government that is prepared to plan and take steps to protect the people of this province and to protect an investment. My God, if any other corporation sold itself so cheaply, it would be taken to the cleaners on Bay Street and that is precisely what should happen to the Tories in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I listened closely to the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party and I am delighted at his ability to self-rationalize. It is so good that we can look forward to their continuing support. As usual, he made an excellent speech, but I do want to point out to the honourable members that we are dealing with a company that is totally owned and controlled by the government of Canada, and it was its decision, made more than a year ago, to divest itself of the asset we are discussing at the present time.

I want to express the regret of my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is not able to be here today because of illness; he may, unfortunately, be off for two or three days. The members will recall he was here to take part in the debate based on the motion made by the New Democratic Party about a week ago, and that we set aside the business of the House so we could debate that matter of urgent public importance.

I agree with the comments already made that it is some sort of political catch-up that we are now debating a no-confidence motion based on the same subject. I suppose if we were going to play the same game, tomorrow I should bring forward a motion -- and the idea is very attractive -- condemning the government of Canada for the handling of this matter, and we might see what the Progressive Conservative Party would do in this connection.

As honourable members know, the Liberal Party does not and never has played that sort of game. We deal in a straightforward manner with all of these issues, and I really must say I feel the time this afternoon has been wasted. We have listened to the arguments and criticisms that have already been put forward, however valid members opposite may think they are, and the only reason I do not get rather worked up about it is because the House leaders on both sides have indicated that, behind all this facade of bluster, there is a certain Christmas rationality that is coming to the fore as we approach the last few hours before the brief Christmas adjournment. They know how interested I am in getting certain bills before the House and carried, so I must be careful not to be provocative, even if I could be, in matters of this sensitivity.

I know just how sensitive it is between the two opposition parties vying for attention. Their abilities are measured by the fact that we had to have a quorum call this afternoon, and their very best oratorical efforts have left the television galleries empty and only one worthy soul in the press gallery. It may be that nobody in the whole world will really know of the important events that have transpired this afternoon except the member's various aunts and uncles to whom he gives copies of his own speeches as Christmas gifts.

I do not for a moment downgrade the importance of the matter, other than to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, something of which you are already aware. This has been a subject of questions intermittently over the last few weeks, to which clear and complete answers have been given by my colleague the Premier and my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is unfortunately absent today. We have had a full adjournment of the business for one whole afternoon in which the whole matter was aired in an extensive way, and it was made clear that while we in the government are deeply concerned about the inadequacies of the procedures taken by the government of Canada, there is really nothing we can do to force it to correct itself.

It is interesting to note, to read its defence in the House of Commons, that it is not embarrassed about it at all. In spite of the view taken by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada seems to be thinking and putting forward on a public basis that this is an excellent decision for the benefit of the taxpayers. It is difficult to know what Conservative policy is in this connection.

I should say that my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has worked himself into a sick-bed trying to represent the people of Ontario in an effective way, and he has had substantial successes. Any members who have been fair and rational in this regard would know that it was because of the package of assistance he was able to put forward to that well-known international Japanese firm Toyota that it decided to establish its new plant in Waterloo region, just 10 miles north of the village of St. George.

It was also possible for him to put forward what was almost a winning program as far as Hyundai was concerned. It was only because he was competing against the entire Treasury of Quebec that it was not possible for that to be successful, although he was in the forefront of the arguments that put forward this province. We know other industrial processes are expanding, but he is also dealing with those that are not so successful.

The member for Brantford, who is looking a bit dreamy at this stage of the afternoon, would know that the company in his own constituency, Massey-Ferguson, announced this afternoon a fairly substantial reorganization. This has been a matter of grave concern to everyone associated with it, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has worked uncounted hours, late into the night and early in the morning, to represent the people of Ontario in an effective and informed way.

5:50 p.m.

As we approach the very brief Christmas recess, I do not want to push my luck too far in being critical of the inadequacies of the initiative taken by the Leader of the Opposition. It is very difficult to determine what his motivation is, but we are all honourable members here and we must presume he considers it important enough to try to keep up with the NDP in some inadequate way in order to waste our time this afternoon.

We have had a full debate now on two separate days. I ask all reasonable members of the House to vote against what is basically an irrational motion.

The House divided on Mr. Grossman's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Guindon, Harris, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Lane, Leluk, Marland, McCague, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, O'Connor, Partington, Pierce, Pollock, Pope, Rowe, Runciman, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Timbrell, Treleaven, Turner, Villeneuve.

Nays

Allen, Bossy, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fontaine, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grandmaître, Grier, Haggerty, Hayes, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter, Laughren, Lupusella;

Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Morin, Morin-Strom, Munro, Newman, Nixon, Offer, Peterson, Philip, Poirier, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reycraft, Ridden, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, Swart, Sweeney, Van Home, Ward, Warner, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 44; nays 68.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

16 décembre 1985