Hansard Transcripts 1982-Mar-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Public Officers Act requires that within the first 15 days of every session I advise this assembly of all securities furnished on behalf of public officers and of any changes made to such securities. Since my statement of October 22, 1981, there have been no changes in either category.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have two statements to make this afternoon relating to legislation I will be introducing at the appropriate time.

Today I will be introducing a bill entitled, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Amendment Act, 1982. The changing situation is reflected by the redefinition of the term "public trails" to facilitate the continued wide application of safety and licensing regulations. The previous definition stated, "'Public trail' means the whole of any motorized snow vehicle trail established and maintained in whole or in part by public funds." The revised definition reads as follows, "'Trail' means the whole of any trail established and maintained by a recreational organization for the use of motorized snow vehicles."

Drivers of motorized snow vehicles on the newly defined trails must be at least 12 years of age and hold a motorized snow vehicle operator's licence or, if 16 years of age or over, hold a valid driver's licence. Existing licence and age requirements for driving a motorized snow vehicle along a highway or across a highway remain unchanged.

Liability insurance, plus the wearing of helmets, will now be required wherever a snow vehicle is operated. An exemption will be provided so liability insurance and the wearing of helmets will not be required when operating a vehicle on land occupied by the vehicle's owner.

This bill will give me authority to turn over the validation of motorized snow vehicle operators' licences to the private sector. It is anticipated this authority will be given to individuals who are recognized snow vehicle driver-training instructors. Such people will issue validated licences at the conclusion of a driver-training course.

At present, individuals who do not have a valid driver's licence can receive a certificate on completion of a prescribed snow vehicle driver- training course which, when validated by the ministry, becomes a motorized snow vehicle operator's licence. This process is inconvenient to the public, primarily because of the inaccessibility of potential licensees to a permanent driver examination centre as well as the infrequency with which, at times, driver examining staff visit outlying travel points.

In summary, it is expected this bill will clarify safety regulations regarding the operation of motorized snow vehicles under the new definition of "trails" and create a more efficient licensing procedure.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a second statement, also with regard to new legislation.

Later this afternoon I will be introducing a bill entitled, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1982. In addition to a number of housekeeping items, it contains an amendment providing for the mandatory use of child restraint devices for small children when travelling in motor vehicles.

Children under five years of age or those weighing less than 22.7 kilograms or 50 pounds are exempt under Ontario's existing seatbelt law. That legislation, which came into effect in 1976, excluded these youngsters primarily because at that time there was a lack of adequate federal government standards governing child restraints for the smallest of children.

This situation has changed, or is about to when the federal government lives up to its commitment. Right now there are federal government standards for child restraints designed for toddlers weighing between nine and 18 kilograms. Transport Canada has promised to have standards covering infants from birth to nine kilograms on the books some time later this year. Taking that promise at face value, therefore, we are making the necessary changes to the Highway Traffic Act now so we will be able to adopt the standards for small child restraints as soon as they are enacted.

Under our proposed regulations, infants weighing less than nine kilograms will have to be properly buckled up in a federally approved, rear-facing infant carrier. I should point out infant carriers are portable and easily moved from one vehicle to another. This proposed regulation, therefore, will not create unnecessary hardship for motorists.

Children weighing more than nine but less than 18 kilograms will have to be properly buckled up in a federally approved child's seat while travelling in a vehicle regularly used by the parent or legal guardian. Children in the same category travelling in someone else's vehicle will have to be secured in a lap belt or a child seat. Children weighing more than 18 but less than 23 kilograms will be required to wear lap belts in all motor vehicles. Children over this weight limit, of course, fall within Ontario's existing seatbelt law and must wear the complete seatbelt assembly.

2:10 p.m.

I must point out there will be a few exemptions to the child restraint legislation. For practical reasons, we cannot insist on the use of infant carriers and child seats in taxis, buses, public vehicles, short-term rental or out-of-province vehicles. Medical exemptions will be permitted, as they are for the existing seatbelt legislation. The penalty for failure to comply will be a fine of not less than $20 and not more than $100 for the driver of the vehicle.

I intend to make these requirements apply, first of all, to children born after the effective date of the regulation. One year later it will be extended to include all children. This will permit a more gradual peaking in the demand for child restraints in the marketplace and allow time for young families to plan for the additional expense.

This legislation, in our view, will have a dramatic effect on the number of youngsters killed and injured in motor vehicle crashes on Ontario roads. In 1980, 18 children under five years of age died and 1,697 were injured in highway mishaps in Ontario.

This bill also contains an amendment calling for stiffer penalties for drivers who fail to stop for a stopped school bus with its alternating red signal lights flashing -- a continuing problem, according to both the police and school bus operators. Drivers who disregard the school bus stopping law will, under this amendment, be liable to a fine of from $100 to $500 for a first offence. For each subsequent offence, a driver will be liable to a fine of from $250 to $1,000 or to imprisonment for up to six months, or both. We also intend to mandate a 20-metre stopping distance behind any stopped school bus with its lights activated.

The amendment also calls for the installation and maintenance of crossover mirrors on school buses to make sure the driver of the bus can see children crossing in front of the vehicle at all times. Bus operators will also be required to install stop arms on school buses. This amendment is tentatively scheduled to come into effect on September 1, 1983. This is to allow for the retrofitting of some 10,000 school buses in the province.

Finally, the bill contains an amendment permitting the operation of a motor vehicle of up to 12.5 metres in length. This amendment, extending the permissible length of the vehicle by 1.5 metres, is designed to bring our current legislation in line with the legal limits in most other Canadian jurisdictions, thus easing the movement of goods across the country.

FLOODING

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the late arrival of warmer weather this year, coupled with rainfall and ice and snow meltoff, has caused concern about the possibility of serious flooding, particularly in southern Ontario.

I want to assure the honourable members that all weather and watershed conditions are constantly being monitored by my ministry's stream flow forecast centre. This centre is in continuous liaison with the conservation authorities and with ministry field offices, providing them with updates on conditions as they occur.

We are in a position to alert authorities instantly in any area where flood potential is imminent. To notify the public of flood danger, the 39 provincial conservation authorities utilize their flood warning system to contact municipal authorities, police, broadcast and TV media in the area. Where there is no regional conservation authority, the ministry uses the same sources to make contact.

During the past two weeks, the combination of a warming trend and increased rainfall has produced substantial stream flows across southwestern Ontario, particularly in the Sydenham, Catfish and Big Otter Creek watersheds. However, these flows are now on the decline and the threat of potential flooding has diminished.

At the moment, the stream flow forecast centre is closely monitoring a large storm now forming in the US midwest. It is expected to reach here this weekend and has the potential of releasing heavy rainfall. Rivers in southwestern Ontario are vulnerable as they are running at high to moderate levels. The centre will keep all authorities up to date as this storm approaches.

The breakup in northern Ontario has not yet begun, but as this situation develops we will be monitoring it as well.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that at the request of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) I have ordered an investigation of factors relating to what has been claimed to be an abnormal number of miscarriages by clerical staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General working in the old city hall in Toronto. This investigation is to be carried out by Dr. John L. Harkins, a professor and former chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Toronto. I have asked him to report as quickly as possible.

As in the Peterborough investigation which I announced earlier in the week, Dr. Harkins is to be appointed an inspector under both the Public Health Act and the Public Hospitals Act. In this way, he will have full authority to investigate medical, environmental or other factors which he feels may be pertinent. He will also be able to examine any relevant health records.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has asked me to assure Dr. Harkins that he will have access to any resources his ministry has which may assist him. In addition, of course, he will be free to obtain any other assistance he requires.

Because of the confidential nature of medical information which may be involved, Dr. Harkins likely will carry out this assignment in private. However, I intend to provide copies of his report to the Civil Service Commission and to the union representing the employees, as well as to this House, and I would invite anyone with relevant information to assist Dr. Harkins.

In conclusion, I want to assure the House that we consider this to be a matter of very serious concern. I believe that Dr. Harkins will be able to deal promptly with this concern.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, when this government introduced compulsory automobile insurance in March 1980, the standard policy was also amended to include uninsured motorist coverage. As a result of these changes, any individual involved in an automobile accident in this province could reasonably expect to receive payment up to the mandatory third-party liability in force at the time of the mishap.

However, in spite of this, and as a result of the recent insolvency of the federally incorporated Pitts Insurance Company, many innocent people could now find themselves in difficult financial straits through no fault of their own. On the one hand, there will undoubtedly be plaintiffs who are unable to obtain the expected compensation from at-fault Pitts policyholders. On the other hand, there will be Pitts policyholders who will not have the protection they thought they had contracted for.

It could take many years -- perhaps a decade -- before the total liabilities of Pitts Insurance Company can be accurately determined and compared with the company's realizable assets. According to the most up-to-date information I have, Pitts will not likely be able to satisfy more than 45 to 75 per cent of the cost of each of the claims. It is doubtful, at this moment, that any interim disbursements will be made by Pitts to its creditors for at least two or three years.

In the meantime, it is our view that steps should be taken to help those holding automobile insurance policies with Pitts. I am, therefore, pleased to announce today that my ministry is working on a plan under which persons involved in a loss resulting from an automobile accident in Ontario will be assured of receiving at least the legislated mandatory coverage level, notwithstanding the financial collapse of Pitts Insurance Company.

This plan will, in effect, extend the application of the motor vehicle accident fund to persons whose only other remedy for accidents occurring before March 1980 would have been against Pitts. The fund will, of course, reserve the right to be reimbursed by the receiver of Pitts Insurance for any amount paid out on behalf of those insured by Pitts. Individuals such as pedestrians and bicyclists who are not covered by an automobile insurance policy but who were injured in Ontario by a driver insured by Pitts, can apply to the fund on the same basis, no matter when the accident occurred.

The matter of accidents that occur after March 1980 will be dealt with as soon as possible. At the moment, we are awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of Ontario on the question of claims made to the claimant's own insurance company under the mandatory compulsory uninsured coverage provided for in any standard automobile policy.

2:20 p.m.

In conclusion, I would like to advise the House that amendments to the motor vehicle accident claims fund can be expected shortly. They will ensure that drivers insured with Pitts will not be treated as uninsured drivers and have their licences cancelled; neither will they be required to reimburse the fund, but their rights as insured persons will be subrogated to the motor vehicle accident claims fund.

U OF T EXCHANGE AGREEMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of privilege. Last Friday, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) about the contract between the University of Toronto and Saudi Arabia with respect to the exchange of students and professors. He said at that point he was going to review it after he had determined that he was responsible for the act which is operative in this case. Some six days have passed since that commitment to the House.

In view of the fact, as I am led to believe, the governing council of the University of Toronto may review this contract on March 25 when the House is not sitting, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could use your good offices to make sure the minister reports back to this House today or tomorrow to ensure that contract receives proper legislative scrutiny?

Hon. Mr Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to respond to the member's question during question period today.

Mr. Peterson: It is not a question. I would like him to report to the House.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I indicated I would respond to the question and I will do so. I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a response ready.

Mr. Peterson: I assume from that the minister is going to answer later with a statement, which is just fine with me.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, Mr. Speaker, I will be answering a question.

Mr. Peterson: We have already asked the minister a question. What is the matter with him?

Mr. Nixon: The minister was asked a question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the minister going to answer a previously asked question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be answering a previously asked question. I said that.

Mr. Peterson: I have trouble understanding the minister. I assume by that I do not have to ask it again and he will be responding.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Treasurer. Given the fact that it is well known he opposed, or at least was not happy about, the original purchase of Suncor but did support it under the principle of cabinet solidarity; given the fact that a public opinion poll was released on Saturday, saying a majority of the people of Ontario agree with his original instinct that the province should not have bought Suncor; and given the fact that his government is run by public opinion polls, can we assume this poll will give him the support or the clout in cabinet to convince cabinet to sell off Suncor and use that money to create jobs here in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party --

Mr. Bradley: Ask Bob Runciman.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Ask Jim Peterson about that.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Ask Jimmy Coutts about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There were many "given the facts" in the run-up to the question which I am sure all of us on this side would agree were totally hypothetical. I did see that Decima Research poll and I guess it would prove just one thing, that government here is not run by polls.

Mr. Peterson: There is widespread speculation the minister is the one who leaked it to justify his feeble position on this matter. That is the reality.

It was stated several times in this House that we were given substantial information on that purchase. I can quote the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), who said on one occasion, "By any measure, the information available to the Legislature and the public of this province generally on this transaction is considerable." Could the Treasurer explain why no one in this House, or outside of it, to the best of my knowledge, was told there would be a dividend of some $78 million stripped from that company the day before that purchase was closed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, a question with that kind of detail is best handled by the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Peterson: May I redirect it then to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker? He may want to answer. The Treasurer may not view it this way, but it is a financial question. However, I am willing to listen to the answer of the Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, members are not allowed to redirect. The minister may redirect a question if he --

Some hon. members: He did.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not redirect the question.

Mr. Speaker: No, he did not. He suggested that the question might more properly be asked of the Minister of Energy, but he did not redirect it.

Mr. Peterson: It is the taxpayers' money, and he does not even know the value he is getting.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Treasurer another question, if I may. Given the fact that the world price of oil is falling and that the oil price scenario used to justify the purchase of Suncor was a rapidly escalating price, can the Treasurer tell this House now if the information on which he based that purchase is still accurate, or are we going to lose more money on that deal than we originally thought?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think one could look at many stocks over the last few months and say that their prices have fallen. I saw a figure today which showed that stock prices in general have dropped by some $55 billion. Oil stocks have probably led the way.

Contrary to the speculation of the Leader of the Opposition, the fact remains that we were not in that for speculation; we were in there for policy reasons that have been discussed. They were reasons relating to the total security of energy in this country.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I rise on a point of order. I suspect that the Treasurer unwittingly misled the House in his response to my leader. He said that the government did not operate by public opinion poll in the instance of the Decima poll which was released last Saturday.

I have in my hand a poll that was commissioned by the Treasurer himself or his ministry about a year and a half ago. The question asked was, "Should the province establish a provincially owned oil company similar to Petro-Canada?" There are four or five questions in like vein, all of which indicate that at the time the poll commissioned by the Treasurer was taken the response of the majority of people was to buy an oil company.

I suggest to the Treasurer that he might want to change his answer and say: "Yes, this government does operate by public opinion poll."

Mr. Speaker: Order. A new question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He has misled the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for Rainy River, after having had time to reconsider that unfortunate remark, will want to withdraw it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer said, and I heard him, that the government does not operate by public opinion poll, clearly indicating that it did not operate that way. I have a poll commissioned by the Treasurer --

Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly I heard the answer. Order. Having said that, would the member please withdraw that remark?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have said on other occasions that we all have to be honourable members. I withdraw; the record stands for itself.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On Monday, when the minister was asked how Ontario citizens are to voice their environmental concerns over the General Public Utilities cable without a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act, he stated, in effect, "If anyone has any concerns, all he has to do is write me a letter."

Given that Ontario Hydro is a provincial crown corporation subject to the laws of our province, over which this government has power, is the minister's refusal to hold a proper hearing under the act not an abdication of his responsibility to protect the environment in Ontario?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the simple answer to that would be no. I would suggest to the honourable member that if one were not taking into consideration the issues relating to the environmental impact of any such project, then what he is suggesting might be true. But that is not the case in this situation. As I have explained before, I have indicated the status of our legislation in this particular instance.

I have also indicated that prior to any decision being taken by this government under section 23 of the Ontario Energy Corporation Act, we will be giving full and thorough consideration to all environmental aspects of the project and will impose whatever measures may be indicated in order to assure Canadians, particularly Ontarians, that if the project is approved any export of power pursuant to such a contract would be a clean export and would not have any significant impact on the Ontario environment.

Mr. Peterson: The minister fails to give us any assurance as to how that will be done; whether it will be a review in his own office, in conjunction with the Ministry of Energy, in cabinet or however. He significantly avoids the details on how that review process will go on.

Listen carefully to what he said on Monday and again today. He said, "The export is a clean export." Is the minister aware of Hydro's submission of January 19, 1982, to the National Energy Board, which shows the emission levels for SO₂ and NOX from the contract alone will be 129,000 tons in 1985, 108,000 tons in 1986, 113,000 tons in 1987, 107,000 in 1988, and the list goes on. How can he consider these emission levels, which are Hydro's own figures, to be conducive to "a clean export"?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If I am not mistaken, the figures the member is using are the figures used in the submission by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources before the National Energy Board. As a result of the communications I and the staff have had with Ontario Hydro, and the subsequent review of the figures by the staff of my ministry at my request, because of the disparity between the figures that had been used by Environment Canada and the figures I understood Hydro to be using, our staff have indicated to me that the 50,000-ton figure is an accurate one.

However, I do not think there is much to be gained at this stage by arguing over figures; the issue is what is important. Whatever the correct figure is, I still stand by my original statement. I think the member changed the tense in my response, or that I inadvertently used the wrong tense in my response on Monday, or whenever it was.

Mr. Peterson: When you don't know the figures you get a little tense, that is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, no; that is not the tense that was involved. He alleges that I said, "This is a clean export." I think I said, "I can assure you this will be a clean export;" and I stand by that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, instead of engaging in mealy-mouthed, picayune points of grammar over verb tenses, can the minister assure us that Ontario Hydro will not, by this export, be causing 10 to 20 per cent of the emissions resulting in acid rain in this province? Of what is the minister afraid in denying an environmental assessment hearing to the people of this province? Is he not aware that in his government's throne speech the greatest single space was taken up by an endorsement of the tourist industry; and that the greatest single threat to the tourist industry in this province is acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I may be accused at times of being long-winded but I do not really think I am mealy-mouthed. However, we will not debate that. I do not think that was the point of the slur.

I do not know where the honourable member got the 10 per cent figure but there is something he ought to bear in mind. Even if nothing further were done -- and I emphasize the if, that is not a statement of what the intention is -- even if only the present order were to continue for the balance of this decade, Ontario Hydro's contribution to the total emissions of sulphur in this province would be reduced by approximately 50 per cent.

The member can draw other figures from here or there and try to make the issue more clouded than it already is in the minds of some people. But I do not know of any other jurisdiction in North America, and perhaps even in the world, other than possibly Sweden, where there has been such a major effort undertaken in terms of the reduction of sulphur emissions.

If the member knows of another jurisdiction in any part of this world he can raise it right here in the House now and we can compare. Otherwise, I think it is important this government be given credit for the major effort in the reduction of sulphur emissions and the reduction of the problem of acid rain that has an impact in this jurisdiction and others. We have a record that is second to none.

Mr. Peterson: The minister seems singularly unaware of even Hydro's submission, which is different from his own perception of the facts. According to Hydro's own figures for the year 1990, emission levels will be 300,000 tons and without General Public Utilities it would be 224,000 ton -- 25 per cent less.

I ask the same question the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and many people in this province are asking. Who will stop the rain? Who speaks for the environment of Ontario? It sure is not the government.

Hon. Mr. Norton: One of the most gratifying things for me in this new sitting of the Legislature is that finally the gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition has discovered the environment. I appreciate any support his new-found interest may lead to. I do not recall ever hearing that gentleman speak before in this House on a matter relating to environmental protection. If his interest is really in asking who will stop the rain, it will sure be this government before it is ever him, in view of the interest he has shown.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a small correction if I might: it was 10 to 20 per cent of Hydro's emissions, rather than this province's emissions.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with regard to the miscarriages among civil servants at old city hall. Was he consulted by the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) before he made the statement today?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour please.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I thought I heard somebody else answer for me.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was an echo.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The answer is yes.

Mr. Foulds: Did the minister agree to this independent investigation because he felt no confidence in his own officials? They had been quoted as saying, and I quote directly -- I guess it is Dr. Muc, who was appointed to look at the question -- "As far as I am concerned, from the position I have in the ministry, I do not feel the resources I have at my disposal for looking at nonionizing radiation problems should be frittered away on looking at video display terminals."

Did the minister feel a lack of confidence in his officials because for three years they have failed to obtain from Kodak the components of a substance used in the toner of the photocopier in that work place and that, therefore, we are now no further ahead in finding out what may be the cause of the alarming rate at old city hall, in the Attorney General's department?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, first, I certainly have no lack of confidence in my own staff. My feeling is that although most of the studies that have been done indicate there is no danger, there still seems to be a real concern about the possibility of danger, and as long as that concern exists it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour to look into it at every level. Therefore, when the Minister of Health, in responding to a promise made by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), said a medical physician would look into this matter, I greeted that suggestion with great enthusiasm.

I also want to refer members to the fact that the ministry set up a task force on the possible health hazards of VDTs back in 1981 at the instigation of my predecessor. This task force -- I have the membership here and if members would care to see it, I will pass it over -- has about a dozen extremely distinguished individuals on it, including Mr. Robert DeMatteo, who raised the initial complaint. This task force --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sorry?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please. Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In summing up, my officials are looking into the matter. The Ministry of Health is looking into the matter. The task force has been set up to look into the matter. What we are attempting to do is make sure that every consideration is given to this problem and to alleviate the concerns of those involved.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is aware that during the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services last October, the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) asked about VDTs at that time. In answering the question from my colleague, the minister said his ministry, through the occupational health and safety branch, was a lead ministry in monitoring the safety of government workers using VDTs.

In fact, the minister said, and I would like to quote him briefly: "They" -- the Ministry of Labour -- "are monitoring it." He continued, "I would only say that my worry in government is that we have a lot of duplication, and if one ministry is taking the lead role in something like that, it is my personal opinion that we should not be going down the same road."

My question is this: Who is in charge over there? Who is monitoring the health and safety of government workers using the new technology? And how does one account for the fact the Ministry of Government Services says one thing and the responsible minister does not know anything about the issue until it is raised in the House? In fact, neither the Minister of Labour nor the Attorney General was aware of this specific problem until it was raised by the union and later in the House.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I found a question in that.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, "Who is in charge?"

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The government of this province is in charge, and it is the responsibility of my ministry to co-ordinate those activities.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, given the Attorney General's failure to respond adequately to the present problem and the failure of the Attorney General's department to have responded to the problems at old city hall for the past three years, given the failure of the Attorney General's department to comply with the request by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union since 1979 that voluntary health and safety committees be established, and given that under the act in subsection 8(3) it says the minister can appoint voluntary health and safety committees, will he now appoint a voluntary health and safety committee so that those problems which have been festering for three years can be dealt with in an adequate fashion?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to appoint those committees at the present time. I am prepared to wait and see the results of the task force, the results of the investigation that has been started by the Ministry of Health and the ongoing investigations of my ministry. Then I will give that every consideration.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I am sure the Treasurer has been made aware of the serious economic problems in Chatham, where unemployment has increased by 20 per cent in the last year. We raised that problem with the minister last fall in regard to the manufacturing layoffs and so on and he did nothing then.

It now looks as if that serious rate of unemployment in Chatham is raising problems with people renewing mortgages, so that one out of every four single-family multiple listings in Chatham is now being held under forced sale. Will the Treasurer take action to provide interest rate relief and a moratorium on mortgages so that the 57 people who are suffering forced sale in Chatham will be able to maintain the dignity of a home?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is a variation on a question I received from someone in the House yesterday. It may have been the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Speaker: Tuesday.

Mr. Foulds: I do not know where the Treasurer was yesterday, but the House was not sitting.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wondered why the question yesterday had an unusually acute tone to it.

Mr. Martel: The answer was so dull, too.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There was a lot less heckling.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In any case, the answer I gave then was that the federal government had announced, I think, assistance of $3,000, either through a loan or a grant, depending upon the equity level in a person's home, and that it was to bring that legislation in. I did not talk about the details of the federal proposition but that is what it was. I feel that is exactly what is needed to save a number of these situations.

I also mentioned at that time that lawyers are familiar with techniques which would allow people some time frame. I am hoping to see that legislation passed. I do not want to imply there will be any action in the Ontario budget but I can assure the member we are very concerned about the problems of home owners, as we are about other people faced with similar problems. I hope my budget will tackle some of those problems.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Treasurer aware there was a government of Ontario in 1933 that did bring in such legislation? The Attorney General at that time, Lieutenant-Colonel W. H. Price, indicated as he introduced the bill to provide for a mortgage moratorium: "No matter at the present time needs the attention of the public as much as the matter contained in this bill. When one tries to remedy a situation which is generally beyond the control of the province, it is very difficult to have a bill which will take care of the situation."

Nevertheless, some 50 years ago a government of this province did try to take care of the situation. Will the Treasurer stop shoving the responsibility solely on to the federal government and undertake his responsibilities in this province to protect Ontario's home owners?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Even the supplementary question is the same as the last one. The member must know that. I thought there was something against repetition in the House on a daily basis.

Looking at those measures, as they appear to be part of the Saskatchewan manifesto and the manifesto of the member's party, I suggest he is looking very narrowly at a problem that affects many people. The assumption that only institutions are lenders of mortgages is wrong. For example, I am told banks lend only about 12 per cent of all the mortgages now outstanding on homes. Many of the mortgages are handled by private individuals.

One has to recognize that we want to have a continuing source of mortgage money available both for people hoping to buy homes and for those renewing mortgages. Some of the actions which my friend suggests would, if followed, drive money to much safer places.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if the Treasurer is worried about the financial health of the various lending institutions, why does he not introduce an interest rate relief program, so that money will help not only the beleaguered and threatened home owners but also his friends in the institutions?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how that would help my friends in the institutions. By the way, they were the friends of the Leader of the Opposition. They were out there working hard for him because they thought he was going to the right. Suddenly, they find him going to the left, drifting down stream. Now the member is trying to stake out the ground the third party is occupying; which is going to be a bit embarrassing for his own party, particularly after having got rid of Stuart Smith.

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Does the member want me to read back some of his facts? I have them here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the Treasurer please address himself to the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: "During the leadership campaign Peterson said, 'The Ontario government should introduce legislation to prevent people from being forced out of their homes." That is what he just said. Does the member disagree with that?

Mr. Breithaupt: No, I do not.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Well then, why did you say it was the dumbest thing anybody had said?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer will ignore the interjections.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the Treasurer is aware that in addition to all those people who are losing their homes in Chatham, that city has had an 80 per cent increase in the number of accounts transferred to collection agencies and the rate of personal bankruptcies in 1981 increased 200 per cent over 1980?

Is it all this government can do, that the Treasurer can do, to announce that there is going to be this farm equipment and food processing technology centre -- which was simply put in Chatham because the government was not going to give the city the auto tech centre -- which will create hardly any jobs at all and will not create immediate jobs for Chatham? Is that all it can do for a city that is struggling to survive? Why does the government, instead, not endorse the New Democratic Party automotive program, which calls for short-term relief for communities as well as an automobile strategy to restructure that industry to create jobs for Canadians in Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have supported the United Auto Workers' strategy -- I do not know whether that is the member's strategy; if it is, fine -- which was to support a major increase in the Canadian value-added into the industry. If the member is against tech centres in general and specifically against the tech centre in Chatham, so be it. He knows that the jobs being created by those centres really are not the jobs at the site; they are the jobs in the industries of Ontario that need access to high technology. But the member has not heard a word I have said because he was talking the whole time.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a question concerning Galtaco Inc. in Cambridge. Particularly, he asked if I would assure the House that 93 employees of Galtaco foundry in Cambridge, laid off on December 14, would receive severance pay. As I was responding to that question the time for oral questions expired. Earlier this week the member asked me if I would provide him with the information requested. I certainly have no objection to completing my answer.

As the member knows, the employees of Galtaco were on strike from mid-August of last year until December 14. On that day the union, the United Steelworkers of America, was advised that the foundry was being closed. My predecessor received notification of that fact on December 23.

There is, as the member knows, a dispute as to entitlement to severance pay. The employer takes the position that the business was permanently discontinued as a result of the economic consequences of the strike, and that by virtue of clause 40a(2)(b) of the Employment Standards Act no severance pay is owing. The union and the employees, on the other hand, contest the company's position on a variety of grounds. The union has made a formal complaint, on behalf of the employees, to the employment standards branch of my ministry and the matter is now under investigation.

As I told the union and the employees when I met with them on February 26, the question of entitlement to severance pay is a matter for determination, in the first instance, by the employment standards branch. In appropriate circumstances the branch may refer a contested claim to a referee for adjudication under section 51 of the act. I have no authority to determine the claim, and I am, therefore, unable to indicate to my friend what the result of the investigation may be. However, I can say I have been advised that it will be completed shortly.

I might add that during my meeting with the union I suggested that employees affected by the closure may wish to pursue the possibility of participating in a special counselling and training project conducted under the joint auspices of my ministry and the local community college. I am happy to report that the local union and the employees responded affirmatively, and earlier this week an initial session was conducted by the ministry and college officials at the Steelworkers hall in Cambridge.

I am very hopeful that this project, which involves intensive group and individual counselling, followed, where appropriate, by training opportunities, will enable the affected employees to re-enter the labour market in productive and satisfying employment as soon as possible. I shall be happy to keep the member for Hamilton East informed of progress as this special project develops.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer disturbs me to no end. I would like to read him one short paragraph from a letter, dated January 25, from the previous Minister of Labour to me concerning this situation: "According to the company, demand for their product had dropped from about 50 to 60 per cent of plant capacity to about 20 per cent of plant capacity. The company felt that incurring further losses at the Cambridge plant could jeopardize the viability of the entire company."

The point I am making to the minister is that the wheels were in motion for some time to close that plant down. The strike was the excuse and, towards the end of the strike, the union had agreed to back off considerably on what it was asking for. That company is operating a couple of other foundries, as the minister should know, in Ontario. What I am telling him now is that this is one of many loopholes we are finding in the severance pay legislation. They are senior, long-term employees who should be entitled to severance pay. That is the only issue the minister should be dealing with.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The long-awaited health and occupational joint study concerning Inco Ltd. employees' death rate from occupational cancer related to the respiratory tract has been completed to some degree. What new directions can the Legislature expect from the Ministry of Labour and the government in establishing guidelines for adjudication of Workmen's Compensation Board claims for all work-related cancers in industry related to nickel exposure?

Can the Legislature be assured that the minister responsible will initiate immediate action for the implementation of fair compensation allowance and benefits to all injured workers and survivors of the deceased employees?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I started to answer this question the other day when the bells started to ring, or whatever the case might have been. At that time I was indicating I had not received a copy of the report as yet. I was a little disappointed about that fact in that the ministry had contributed substantially to the funding of that report, which is a very serious one and a long-awaited one that has taken three years to produce.

I really do not think I can answer the honourable member's question appropriately until I have had an opportunity to see that report and to assess its contents. But I can assure him it will get immediate attention since we consider it to be an extremely important one. It is a very serious matter.

3 p.m.

Mr. Martel: It is 48 hours later, Mr. Speaker, but I want to get my supplementary in from the last day. Would the minister indicate if he is prepared to have that study analysed by his own department in order to look at specific locations within the operations instead of taking a shotgun approach that almost distorts the picture? There are areas with a high incidence of cancer which I cited the other day: Creighton mine has 27. I want to know if the minister is prepared to look at specific locations we now know have these high incidences after that study was in progress.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my first impression of this question is that it is a very reasonable one, and I certainly think we can do that.

I do not provide this bit of information with any idea of trying to say, "Hey, look what is being done" or anything like that, because you cannot equate human lives with facts and figures. However, after this matter was first brought up I asked the Workmen's Compensation Board to give me a rundown on the number of claims, how they have been handled and so on. I have a summary here. Since 1961 the board has received a total of 248 claims originating in the sintering, cupola and calcining operations; 188 of those in respect of lung cancer, 59 in respect of sinus cancer and one in respect of lymphoma. A total of 17 of these claims were rejected, three are pending and the remaining 228 have been allowed.

I am not here to say this is a good, fair or bad record. I just pass that information along, because I want to get additional background information before I draw any conclusions from those results.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister justify the deliberate attempt by Union of Canada Life Insurance in Ottawa to destroy the efforts of the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 225, to organize its workers, mostly women, and get them their first contract? The attempt ended in a strike that has been on since October 6, 1981. The company is refusing to negotiate and is hiring scabs at rates of pay not only higher than those the employees who organized were getting but higher than they had requested, and it has refused to make any counter offers.

How long, Mr. Minister, are we going to allow a situation like this in which the workers have been undermined in their attempts to form a legitimate union?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should be versed in that circumstance, but I have to admit that I am not; it is brand new. I will have an answer for the member in question period tomorrow morning.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, in view of this answer, will the minister make himself aware that flouting of the law by this insurance company is so obvious it has brought about intervention on behalf of the workers by Monseigneur Plourde, the archbishop of Ottawa. It also has brought about a petition signed by more than 150 priests and nuns as well as almost the entire labour movement. I am surprised the minister did not know about it. Will he not see that the rights of these workers are protected, workers who have up to 30 years' seniority in that office operation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will be happy to look into that matter as well.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the honourable member for Hastings-Peterborough.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The rotation of questions is that the original questioner gets a supplementary, okay? The honourable member for Hastings-Peterborough.

MINE SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the impending closure of Madawaska Mines Ltd. in my riding, has his ministry made any plans to relieve the problems the closure of this mine is going to cause?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the problems with respect to Madawaska Mines Ltd. related to their contract for the sale of uranium to Agip Nucleare in Italy. It was a 10-year contract entered into in 1974. The contract had a five-year term, five-year renewal period. The company, in negotiating the 1982-83 prices, was notified by the nuclear agency in Italy that they had a $2 billion surplus of uranium fuel at the present time, that they were mothballing a great deal of their nuclear development program and that therefore they wished to terminate the contract.

In the light of that information, the company very recently notified me and issued notices to the mine staff of temporary shutdown of some duration of that operation. Since that time, the representatives of the Premier's office and the Ministry of Labour have been examining the situation. We have suggested some measures the company could take in an attempt to support or add to the severance package for the workers.

In the Ministry of Natural Resources, we have been in the last day examining the potential of the industrial mineral deposits in that part of eastern Ontario, particularly talc and silica and also graphite. We will attempt to speed up our work with the private sector in looking at industrial mineral developments in the Bancroft area. In addition to that, we have known for some time there are large volumes of surplus low grade hardwoods available for board mills or particle board mills and we are --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Members over there may not care about the workers of Bancroft but we over here happen to. They cannot stand up and damn the government over it so they are not interested.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister answer the question please?

Hon. Mr. Pope: We are also working with various companies in the private sector with respect to this available inventory of hardwoods and we hope to speed up that process and have some commitment with respect to a possible short-log sawmill furniture component facility or a possible particle board operation in that vicinity and we will work as hard as we can. In addition, there has been contact by the company with the federal minister with responsibility for mines and with the federal manpower minister. We have pursued those contacts ourselves with respect to some short-term relief along the same lines as we initiated contact with respect to the lumber workers in this province.

Mr. Pollock: Is the mill going to be dismantled?

Hon. Mr. Pope: In a discussion with company representatives this morning our indication was that the mill was just going to be mothballed and not dismantled.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, in this general area of closures is the minister going to report to this House on the activities of his interministerial committee on single-resource-industry communities? Not only do we have situations such as mentioned by the member for Hastings-Peterborough but we also have just learned of the imminent closing of the Umex mine at Pickle Lake, which is also in this same category. Will he report to the House on the activities of that committee?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the Umex situation has been a problem for the last three years. There have been numerous discussions with Umex officials over the past month. Everyone was aware it was a marginal mine. One of the problems was trying to establish supplementary employment opportunities in the Pickle Lake area. It relates to the memorandum of understanding with Reed Paper, it relates to the Environmental Assessment Act and until those are cleared out of the way and we are working at alternative employment, we cannot make that kind of progress.

The state of single-industry communities and the efforts of the government with respect to single-industry communities were discussed by members of the third party and myself at the estimates of this ministry last December.

3:10 p.m.

U OF T EXCHANGE AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On March 12, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) asked a question concerning a reported contract that was being contemplated by the University of Toronto and a university in Saudi Arabia. We have had an opportunity to review that contract and the various documents associated with it and can find no evidence of any discriminatory language that would contravene the Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

I know the member's interest in the issue goes beyond that, as does my own. I took the opportunity to phone Dr. Jim Ham at the University of Toronto and was able to find out from him that there is an accompanying document that both universities have signed. It is an addendum that preceded the member's question and the issue, and it reads as follows:

"It is understood that all activities taking place under the collaborative program and the associated agreement shall conform to all relevant administrative and institutional policies and procedures of both universities."

I do not have the document here but I made some notes at the time. What that means is that it will require compliance with the human rights legislation that exists in this province and with the equal opportunity provisions and policies of the University of Toronto. Those documents also say that no discrimination shall be exercised or practised.

As I said, I have talked to Dr. Ham and he says if any circumstance arises where those conditions, which they see as an integral part of the contract, are not lived up to, the agreement will be terminated.

Mr. Peterson: As I understand the minister's response to my question it purports to reflect certain correspondence between the universities.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No.

Mr. Peterson: That is what the minister just said.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I said the document that would form part of the contractual arrangement is signed by both parties -- it is not correspondence between them.

Mr. Peterson: There will be no discrimination against women or Jews in Ontario and Jews and women will be eligible to go to Saudi Arabia under the terms of this contract? Can the minister give that categorical assurance to this House?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have had categorical assurance that if the university does have a student or a professor going to Saudi Arabia who encounters any difficulty during the operation, then from the university's point of view the contract will terminate.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to a supplementary on the last question?

Mr. Speaker: No, because the original questioner had a supplementary. I did not recognize you; I did not actually see you. I saw the note but I did not see you stand.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Mancini: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that the Urban Transportation Development Corp., which has been provided $86 million by this government, has used a considerable amount of that money to provide 26 company cars for the executives of this crown corporation? They include Mr. K. W. Foley, who is the president, the deputy project manager, Mr. A. Ross Gray, and even Mr. A. T. C. McNab, a consultant. Is the minister aware the average cost of these vehicles is $10,900? Does he not agree the UTDC is flagrantly abusing the taxpayers' dollars? Is this his government's commitment to public transit?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly I am aware of all the things the member mentioned. He posed a question regarding this information during my ministry's estimates last December. It was on December 17, at the committee meeting, that the member asked for certain information regarding the vehicles owned or leased by UTDC.

Only two weeks later on January 4, 1982 -- and of course the Christmas season intervened -- a letter was sent to the chairman of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments which heard my estimates. It gave the complete information on the vehicles the honourable member is referring to. As I say, there were 28 vehicles which were owned and five others which were leased. One was being sold at that time, leaving a total of 32 vehicles for the corporation. Those are located between Kingston, Toronto and Vancouver.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Don't take public transit.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have looked over the list of vehicles supplied with interest. It ranges all the way from 1974 to 1982 vehicles. I believe they were all manufactured in North America.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did Ken Foley get rid of his Mercedes?

Hon. Mr. Snow: In reply to the member from Lake of the Woods --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Rainy Lake.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry, Rainy River; Lake of the Woods or Rainy River, it is close.

Mr. Foulds: About as close as Kingston and Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Foley is listed as being the driver of a 1982 Buick. Some of the vehicles are Plymouth Horizon, Chevy Citation, Chevy Impala, Chevrolet, Ford Granada, Ford Limited, Olds Cutlass. I do not see anything at all about the vehicles that are being operated by the corporation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is all very interesting. Perhaps the minister would like to table that information for the benefit of everyone.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this information was tabled with the chairman on January 4.

Mr. Speaker: Then the question was redundant.

Mr. Mancini: I hope the minister realizes the House was not in session in January, February and part of March. That is why it is being brought up now.

Is the minister further aware the UTDC has purchased outright four houses in the Vancouver area at a cost of $335,000, $252,000, $200,000 and a fourth home at $250,000 so that its employees may rent this accommodation? Does the minister not agree this is not a function of the UTDC and is a further abuse of the taxpayers? When is he going to put a stop to this flagrant spending by UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member likes to dramatize things. As he is such a little fellow he likes to raise his voice so he can be recognized.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have a lot of trouble with these little fellows. They are usually on my left.

Mr. Speaker: And now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no flagrant abuse of public funds in any way whatsoever. There is no problem about the information. The honourable member requested information regarding the houses purchased in Vancouver for the senior staff who had to be relocated to Vancouver. It is part of our contract with the Urban Transit Authority in Vancouver as part of the construction cost. When relocating senior personnel from one major city to another it is a normal thing for a company to assist in establishing housing for them. There is an agreement that those four individuals who are paying rent on the houses at this moment will become part owners through equity sharing in the houses. That information was also given to the honourable member in the letter of January 4.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister be so sanguine about the financial affairs of UTDC, and expect it to be able to finance its new plant when it is spending this kind of money on personal benefits for its employees? Will he now undertake an independent investigation into all the financial affairs of UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On June 21, 1976, the Minister of Transportation and Communications promised the House to keep us informed of all significant developments regarding the UTDC. Will he honour that commitment right now by telling us what was involved in the burnouts and the explosions at the test track in Kingston in the last six weeks?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think that is a new question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will table this.

Mr. Speaker: Please do. The minister will table the information.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have here today a press release issued by UTDC. It is the report of Mr. Jack Harvey, electrical engineer and consultant to UTDC, the former general manager of construction and operations for the Toronto Transit Commission for the past 30 years. Mr. Harvey is a renowned expert in these matters, and I have his report. I am sorry I only have one copy, but I will table it.

VISITOR

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, unless my eyesight fails me, I believe we have the honour of the presence of the mayor of Vancouver in our gallery. On behalf of the members, I would like to welcome him to the Legislature today.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise under section 28(a) of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly to give notice that I am not satisfied with the answers given to me today by the Minister of Transportation and Communications and wish to debate this matter this evening at 10:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. You will notify the table as provided for under the standing order, please.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that, in compliance with section 81 of the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1973, the annual report of the Workmen's Compensation Board for 1980 be referred to the standing committee on resources development for consideration the week of March 29, the proceedings of which shall be transcribed by Hansard and appended to the Hansard proceedings of the House.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. Rotenberg and Mr. Gillies exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' business to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 26, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ashe, first reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ashe, first reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Development Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The amendments to the Development Corporations Act will widen the financing mechanisms available to the development corporations, making them more responsive to the special financial needs of Ontario industry.

3:30 p.m.

Interest subsidies will be made available in support of loans made by a lender, usually a chartered bank or other financial institution. For example, a subsidy up to a maximum of five percentage points in the first year of the loan would substantially ease the burden on the small businessman in today's climate of high interest rates. In very selective situations the development corporations will be able to make grants, but only in cases where it is obvious that significant economic benefit will accrue to Ontario and where the project would not otherwise proceed.

There have been in the past and will be in the future legitimate requests for substantial financial assistance outside the policy guidelines and authority of development corporations. In such circumstances the decisions will be made by the government with the development corporation acting as agent to implement such decisions.

Under the proposed legislation the development corporations will be given wider powers to negotiate or compromise on the terms and conditions of existing loans, where such action is necessary to attract private investment capital, thereby ensuring the survival and viable continuance of existing Ontario industries.

To ensure impartiality in the decision-making process, officials of a municipality, whether elected or employed, will not be eligible for membership on the boards of directors of the development corporations.

SAFETY OF TERMINAL OPERATORS ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. MacQuarrie, first reading of Bill 31, An Act to safeguard Terminal Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kolyn: The purpose of the bill is to set out standards for terminal and equipment use herewith, eye care for terminal operators and education of operators concerning hazards involved. Rest periods are made a requisite. Reimbursement for cost of required eye care is provided.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues in caucus for the honour of electing me deputy leader of the New Democratic Party. You may have noticed that I am enjoying the job and this caucus is enjoying this legislative session.

I want to take this opportunity to speak not only to you, Mr. Speaker, and not only to this Legislature, but also to the people of Ontario. I want to tell the people of Ontario that with our new leader, Bob Rae, this caucus and the entire New Democratic Party across this province is aiming for government in 1985. If we had had any doubts about that at all, last week's speech from the throne finally, totally, irrevocably, erased any of those doubts. We owe it not merely to ourselves and our children, but we owe it to the people of Ontario to aim for and to become the government in 1985.

I have been around this Legislature for 10 years, almost as long as Mr. Davis has been Premier. Throne speeches are notoriously vague, but this is the weakest response I have ever heard to Ontario's most challenging economic circumstances. Just as an aside, I might indicate that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), who is absent today because last night he received an honour from the papacy when he was knighted in the Order of St. Gregory, has a great admiration and fondness for the rules and precedents of this Legislature, but he could hardly sit in his seat and refrain from heckling the Lieutenant Governor in Council during that speech from the throne, it was such a partisan, weak, bad speech. When a person like the member for Lake Nipigon is driven to that extreme, it must indeed be a serious matter.

The matter of our economy is not a light one. Very simply, we are facing the toughest economic times in Ontario since the Diefenbaker depression in the 1960s and in some areas in our province since the Great Depression of the 1930s. I am convinced from my travels across the province during the last five or six months that the people of Ontario are eager to meet the challenge, are more than willing to work, are desperately looking for leadership and are anxious to build Ontario's economy and their own sense of self-confidence.

All they need is a government willing to give them the tools to do the job. Unfortunately, we have at the present time a Premier who not only has a toothache and is politically clever, but a premier and a government which lack vision. We have a government that has power and a majority but refuses to use that power and that majority to create jobs, to save homes or farms, or to rescue the victims of high interest rates in the current economic circumstances.

We have in Ontario a government that refuses to meet adequately the needs of those who are suffering the terrible human and social consequences of our economic situation. The Ontario Conservatives have adopted a bunker mentality. They have pulled Ontario's wagons into a circle and are shooting their arrows or guns at the federal Liberals. I suppose we should be thankful, since they are Conservatives, that they are not shooting inwards like their federal counterparts.

Unfortunately for the people of Ontario, fed-bashing has become the only Tory economic strategy, as well as its main political strategy. Bashing the federal Liberals is probably legitimate; they deserve to be bashed. But surely the Ontario government has a responsibility and an obligation to act, to intervene in our economy and to head off the terrible social and human consequences of the present economic circumstances.

The throne speech displayed the most massive abdication of responsibility by a provincial government that I have ever seen in Ontario. It is fair enough to attack the federal government as it too has failed its responsibility to the people of Canada. As the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) said, "A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal." Perhaps the most engaging definition of Liberalism came from one federal member, Pierre Gimaïel, recently in the House of Commons. As this House may remember, Mr. Gimaïel, the member for Lac Saint-Jean, said recently, "To be a Liberal is first and foremost to be an elected representative, a person whose leitmotiv, whose supreme will, is to provide opportunities for development and progress for all Canadians."

Mr. Ruprecht: What's wrong with that?

Mr. Foulds: There is nothing wrong with that. If he had stopped there, he would have been fine. "In such a situation, anything can be justified."

Mr. MacDonald: What's wrong with that now, Tony?

Mr. Swart: That sounds like Tony.

Mr. Martel: Give that to us again. I want that repeated.

Mr. Foulds: There is nothing wrong with that so far; that is what the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) said.

Mr. Gimaïel said, "In such a situation, anything can be justified." He gets more explicit. Let me go on: "If the development of individual Canadians is to be achieved through socialization, the Liberal Party can turn socialistic. If the development of individual Canadians is to be achieved through a turn to the right, through a strengthening in industry, the Liberal Party can move to the right. If" -- now wait for it -- "in order to promote our development the Liberal Party thinks we have to be communistic, we shall be communistic."

Now wait for it. This is it, I say to the honourable member for Parkdale. This is quoted from the record in the House of Commons. This is the concluding sentence, "That is what it is all about to be a Liberal."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would you carry on with your reply to the speech from the throne.

Mr. Foulds: Let us get back to this government. Let us get back to the Conservative government and its responsibility to Ontario. People lose their farms, their homes and their small businesses and the Premier and his government stand idly by. We have massive plant shutdowns and layoffs in the auto industry, and the Premier and his government stand idly by.

Ministry of Labour figures just released in its January 1982 report show permanent and indefinite layoffs in January 1982 of 1,866 compared to 1,268 in January 1981. That is a shameful increase of 47.2 per cent. We have lumber and sawmill workers and miners in northern Ontario laid off and out of work, and the Premier and the Conservative government stand idly by. The Tory government has a mindless commitment to the megaproject philosophy, instead of looking at the enormous job creation potential in conservation, retrofitting and alternative energy projects.

I want to look for a moment at another throne speech, a different throne speech. I want to take three quotes from that throne speech. One, "The current, unconscionable levels of unemployment which have been forced upon the Canadian people will be combated with every means at the disposal of this provincial government. The budget will be presented on April 26. Its purpose will be to restore the inherent vitality of our economy."

Two, "Present programs will be intensified and new approaches will be sought to eliminate pollution and prevent further contamination. By court and other actions, the government has already indicated its determination to enforce its policies and is examining other means by which those who pollute can be made to pay for the damage they create." That is pretty good stuff for a throne speech. It is pretty tough.

Three, "The government is determined to assure the adequacy of our energy supplies for the future. It will ensure that the energy is used as efficiently as possible and that its use will not adversely affect the environment, health or life."

Where do you suppose all those quotations come from, Mr. Speaker? Do they come from the government of Saskatchewan or the government of Manitoba or the government of Quebec? No. They come from the government of Ontario. They came from the first speech from the throne in the administration of the Premier dated March 30, 1971. How forceful those statements seemed then. How hollow, weak and inappropriate they seem now. But governments do not have to stand idly by, as the 1982 throne speech implies. Governments with will, determination and courage can act. Governments worthy of their name and worthy of the adjectives decent and humane, do act. I want to say to the people of Ontario that we in the New Democratic Party will act when we become the government of this province.

When we have this situation in Ontario today, when rental accommodation is virtually unavailable, when significant sectors of the farming community perch, apparently forever, on the edge of financial disaster, when more than 500,000 Ontario people are out of work, when home owners are threatened in their basic right to decent shelter, no one can deny that something must be done, that short, medium and long-term strategies must be developed to deal with the problems.

It is easy to blame the federal Liberal government; it is just as easy for the federal Liberals to blame international conditions. But that is not the point of government and that is not the point of leadership. We have been elected and the members opposite have been elected to this House to frame policies and make decisions that can take Ontario to prosperity.

Remember a year ago, Mr. Speaker -- and I am sure you especially do -- the "Davis can do it" slogan. Where is there any evidence of that in this speech from the throne? What we get in this speech is an endless game of blaming other people, a game of me too, and that solves no problems at all for the people of Ontario.

Harry Truman said of the American presidency, "The buck stops here." The Premier of Ontario and his government need a large dose of courage to take that attitude, to take responsibility, to be willing to confront the issues head on; to deal with the problems rather than simply to say, as this government seems to be saying, "Oh, our hands are tied; the feds are destroying the economy."

If the creation of a powerful economy, an exciting society, a place for all our workers and all our people to stand, requires resources, skilled workers, a sound infrastructure, then we have all of those here in Ontario. What we do not have is a government willing to take a hand to put all these things together to provide the lead for a growing and prosperous economy. Adam Smith and laissez-faire died a long time ago. Why can this government not abandon the old theories and deal with the world as it is now rather than hark back always to a shrivelled past? In this House and on the hustings, the government, that party over there, dares to call us doctrinaire; yet they refuse to face the realities of the modern age, preferring once again to present the old theories and the old clichés.

Let me talk for just a few moments about foreign investment. Implicit throughout the throne speech is the assumption that greater foreign investment can somehow save the Ontario economy. What a perverse understanding of what has happened to Ontario in the last 10 years this is. What utter nonsense, what wrongheadedness. Ontario society is where it is now at least in part because of the obvious and predictable effects of direct foreign investment.

Canadian workers in branch plants are always the first to be sacrificed. The assumption is always made that Canada is a good place to assemble and warehouse goods rather than a place where innovation, research and real development will occur. All members of this House will be aware of the dismal record in research and development. The chickens have come home to roost. We now pay the price for distorted economic development in the 1950s and the 1960s. Two tenths of one per cent of auto research in the North American industry is done in Canada, and we have 10 per cent of the market -- a shameful record, repeated over and over again in many sectors of the Canadian economy.

Thousands of jobs are lost and enormous opportunities for building a competitive economy, one that could have taken on the West Germans and the Japanese on their own turf and beat them. Those opportunities have been lost, in some cases perhaps forever.

Let me talk specifically about the auto industry. In the automobile industry, again in the 1950s and 1960s, community after community in the southern parts of this province enjoyed unprecedented boom times. Some would say that here foreign investment made arguments for itself. Yet the other edge of the sword means that Canadians became dependent on the decision-making processes in five huge American firms that have long ago ceased to be genuinely innovative, preferring to produce forever the, metal dinosaurs, the huge, expensive cars that rising oil prices made unwanted and irrelevant in the market.

3:50 p.m.

Canada chose to place a significant part of our future into the hands of the American auto giants only to discover that the European and Japanese auto giants were better. In the battle for the world car, for the new markets, for the future of this vital industry, Ontario has been left out in the cold.

In 1970 the United States imported 70 per cent of its auto parts from Canada. Now such imports from our country barely exceed 30 per cent. As early as 1948 -- remember that date, Mr. Speaker -- the United Automobile Workers argued to the American giants that they should begin to produce small cars or lose this market to offshore producers. The auto giants chose not to listen and to stick to a market they thought they had carved up among themselves for ever. They were tragically wrong, and Canadian workers, workers in Ontario communities, now pay the price for that corporate decision-making.

This is the real price of foreign direct investment. We have paid it in many other sectors as well. Let no one have any illusion that further linking of the Ontario economy to the whims of the multinationals will mean significant change in this regard. Let no one make the mistake of assuming that some Sir Galahad, recently weaned from a multinational boardroom, will charge up here to reconstruct the Ontario economy. It will not happen; we have to do it ourselves. In so far as this government believes it will happen, that they will get some rescue from outside, it deserves to be turfed out at the earliest opportunity.

In the face of federal government inaction, the answer must be to seek a measure of self-reliance. More foreign direct investment represents the opposite to self-reliance; it represents bankruptcy in policy-making. There are things which this government can do to breathe new life into the automobile industry.

First, we can pressure the federal government, and I expect with some success, to change the rules so that all major exporters of cars to Canada will be required to include a significant portion of parts sourced in Canada. The figure of 85 per cent has been suggested and that strikes me as a fair figure, and not merely with Japanese cars. The throne speech supported the idea of 85 per cent Canadian content for Japanese cars, but it did not mention that the North American companies are nowhere near that level. We in the New Democratic Party say let us aim for 100 per cent Canadian content in all cars sold in Canada.

Secondly, the Ontario government should commit itself to direct talks with the Big Three to ensure that the parts manufacturing jobs, going everywhere else, stay in Canada. We can move beyond the auto parts technology centre this government has put in place to engage in genuine partnerships with the parts sector, to do the research which can bring up a vibrant Canadian parts sectors which can compete worldwide. We can do that. We have the ability and we have the knowhow. We can become a technologically sophisticated and resourceful society.

Thirdly, this party has already talked in this session about the opportunities which we have immediately to create diesel engine production facilities. We know that the demand for diesel engines exists in Canada and in North America, and the Big Three are importing diesel engines from abroad.

We have the idle Chrysler engine plant in Windsor. We have a manufacturer -- Massey-Ferguson -- with the technical knowhow to move into this area immediately. We have a skilled work force in Windsor desperate for work. More than 10,500 jobs have been lost in the Windsor area alone in the last few years. By all the traditional economic arguments the factors of production are in place -- a plant, willing companies with the technical knowhow to do the job, a skilled work force. What we do not have to this point is the willingness of the government of this province to provide some of the necessary funds.

We in the New Democratic Party propose that an Ontario crown corporation invest in that diesel plant in a joint venture with Chrysler and Massey-Ferguson. With the spinoff effect, we are talking about 4,000 new jobs, stimulating $84 million in wages and exports in hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

It is the kind of project Windsor and Ontario need. It is the kind of project that is sensible, productive and bold and one that an NDP government in this province would undertake. If the opportunity exists, why has this government refused to act? Why has it chosen to stand by? Is it committed to an outmoded doctrine which says that government should not intervene directly in the economy? If so, then once again we see the triumph of Tory doctrine over common sense.

I would like to turn my attention now to interest rates. A good part of what is ravaging our economy at this time is the insane interest rate policy of the federal government. The effects are visible around us in declining sales of cars and major appliances. They are visible in layoffs and in the decline of our industrial communities. The effects are visible in the disastrous situation of farmers and small business people. We see it in mortgage foreclosures.

Again, it is simply not good enough just to blame the federal government, Reaganomics, bankers or the oil moguls of Arabia; because there are things this government can do now to ease the situation for ordinary people in Ontario. The New Democratic Party has a five-point program of interest rate relief and stimulation, a program that would put an end to the insecurity and fear felt by so many Ontario home owners, small business owners and farmers.

Time and again this party has called for a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures, and that could help farmers and home owners. We would introduce a program of short-term interest rate relief that would provide grants for up to 30,000 families that have or face mortgage payments of more than 30 per cent of their income.

We would expand the farm assistance program by $100 million to reach all the farmers who are hit by higher debt charges. In the throne speech the Tories admitted that their own program, in operation less than six weeks, falls far short of what is needed in rural Ontario.

We would introduce a mixed grant/deferred-interest-loan program to help small business. Small business owners are looking for a way to prevent layoffs and permanent closures, but all the throne speech talked about was venture capital funds and putting small companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange. That does not help the owner of the corner store or small business in my kind of community very much at all.

Time and again over the last several months we in this party have called for the conversion of the Province of Ontario Savings Office into a genuine lending institution that could work to partly isolate farmers, home owners and small businesses from the ravages of usurious interest rates. As always, this provincial Conservative government has failed to respond.

I want to talk next about two problems the government failed to respond to and has ignored in the throne speech. In northern Ontario we have faced and are continuing to face massive layoffs in the wood industry, both on the lumber and sawmill industry side and on the pulp and paper side. Recently my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon learned from the Canada Manpower Centre in Thunder Bay that on April 6 Great Lakes Forest Products woodlands division will be laying off 1,600 employees; Abitibi-Price woodlands division will be laying off 400 employees; the MacMillan Bloedel waferboard plant at Paipoonge will be laying off 200 employees; and the Boise Cascade company, the one this government gave so many grants to, is shutting down its Kenora mill, which will also affect 80 private contractors and lead to the layoff of 775 employees.

Some of these layoffs start at the end of this month. At the present time they are not projected to be permanent layoffs, but the fact that they could last as long as two to four weeks is symbolic of the cyclical difficulty of the economy we face day in and day out in northern Ontario.

4 p.m.

The New Democratic Party has advocated and will continue to advocate a crash reforestation program for this province so that we can achieve two things, the badly needed reforestation and regeneration we need to maintain our forests and our industries, and also the creation of short-term jobs for unemployed woodworkers -- not only those I have just mentioned but the hundreds and hundreds my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has detailed who were laid off over the past year.

While these layoffs are occurring in northern Ontario, we have ironically a desperate need for housing in this province. Apartment vacancy rates in major urban centres all over the province, including Metro Toronto, are desperately low. The need for socially assisted housing grows. Never have so many stood in need of housing, while there are so many people ready, willing and able to provide the material to build the homes.

We in the New Democratic Party would make a commitment to the housing sector. For example, we would commit $150 million to increase co-op housing starts and conversions. The program would provide a $10,000 interest-free loan for every unit constructed or converted. It would stimulate 15,000 new units and increase Ontario's housing starts by up to one third for the 1982 year. The terms of employment these 15,000 units would generate would be about 18,000 direct construction and directly related jobs. In addition, a further 14,000 jobs would be created in indirectly related industries, such as furniture manufacturing, carpeting, drapery and the all important lumber and sawmill industry in northern Ontario.

I do not want anybody across the House to say, "We can't sell our lumber because of the US market." The mills in northern Ontario would be glad to sell their lumber to the market in southern Ontario just as easily as they would to the market in the United States. This program would provide about $8 million in provincial sales tax, more than $500 million in wages, more than $20 million in provincial income tax and $50 million in federal income tax. It would provide housing at a time when housing is desperately needed.

There is no doubt the program would cost the government some money. The government would have to issue a long-term housing development bond and provide no-interest loans. But the effects of the expenditure, a mere $150 million, would be very much worthwhile. We would get that back in taxes alone over a five- to 10-year period. In terms of the wages and the dignity provided for people working and in terms of the social need of housing provided it would be a very worthwhile investment.

That is really what the Tories have forgotten. They have forgotten that it is up to government to invest in the province. They have lost their faith in investing in the future of Ontario. In a very short time the political realities of March 19, 1981, have become the harsh economic realities of March 1982. It is almost March 19, just one day off.

Mr. Martel: Help keep the promise.

Mr. Foulds: Davis can do it, help keep the promise.

This government's record in the past year has been one of failure, one of timidity, one of gutlessness. It has been a failure to respond, a failure to take on its responsibilities. Certainly the speech from the throne typified that failure and that gutlessness. The buck does stop somewhere, and it stops right here in this Legislature with the representatives of the people of Ontario. Surely it is not asking too much of this government to stretch its imagination a little bit, to intervene in the market and to act once again positively and self-reliantly to deal with the crisis.

Let us also ask ourselves how many jobs, how much economic activity has been lost to Ontario, and to northern Ontario specifically, through the exemptions from Ontario processing requirements handed out under the Mining Act by this government. Let us ask how many --

Hon. Mr. Welch: You wrote this, Elie.

Mr. Foulds: No, he didn't. I put it in myself. Remember, I was the Natural Resources critic for three years.

Let us ask ourselves how many jobs have been lost or never created simply because of the unwillingness of this government to intervene years ago to create a genuine mining machinery industry in Ontario. That industry alone could provide 9,500 jobs in Ontario and particularly in the north.

Mr. Martel: It's called import replacement.

Mr. Foulds: That's exactly it. We must not allow ourselves to be seduced by the glamour of the megaprojects, which seem to have become the touchstone of recent economic thinking in Canada. It is true that large numbers of jobs can clearly be created with the construction of tar sands plants in Alberta, both in the west and in Ontario. Similarly I admit that jobs are created by the Ontario government's commitment to the nuclear power program.

But let us take some of the real lessons of the economic success in Canada to heart. The most innovative, the most internationally competitive firms are not those that base their strength and growth on foreign investments or on massive government handouts of corporate welfare. Generally speaking, the most innovative, competitive firms are smaller Canadian firms strongly committed to Canadian-based research and development, carving out for themselves significant chunks of the Canadian, North American and international markets.

The real success stories are in high technology based on the newest and most sophisticated technology. The real success stories you can find in the Ottawa valley, in the engineers, the researchers and the designers, who produced, for example, the arm for the space shuttle. This Tory government in Ontario must produce a manpower strategy that can ensure a supply of the best, most highly trained craftsmen in the world. No longer can we turn, as we did in George Drew's era, to Britain and Europe for skilled workers.

Aside from homilies in the speech from the throne about how beautiful a job Ontario is doing in training, perhaps we could do something more. This throne speech should have addressed the problem of vast shortages of skilled workers in a serious way. Is that not a great irony in this rich province? Vast numbers of unemployed and vast shortages of skilled workers: a shameful, shameful situation.

A government with vision would realize the need to mobilize our entire society, mobilize all our educational resources in the schools, in the community colleges, in the universities and in industry to provide the skills that can keep a modern industrial economy growing and competitive. But instead of trying to mobilize Ontario the Premier tries to put it to sleep.

Second, real incentives for industrial research and development must be carried out in Ontario and must be provided. What would be wrong with requiring industries to commit a proportion of their income to research? We must ensure that Canada increases its spending on research and development. Of all the western industrialized countries only Ireland and Iceland spend less on research than Canada does. There is one firm in West Germany, Siemans, that has 41 per cent more employees working on research and development than are employed in all of Canada on research and development. The survival of our economy depends on improving this situation.

Someone suggested to me the other day that the current trend of deindustrialization that Ontario is going through is converting our factories into warehouses and our warehouses into parking lots.

Mr. Cooke: And no one can afford them.

Mr. Foulds: And nobody can afford to park in the parking lot any more. That is true, because they have not got a job and they have not got a car.

An hon. member: Except in Markham.

Mr. Foulds: Except in Markham -- true. Sunday Morning indicated that just this week.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, we won't say anything further.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: This province must make a fundamental commitment immediately to real energy self-sufficiency which looks to alternatives and to massive increases in conservation. Real jobs can be created in the alternatives and in the conservation sectors. Perhaps more important, real advantages in international trade could be gained if we developed Canadian expertise in fields which at this stage are in their infancy. The potential for a world market is there. Does this government take advantage of that? Not yet, Mr. Speaker.

One of the most distressing stories which has flowed from our failure to take the long view is that of scrubbers for coal-fired electric plants. Mr. Speaker, do you remember reading during the break between sessions that Ontario Hydro paid for the initial research, went a long way towards perfecting the designs and then, for the lack of the commitment of $10 million, allowed the technology and the people who designed it to migrate to the United States? Now we are faced with the prospect of buying back the products of our own research. This must not be allowed to happen again, ever. Once again there is that one example, an example of a government agency failing to take its long-term responsibilities seriously.

There may well be a place for the vast developments which produce essential commodities and many jobs. There may well be a place for the megaprojects. But let us never forget that almost half our people work for small businesses. And let us never forget that the evidence in Canada suggests that smaller firms tend to be much more innovative, much more farsighted in their commitment to research and technology. The future of this province depends upon encouraging the growth in this sector.

I now want to turn to the most striking irony and contradiction in the speech from the throne. Aside from fed-bashing, the speech from the throne spent more time on the importance of the tourist industry than on any other single subject. Yet when it comes to dealing with the largest single threat to the tourist industry and our environment, acid rain, the government merely says it is proud that Ontario Hydro will obey the law when it comes to emissions.

Mr. Wildman: Whoopee.

Mr. Foulds: Whoopee. Whatever that law says. I have in my printed text a variation of the interjection from my friend the member for Algoma. If I may use the vernacular, "big deal." This is an area where the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) has totally abdicated his responsibility once again by refusing to subject to an environmental hearing the proposal to export power to Ohio under Lake Erie.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Name one other jurisdiction --

Mr. Foulds: This government has the legislation; why does it not use it? What does the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) have to hide? What is he afraid of? Why does he not let us have an environmental assessment hearing? What is he trying to cover up? In this province we have the best environmental protection legislation in the country, perhaps on the continent. Unfortunately we never use it. Time and again the government exempts its own agencies from assessment under that legislation.

Mr. Martel: If Hydro is so good what are you worrying about?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) says, and I want to get it on the record: "It is like the Soviet constitution; it protects civil rights." Big deal.

A concern for the health of the environment is fundamental, perhaps the longest term commitment we can and have to make. The indiscriminate dumping of poisons as exemplified, for example, by the activities of the Hooker Chemical Co. in New York, destroys the potential for life of countless future generations. Out of the megaproject mentality come projects such as the underwater cable to export power to Ohio through Lake Erie.

Hydro proposes to sell electricity produced here, often burning American coal. Then it has the government's agreement to be exempted from an environmental assessment. Is it any wonder the people of this province are cynical about the government's commitment to the environment? Does this government not want the people of Ontario to know what the social, economic and environmental facts of that project might be? Is it not interested in ensuring damage will not be done to our lakes? Is the government so desperate to find some reason for the existence of Nanticoke that it simply does not want to know? Is it blind to the enormous public concern over acid rain emissions?

At the same time members of the cabinet muse about the possibility of building nuclear plants here to supply the United States with power. These thoughts must never move beyond the musing stage. Consider the insanity of producing waste here so the American economy can perhaps be more competitive than ours and more competitive in relation to ours. What a self-destructive set of priorities.

In creating a good environment and improving the lives of our citizens, the government must look to such questions as occupational health and safety, severance pay legislation, equal pay for work of equal value and the availability of sufficient day care places to allow as much participation in the labour force by women as they choose, and also by the thousands of single fathers in our society.

It is obvious from the issues already raised in this session of the House -- such as the issue of salmonella in Peterborough Civic Hospital, such as the question of safety in the work place, in the government's own offices in the Ministry of the Attorney General -- that the government has been lax in ensuring the safety of the community and the work place environment of its citizens.

From my personal experience in running for the leadership of my own party during the last six months, and from my entire experience as a life-long resident of this province, I know the people of Ontario are looking for leadership. What do they get from the speech from the throne? What they get is a total abdication of responsibility.

The New Democratic Party is willing and able to take responsibility for the future of this province. We have offered positive suggestions to create jobs, to bring interest rates under control, to develop the manufacturing sector, especially in the automobile and resource industries, to develop much-needed housing and to protect our environment.

The New Democratic Party believes this is a rich and resourceful province with a rich and resourceful people. We need to combine the enormous resources of northern Ontario, the tremendous agricultural resources of southern Ontario in the Niagara Peninsula and the manufacturing capabilities that lie idle in our urban communities, along with our great human resources, to create wealth not merely for the sake of creating wealth, but to use that wealth so people can lead lives of dignity and joy.

The New Democratic Party wants in Ontario a place where our native people can feel at one with their land and with the rest of us. We want the kind of Ontario where the lakes, rivers and streams are safe for drinking, fishing and swimming. We want the kind of Ontario where senior citizens and single parents can live in dignity instead of being made to feel guilty for the pittance they receive from the social assistance programs of the province.

We want the kind of Ontario where men and women can experience the dignity of a job and a home, an Ontario where schools, hospitals and social agencies get the funding they need and deserve, an Ontario where the cabinet has to put on a bake sale to get a jet it does not need.

We want the kind of Ontario where workers have a right to a safe community and a safe and decent work place and where senior citizens have the right to a secure and independent income. We believe that is the kind of province the people of Ontario want. We will not rest until we have achieved that kind of Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

If the Premier does not have the decency to move over to make way for the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry) or the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) or the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), he had better move over for us, because I want the people of Ontario to know that we in the New Democratic Party are aiming for government in 1985. I want Mr. Davis to know he had better move over, because the New Democratic Party is coming through.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Foulds moves, seconded by Mr. Martel, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session be further amended by adding thereto the following:

"This government further regrets that the speech from the throne fails to recognize the province's own authority and jurisdictional responsibility to take action to relieve the social and human consequences of our economic situation, or to combat the devastating effects of the federal government's high interest rate policy and the resulting unemployment.

"And, further, this House condemns the government for failing:

"(a) To create a crown corporation in the auto parts sector to achieve Canada's fair share and which would take as its first responsibility the formation of a consortium with Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler to create a diesel engine facility in Windsor;

"(b) To move into an ownership role in the resource sector;

"(c) To take steps to initiate an interest rate relief program for farmers, small business and home owners;

"(d) To establish a moratorium on foreclosures of property, as has been done by the provincial governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba;

"(e) To safeguard and enhance the health care and social service systems of this province.

"Finally, this House condemns the government for failing its responsibility to protect adequately the community and work environments of its citizens. It specifically condemns the government for exempting from an environmental assessment Ontario Hydro's project for an underwater cable to export electrical power to the United States. Therefore this government has lost the confidence of this House."

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker: I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation and Communication (Mr. Snow) concerning the Urban Transportation Development Corp. This matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to this opportunity take part in this debate on the speech from the throne for almost a year. I was ready to address the House on the 1981 throne speech, but since my name comes towards the end of the alphabet there were too many others ahead of me on the list at that time. I consider it an honour and privilege, nonetheless, as the member for the riding of Northumberland, to have the opportunity to rise today to reply to the 1982 speech from the throne.

May I begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying what a fine job you are doing. Being Speaker is not easy, as you have discovered, but I think you have acquitted yourself admirably in your new responsibility. Your calm and conscientious handling of this often unruly Legislature has made the people of Peterborough particularly proud.

There must be something special about the counties of Peterborough and Northumberland; two of this Legislature's last three Speakers have come from our part of the province. The Speaker lives just to the north of my riding and the predecessor of Mr. Speaker Stokes, Russell Rowe, was our representative in Northumberland until his retirement last year.

Recently, at a testimonial dinner in the riding, the people of Northumberland were able to express their appreciation to Russell Rowe for the fine representation he gave us for 17 and a half years. Some of the members were there on the night to wish Russell all the best. It was certainly not a farewell, since Russ will always keep in touch with his old friends at Queen's Park. In fact, I know a number of the members greeted him last week when he came down for the opening of parliament.

Before concluding my tributes I would like to express my personal admiration for the Premier (Mr. Davis) as he enters his 11th year as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario and of this government. The Premier is more than a fine provincial leader. He is a national figure, admired and respected by his provincial counterparts from coast to coast. The pivotal part he played in the constitutional discussions leading up to the November 5 agreement exemplified the dominant role he has taken in the affairs of this nation since he became Premier in 1971.

The leadership he demonstrated in helping to resolve the thorny problems arising out of the constitutional discussions is now once again in great demand as we attempt to deal with the economic difficulties. He has been at the forefront in trying to persuade the government of Canada to reconsider the devastating high interest policy, its disastrous budget and its punitive proposal to cut transfer payments to the provinces for health, social services and post-secondary education.

Trying to persuade Ottawa to rethink anything often seems as useful as spitting in the wind, but persistence has been known to pay off. I know the Premier of Ontario will not give up in his attempts to persuade the government of Canada to join with us in rebuilding our economy in a spirit of co-operation and competence.

I mentioned earlier that the east-central area of the province, part of which I represent, must have some special quality for us to have been blessed with two of the last three Speakers. At the risk of sounding even more chauvinistic -- and I am not talking about being a male chauvinist, in case the women in the chamber are concerned -- I must tell members that my birthplace, the little village of Codrington, can claim not just myself, but two former parliamentarians, as native sons. I am referring to William Arthur Goodfellow, who represented the riding of Northumberland in this House between 1943 and 1963, during which time he held no less than four cabinet posts, and to Major James Belford, the area's representative in Ottawa from 1923 to 1925. The three of us grew up within a half-mile of each other. Bill Goodfellow is the only living member of the cabinet of January 7, 1947. I was both touched and honoured when, after being elected last March, Bill wrote to congratulate me.

I trust I will be able to represent Northumberland as ably and as long as my illustrious predecessors. Although I grew up in Codrington in the central area of Northumberland county I have lived for many years in Alnwick township on the southern shore of Rice Lake at the northern boundary of my riding. To the north and south of my village of Roseneath is the Alderville Indian Reserve. This community of Mississauga Indians is one of the finest reserves in Ontario. The native people of Canada have contributed so much to this country that I find it sad that their rights are not sufficiently protected in the new constitution.

Our government supported the inclusion of native rights throughout the constitutional process and I know we will be just as supportive on this matter at the first ministers' conference that is due to take place within a year of the constitution act coming into effect. I strongly believe that in future discussions, our native people will be treated fairly.

The Alderville reserve is located on good, arable soil. A lot of the reserve land is rented out to be worked by local farmers like myself. A number of highly educated people have come from this reserve. Two that immediately spring to mind are Jack Beaver and Al Bigwin.

Jack was one of the chief engineers at Churchill Falls before he retired, and I am pleased to say he is back in the county living near Cobourg. Al has made a name for himself closer to home. He worked for our Ministry of Education as an education officer in the policy analysis and legislation branch at Queen's Park.

4:30 p.m.

It is people like Jack Beaver, Al Bigwin, Bill Goodfellow and Russell Rowe who make me proud to hail from the rolling hills of old Northumberland. Our country's similarity to its northern England namesake is evident everywhere. It is evident from townships and small villages with the same names, such as Alnwick, to the rolling hills, bubbling streams, rocky outcroppings and wooded areas of our picturesque countryside, which so closely resembles the landscape on the other side of the Atlantic.

As a dairy farmer, I naturally have a special attachment to the soil. My farming activities over the years have led me to be involved in a number of local agricultural organizations. I have also had the privilege of serving on the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. I feel confident, as a result, that I can speak with some authority about my riding's agricultural concerns.

I am equally well equipped, if I may say so, to talk about issues in the riding's urban centres and its schools. I served for a number of terms on the Alnwick township council and later on the Northumberland county council, where I was deputy reeve for a short period of time. Before that, I was a school trustee for 16 years. My long involvement in municipal life, I believe, helps me to convey the concerns of Northumberland to this Legislature and enables me to speak with firsthand knowledge and some empathy about local problems.

Since the election I have continued to work closely with the Northumberland county council, and my time sitting on that body has facilitated that relationship. It is a strong council that provides Northumberland's municipalities with responsible and responsive representation, and I am grateful for the council members' input when discussing matters of mutual concern.

As I mentioned, Northumberland county is both a rural and an urban area. We are blessed with prime agricultural land in the central and northern areas, while to the south, down along Lake Ontario, we have three bustling industrial centres in Port Hope, Cobourg and Brighton.

Despite the importance of these three centres to our economy, agriculture and tourism remain the major industries in Northumberland. Agriculture is our largest business. We are fortunate to have a thriving dairy industry with more than 300 independent dairy farmers operating throughout the county. As well as being a major provider of Ontario milk, Northumberland is noted for the great Canadian cheddar cheese it produces.

Our dairy farmers are doing quite well. As a former member of the milk marketing board and a dairy farmer myself, I feel I can make that statement with confidence and some firsthand knowledge of the situation. Unfortunately, our beef and hog farmers are not as well situated. With the price of cattle and hogs down right now, the beef and hog men have been hard hit.

Many of the difficulties facing our agricultural community, not just in Northumberland but across the province, are being made a lot worse by federal actions and inaction. We can lay the blame for our record high interest rates on the federal government and on the federal government alone. These punishing rates are hurting all sectors of the economy, not the least of which is the agricultural community.

The farmers are caught in a double bind. On the one hand, our own Ministry of Agriculture and Food has encouraged them to specialize and expand their operations, but to do this many have had to assume considerable capital debts. These debts need servicing, and the current high interest rates sanctioned by Ottawa are proving simply devastating. No wonder there is little incentive for many of our farmers to do more than try to keep their heads above water. Yet without farming the towns in my riding like Campbellford, could not survive. They are very much one-industry communities.

In the past year the Ontario government has stepped into the breach to provide major financial support to the Ontario beef industry. I know the Ministry of Agriculture and Food emergency payments to the beef producers in Northumberland county have been very much appreciated. To date more than $675,000 in emergency payments have been paid out to the producers of slaughter and stocker cattle and cow-calf operators in Northumberland county.

As well, the farm assistance adjustment program, brought in just before Christmas to reduce the impact of skyrocketing interest rates and maintain the supply of working capital for farmers, has also been most welcome. I am very pleased to see this program has now been broadened to help a greater number of farmers to keep their operations afloat.

In view of the inadequacy of the federal aid mechanisms, such as the Farm Credit Corp. and small business bonds, it seems that Ontario is the only level of government maintaining a commitment to the vital agricultural sector. Unlike Ottawa, our government recognizes the importance of the agricultural sector to the national and local economy and values highly the substantial contribution which the farming community makes to the economic and physical health of this province and this country.

Tourism, as I mentioned earlier, is Northumberland's second largest industry. Bounded by water in the form of lakes and rivers on three sides, water-related recreational opportunities abound in Northumberland. With the Trent and Murray canal systems weaving along the northern and the eastern boundaries of the riding, we are fortunate to attract a goodly number of pleasure boaters in the summer months. The communities along the canals benefit substantially from this seasonal trade and the local people enjoy providing hospitality to the thousands of visitors who come to us each year, not just from elsewhere in Ontario but from across Canada and parts of the United States.

Sports fishermen also come to Northumberland in large numbers. Some of Ontario's best sport fishing areas are situated along the Trent Canal. Rice Lake, where I live, is world renowned as the home of the mighty muskie. Needless to say, I was delighted to learn recently that the Harwood creamery, near Harwood in the Rice Lake area, has been chosen as the site for a new fish hatchery. It is all the more exciting for our area when one realizes that we were among 500 candidates in the running for this facility.

Design and construction work on the $5-million hatchery is to take place over the next four years and, once completed, it is expected that as many as 750,000 rainbow and lake trout will be hatched each year for planting in Lake Ontario and local streams. Negotiations with some of the major land owners are already under way with an option having been placed on two parcels of land, including Goose Creek Farm, and we expect the remaining property will be acquired shortly.

The Ministry of Natural Resources during the past year also approved the development of an administration centre and workshop complex for the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. The new structure is to be built on a nine-acre site outside of Port Hope which was donated by the town. It will accommodate under one roof all the offices and equipment storage space now scattered around in four different areas.

Ontario provincial parks are among the finest in the world, and we in Northumberland are fortunate to have two of the province's most beautiful parks in our area. I am talking about Presqu'ile Park on Lake Ontario near Brighton and the Ferris Park near Campbellford. With the tabling of the report of the task force on parks system planning by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) last week, we now know that Ontario's already excellent park system will become even better as the result of the significant expansion proposed.

4:40 p.m.

While outdoor recreation facilities in Northumberland provide residents and visitors alike with many wonderful leisure-time activities, Northumberland also has a number of historical structures that attract many tourists. Perhaps the best known and certainly one of the most beautiful is Victoria Hall in Cobourg. This stately reminder of our province's past is in the process of an extensive restoration to return it to its former glory. Over the past year a capital grant of more than $900,000 was provided by Wintario for the third phase of this restoration.

Although agriculture and tourism will no doubt continue to be the dominant economic forces in Northumberland, we badly need new industry to balance our economy. We should have no trouble attracting this industry because we are ideally situated on the eastern border of the Golden Horseshoe. The major throughway between Toronto and Montreal, Highway 401, runs through the county, and Cobourg, Port Hope and Brighton are all well served by major rail lines. In addition, there are port facilities at both Cobourg and Port Hope.

A major spur to the industrial development we need was recently provided when our government made a commitment to fund the Cobourg sewage treatment plant. In promising Cobourg almost $7.5 million for this project, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics will be providing the largest grant ever to a community of Cobourg's size. Ontario is certainly picking up the lion's share of the project's $15.5 million cost. When it is finished, I am hopeful this facility will attract more industrial development to the area.

However, it is the feeling in Northumberland that our economy requires federal assistance of the kind that was available under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion program. Under that program, federal moneys were redistributed to those regions in Canada in need of additional development to boost their economies. Although only the eastern areas of Ontario qualified for that assistance, it was my feeling and that of my colleague the member for Muskoka and our Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) that some parts of the central region of our province should qualify for this assistance as well because of our demonstrated need.

Mr. Wildman: You just said you were in the Golden Horseshoe.

Mr. Sheppard: I said at the eastern end of the Golden Horseshoe.

Now that DREE has been replaced by a more all-encompassing federal entity, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, I intend to redouble my efforts to obtain assistance from this source for Northumberland county. I am continuing to work closely with the Treasurer in this regard and together we are hoping to persuade Ottawa to assist our respective areas under this new program.

Meanwhile, Ontario's economic strategy, which is being implemented by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, is providing opportunities for growth and development throughout this province with the eastern part of Ontario having been the beneficiary of a number of initiatives in the past year.

In some cases, individual businessmen have benefited from BILD, as in the case of an apple grower from my riding who recently received a grant under the new program to assist fruit and vegetable growers with storage and packaging of their produce. In other cases, municipalities have been assisted with the cost of badly needed local projects. For instance, more than $30,000 in funds under BILD's marina program has gone to the town of Port Hope.

In still other instances, the whole region stands to gain, as is the case with the massive $300,000 BILD grant to Loyalist College for a videotex training centre. Although Loyalist College is located east of Northumberland in Belleville, it serves my riding and many others in the surrounding area. As the only college in North America offering a course in videotex, Loyalist is able to provide three training programs with the BILD funding. They involve the marketing of this computer-based information system, its maintenance, installation and programming.

In these times when the economy is foremost in our thoughts, there is a tendency for governments to place less emphasis on social or human services. Not so in Ontario. Our social service system continues to be the best in Canada and one of the most responsive in the world. The range of social services in Northumberland is of the highest quality, thanks to the dedication of the local people who run them and the contribution of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health and other government ministries.

In the past year I had the pleasure of assisting in opening the Legion Village in Cobourg. This fine new facility for senior citizens and the disabled was made possible through the foresight, dedication and planning of Branch 133 of the Royal Canadian Legion and its president Sam Blower. Our government's rent-geared-to-income program is being employed to subsidize 60 of the 125 senior citizen units, which will allow people from all income levels to live in the village. Already there are plans to expand the village, with 43 more senior citizen units and 30 units with extended care facilities proposed.

Port Hope and Cobourg are the locations of Northumberland's two retarded children's centres. These centres provide our developmentally handicapped young people with the best possible environment in which to achieve their full potential.

I could go on and on about the area I represent and the achievements since I was elected, but I will conclude my remarks by saying that the last 12 months have probably been the most satisfying I have ever had. Dealing with the concerns of my area as a provincial representative has been a challenging and rewarding responsibility and one which I look forward to pursuing with vigour during the coming months and years.

I would like to say how much I appreciate having been able to speak today in response to the speech from the throne. I hope my comments have shed some light on the area I so proudly represent. Many of the challenges facing Northumberland are common to other counties and constituencies in Ontario. This is why I value the opportunity given me by the people of Northumberland to represent them in this House so that together, regardless of party affiliation, we can work towards meeting these challenges in the most constructive, cost- efficient and time-saving way possible. I look forward to making my contribution to the work of this House in this session and in the many sessions to follow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address myself to the speech from the throne. First, I would like to congratulate the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) on winning the leadership of our party. His vision of a new Ontario will no doubt win the day in 1985, and I am very confident that we in the Liberal Party will form the new government in order to continue in --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: -- the vision that our leader had so eloquently discussed through his election campaign.

His vision -- and we share in his vision -- is, first, that we want a strong economy in Ontario because we realize full well that only a strong economy can pay for services of all kinds and, second, that we want to work towards a humane, caring, compassionate society.

You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that we had four other tremendous candidates. I am sure it is a sign of the strength of our party to have candidates of such calibre. That is why I am becoming more convinced as the day progresses that the Liberal Party will indeed form the next government, simply because this party is the only alternative clearly stated to what is going on in Ontario today.

I would also congratulate Bob Rae on winning the leadership campaign of the NDP, although I must quite honestly admit that I admired the campaigns of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). I wish them well.

4:50 p.m.

I want to turn now to the most pressing problem in Ontario today, and that is our economy. Ontario's stagnant economy is producing nothing but misery for thousands of Ontario workers and their families. The mind can barely comprehend the human toll of 375,000 people out of work. Just imagine the number, more than a quarter of a million people out of work in Ontario. That is not keeping the promise.

Sector after sector of the provincial economy reflects the same dismal picture. In the construction industry in Ontario today, there are 51,000 people out of work; in manufacturing, we have lost 98,000 jobs in the last two months; nearly 7,000 forestry workers are out of work in northern Ontario; and on and on goes the litany. Each month the provincial labour statistics are worse than the month before.

Ontario Ministry of Labour figures released in January 1982 show there were 21,565 permanent or indefinite layoffs in Ontario by December 31, 1981, compared with 10,347 by the end of September. This marks a 108 per cent increase over the previous nine months. This does not include thousands of temporary layoffs in the auto, appliance, farm machinery and lumber industries.

I say creating jobs is the top priority. Why? Because we cannot afford the human cost of joblessness. That cost is measured not in statistics, but in the reality of shattered dreams. It is measured in the fact that more than 68,000 Ontarians left Ontario in the last two years. Many of them are skilled young people, our most precious resource. They take with them the energy and talent that could be put to work to revitalize the economy of this province. It is also measured in the bankruptcy of a record number of family farms last year and serious debt conditions that now imperil some 6,600 Ontario farmers, a figure the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food acknowledges as accurate. It is measured in growing anxiety across this province, in family breakdown, in foreclosures of family homes, in business failures, in children going to school hungry, in alcoholism -- in short, in depression.

What are the answers of the Premier (Mr. Davis) to our economic problems? Mr. Davis explained recently to the Canadian Club of Toronto that Ontario's problems, be they bankruptcies, layoffs or poverty, are really national. He said, "Canadians across the length and breadth of this nation share the same concerns, feel the same problems and read the same headlines." I am frankly tired of William "it's-not-my-fault" Davis pointing his wary finger at others. I say it is time for the Premier and his band of highly paid buck-passers to stop bellyaching and start looking at what Ontario can do.

We all know answer number two, which was to buy 25 per cent of an American oil company, most of whose Canadian assets are not in Ontario. The logic of this decision is quite astonishing. Two weeks ago the Premier, the same individual who authorized Suncor, conceded: "Provincial budgets, already strained by adverse economic conditions, high interest rates and, most importantly, the need to redress the social fallout of rising unemployment, will be required to either reduce the level of social services or to raise taxes."

If so, why choose this time in history to buy 25 per cent of an oil company? Does the Premier clearly recognize that provincial budgets are already strained? In fact, few are as strained as the Ontario budget with a deficit of more than $1.4 billion. Does it not seem misguided to so spend this money, which will amount to $2 billion over the next 10 years when we take into account the compound interest, to fund a project that will not provide a single job in Ontario?

A week ago the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) revealed the Premier's third answer to Ontario's economic problems. Faced with the consequences of unwise spending, the government has indicated it intends to raise more revenue. Last year the province raised personal income tax from 44 per cent to 46 per cent of the federal share -- not to mention the province's ad valorem tax, which increases Ontario's tax take every time the federal oil price goes up. Just last week we were told in the speech from the throne to expect a hard budget in 1982. The only choice left to the government, the Treasurer said, was to raise or borrow more money.

It is very clear where this government has failed. I very much regret, and my party shares this regret 100 per cent, that the speech from the throne fails to recognize the most serious and fundamental problems facing Ontario today; that is, it fails to develop programs to ensure adequate job creation and to protect Ontario workers from the continued decline in employment prospects.

It also fails inasmuch as it makes no new or increased support towards the preservation of Ontario's health, social services and education sectors -- specifically for hospitals, day care, services for the elderly and post-secondary institutions. As the member for Parkdale, I can testify that these kinds of approaches by this government create a great amount of frustration, fear, uncertainty and poverty in the west end of Toronto.

This government fails because it presents no specific programs to help small businesses, farmers, home owners and tenants to deal with the record high interest rates. All of us in this House can testify to the bankruptcy of the government's ideas. Lastly, this throne speech refuses to recognize Ontario's need for massive retraining programs for Ontario workers.

I would like to tell members about the provincial Liberal Party policy for the future of Ontario which I think will recognize the realities of March 19, 1981. I am sure the ideas of our party will create the jobs that are necessary to provide the strong economy needed to pay for the essential social services required throughout Ontario.

Let us be realistic. The way to create jobs in Ontario is not by throwing problems into the lap of another jurisdiction, which is being done by speaker after speaker from the government benches. For some reason they seem to think that the only government with power in all of Canada, including Ontario, is the government in Ottawa. We know that is not the case. The responses that are necessary for Ontario rest within the jurisdiction of this government.

The reason for the government's lack of action is very clear. It is because this government is bankrupt and bereft of any ideas to bring this economy back to normality where we can be proud to be Ontarians. That happens to be a fact.

5 p.m.

We do not have to spend scarce provincial dollars in speculative ventures we can ill afford. Certainly I do not think it should be necessary to raise taxes. Why do I say this? When we examine the purchases of Suncor shares and of the "infamous jet," we realize there are millions of dollars that could be spent much more productively. Whenever this jet comes back from Dallas, Texas, where it is being refurbished at present, where the 24-seat capacity is being reduced to eight, there should be such an uproar in this Legislature and by the people of Ontario that the government should be told to sell the jet and spend the money on some social services or on other services to help people with their mortgages or small businesses going bankrupt. Those should be the first priorities of this government, not spending money on a jet that is completely unessential.

I joined the ranks of this Legislature a year ago, and I simply cannot understand how this kind of expenditure can be authorized by a government when its social services are so strained, when our hospitals and mental institutions are under such strain and stress that people have to suffer. How can this government expect people to understand such a purchase? How can it authorize such a purchase under these kinds of conditions? I think history will judge this government to be grossly at fault, and I repeat, grossly at fault, because it has no humane understanding of what takes place only a few blocks from this Legislature, where people sleep in garages, under bridges and inside city hall where the heating ducts are located.

How could such an expenditure be justified when we know there are other planes available that could do the job just as adequately?

I do no want to continue on about the wasteful expenditure and speculation that went on with Suncor, because we could go on for days talking about that one item in itself. It shows a brazen, complete misunderstanding of what the people of Ontario want and the expenditure on this specific purchase will never be understood by the people of Ontario. I am sure that in 1985 we will see the people of this province put the "X" where it really counts; and that will be against those people who are now smiling and not really understanding the suffering the province is going through in this time in history.

What we need to do is build for the future. Our priorities should centre on different kinds of building and on expenditures other than those of the jet and of Suncor. There should be building blocks that create a skilled labour force to meet industry needs and to enable young people to find fulfilling work.

Last year, 290 Ontario Scholars, high school graduates with grades over 80 per cent, were refused admittance to the University of Waterloo's engineering program. That is a fact that can be verified and it is but one tiny illustration of the mammoth problem.

The Ontario Manpower Commission estimates that by 1986 the province will have a shortfall of over 40,000 highly skilled workers, plus 20,000 to 47,000 less skilled workers by 1986. The province's microelectronics industry alone will require 14,000 skilled engineers, technicians and computer programmers by 1985.

What the government should do is clear. It should introduce the necessary apprenticeship incentives. That is not being done. The members opposite should provide the manpower co-ordination at both the provincial and municipal levels. They should fund universities and community colleges so they can provide effective, high quality job training programs.

We must provide retraining programs for those whose talents and skills are becoming redundant due to technological changes as well. Alongside the predicted shortages of skilled labour, the Ontario Manpower Commission predicts there will be an oversupply of 160,000 white-collar workers by 1986. Clearly, the government must act to provide training programs for a labour force whose skills are becoming increasingly obsolete.

We should invest in the industries of the future. For example, we need to exploit the coming off-oil fuel revolution in road transport. All of us know that in 20 years the cars and trucks we drive will not be powered by gasoline. Today, cars burn 35 per cent of the petroleum we use in Canada. Existing programs to get off oil and on to alternative fuels have so far made only a small impact on the automobile industry.

The main barrier in the view of automobile makers is consumer confidence and familiarity. How can one believe the claims made by propane with so few propane-fuelled vehicles on the road? In this party, we have mentioned propane for cars as a good bridge to the long-term energy security offered by nonfossil fuels. If we can switch one fifth of Canada's automobiles to propane and other alternative fuels over the next five years, we will reduce our dependence on imported oil by 28 per cent.

On this side of the House, we support introducing a fuel alcohol development program as a major part of a comprehensive energy conservation and renewable energy policy -- the production of a fuel alcohol car engine, commercial use of gasoline blended with fuel alcohol, use of fuel alcohol in industry and use of fuel alcohol to meet most farm energy needs. These objectives could be met through joint ventures of industry, government and universities.

Of course, there is other potential for job creation projects. I am sure many members in my party will address themselves to those areas such as reforestation, waste resource management and the tourism industry, just to name a few.

I would now like to shift the focus to a most pressing problem in the city of Toronto, that of tax reassessment. At this moment, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and an army of 110 property tax assessors are organizing an unprecedented campaign against Toronto home owners. Mass reassessment is the government's latest bully tactic to force Toronto to accept market value assessment. The minister imported tax assessors from all over Ontario to blitz 500,000 Metro properties beginning February 15.

One might ask what is the problem with that? Why import people from all over the province to do Toronto's tax assessment? There is something wrong with that. Bringing people here will cost the taxpayers a lot of money. I have a letter here that went from the Ontario government to one of the assessors in an unnamed city. It says in the fifth paragraph: "You, Mr. Tax Assessor, will be given an advance of $1,000 which should cover your subsistence requirements for a two-week period."

5:10 p.m.

We are talking about saving taxpayers money; we are talking about assessments in the city of Toronto, and yet we are spending $1,000 every two weeks to import -- and I say "import" quite reluctantly -- from all over this province to campaign and to terrorize the citizens of this city -- and I do not say this lightly -- and to throw many of those residents who have received extra increases on to the street. If you think I am exaggerating, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I can, if you or any member asks me, provide you with some cases where people are unable to pay their taxes, people in the city are unable to pay their mortgages and are forced by these tactics of the Minister of Revenue, with the support of this government, to sell their homes. If you want proof, I will provide you with the proof. Just ask me.

This government is ignoring Toronto city council's efforts to work out a fair way of reforming property taxes. The city's plan is promised for tonight, but the Minister of Revenue has made a radical departure from existing practice. The city of Toronto does have a tax committee to study under which system and in which way it wants to be taxed. To make it very clear, the city of Toronto has never asked the Minister of Revenue to come in through the back door, and, in a very devious way, introduce market value assessment. I do not think anyone is going to deny that. The Assessment Act clearly gives the initiative to the city of Toronto to request market value assessment. The province is trying to speed up the change at the expense of thousands of residents who have been hit with big tax increases, discriminatory tax hikes, which began in December 1981 when the minister began his very unfair campaign.

What are the facts here? The facts are that an estimated 9,000 Toronto home owners who did renovations in excess of $2,500 were given assessment increases ranging up to 591 per cent. Those are the facts. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what your other income is, but with the salary you are getting from this Legislature on a full-time basis, how can you pay an increase of 300 per cent, never mind 591 per cent? Would you, in your own mind, be able to justify such an increase? Would you, through your own pocketbook, be able to pay for such an increase, or would you have to sell your house and go bankrupt? That is the question we are going to be asking the Minister of Revenue, and he is very good at stonewalling these very questions and these very concerns of the residents of this great city, Toronto.

The newest assessments were grossly unfair. Instead of simply raising the assessments proportionate to the value of the improvements made, the minister used renovations as an excuse to reassess the entire house. Do you know something else? Some provincial assessors did not even enter the houses, as is admitted by Mr. Thompson himself, who is in charge of the assessments in this area. How did they do it? They based their reassessments on external appearances. Several of these assessments were hastily rolled back when home owners complained and assessors were forced to do re-examinations.

The Ontario Liberal Party has called on the Ontario government to declare a one-year ban on discriminatory reassessments in Toronto and to revoke all such reassessments made in 1981. We are calling on the government to reassess for renovations on a city-wide basis with no single neighbourhood or area singled out for punishment. Secondly, we are asking that the renovation figure be raised from $2,500 to $7,500 in order to keep alive the incentive to make home repairs.

Mr. Speaker, you and I both know, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) knows even better, which houses were omitted from this reassessment project and did not receive any increase even though their renovations cost from $10,000 to $20,000. Every member in this House knows which houses were left out; that is why we in the Liberal Party say these assessments are grossly unfair. Some neighbourhood has been left out in the process of reassessment.

Some of our ethnic people, some of our Portuguese friends in this city, have turned slum areas into areas of beauty. Yet the minister is bringing in hundreds of assessors from all over Ontario to raise the property taxes of these people. What he is doing is penalizing the very people who work, day after day, to renovate their homes and to turn the slum areas of this city into liveable places of beauty.

The problem with this government is that it has no sense of this. It does not understand its people, and certainly it does not understand the multicultural reality of this city when it taxes the people who are reclaiming a slum. These people should receive concessions, not higher taxes.

Further, the Liberal Party says any increase in assessment due to renovations be proportionate to the existing assessment on the house and not be used as a means to sneak in market value assessment. The assessment should only increase by a fraction equal to the cost of renovation over the value of the home at the time of renovation.

The Minister of Revenue has laid a very heavy hand on some 9,000 city residents by moving them to a market value based assessment in order to pressure Toronto city council. We call on the minister to stop bullying Toronto home owners. We recommend, very strongly, that he call off the influx of extra assessors and give the mayor and city council a chance to present their plan for fair reassessment.

I would like to be there tonight to see what happens when city council deliberates on the kind of tax program it wants; to see how many government members of the Ontario parliament are present, and how many representatives of the Ministry of Revenue. From what I see across the floor right now, indications are that there will not be too many wanting to find out about something that is hurting the people of this province.

However, we question whether the latest property tax hikes are legal and will stand up in a court of law. The blitz of tax increases levied on these Toronto residents may be open to legal challenge, and I will tell this House why.

First, the Assessment Act, subsection 63(1), requires the assessor to alter the assessment to the extent necessary to make the assessment equitable compared to that of other properties in the vicinity. I question whether the 1982 assessments levied on renovated homes are equitable compared to the vast majority of nearby homes that were not reassessed. The minister's action here was clearly discriminatory.

5:20 p.m.

Point two, subsection 63(2) of the act requires reassessment where the value of an improvement is at least $2,500. The mayor's office is aware of cases where the minister imposed higher assessment and the improvement was less than $2,500, clearly forbidden under the statute.

Point three, in law it is forbidden to do indirectly what you are prohibited from doing directly. Subsection 63(3) of the act permits the minister to institute market value assessment but on the request of the municipal council, and we know that Toronto city council has not requested market value assessment. The minister's campaign is aimed at forcing the city to opt for market value assessment now. His staff based the new assessments on market value. The minister, in short, according to this section, is trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly.

Point four, the actual assessments were done so sloppily it is possible that a court would find the minister and his staff failed to carry out properly their responsibilities under the act. In this case, the court could void the assessments. Faced with such a legal challenge that could be mounted any time, the minister would be well advised to revoke the assessments and stop terrorizing Toronto home owners.

I would now discuss briefly some of the problems that are specific to my own riding, the Parkdale riding in the west end of the city of Toronto.

Let us look very briefly at what has happened to the outstanding and oldest problem that has plagued our neighbourhood, not only plagued our neighbourhood but at the same time makes people suffer a great deal. Let us look at what the former Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) has done in terms of former mental patients and in terms of the provisions he instituted to deal with the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

What has taken place there shows to the whole world that this institution was unable to provide the kinds of services not only in terms of its own staff but the services to the people who go there, totally unable to perform those tasks that are necessary to rehabilitate. I did speak on this issue on a number of occasions and I have attacked the minister quite strenuously and I have asked him, pleaded with him, tried to force him, arm wrestle with him in whatever way, shape or form I could, to indicate to him that people coming out of that institution are still part of his responsibility; and I must be fair, he has not discharged that responsibility that was given to him as a minister of the crown.

The people are still suffering from the same problem. Parkdale area is still suffering from the same inequities that take place in that institution. We see case after case documented in our daily newspapers -- the Globe and Mail, the Star and the Sun. Day after day the problems that are not only associated with this institution but of the problems in the Ministry of Health, especially related to after-care services.

We have been given promises that increased moneys would be made available to help those downtrodden and unfortunate people who need social help, and yet much has still to be done and the promises made by the former minister have not held true. If he or anyone in this chamber should question what I am saying at this point, I will invite him to come with me to examine the problem at first hand in some of the boarding and lodging houses in my area. We must act forcefully and quickly to try to decentralize our group homes and our boarding and lodging houses. We must try to help those people who are greatly in need.

I have talked about this at length. The new Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) who has just taken over his responsibility owes it to the citizens and taxpayers of this province to go to my area in Parkdale, examine it at first hand and speak to some of the people who are suffering under his ministry's policy. People are suffering because of the lack of either responsibility or of financing. I hope in future the new Minister of Health will take his responsibility seriously and try to help where help is really needed in Toronto, especially in the Parkdale area.

I would like to address myself to another problem in my riding. I address myself now to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). The minister knows full well what happens in one specific situation in one specific area called the Junction Triangle area of Parkdale. He knows the problems associated with air pollution and industrial pollution in that area. He is either not strong enough or not swift enough to understand what is taking place there.

We have phone calls coming to my office on a daily basis. People complain that air pollution and other types of pollution are so strong that sometimes their health and that of their children is affected. We know the statistics. They are clear and open for anyone to examine. The statistics are clear that schools in that specific area have more absentee students than any other area in Toronto. I think the reason is simple. It is because of the pollution caused by some industries.

The minister has indicated he will do whatever he can to try to clear up those areas and clean up those industries that are great offenders. I am speaking specifically about Anchor Cap and Closure Corp. I wonder why the minister was not able to push through the policies necessary to clean up that company's act. I will not indicate here at this specific juncture why I feel he has not been able to do that. He would know that for reasons best described by himself. In future, I will certainly ask him why he is so incapable of cleaning up this specific area of Toronto. I think we will get the answer one of these days.

Finally, I would also like to read into the record, for anyone who doubted my words earlier about tax assessments in Toronto, a list of people who are suffering greatly from increased assessments. I would like to read the names into the record and give specific addresses of the people who came to a meeting I called, which was specifically addressed to tax reassessment:

Mr. Gatschner, 368 Sorauren Avenue; Mrs. Trznadle, 86 Emerson Avenue; Mr. Manserre, 408 Lansdowne Avenue; Mr. George Boskovic, 184 Caledonia Road; Mr. Agostiarko Bosa, 164 Brock Avenue; Mr. Kostauowicz, 434 Brock Avenue; Uho Perri, 45 McRoberts Avenue; Mrs. Mirza, of 649 Brock Avenue; Gobin Dass, of 635 Brock Avenue; Giuseppe Krasckek, of 120 Brock Avenue; Feliks Kaprro, of 68 Brock Avenue; Pasquale Mnrasio, of 386 Perth Avenue; Antonio Apreda, of 136 Caledonia Road; Tony Frazazao, of 756 Gladstone Avenue; Paola Suppa, of 694 Lansdowne Avenue; Pietro Buttera, of 696 Lansdowne Avenue; Mr. J. Luis, of 4 Wright Avenue; Patur Letu, of 36 Golden Avenue; Vincent Campbell, of 22 Rutland Street; Mrs. Sruder, of 539 Perth Avenue and, finally, Mrs. Talin Smith of 1238 Lansdowne Avenue.

As I said before, these people are very drastically affected under the new provisions.

5:30 p.m.

Finally, I would simply like to say that what I have indicated about the vision of our new leader certainly reflects the vision of all of us in the Liberal Party. That vision is very clear and we in this party will go forth with a very strong and clarion voice to show and, in whatever way possible, provide this vision for the people of Ontario.

A strong economy, that is our first priority; and a caring and compassionate society. Those are the things we in the Liberal Party will try to provide in 1985. I am convinced that by that point all the people of Ontario will see with us the same vision which this government is unable to provide. They will all agree that we in the Liberal Party will provide this vision, and that is why I am confident we will be the government of Ontario in 1985.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome an opportunity to participate in this debate on the speech from the throne. I know it will bring joy to the hearts of all those neglected and overlooked farm back-benchers on the government side that I am going to spend all my time talking about agriculture and food.

Mr. Nixon: What about making a place for Bob Rae? Aren't you going to discuss that at all?

Mr. MacDonald: That has nothing to do with agriculture and food.

For 25 years I have suffered the twitting of members on that side of the House with regard to my nonfarm associations. Any time I raised an issue that was getting close to the bone, so to speak, the distraction would start. The last Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) was a past master at it: "That is the asphalt farmer," and "Let's pay no attention to him." In fact, it went right up to the Premier (Mr. Davis).

I have been wanting to get this on the record. Back in the last --

Mr. Ruston: Where is the new Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) from?

Mr. MacDonald: You will have a chance to speak later. Just calm down.

In the last election campaign the Premier apparently felt there was a little difficulty in the riding of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), so he went in and they had a meeting in Lambeth. According to the Hamilton Spectator it was reported thus: "Mr. Davis also took a swipe at the NDP, saying their agriculture critic, Donald MacDonald, represented a rural riding in Toronto (York South). Mr. Davis questioned whether Mr. MacDonald had ever visited a farm."

It is quite possible that when he said that he smiled. The problem is that smiles do not get recorded in the paper, and I take it at face value and it is typical of the cheap shots that have been made for 25 years. However, I welcome what has happened.

I want to tell the honourable members why. I am willing to let bygones be bygones, because apparently --

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: Do not provoke me because maybe I will not let bygones be bygones.

Apparently members on the government side of the House are slow learners, but after 25 years they learned it is just possible that somebody who does not happen to be on the farm knows something and can do something about agriculture. They have gradually realized that you do not need to be a hen to know how to lay an egg.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: Look, you Communist member of the Liberal Party, sit down and be quiet now.

I thought one of the most delightful quotes on the unexpected appointment of the new Minister of Agriculture and Food was in the Hamilton Spectator from none other than that stalwart farmer, Ross Barrie, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. What did he say? "It was a real surprise when I heard it. I sat bolt upright in bed." He was startled.

The Acting Speaker: For what purpose do you stand?

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would indicate to the honourable member that he should withdraw the remark that I was a Communist member.

Mr. MacDonald: Did the honourable member feel hurt about that?

Mr. Nixon: Donald, you were on the receiving end of that one often enough.

Mr. MacDonald: Was the honourable member --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Parkdale can sit down, and the member for York South will withdraw the reference.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to withdraw it, but I will put it in the context in which it was done, and apparently they cannot take a joke. A definition of Liberal philosophy as was put on the record a little bit earlier maybe they think now is a joke. Namely, for a Liberal the objective is to develop the country and if you need to be a Socialist, you are a socialist; if you need to be a right winger, you are a right winger; if you need to be a Communist, you be a Communist. That is a quote from a Liberal, and I was putting the member in that category. If it is offensive, I withdraw it. Liberals do not like some of the things that other people in the Liberal Party say.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will carry on with the response to the speech from the throne.

Mr. MacDonald: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture president sat bolt upright in bed when suddenly he discovered that an asphalt farmer from Don Mills had become Minister of Agriculture and Food. At least we would have to forgive him for being startled. It was an unprecedented move. I have not gone back to search the history books, and I do not know whether it is accurate that it is the first time a nonfarmer has ever been appointed Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Nixon: I believe it is.

Mr. Macdonald: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk confirms it. He believes it is. It is the first time so it is unprecedented, and one has to pause for a moment to consider the motive. Why did this happen?

It happened, we are told, partially because the minister concerned sought the post. He sought the post partly because he believes that agriculture is a vital industry to this province. Nobody is going to disagree with that. I am glad that somebody in the cabinet who allegedly has some clout has finally realized that agriculture is vital, and the government has to do something more.

However, there is a second reason. The second reason, it is speculated -- and I do not know whether it is true or not -- that his objective is to broaden his own power base beyond Metropolitan Toronto in anticipation of the party leadership race when the Premier leaves.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable members are interjecting too much. The member for York South has the floor.

Mr. MacDonald: It is the first time that your very forceful interjections have been in defence of me, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome it.

I am sure you know, if the interjectors do not, that in agriculture cross-breeding is an object of rather continuous experimentation.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Watson: Hybrid.

Mr. MacDonald: Right, hybrid, if you will. Apparently, if one crosses a Minister of Health with a Minister of Agriculture and Food in the cabinet of the Premier the result is expected to be a stronger Tory leadership candidate. But time alone will tell.

Mr. Watson: That's your opinion.

Mr. MacDonald: My opinion? I suspect it is the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture and Food too, so that makes at least two of us.

Let me be serious. Let me state without equivocation that I welcome the appointment of the new Minister of Agriculture and Food. It has long been my conviction that because farmers are now reduced to something like four or five per cent of the population in Ontario, if they do not win political allies in urban Ontario they are never going to get a fair shake from this government. In fact, to be totally fair, they would never get a fair shake from most governments, because most governments react to pressure. If the pressure from the 95 per cent who are not farmers is either an apathetic one or an opposition one, agriculture is always going to get the short end of the stick.

So I welcome any effort to bridge the gap that Tories have played on, pitting city against farm, trade unionist against farmer. Perhaps, as another of the headlines says, "Timbrell hopes to bridge the urban-rural differences." That would be interesting, to see a Minister of Agriculture and Food bridge the rural differences. This is in place of our former Minister of Agriculture and Food who went around saying, "Farmers need more and consumers just must pay it." He ignored all the factors that might mean farmers could get more without the consumers having to pay as much more as he implied. I welcome this kind of a change.

Ideally, a minister of agriculture or a deputy minister of agriculture should be a person who knows the nitty-gritty, the detail, of agriculture, and at the same time has clout within the establishment of the government, in the civil service and in the cabinet. On the other hand, if we have not been able to succeed with people who know the nitty-gritty of agriculture, perhaps we will succeed better by having somebody who has clout in the cabinet. I agree that Dune Allan as deputy minister and the new Minister of Agriculture and Food are likely to have far more clout in the cabinet, and it may well be that will be in the interest of agriculture.

I will be very frank: I am fascinated by the operations of Dune Allan, absolutely fascinated. I read my clippings with zeal these days. He was out in Walkerton a week or so ago; I think he is going to run for office; he may even run in Lakeshore, so watch out. He is out looking for votes, and he is looking for the feminine vote. Let me read what he said up in Walkerton: "'Ontario farmers would have not nearly so many problems if they left most of their bookkeeping and business decisions to their wives,' Ontario Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food said. "'I want to make it clear,' said he," -- pointing at the men in the audience, no doubt -- "'whether a man winds up with a nest egg or a goose egg depends on the chick he married.'"

Some people might even say that is sexist. I am not sure, but I think it has a real --

Mr. Kerr: That's an old one.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it an old one? It is a reworked one. I had not heard it before. That is why one lives on, because one picks up on these things that one missed along the way in days gone by.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as I stated -- and I think it was implied by many other people when we were discussing the estimates last fall -- has been drifting for nigh on 10 years. It had started to drift, as one looks back with all the wisdom of hindsight, even under the latter years of Bill Stewart. It certainly was drifting under his two successors.

There are a lot of good people in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. When I think of that ministry, it reminds me of the Maple Leafs. There are a lot of people of talent in there, but there is just something wrong. They are not getting the best end product possible. I think it is an open secret that Duncan Allan was put in there to knock some heads together, to make some changes, to streamline, to reorganize. If he can put that ministry on a more rational, effective basis, I wish him well.

From the outset I did not join the bandwagon that tended to be created by my friends in the Liberal Party of browbeating him in a parochial way because he did not happen to be a farmer. At least he knows how government works around Queen's Park. That, I repeat, may be more effective in terms of serving the interests of the farmers at the present time.

Now we have a Minister of Agriculture and Food who is in the same category. With the two of them, the Dennis Timbrell-Duncan Allan team, there certainly will be more clout on behalf of this vital and basic industry than we have had around Queen's Park for many a year. My hopes and the hopes of the farmers might soar because of that prospect. But it matters not who is the Minister of Agriculture and Food if the government is not willing to formulate and finance new and better programs for the industry.

Traditionally, Ministers of Agriculture and Food have always been odd men out in business- dominated governments. And that is what they are, business-dominated governments both in Ottawa and here at Queen's Park. These ministers often fight lone battles and lose many of them. All one has to do is watch Eugene Whelan. He spends half his time fighting against fellow cabinet ministers trying to get justice for the agricultural industry. Whether or not the team of Timbrell and Allan is going to win the battle on behalf of agriculture remains to be seen.

The reason I rise in this throne speech debate is that I think this House and this government should be alerted to the fact that what was produced in the throne speech is not enough. It is regurgitated rhetoric and there is not enough new substance to be able to meet the needs of agriculture.

Just let me deal with five or six of the points. First it declared the guidelines for the eligibility of farmers for help under the farm adjustment assistance program were going to be broadened. Little wonder they are going to be broadened. I got the figures this morning. Do members know how many farmers have been helped by this farm adjustment assistance program? At the end of the first week of March, 46 farmers in the province. Do members know to what extent they had been helped? By $300,000.

We got that great Christmas spreading of the wings when the whole government became Santa Claus; $60 million was finally going to be made available to meet the interests of the vital industry of agriculture. Yet here we are, three months later, and 46 farmers have been able to get help in the measly sum of one third of $1 million. Little wonder the eligibility guidelines have to be broadened.

I made a comment the other day and the Minister of Agriculture and Food said, "I had not heard that yet." My comment was, the only people I am aware of who have done a detailed analysis of the number of people who could be helped and the payout that could flow from the original guidelines of that assistance program are the people in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. My information is that they will have difficulty reaching $30 million. In other words, it is another delusion. The government offers a program with a great price tag to it, $60 million, and, as it was originally presented to the people, there would not be a payout of more than $30 million.

It will be interesting to watch whether, with the broadened guidelines, the $30 million goes to $35 million or $40 million or $45 million. It is not wise to stick your neck out in politics, but I am going to do it. I venture a prediction that when the end of this year comes and this program concludes, the $60 million will not have been paid out. In other words it was a good propaganda gimmick.

5:50 p.m.

I do this knowing in one sense what a silly thing it is because they will come back and taunt me, but I am going to taunt them: get those guidelines broadened so the farmers will at least get the assistance the minister promised them.

Mr. Treleaven: We are flexible and responsible.

Mr. MacDonald: They are flexible all right; they are as flexible as a wet noodle.

Let me give an example. I got permission at noon today to put this on the record so the members can check it. Here are a couple of farmers, husband and wife, by the name of John and Barb Hill who live at Rockwood outside of Guelph. They wrote a letter to Bob Rae because Bob saw them when they were on the bus going up to that great Hanover meeting where, as the Globe and Mail said, "Rae a hit in small-town Ontario."

Mr. Nixon: Are you going to help him by giving him a seat?

Mr. MacDonald: Never mind that. Do not worry about that. When Bob Rae gets in here you will be running for cover even more than you are at the present time.

Mr. Nixon: He is not even here to hear you speak.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Assuming he gets in here; have you got a riding?

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for York South has the floor.

Mr. MacDonald: Let me quote a portion from this letter, "After putting all our figures in order, our accountant" -- incidentally this was an accountant appointed by the bank. They went to the bank and the bank was refusing to give them the small business bonds. I understand the bank can say, "No small business bonds," and there is no appeal. That is final. But on the farm assistance program, the bank does not have a final say. It can be appealed to Dick Hurd, who I think heads the appeal board here at Queen's Park. The accountant who was appointed by the bank sat down with the farmers and they worked it out.

"After putting all our figures in order, our accountant informed us that we had all the necessary qualifications to apply for help. On presenting this information to the bank we were told the bank does not want to go along with the financing of the complete operation. Their word is that if we agree to sell off more of our assets they may consider financing us in a small operation."

Let me pause there. They had to sell off the hogs because the bank had appointed a trustee. They had a loan of about $175,000, which with interest accumulation has now gotten close to $300,000. The bank appointed a trustee. The bank insisted that they sell off the hogs. Now the bank is insisting they sell off a good proportion of the cattle they have. What the devil are they going to have left to run a farm with? What is the purpose of this whole exercise; to maintain a viable farm or to destroy yet another family farm?

Let me pick it up: "We really do not feel," said John and Barb Hill, "that the country needs hobby farmers with off-farm jobs to subsidize their incomes. We do not think the bank should be controlling the supply of agricultural products by their lending tactics." Finally, they end their letter saying: "It has been suggested to us that not too many farmers applying for government assistance are actually being helped. How can we obtain the actual figures of the successful applicants?"

I repeat, after 10 weeks since the program was announced, 46 farmers among the 87,000 or thereabouts farmers in Ontario have been helped by the munificence of the government over there. Who are they trying to kid? This is in the throne speech. Rhetoric, with a bit more substance because the eligibility rules are going to be broadened. We will wait and see how much substance there is. There may be no more substance in the broadened rules than there was in the original document.

Mr. Treleaven: How many are on stream?

Mr. McClellan: You tell us.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member has the floor. I may remind the member it is approaching the hour of six and he may look for an appropriate moment.

Mr. MacDonald: Six o'clock comes early today; I will call now an appropriate moment because I have not finished and we come back at eight o'clock.

The Acting Speaker: Proceed. You have five minutes but I was giving you the --

Mr. McClellan: He says 80 are on stream.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, did somebody interject and say there are 80 on stream?

Mr. Treleaven: There are 80 on stream in the county of Oxford.

Mr. MacDonald: In Oxford alone?

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me comment on these interjections because this is really pretty basic. Let me remind the people over there that when they were looking for votes before the last election they allocated $25 million as an interest subsidy because they finally conceded just how serious was the burden of the high interest rates on farmers. Only 10 days after the election was over -- and the government got the votes; more than they deserved -- they cancelled the program although only $5 million of the $25 million had been spent. I will come to this in a moment, but I want to make the point here because it documents the case.

The government passed a program of financial assistance in 1975 to help young farmers get established. That also had a $25 million tag on it. I do not know what the latest payout is but I think it was $8 million last fall. So, in six or seven years, the government has assisted junior farmers by paying some $8 million out of the $25 million fund.

At least it did not have the gall to wipe that program out -- theoretically it is still there -- but it has regurgitated it; and God knows what is going to come up in the regurgitation. Regurgitations are not pretty or nice, they are usually smelly; and this is as smelly as the usual regurgitation in the throne speech. I will document this at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate the business of the House for tomorrow and the week of March 29. Tomorrow, we will be continuing the debate on the throne speech. On Monday, March 29, supplementary estimates will commence, beginning with the Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Attorney General, Colleges and Universities, Government Services, Northern Affairs and Treasury and Economics.

On Tuesday, March 30, we will continue supplementary estimates as above, and then go on to the supplementary estimates of the Ministries of Health, Environment, Natural Resources, Transportation and Communications and Community and Social Services.

On Wednesday, March 31, three committees may sit in the morning. They are the standing committees on general government, resources development and the administration of justice.

On Thursday, April 1, we will continue with supplementaries, if necessary, otherwise we will resume debate on the throne speech. On Friday, April 2, we will continue with the throne speech debate.

I remind the House that the resources development committee will organize Tuesday night, March 30, and then immediately begin its consideration, as authorized earlier today, of the 1980 report of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will join me in wishing a very happy birthday to the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), who is celebrating his 70th birthday today.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

March 18, 1982