Hansard Transcripts 1984-Mar-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin, I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the seventh report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses containing recommendations in respect of the indemnities and allowances of members of the assembly.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, the certificate of a by-election held on December 16, 1983.

Electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- Noble Villeneuve; Province of Ontario.

This is to certify that in view of a writ of election dated October 31, 1983, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and addressed to H. Fay Shaver, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in the Legislative Assembly of the province, in the room of Osie S. Villeneuve, Esquire, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, hath departed this life, Noble Villeneuve, Esquire, has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated December 23, 1983, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, March 15, 1984.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to the House Mr. Noble Villeneuve, member-elect for the electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

Noble Villeneuve, Esquire, member-elect for the electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, having taken the oath and subscribed the roll, took his seat.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I do not have a copy of this statement. It is not really in the form of a policy statement but rather some information I know members of the House will be very pleased to hear.

I am sure members know that this June northern France will be experiencing quite an invasion of veterans and tourists as the 40th anniversary of D-Day is celebrated. Normandy is going all out to celebrate this occasion.

It gives me great pleasure to tell the House that the gentleman who is organizing those ceremonies in Normandy is here with us today. He is a very distinguished parliamentarian. He was a member of the Resistance during the war. Immediately after the war he was appointed a prefect for the Normandy area by General de Gaulle. For 30 years he has been a deputy in the National Assembly in France and was for 10 years in cabinets under General de Gaulle.

Since 1945 he has been the chairman of the D-Day celebrations and has supervised the erection of a number of memorial plaques and seven or eight museums to commemorate the events of all the Allied Forces and particularly the Canadians and citizens of Ontario who took part in those events.

I would like to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House a very distinguished gentleman and parliamentarian, M. Raymond Triboulet.

I might also indicate that M. Triboulet is being accompanied on this visit by his commander-in-chief, Mr. Gus Goutouski, who is the head of the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada Canadian Legion branch and the chairman of the D-Day Plus 40 celebrations, organizing the tours for members of the Queen's Own Rifles and others.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members of my party, I would like to join in welcoming the distinguished gentlemen who are visiting Ontario today and who will be organizing in Normandy the second invasion of Dieppe, as my honourable friend called it.

Je veux dire que, il y a quelques années, j'ai eu l'opportunité d'assister à l'université de Caen en Normandie. Canadians there were treated with hospitality unlike any other kind of hospitality I have experienced in the world. So many people remember the liberating forces coming through Normandy at that time, and that hospitality, that sense of generosity, was extended to every Canadian visitor to Normandy all through the great Calvados areas. I remember all the free glasses of Calvados I got just because I was a Canadian. I am grateful, and please extend my gratitude back.

So I am happy to join the House leader in extending our welcome.

Mr. Rae: M. le Président, c'est avec un sens de plaisir et d'histoire que nous souhaitons la bienvenue au représentant du gouvernement de la France, ses services concernant la libération non seulement de la France mais la libération de toute l'Europe de la tyrannie nazie et tous les grands événements de l'histoire de notre siècle.

Les liens historiques entre non seulement le Canada mais notre province de l'Ontario et la France, ce sont des liens extrêmement importants et historiques. Il y a des familles dans cette province qui ont des mémoires assez tristes, sortant non seulement de cette Seconde Guerre mondiale mais aussi de la Première Guerre mondiale. Il y a des jeunes Ontariens qui sont, tristement, enterrés dans le territoire de la France. Et alors c'est tellement important que nous nous souvenions surtout des liens, des sentiments fraternels qui sont si importants entre l'Ontario, le Canada et la France.

Si je peux ajouter un mot personnel, M. le Président, mon père était l'assistant du Général Vanier. En Algérie, pendant la guerre il était un des premiers diplomates à arriver à Paris à l'automne de l'année 1944. Mon frère est né à Paris en 1945, et naturellement c'est pour nous, pour moi personnellement, un moment de souvenir et d'histoire de dire combien le député est bienvenu ici dans notre province et combien est important cet événement.

Mr. Speaker, the liberation of Paris and of France and the liberation of western Europe from the tyranny of Nazi Germany was an event of monumental importance in the history of the 20th century. There are Ontario families who have sad memories because their boys are buried from the First World War and from the Second World War. It is perhaps important that we remember them at this time, that we remember the tremendous unity in the west, the unity of those who believed in freedom and liberty and who were prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in seeing that others would be able to live under the sunshine of freedom in the west.

It is a great pleasure for me to speak on behalf of our party in welcoming the distinguished deputy and to say how very strongly we feel about this wonderful occasion, June 1984.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all my colleagues in the Legislature and in a very personal sense as well, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to you. We are honoured to have you with us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Four weeks ago today in a speech to the Empire Club the Premier created great expectations in the minds of many that he was going to attack vigorously the problem of youth unemployment in our province. The throne speech of yesterday was a feeble response.

I want to know specifically from the Premier now how much he is going to spend and how many jobs he is going to create.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, actually the throne speech was the day before yesterday. I think the throne speech made it quite clear that youth unemployment is a major concern of this government and a major priority of our policy. I indicated to members of the press who were questioning me on this just before the reading of the throne speech by the Lieutenant Governor that the specifics of the monetary allocations would be a part of the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).

Mr. Peterson: How long do we have to wait? This problem has been of crisis proportions for at least two years in this province. In northwestern Ontario, one in four of our young people has been without work for two years, not just since yesterday. In Toronto, there are 64,500 young people who are unemployed, and it has been going on for two years. In the Hamilton area, west to Brantford, there is 23.5 per cent unemployment; some 25,500 people are without work, and it has been going on for two years.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: How long do we have to wait?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only point out to the honourable member, because we have discussed this in the previous session, that the government has already taken very significant initiatives. If he checks the figures carefully, he will find the numbers of unemployed, while still far from satisfactory, are substantially reduced from a year ago.

As a matter of ongoing policy, the government has already provided substantial funding for young people in job situations. I just say to the member that I made it quite clear in the throne speech, or His Honour did, that this is a very significant priority of the government and that the budget of the Treasurer will deal with the specifics in terms of funding.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, let the Premier not blame the Lieutenant Governor for the contents of the speech. Let him take it on himself.

When there are 176,000 young people who are officially unemployed and many thousands more who are either on welfare or unable to show up in the statistics, why did the government simply say all it was going to do was add to the hotchpotch of existing programs rather than say it is important to start out with a fresh approach and create some new programs which not only would be announced in the speech from the throne but also would have some dollars attached to them rather than have to wait around until May or June for the Treasurer to come up with his budget?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is using a figure that is perhaps one month out of date. The figure is 163,000, and I am not suggesting that is, by any means, adequate.

I say to the member that I will accept some responsibility, not for the delivery, which I thought was excellent, but for the contents of the throne speech. In his press release to the public, he said he agreed with 50 per cent of it and then decided to delineate that 50 per cent with which he did not agree.

Mr. Rae: We agreed with the adjectives.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just thought I would let the member know that I read those tremendous press releases which somebody prepares for him while he is out walking through the receiving line. I pay very careful attention to them. I would only say to the member that --

Mr. Foulds: Really dealing with substance this session, eh?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) should know all about substance. He has never dealt with it in his life, so he should know all about it. I accept those interjections, but perhaps he would let me answer his leader in an attempt to maintain the dignity for which the member for Port Arthur is always in support, if rarely.

I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), that this government has taken already significant steps. We intend to do more. The amount of money and the direction of the programs will be determined in the budget of the Treasurer.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is the one who created the expectations and now he is passing the buck on to the Treasurer, the Lieutenant Governor or anyone else he can find. He quoted the statistics back. He said there were 163,000 unemployed young people. I gave him our regional breakdowns on the basis of special Statistics Canada runs that even he does not have.

Why are the Premier and his government suppressing important information in this whole discussion? Why is he not allowing the Ontario Manpower Commission's labour market outlook to be made public so we can understand the mismatch between the skills training and the demands of the marketplace? Why is he not making that public? Why is he not making public the evaluation of the Ontario career action program, the Ontario youth employment program and other youth envelope programs, so we can have a clear understanding of their effect? Why is his government sitting on this information?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was not too many months ago that we went through the estimates of the various ministries where these programs already exist. I have not had an opportunity to review what members of his party said during discussion of those matters. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition might check back, for his own benefit, to see just what constructive criticism his own members had to offer.

I would say to the honourable member that he may have expected certain things as a result of that contribution to the Empire Club. I made it fairly clear that we would be addressing this issue. I do not know whether I referred directly to the throne speech or the budget, but it was quite clear in the throne speech and I made it clear to the press that this is a priority for the government and will be dealt with in the budget of the Treasurer.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Premier. The Premier is no doubt aware of a pattern of behaviour in his various ministries which is in clear violation of the Manual of Administration of his government. What is his explanation of this ongoing series of violations in his government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I am not aware of any ongoing series of violations. In a government where administrative contracts, decisions or transactions, which is perhaps the best word, take place at the rate of some 29,000 per day, which is the number of negotiations or transactions on the part of this government, I am aware that from time to time there can be certain deviations from the Manual of Administration.

I would just point out to the Leader of the Opposition, who I know has embarked upon this particular crusade -- and we heard rumours about a press conference this morning, but I guess there could not be any agreement as to which brown envelope he was going to use next -- he should be very careful. He had better analyse the contents before he uses them.

I just want to review the observations of the Provincial Auditor vis-à-vis those of the -- how is he described in Ottawa? -- the Auditor General.

Mr. Bradley: This is your baby in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Davis: l am just trying to put this in perspective for the member for St. Catharines.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Here we are, December 13, 1983 --

Ms. Copps: We know you would rather be in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I know that ever since Mr. Trudeau's resignation the members opposite have taken on what they think is a new life.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just dealing with this, just quoting Kenneth Dye, he says: "The federal government suffers from a lack of political will to cut the cost of its $89-billion operation. It lacks the real push needed to build a productive public service," and so on. It goes into some greater detail.

I just want to read three quotations from the Provincial Auditor of this province.

"1.3: Indeed, several audits conducted during the past year disclosed no matters of major significance. With certain other audits, although weaknesses and deficiencies were noted, the program activities and systems reviewed, when taken as a whole, were found to be generally well controlled.

"3.2: While much needs to be done to improve the accountability processes between the government and the recipients of transfer payments, we are encouraged by what we have seen to date.

"4.2: Accountability of crown agencies: In spite of certain shortcomings, we do not believe the situation in Ontario presents the same problems as exist at the federal level."

That is from the Provincial Auditor of this province who has a total overview as to the activities of this government.

Mr. Peterson: I would remind the Premier that the Provincial Auditor found there was premeditated and wilful violation of the Manual of Administration in this province right under his nose. We have pointed out to the Premier eight contracts in five ministries using a variety of tricks to beat the Manual of Administration, from splitting up contracts with a Decima situation to $42,000 for this untendered contract for this unique bookmark; and the list goes on. How many contracts does the Premier have to see before he is going to admit there is a problem and, more important, enforce his own rules?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) have something he wanted to ask?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Bradley: I am listening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What did the member for St. Catharines say? Oh, I see; all right.

The Leader of the Opposition asked, "How many contracts?" As I pointed out, there are 29,000. They are not all contracts but transactions done by public servants in this province five days a week. I have never said that out of that number, which if multiplied by the number of days would be getting into the hundreds of thousands, there had not been situations where the Manual of Administration may not have been strictly adhered to. No one is going to argue that.

I would say to the member that if he looked at it on balance in terms of the accounting procedures of this government, its accountability and the numbers of situations that have emerged in so many other jurisdictions, the affairs of this province are extremely well managed from that standpoint. If the Leader of the Opposition has other things he wishes to bring to our attention, and I am sure his researchers are hard at work finding them, I hope he will feel free to do so.

The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) announced yesterday that the firm of Price Waterhouse and Canada Consulting Group have been retained by the government to review the accountability process to see if there are ways and means by which we can improve it. I have said on many occasions that we do not pretend to represent perfection in everything we do. If there are constructive ways and means of improving the process, this government has a record of improving situations where we think an improvement is necessary, and this will be the case again.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it has taken six years for the Chairman of Management Board finally to hire an outside contractor to find out exactly why he is not doing his job properly. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the fact that on page 27 of the speech from the throne --

lnterjections.

Mr. Martel: That was a Freudian slip. He knew the Premier wanted it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: Does the Premier not see the hypocrisy in preaching to municipalities and other bodies that receive provincial funding about value-for-money auditing when the Provincial Auditor has shown time and time again that value-for-money auditing has not been implemented by this government, be it with Ontario Hydro, be it with Ontario government advertising, be it with the mismanagement of Ontario Place and, indeed, the fraud in that body, be it with Minaki Lodge or be it with the land acquisition at Cayuga? Why is he preaching to municipalities and other bodies when he has not cleaned up his own act?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would make one or two general observations to the member for Etobicoke. I am quite prepared to measure our performance in terms of how we manage our affairs in this province against any level of government anywhere in this country. I say that without any hesitation.

The part that disturbs me a little bit is the tenor of the question from the Leader of the Opposition, as supplemented by the member for Etobicoke. They create the impression there are a number of people in the public service of this province who are wilfully breaking the rules. I have no hesitation in saying I have confidence in the public servants in this province. They are able, competent and dedicated and it is time some of the members across the House stopped crucifying them and recognized what a great job they do.

I know the Leader of the Opposition has his hit list. I know he is going to fire all these people if he ever assumes office. The only thing is he will never get the chance.

Mr. Peterson: It is interesting. Obviously, the Premier was quoting the Provincial Auditor, who accused one of the Premier's cronies of wilful violation of the Manual of Administration --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- and the Premier chose to make a human sacrifice in that case rather than get to the bottom of the whole matter. He still will not come forward with it.

I was very interested in the Chairman of Management Board's Wasaga Beach confession wherein he went public and admitted he had absolutely no idea of what his responsibilities were or what he was doing. Now the government is spending --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- $390,000 as a trick to evade the responsibility of enforcement of the current rule.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: My question, just in time, Mr. Speaker, is how could the Premier be happy with a ministry such as the Ministry of Correctional Services that has had an untendered contract since 1976 with Montfort Blanchet and Associates? It now totals some $327,000 and is in clear violation of the government's own Manual of Administration. How can he explain that? When is he going to take the problem seriously?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have always taken problems seriously, but unlike the Leader of the Opposition never myself, which is something he might learn some day.

The Leader of the Opposition uses very unfortunate terminology when he suggests this is a trick by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. That is the kind of terminology, the kind of attitude, that has led him to such a high viewing and visibility level by the public of this province.

When he gets out press reports that he is going to fire most of the senior public servants, he reminds me of Mitch Hepburn. The Leader of the Opposition knows where he led his party. They have never recovered from it.

I am not aware of the particular situation which I assume the Leader of the Opposition was thinking of having a press conference about this morning, but decided not to. I will be delighted to have the minister take a look at it.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mitch Hepburn will ride again.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Really? Is that what you are looking for?

Mr. McClellan: Hepburn for leader. Ruprecht for leader.

Interjections.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is all a question of what form he will take when he does.

My question is for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues in the cabinet, the Deputy Premier. Given the amount of windy rhetoric in the speech from the throne with respect to advancing the position of women in Ontario, given the almost complete absence of substance with respect to any new measures to redress the real inequalities that exist, given the fact there has been no advancement in terms of social housing in the province and no mention of social housing in the entire speech from the throne at a time when there are more people on the waiting list for the Ontario Housing Corp. than at any other time, and given the majority of people on the waiting list for Ontario Housing on the family lists are women who are responsible for the raising of children, how could the Deputy Premier sit back and let a speech from the throne go through which said nothing about social housing and did nothing to end the systemic discrimination against women who face this tremendous barrier to fair housing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I have to take exception to the preamble to that question. Those of us who had the privilege of hearing the honourable leader of the third party on Metro Morning today came away with the impression that perhaps he was not overly satisfied with all the contents of the speech from the throne.

Mr. Foulds: Don't break your finger.

Hon. Mr. Welch: In fact, the interviewer was so overwhelmed he started to refer to the leader of the third party as "Bobby," which may be some indication of how responsible he felt his attitude was.

Having said that, let me tell him this: this government led by Bill Davis takes a back seat to no one with respect to its commitment to equality, equity and fairness as far as women are concerned. The record shouts pretty loudly with respect to that.

Mr. McClellan: Is it in your finger? Where is the housing?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just in case he missed these things in the speech from the throne, I draw his attention to the fact there were many references with respect to what we intend to do to take further steps, not only to talk about these principles but to deliver some specific programs with respect to them.

I am quite satisfied as I move around in the discharge of my responsibilities that responsible women know this administration will continue to take positive steps in the field of affirmative action with respect to pay, with respect to pensions, as far as personal security is concerned and with respect to the welfare of women who are the victims of social abuse. I think he would do us all a favour if he joined with us in making sure these causes are advanced rather than being so irresponsible in his attitude to all these things.

Surely, there can be no objection to the overall objective with respect to this whole area of public responsibility, that of fairness, justice and equity. I would simply ask: "Why don't you join us? Why do you take so much time and spend so much energy on all these matters without joining and giving some particular impetus to it? Why don't you phone Joe Coté and take back everything you said on the radio this morning?"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Unless there was housing in the minister's finger, I did not hear a single word in all that bluster, muster and puffter that came out of the minister's mouth about social housing, which was the question I was directing to him.

I would like to point out that Ontario Housing will not accept an application for housing from a woman who wants to separate from her husband but who has not yet done so; Ontario Housing will not place a pregnant woman, without other children, on the waiting list until the baby is born; Ontario Housing units for couples must always be co-signed in the lease. Women are thus discriminated against for any problems the husband has created. There are countless examples of ways in which Ontario Housing systematically discriminates against women.

How can the minister so compromise himself as to claim to be a spokesman for women in this province when he let a speech from the throne go through which says nothing about the very real barriers to access to housing that exist for women in the province today?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not feel compromised in any way. I have been a member of this government for many years and I am proud of its record in all aspects, including housing.

The member does a great disservice when he tries to suggest otherwise to the women of this province. From time to time he should realize we are speaking to a very large constituency, and a speech from the throne is not the only document nor supposed to be all-inclusive with respect to programs. There is an ongoing program, and I am sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), supported by whatever initiatives the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will have in his budget, will continue to respond.

It is not as if we Just discovered this problem yesterday, as the leader of the third party apparently has. He should look at the record of this administration in providing housing for the people and he should keep that in some context. I really feel under the circumstances he does not provide a very valuable service by ignoring the contributions that have been made and not recognizing the fact there will be further steps and further initiatives with respect to this very important social need.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not a little concerned when representatives from municipalities across this province, including the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa, have to come to this government begging on their hands and knees for money for social housing in the major urban centres across this province? As the minister responsible for the issues affecting women, who are waiting on very long waiting lists to get into places in Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and other cities, does he not feel a little bit concerned and responsible?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sure there are a number of people on lists. I am a member of this Legislature. I have a constituency office and I know the concerns with respect to housing. I also know that people are very reasonable and approach these problems understanding that the solutions do take time and resources. It is not as if we are not providing some accommodation.

If the member were really interested in an answer to that question, she would direct it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing so he could explain exactly what the program is in that regard.

Mr. Rae: That is a complete waste of time and the minister knows it. Why does the government not get a minister of housing?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister this, in case he does not know it. I am going to give him a particular case because it dramatizes exactly what is happening to women in the province today with respect to housing.

Ontario Housing Corp. does not place applicants on priority waiting lists until they have custody of their children. The case is of a woman who has been in touch with us by the name of Karen Pearston, who is a single mother in Toronto with daughters aged three and six. She applied for OHC accommodation in July 1983, at which time she had custody of her children.

In July 1983 she was evicted from her cockroach-infested apartment so the owners could renovate; so she temporarily gave care of her children to her husband. At that time, she lost custody of her children because of the simple fact she did not have adequate accommodation and adequate housing. Ontario Housing Corp. turned around and said, "We cannot put you on the priority waiting list because you do not have custody of your children."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: That is the reality in Ontario for a great number of women, not for affluent people but for people who are down and out because of the recession this government has presided over for so damned long.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: How can the Deputy Premier, as the minister who is supposed to be the advocate in cabinet for the women of this province, tolerate a situation with respect to social housing that is actively discriminating against women who want to have custody of their children?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable leader of the third party was really legitimately concerned in that particular case and others, why has he waited until Thursday, March 22, to bring this to the attention of the government when he could have picked up a telephone --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He has not waited.

Mr. Rae: We told you about it before.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is the old stunt: the individual cases. Why does the member not do what every other member does? They pick up a telephone, call the minister and say: "I have a particular problem here. What are you going to do about it?" instead of trying to grandstand in front of all these people with respect to this issue.

Mr. Rae: We told you about it before.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You are the questioner; you are bringing it up. Never mind trying to transfer it to somebody else.

Does the member realize it all depends on how one looks at these things?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That matter has been raised with the ministry, as have most of the other cases that have been raised, and not a damned thing has been done about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Deputy Premier, on the original question, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The question is, how do you want to look at the record. Maybe members of the House would like to know that in our province, which has always responded to its social responsibilities, there are now 115,000 rent-supplement units. One out of every 10 rental units in Ontario is rent geared to income, and in Metropolitan Toronto alone it is one in every seven.

That is a record we should take some pleasure in. There is more to be done, but it all depends on whether the member wants to concentrate on it in the context of making some political showmanship or whether he wants to start dealing with individual programs with the ministers.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: People are suffering and you know it. While people are suffering, you should not be happy.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Does the member not think he is going to get a little overexcited?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, I am not, damn it; but a lot of people are hurting out there.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just relax.

RETUBING OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Premier. Another dramatic -- and, indeed, I think most people would feel amazing -- omission from the speech from the throne was any mention of Ontario Hydro. Here we have a utility whose debt is enormous, which announced a few short days ago that it intends to retube Pickering units 1 and 2 for $700 million and which announced a short time ago that it was going to be doing some testing on the tubes at Pickering unit 3 -- which are made of a different substance, as I am sure the Premier knows. This raises the question of whether there is not a generic problem with the pressure tubes throughout the entire system.

If it is necessary to replace the pressure tubes throughout the system, it will cost $2.8 billion of publicly guaranteed moneys that are going to have to be paid for by the people of this province one way or another.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why was there absolutely no mention in the speech of this problem and this tremendous challenge facing the province? Can the Premier tell us what the implications are of the decision to make the tests at Pickering unit 3 as well as to close down units 1 and 2 and replace the tubes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), who will be here a little later if he has not arrived yet, will be --

Mr. McClellan: It is later already.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) but I will not let him --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, some of his people were away for the throne speech on Tuesday.

Mr. McClellan: We are not ministers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I am not really sure what he expected His Honour to include in the throne speech with respect to Hydro. He could have stated that Ontario Hydro is one of the most efficient producers of electrical energy in North America; that, in spite of problems that have emerged over a number of years, compared to just about any other utility in North America its rates are still the lowest and its efficiency rates are still the highest; that we as consumers in this province are getting the benefit of that wise leadership and direction over a period of years. He could have stated that very factually and he would have been correct.

If the leader of the New Democratic Party is asking me whether Hydro should or should not be replacing the tubes in units 1 and 2, I am sure he assumes that Hydro is making the right decision in making those replacements. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party knows from his study of Hydro that Hydro had already contemplated the replacement of those tubes from day one, probably two years later than what is going on at present. Eight years ago things were going so well that I think they postponed the retubing and the financing thereof until roughly 1990, and they have made a decision to retube those two units.

As I recall, units 1 and 2 at Pickering rank sixth and eighth in efficiency on a total world scale, and that is among a lot of generating units in the total world community. The decision by Hydro to retube those units -- properly, I think, in this case -- will in fact be the appropriate decision.

Mr. Rae: That was not my question. My question was what is the implication of the decision to test the tubes at unit 3, which has implications for every single tube throughout the system.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member's question was why did His Honour not have something to say about it in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Rae: The Premier was not listening to the whole question; that is all I can say. I think the Premier is a little out of touch with what is happening in Ontario Hydro and what is going on there, and yet the cost implications for the whole province are quite simply enormous.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Given the fact that the workers at Ontario Hydro have requested a significant reduction in the permissible exposure levels to radiation, can the Premier give us a firm guarantee that the workers at Ontario Hydro will not be required to get involved in the exposure to radiation that is going to be involved in the retubing until there has been a firm decision with respect to permissible levels?

Can he give a guarantee that this will not be done without the permission and without the informed consent of every worker who is being asked and expected to expose himself to radiation because of the decision by Ontario Hydro to go ahead with the replacements?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member says I am not totally up to date on what is happening at Hydro.

I would confess I do not know everything that goes on in Ontario Hydro; I do not pretend to be that knowledgeable and I say with the greatest of respect that I doubt he is either. I do not say that critically, I just say it factually.

I do recall the second part of the question -- because the first part of his question really did relate to the throne speech, in all fairness -- as to whether or not they should be testing in units 3 and 4. I think it is just unit 3.

The material used in unit 3 -- he is quite right -- is different. They are relatively confident that the same problems will not emerge, but the member opposite would be the first one to be critical if they did not make that sort of test or survey.

With respect to the safety of the work force at Ontario Hydro, if we go back once again to the history of that organization I do not think we will find management at Ontario Hydro exposing the workers to hazards in any manner, shape or form. What has never been recognized in this current situation at Ontario Hydro is that it has been able to develop on a very rapid basis some very new and sophisticated technology for the removal of the tubes, something that was never really totally appreciated.

I think Hydro's record on the safety of its employees will measure up to that of any comparable institution anywhere. I cannot give all the guarantees the member wishes. I am not that familiar with it, except to say I am confident that Ontario Hydro is not going to expose its employees to any sort of hazard.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier aware that there are 1,800 garter springs out of place in Bruce units 5, 6 and 7? This means that roughly 31 per cent of all the spacers in these reactors are not in the places they are supposed to be. The Premier will be aware that this was the cause of the original problem in Pickering units 1 and 2.

Is he aware of the problem? What is he doing to examine it? Is it a generic problem running through all of the reactors?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this question has already been asked on a previous occasion. Have I examined the problem? The answer is no. Am I confident that Ontario Hydro can deal with this problem effectively? The answer is yes.

Mr. Rae: It is really astonishing that a technical problem of such severity would be experienced in what the Tory government has decided will become a --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: -- critical engine in the energy system and that the Premier would be entirely unaware of exactly what that problem is. He can be briefed by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and lots of people. It amazes me that the Premier has chosen to remain ignorant of what is a critical problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Given the implications for health and safety and the financial implications of this retubing problem for the entire hydroelectric system in this province, why is he so reluctant to establish a public inquiry to deal with both the health and safety problem and the question of financial implications?

Every other utility in North America is facing up to the new reality with respect to the real cost of nuclear power. Why is the Premier not prepared to face up to that reality?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not intend to answer for every other utility in North America. I leave that for the honourable member's studies and assessment. I point out to the member that if he read very carefully the release from Ontario Hydro, it made it abundantly clear that in terms of any hazards to the workers they would be well within the guidelines set down by the Atomic Energy Control Board.

Mr. Rae: Those are the ones that are the subject of dispute just now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not pretend to be familiar with the total operation of Hydro, as I said, but I know a wee bit, perhaps more than the member does, about this problem. The question of having a public inquiry is totally ludicrous. To me, examination or discussion by a committee in the Legislature has greater appeal, but to have a public inquiry with respect to --

Mr. Martel: You have demonstrated that for four years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just be patient. The member's former leader, the academic at --

Mr. Foulds: You killed the committee.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, sure. Some of those members went into that Hydro committee and came out singing a different tune after they allowed themselves to be somewhat educated; a totally different tune. They should read what they themselves said.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Premier will answer the original question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What was the original question?

I will just summarize my observations by saying that we do not contemplate having a public inquiry of the nature the leader of the New Democratic Party suggests.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities concerning Algonquin College in Ottawa. The minister will know that since this House last met in December 1983, there have been some extraordinary happenings and some remarkable revelations about the administration of Algonquin College, the largest of our provincial community colleges.

Will the minister rise in her place this afternoon and report to this assembly on her latest information about the current state of administration with respect to Algonquin College in Ottawa, with particular reference to the issue of overfunding and what it is intended be done about the extraordinary conduct of Mr. E. L. Huang in the financial management program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it would be appropriate for me to make any statement, even within this Legislature, about a matter which is currently under investigation by the police and which may lead to some court procedure. I do not know because I have not consulted with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about whether it would be appropriate to do that or not, but I will certainly tell the honourable member about what is happening at Algonquin College.

As the member knows, there has been an appointment of the assistant deputy minister, skills development division, as an ex officio member of the board of governors of Algonquin College. He or his delegate has attended every board meeting and every committee meeting of the board since that appointment was made in January. He has been providing advice on the restructuring of the management system of the college and there is certainly total commitment on the part of that board to increasing and strengthening all management capabilities within that college specifically. He will be continuing to attend those meetings.

As of today, I have written a letter, which is being delivered right now to the chairman of the board of the college, regarding the question which was asked about the $2.4-million overpayment to Algonquin on the basis of misinformation regarding enrolment within that college during the period of time the alleged fraudulent behaviour was taking place.

We have sought the advice of the financial advisory group within the college system, which is made up of college administrators, presidents of the college system, some financial people and some people within the ministry. I have also consulted with the presidents of all the colleges. I have followed their advice in this matter and provided that information to the chairman of the board of Algonquin College this afternoon. I believe the total information contained in that letter will be revealed to the public after the board meeting this evening.

Mr. Conway: Given the minister's oft-repeated concern about the need for this Legislature and her government to have a better and heightened appreciation for the management of public funds transferred from the provincial government to such agencies as community colleges and given the truly extraordinary and Byzantine reports emanating out of Algonquin College about precisely what has gone on there, particularly in the past two or three years, is the minister prepared to support a recommendation today that would send the Provincial Auditor into Algonquin College to undertake a comprehensive audit of the administration of that $70-million operation so that the air might be cleared and so that these questions, rumours and allegations, worrisome and many as they are, might be set to rest once and for all by such a neutral referee as the Provincial Auditor who has the interest, and more important, the capacity?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not prepared to make that statement today, but it is a matter I have been considering seriously and will report to the House in the future.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that despite the very active participation of her official, Mr. Hunter, who has been sitting in on the meetings of the college board of governors over the course of the last three months, the confidence of the community of Ottawa-Carleton has been severely shaken by the shenanigans and behaviour of the board and the revelations of management problems within Algonquin College?

Will she now undertake and agree to have a public inquiry that could get to the management problems of Algonquin College and could restore credibility and confidence in the community about what is happening there? Since both the minister and the chairman of the board have said they are not opposed, perhaps she can explain why that somehow continues to be blocked by this government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said on at least three occasions that I have some concern about the establishment of a public inquiry at this point while the police forces are continuing their investigation. I have some very real concern that the conduct of a public inquiry might jeopardize the investigation and the course of justice in one specific area. When that investigation is completed, I will be considering very seriously the kind of request the member for Ottawa Centre has made on several occasions.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister may remember that a question was asked in the Legislature regarding Heritage Nursing Home a while back. In that question, we pointed out that in 1980 this nursing home made $362,000 in profit on revenue of $2.2 million.

I am wondering if the minister is satisfied that we are getting value for our dollar when one considers that in the September 27, 28 and 29 inspector's reports this home was in violation of 40 areas of the Nursing Homes Act. Those violations included the fact there was no care for a resident who had been living at the home for more than two months, assessment plans had been lost, a call system did not function, live and dead cockroaches were found in several rooms including the kitchen and carpets in several rooms were wrinkled, therefore posing a tripping hazard which is certainly responsible for a lot of broken hips and bones in nursing homes across this province.

Can the minister respond and indicate whether he is satisfied? While the owner of this home is making lots of money, who is protecting the residents and making sure the money that goes from the taxpayers of this province is being spent on the residents to make sure we have quality of care in this nursing home?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member is aware that we have a very effective staff of inspectors in the branch who are involved on an ongoing basis with all the nursing homes across the province. I do not have before me the inspection report the member is quoting from so as to be able to verify the accuracy of the information. I will accept it as stated for the purposes of this question.

I point out that the member should do an appropriate follow-up on the report he is referring to. He knows the procedure that is followed. A home where there is any violation whatsoever is given a very limited time frame within which to comply or file a compliance report. Further follow-up inspections then take place, and if they have not complied within the time frame specified they face charges. Given the dates the member has quoted in that instance, I assume that has already occurred with that home.

If the member wishes, I am quite willing to do a more detailed review and to report in the House, but that is the normal procedure. There are certainly occasions when things that are totally unacceptable are found. They are not frequent and they are rare, but they do occur and we respond effectively and quickly to deal with them.

Mr. Cooke: How can the minister have so much confidence in homes like Heritage when we know the profit figures they are making? We know that when one is taking that kind of money out of a nursing home, the residents cannot possibly be getting quality care.

Since these inspections, the owner of this nursing home threatened workers by saying he cannot afford them any more and he is looking at contracting out some of this work for $4 an hour. This will result in a further decline in the quality of care at this nursing home. When is the minister going to realize that when the profit motive is number one, quality of care has to come second?

If the minister has not already been to the nursing home in Thunder Bay run by the Sisters of St. Joseph where, in addition to using all the government's money and residents' money directly for the quality of care of the residents, they have put in another $250,000 a year of their own money, maybe he should take a look at that nonprofit nursing home and ask himself whether the quality of care in that home can compare in any way to the private, profit-oriented nursing homes this government seems to be married to at the expense of the residents of the nursing homes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member is again falling into his usual pattern of a diatribe based on an ideological commitment and not upon any rational analysis of the system.

One cannot make an equation between the profit motive and quality of care or suggest that one is exclusive of the other. One could go to any number of profit-making nursing homes in this province and see a very high quality of care being provided.

For example, the member may not understand that the profit shown by a given corporation may depend upon a variety of things that have nothing to do with the quality of care, such as whether the facility has a mortgage or whether the mortgage has been discharged. That is a significant factor. Has the member taken the trouble to check into that aspect? I would be surprised if he actually has. That is something of considerable significance along with a variety of other things.

Quality of care is not dependent on the profit-making motive or its absence. As the member knows, the quality of care is often dependent upon much more intangible things, such as the commitment of the individuals involved.

I am not saying those kinds of problems do not exist. They are bound to exist in a complex system such as the nursing home system or the health care system generally across this province. But I assure the member we are committed to eliminating them wherever they exist. If he would like to assist us in that regard whenever he becomes aware of these problems and thinks I may not already be aware of them and addressing them, I am as close as the other end of the telephone if he wants to phone me and raise these. However, I suspect in most instances he would rather sit on them until the opening of the Legislature so he can raise them on the floor of the House.

Mr. McClellan: I am glad we do not impute motives in here, because that would be very distressing.

Mr. Martel: Let them say anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the issue of quality of care goes far beyond the physical arrangements of any establishment, nursing home or otherwise. The minister's predecessor committed himself to bringing in some legislation governing the whole area of programming for residents in nursing homes. I wonder whether the minister might indicate to the House when he plans to table this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as a precedent to any such action, I have indicated it is my intention to conduct a complete review of the nursing home regulations. I hope to be able to initiate that very soon, within the next month. In my opinion, it would be done most effectively by way of a working party and, as well as people within the ministry, probably would involve people external to the ministry, because I could not agree more that many of our regulations, although very well conceived at the time they were introduced, deal with somewhat picayune things relating to physical space requirements and so on. I am not suggesting such aspects be ignored, but we ought to try to find ways to address things that relate more directly to assuring that less tangible thing called the quality of life of the residents, and it is our intention to do so.

OIL SPILL

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment a question. Is he aware that 600 gallons of oil were spilled in the Crowe River yesterday by Ontario Hydro? I am wondering what Ontario Hydro is doing about it.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the honourable member has asked that question. Not only is it a good question, but I think I have a good answer for the member.

With respect to what could have been a very serious situation, I am pleased to be able to indicate that the spill essentially has been cleaned up. Ontario Hydro was on the site within half an hour of that spill.

An hon. member: Half an hour?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Yes; half an hour. What kind of a response time is that? I want the member to know, as well as the members across the floor, that my ministry is there monitoring the quality of the water to make absolutely certain there is no level of contamination that will affect the residents of that area. Everything is under control.

Mr. Sheppard: Will the minister guarantee to me that if the water goes into the town of Campbellford, the drinking water will be safe?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am pleased the member asked that supplementary. To the best of my knowledge, there are no difficulties with respect to the quality of the drinking water, but as I indicated to the member, the reality is we are monitoring that now. There are no traces of oil slicks on the river whatsoever.

The matter just did happen, as the member knows, and I will provide him with a report as to the actual quality of the water. To the best of our knowledge, the matter is not going to cause any difficulty with the drinking water supply.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of the Environment might tell us when he expects to be making a decision with respect to the regulations that were initially circulated by his predecessor in the ministry. I understand they are undergoing a long-term review with respect to section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act, which would deal in a formal way with situations such as this one.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, we have the mechanisms to deal reasonably adequately with the type of spill that has occurred in the situation described by the honourable member. As the member is well aware, the big difficulty, and probably the most serious difficulty with respect to section 9 that he was referring to, is the whole question of adequate insurance coverage to cover the private sector. This difficulty has not been overcome at this time by any of the carriers of the private sector, which would have to have some form of insurance coverage.

We are still actively working on the matter to find out whether it can be resolved, but until that very essential and major issue can be covered off by the private corporations and by the insurance industry, it would be irresponsible and totally inappropriate to introduce the kind of amendments that were suggested earlier.

3:10 p.m.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of the Environment with respect to the throne speech. It contained a rather well-hidden section about a commitment to resolving disputes and reducing the costly complexity of the environmental legislation.

Will the minister agree with me that the activity announced in the throne speech represents an attempt by him to reduce the effectiveness of the legislation now in place to the level that is currently witnessed by all of us with respect to the way that legislation is enforced? In other words, he is trying to weaken his commitment, the commitment by his government, to protect the environmental security of this province.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I want to separate myself entirely from the comments of the honourable member. I in no way intend to weaken the environmental legislation that is on the books in this province; I intend to strengthen it. The process we are talking about, which was referred to in the throne speech, refers to such mechanisms as environmental mediation, which we are already experimenting with, for example, in the Midland area over the Pauzé site.

I see nothing wrong with the concept of attempting to bring community organizations together, to sit down and discuss and attempt to resolve their difficulties and differences of opinion, so they can avoid having to go through a formal court sitting and a very difficult and complex kind of legal confrontation, which in my view is totally unnecessary in this province. Where I can get the community to resolve its problems by sitting down and talking with a level of common sense, I can tell the member that, as one minister of this government, I am going to do it.

Mr. Elston: Will the minister make a commitment to us in the House today that if he does bring in the mediation process, he will not eliminate the formal proceedings under which people have been able to operate to this point? That is, if the mediation fails to alleviate the concerns of the public with respect to a program, will he allow those people to go in front of a hearing, such as the consolidated hearings board, for instance, that met to deal with the Salford situation in Oxford county?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am quite prepared to give the member that undertaking today. Our intentions are to resolve some of the issues and to remove what might be referred to as the emotional issues, but if there are still substantive issues that have to be resolved by way of the process in place now, it is our intention to continue to use that. I have no difficulty in giving the member that commitment today.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how he envisions this environmental mediation process replacing the public process we now have when in his Midland experiment he is demanding that the participants in that mediation sign documents swearing them to absolute secrecy?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am not aware of anyone being required or requested to sign documents with respect to the secrecy question. I will certainly look into that. The process itself is not one of attempting to replace the community process I described to the member in answering the previous question. The process is there to resolve some of the issues, I hope by bringing the community together as I indicated. It is not there to replace completely the mechanisms now in place.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, although it is a bit unusual to speak against a committee report, I want to do so on this one. I object to this bill. The people of Vespra township object to it. The objections were made clear. The response on the part of the government was totally inadequate. I objected to the bill on second reading and I want to do so now.

Mr. Nixon: We are going to send it to committee for a little more review, are we not?

Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, it was quite obvious during the hearings only a month and a half ago that neither the city of Barrie nor the province made a case for annexation. The province is now coming down very hard with its heavy hand on a small municipality, and I do not think that is a reason for this bill to go through.

My colleagues and I very much oppose this bill. We oppose this report as it has been submitted by the standing committee on general government.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has said, it is very unusual to debate a report, and I will not do so. I simply say I totally reject the nonsense coming from the other side. This bill had a full and fair hearing, and it will have one in committee of the whole House.

The House divided on Mr. McLean's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Baetz, Bennett, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kerr, Kolyn;

Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel;

McClellan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 59; Nays 47.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

3:40 p.m.

MOTIONS

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole House for this session.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that private members' ballot items not be taken into consideration until the first Thursday following completion of the throne debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that due to the interruption of the consideration of private bill legislation occasioned by the prorogation of the third session of the 32nd parliament, the applications for private legislation related to Bills Pr14, An Act respecting the Yonge-Rosedale Charitable Foundation; Pr37, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects; Pr41, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton; Pr 42, An Act respecting the City of Peterborough; Pr46, An Act respecting the Brockville Rowing Club Inc.; and Pr47, An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke, which received first reading in the third session be considered during the present session without paying further application fees, without publishing further notice of the applications and without lodging further declarations proving publication; and that the application for private legislation related to Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, be considered during the present session upon the payment of the applicable fees but without publishing further notice and lodging further declarations proving publication.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, first reading of Bill 2, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a broad and comprehensive scheme for public access to information held by government and protection of individual privacy with respect to information held by government. It was Bill 6 last year. This time it is Bill 2, so we hope we are getting closer and closer.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, first reading of Bill 3, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the appointment of a curator of Queen's Park who will be responsible for advising the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor in Council concerning the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Queen's Park.

This is the fourth time I have introduced this bill. As we are now into the bicentennial theme, I hope the renovation, extension and preservation of the fabric of this building, the most important public building in the province, will receive the attention and support of all members.

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Wine Content Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Wine Content Amendment Act, 1984, the sole purpose of which is to extend the application of the existing Wine Content Act from August 31, 1984, to August 31, 1986.

Although considerable progress has been made in the development of high quality Ontario grapes, the industry still needs access to foreign wine for the purpose of blending and it has requested the extension of this act.

EXTRA-PROVINCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 5, An Act in respect of Extra-Provincial Corporations.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have a companion bill that goes with this. If I may, I will make my comments at the end of that bill.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing two bills affecting corporations, the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act and the Corporations Information Amendment Act. As members may recall, both bills died on the order paper last session.

The proposed laws before the House today are slightly different from those original bills. Minor technical changes were made to address some concerns raised by honourable colleagues in this House and by the public. I will speak to those changes in a moment.

The main thrust of the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act is to eliminate unnecessary licensing requirements. With the passage of this bill, all Canadian companies incorporated outside Ontario will no longer require an extra- provincial licence to do business here.

At present, by special mutual agreement companies incorporated by the Quebec government, and by virtue of the Constitution companies incorporated by the federal government, do not need this extraprovincial licence to operate in Ontario. However, companies incorporated by other provincial governments do. The new legislation will remove that discrepancy, treating all Canadian corporations equally. Foreign corporations, however, will still require an extraprovincial licence to operate in Ontario.

3:50 p.m.

The act will replace part VIII of the existing Corporations Act, updating provisions that have remained essentially unchanged for some 84 years. Among these updated provisions are stiffer penalties for breaches of the act.

As I stressed last fall when I introduced these bills, the dropping of the licensing requirements simply removes unnecessary paperwork without lessening our control over extraprovincial corporations. In fact, the amendments to the Corporations Information Act may actually increase the information that out-of-province companies must file with the ministry. This requirement for extra information, along with two other housekeeping changes, completes the proposed amendments to the Corporations Information Act.

As I mentioned earlier, both corporation bills have been slightly modified. The only change to the Corporations Information Amendment Act is an additional reference to registered office. Three changes were made, however, to the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act. First, the director's power has been narrowed so that classes of corporations rather than individual corporations may be exempted from the act. Second, tribunals have been added to subsection 21(1) of the act. At the present time, if a foreign corporation contravenes the act, it cannot begin or continue proceedings before a tribunal or court. Third, a section in the original bill that would have removed the ultra vires defence by an extraprovincial corporation has been eliminated.

An additional clause has been included giving all extraprovincial corporations that can operate legally in Ontario the power to acquire, hold and convey any land or interest in the province for their own use or occupation.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Mr. Breithaupt, first reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend the Family Law Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to ensure that all property owned by one or both spouses is considered a family asset, to be divided equally on divorce or permanent separation unless the spouses have made a domestic contract providing for a different result.

This would apply to pensions, investments in business and professional assets as well as to the matrimonial home and other assets hitherto considered family assets. The court's discretion to divide family assets unequally is limited to cases in which equal division would be inequitable, having regard to the duration of the marriage or the extent to which property was acquired after the spouses separated.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria moved, seconded by Mr. O'Neil, first reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to permit small independent grocery stores to sell Ontario wines.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria moved, seconded by Mr. Ruston, first reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to permit small independent grocery stores to sell Ontario beer.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill 10, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to facilitate the obtaining of human organs for transplant purposes by creating an automated register of the names of all the persons entitled to insured services under the Health Insurance Act, indicating whether each person has filed a general or specific consent to post-mortem organ donation, has filed an objection to the procedure, or has done neither. Provision is made for the amendment of the register and for keeping it confidential.

I have presented this theme to the House before. This bill is a more simplified version of that theme, but I do not think a day goes by that we do not hear of the need for organs to help human beings continue life. I very much hope the government gives serious address to this concern in the bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Consideration of the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Gordon moved, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, that an humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable John Black Aird, an officer of the Order of Canada, one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, Bachelor of Arts, Doctor of Laws, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

4 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to participate in this inaugural debate of the fourth session of the 32nd Parliament of Ontario and to move that this House adopt and support the speech from the throne as delivered to this assembly by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, March 20, 1984.

Today, I find myself in a unique position. After all, it will not be until the year 2084 that any other member will have the opportunity to move the adoption of a throne speech delivered during a centenary year of this great province. I am sure that future member, no doubt a Progressive Conservative, will be as pleased as I am to have that opportunity and will use the occasion, as I intend to do, to reflect briefly on the development and growth of Ontario.

I am sure all members are familiar with, and some may even share, the view that the speech from the throne has become something of a parliamentary anachronism. The throne speech, some argue, has become a mere formality, the meaningless exercise of a tradition no longer relevant to the conduct of government in the modern political system.

I do not share this view. I believe the throne speech has a role, and an important role, to play in the modern parliament. The speech from the throne and the ensuing debate give the members of this House and the citizens of Ontario the opportunity to evaluate the government's agenda and to take stock of the directions in which the province is headed.

In a society as complex and dynamic as ours, I believe it is vital that we have occasion to pause, even if only for a short while, and reflect on what has been accomplished and what yet remains to be done. It is especially important that we as legislators be able to take a look at the big picture, to remind ourselves that though our differences generate considerable sound and fury we share the common hope of a better, more equitable society for all the people of Ontario.

It is particularly appropriate in this year, the bicentennial of this great province, that we do pause and reflect on the tremendous accomplishments of the people of Ontario over the last 200 years. In so doing, we will pay honour to their memories, express our thanks for their labours, celebrate their achievements and draw strength and confidence from their example.

A wise man once said that our destiny is in our past. If that is the case, then I look to the future of this province with great optimism. Over the past 200 years the people of Ontario have built with courage, perseverance and faith a society founded on respect for the values of individual worth and freedom, respect for individual initiative, the importance of civil order, justice and loyalty, compassion and tolerance. This government has been seen by the people of Ontario to be imbued with those qualities, so much so that in the not too distant past a commitment was made to Sudbury for a full-service cancer treatment centre with all three modalities.

I would venture to say that a Loyalist settler from 1784, if somehow transported to modern Ontario, would find little to remind him of the world he knew. He would, however, recognize in our contemporary citizens that same determination to get the job done, that same self-sufficiency which typified our pioneers.

Whatever challenges await us, I have no doubt that the people of this province will be more than capable of meeting them. I am proud to say that this government in which I am privileged to serve will work in partnership with the people to further the task begun 200 years ago, the task of making Ontario a better place to live.

I am aware that some members opposite have taken a somewhat cynical view of the celebration of the bicentennial.

Mr. Kerrio: No way. The Grits started it off. What is the matter with you?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: Quite frankly, their attitude puts me in mind of H. L. Mencken's definition of a cynic as a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin. Between coffins and elections -- well, I will not take it any further; I do not want to inflame anybody.

In any event, I would be dismayed by the attitude of some of my friends across the aisle if I did not know that it was not shared by the 96 per cent of Ontario municipalities that have applied for and have been awarded grants to help fund their local festivities.

I would be dismayed if I did not suspect that my Liberal and New Democrat friends will be joining in the celebrations in their home ridings. I am sure, for example, all members of the official opposition and the third party are as honoured and enthused as the members on this side of the House by the planned July visit of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

The people of Sudbury are very pleased, too, because Her Majesty will be opening a new world-class science centre that is there because of this government's activities, a science centre that will bring tourists from all around the world to Sudbury, as well as create jobs for our people.

I would be dismayed by the attitude of some members if I did not know it grows out of partisan perceptions and not out of any lack of pride in this province and the history of its people.

We in Ontario have much to be proud of and need make no apology for celebrating our accomplishments. Certainly, we have come a long way from the time when anyone could say of Ontario, as one commentator did about what was then Upper Canada, that it is "the very mockery of a province, 300 or 400 families scattered over a country some 400 miles in length, not having any towns and scarcely a village in the province."

From what some obviously considered inauspicious beginnings, we have grown to become a province of some 8.8 million people, over one third of the Canadian population, made up of people from over 70 different ethnocultural groups. I might add that because of the peculiar economic history of Sudbury in mining and forestry, we have all those 70 ethnic cultural groups. They are the backbone of Sudbury.

From a primary agrarian resource base, we have built a technologically advanced industrial economy and have become a world-class manufacturer and trader. Ontario's economic growth has given its citizens a standard of living and a way of life which is the envy of people around the world.

In more than 200 years we have given to Canada and the world heroes such as Laura Secord and Billy Bishop; scientists such as Banting; athletes like Longboat, Podborski and Gretzky; artists such as Danby and dancers such as Kain. I might add that for athletes from the north we just have to go to Timmins for Frank Mahovlich, to Parry Sound for Bobby Orr and to Sudbury for Eddie Shack. All members will remember Toe Blake and the Montreal Canadiens.

Some of the really great entrepreneurs of Canada came out of the north and Sudbury, such as Desmarais and Campeau, but I will not go on any further about that.

Ontario has given the world basketball and insulin, the telephone and the self-propelled combine, Red Fife wheat and Ontario wine, the electron microscope and the paint roller. I would be remiss if I did not say that Sudbury has also given nickel to Ontario and the world. No one should ever forget that.

Let us not forget that Ontario, in the name of freedom and the defence of our land, has given her sons and daughters in the wars of two centuries. Those valiant men and women who "cloaked their fear in courage" have laid on us a debt we may never repay and through their sacrifice have given real meaning to the motto of this province, "Loyal she began, loyal she remains."

Nearly 200 years ago, Governor John Graves Simcoe wrote in a letter to Sir Joseph Banks that the area we now call Ontario was "for the purpose of commerce, union and power ... destined by nature sooner or later to govern that interior world." Governor Simcoe's prophecy would never have been fulfilled were it not for the tireless work and dedicated efforts of millions of people during more than 200 years.

I suppose many of them had no conscious intention of building a great province, but were interested in living their own lives and achieving their own ambitions in a free land. However, the chemistry of shared values and a commitment to common goals has created in this province more than a mere network of economic interests; it created a community.

4:10 p.m.

Historically, governments in Ontario have played a big role in helping to build that community. Just as the British government and the colonial administrators helped the Loyalists settle Ontario 200 years ago, so today does this government work in partnership with the people of Ontario to help them attain their goals and to build a better life.

The partnership of government and people in this province has been and I am confident will continue to be a partnership for prosperity. While I naturally believe that Conservative governments have played that partnership role most capably, I wish to make it clear in a nonpartisan sense to my dear colleagues and to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would not want to demean the very significant contribution which Liberal administrations have made to the people in the progress of this province.

As I have indicated, the people of this province have achieved much in 200 years. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the people of Ontario is that they have built a society remarkable for its civility, to use what some might think an old-fashioned word. The one constant in our 200 years of history and change is that throughout this period the people and governments of Ontario have, through progressive policies, always worked to build a better society and to conserve those values, traditions and institutions on which our life as a community is founded and which guide our collective search for a better life for all the people of this province.

For 200 years, the people and governments of Ontario have worked to build a better society, a more just society in which people have equal access and equal standing under our laws. They have worked to build a more equitable society, a society in which the principle of equal opportunity is respected and all individuals, regardless of race, creed, sex or country of origin, have the chance to live their own lives, pursue their own goals and contribute to the common good.

They have worked to build a more economically secure society, a society in which freedom of economic choice was preserved, individual initiatives encouraged and individual achievements fairly rewarded. At the same time, it is a society which allows for a constructive and positive role for government in the economic life of Ontario.

It is an admirable part of the character of the people of this province that they would not tolerate the sacrifice of their fellow citizens to the vagaries of the invisible hand or countenance neglect to protect the purity of some economic theory. Rather, the people of this province have looked to government to provide services and support for citizens who need them, to stimulate development, to intervene sensitively where it was necessary through public action to address iniquities, to protect the consumer or to regulate in the public interest.

The history of this province over the past 200 years has been, most simply, the chronicle of the efforts of the people to build a better society, to make Ontario a better place to live. The results of their efforts are evident all around us, a wealthy, progressive, civil society.

While we today enjoy the benefits of their success, we must also recognize that their labours have placed a responsibility on us to ensure that progressive tradition is continued -- I should say "that Progressive Conservative tradition" -- and the work of building Ontario be carried on by us with the same dedication, faith and confidence as it was by them.

If we are to meet the challenges ahead, it is imperative that the partnership between government and people which has helped to build Ontario, and the mutual trust on which that partnership is based, be maintained and strengthened.

The speech from the throne makes it clear that this government will continue to provide that progressive and responsible leadership which Ontarians have come to demand and expect. Through this throne speech, the government has demonstrated an understanding of and a real commitment to address the challenges facing this province. The government has shown that it is sensitive to and in sympathy with the hopes and aspirations of the people of Ontario.

Most important, the throne speech outlines an agenda for action which will help Ontario begin its next 200 years of growth and development by building on that partnership between government and people and by continuing that progressive tradition which has made this land the banner province of Canada.

Through its history, Ontario has always been seen as a province of economic opportunity, as a society in which men and women could work, provide for their families and better their lives. The speech from the throne leaves no doubt that this government intends that Ontario will continue to offer its citizens those opportunities for economic security and betterment.

The 1984 throne speech was delivered in an economic environment that was for the most part considerably brighter and more promising than any in recent years. The throne speech draws our attention to some of the very real improvements we have witnessed in our provincial and national economies over the past 12 months.

The simple fact is that, just as the Canadian economy outpaced most other major industrial economies in growth in 1983, the Ontario economy has recovered from the recession more quickly and more strongly and our recovery has been more broadly based than that experienced in the national economy or in the economy of any other province in Canada. We can attribute our strong rebound from the recession to the inherent strength and resilience of our diversified economy and to the skill and energy of the managers and workers in our private sector.

In all fairness, I believe some of the credit for the improvement in our economy must also be given to the policies and programs introduced by this government. It must be acknowledged that the policies of this government have made a significant contribution to combating the recession and to encouraging economic recovery. The policy of public sector restraint followed by this government since 1975 has helped to minimize the burden of government on our economy and the cost of government to the taxpayers of Ontario. At the same time, the government of Ontario has kept its deficit under control and within responsible limits. By ensuring that the public sector does not dominate Ontario's economy, by stabilizing its deficit, the government has been able to maintain investor confidence and attract job-creating investment to the province.

The inflation restraint programs introduced by the government over the past two years have, in conjunction with similar programs in other Canadian jurisdictions, helped to reduce the inflation rate to the lowest level in over 10 years. In particular, the administered price restraint component of our inflation restraint program must by any objective standard be judged to have been quite successful. This program covered 230 price schedules representing 3,291 administered prices. Price increases in 92 per cent of its schedules were held at or below the five per cent guideline.

Some members on the other side of the House have criticized the administered price restraint program and have concentrated their attack on those eight per cent of cases where price increases exceeded the guideline. However, their criticisms must be put into perspective. To assess the program properly, one would have to weigh the relative impacts on the Ontario consumer of a decision to allow an increase in the price of admission to an art gallery against a decision not to permit the introduction of GO Transit parking fees during the control year.

I would say, and I am confident most in this House would agree with me, that this government's inflation restraint programs have been effective and have helped to reduce any upward pressure on the rate of inflation that might have been caused by increases in the cost of government and in administered prices.

The economic outlook for Ontario in 1984 is a good one. Those professors of the dismal science, the economists, whose projections are often more dismal than scientific, have cast the bones, consulted the entrails, read their tea leaves or done whatever it is they do, and pronounced that this year will be a good year for Ontario.

According to the 1984 economic projections issued by private forecasting agencies that I have seen, the Ontario economy in the coming year will grow at a rate faster than that of the national economy and faster than that of the economy of any other province in Canada. Ontario's gross provincial product is projected to increase by between 3.9 per cent and 5.6 per cent, depending on which agency's survey one consults.

In any case, all forecasts project that Ontario's economy will expand more rapidly than the Canadian economy. The outlook is also encouraging with respect to manufacturing and export trade, two sectors that are currently leading the recovery, and employment.

4:20 p.m.

The speech from the throne notes that though we have experienced real and significant improvements in our economy over the past year, challenges remain that will have to be addressed through responsible leadership and co-operative action. If we are to enjoy sustained growth in this province and create economic opportunities for all our citizens, the leadership and co-operative action we have witnessed in this government will have to proceed and continue.

It is evident from the throne speech that this government is determined those goals will be attained and that the government will work with the private sector to ensure the standard of living of the citizens of this province does not deteriorate. I am particularly encouraged to note this government has pledged to continue to assist Ontario industries in their efforts to remain competitive and will be introducing programs that will take full advantage of improving economic trends.

Of special interest is the government's plan to work through the Ontario development corporations and our technology centres to assist our small business sector. As my colleagues know, and as was pointed out in the throne speech, small and medium-sized firms create two thirds of all new jobs in our economy. Making those firms more viable and competitive by simplifying financing for new ventures, helping them to acquire high-tech equipment and develop new uses for Canadian high technology, could be the most effective job creation program supported by this government.

It is to be hoped the small business sector will benefit from this government's efforts to encourage a closer working relationship between the financial community and innovators in our economy. The entrepreneurial spirit of small business is the primary engine of growth in our society, yet it is these firms which experience the most difficulty in attracting venture and equity capital.

The government of Ontario, through the small business development corporation program, has moved to address this problem. Although this program has proved to be the most successful of its kind in Canada, any measures that would encourage greater direct, private and institutional investment in this dynamic sector should be welcomed. These initiatives are but the latest demonstration of this government's appreciation of the indispensable contribution which the small business sector makes to the economic wellbeing of Ontario.

The last two provincial budgets created a three-year corporate income tax holiday for small business. In the first year of that program alone, about $250 million was redirected back into some 60,000 small businesses in Ontario. It is significant to note that the federal Liberal government in its last budget apparently has come to share this government's perception of both the importance of the small business sector and the need to develop a positive relationship with the Canadian private sector.

The federal government appears to have discovered the importance of partnership in much the same manner as it had earlier discovered the need for restraint; that is to say, much later than the government of Ontario, perhaps too late for the good of the economy and only when the consequences of its own mismanagement had become obvious even to the Liberal cabinet.

It fairly boggles the mind that the federal Liberal government, which for years appeared as the adversary of the private sector, an attitude nowhere better expressed and exemplified than in its disastrous budget of 1981, should now advance the olive branch in the name of national economic salvation. Still, we must be willing to give the benefit of the doubt in this case.

This government has indicated on a number of occasions, and again in the throne speech, that it is willing to work with the federal government in the pursuit of national goals. While the federal government may suffer from a credibility gap in its expressed desire for a partnership with the private sector, the government of Ontario is not so compromised.

We have always enjoyed a constructive and positive relationship with the private sector in this province. We have enjoyed that relationship because this government has consistently adopted policies that enable the government to co-operate constructively, not destructively interfere, with the private sector; policies that assist, not hinder, private sector growth.

This partnership has played an integral part in Ontario's economic development in the past and will, it is clear, play a critical role in meeting those economic challenges identified in the throne speech. For that reason, in my opinion it is quite appropriate that this government should convene a Conference on Ontario's Economic Future and invite business and labour in this province to sit down with government for a frank and fruitful exchange of ideas on matters of mutual concern and interest.

There is no question that improving the competitiveness and productivity of Ontario's economy and industrial system will require a concerted effort from all parties. In my opinion, the Conference on Ontario's Economic Future will be the launching pad for that co-ordinated effort. It will provide us with the opportunity to identify common interests and to devise a joint strategy with input from all parties as to how our resources might be employed most efficiently and effectively to achieve our common goals.

I am sure all members agree it is imperative that organized labour participate in these consultations. Labour has many legitimate concerns about the impact of high technology, industrial strategies and government policies on its members. I would hope labour would take advantage of the opportunity to raise those issues in a forum that would allow for their discussion in a most comprehensive manner.

Our economy, like any other, is influenced by factors over which this government has no control or jurisdiction. A return to high interest rates could have a serious, negative impact on the economic future of this province and this country. Unfortunately, the government of Ontario cannot determine the level of American interest rates or the size of the American deficit.

What we can do and have done is to keep our own House in order. The throne speech makes it clear that we will do so in the future. It makes it clear that the responsible management by this government which helped our economy through a severe recession and which encouraged recovery will continue. Most important, the throne speech leaves no doubt that the government will seek to broaden its partnership with labour and business and to build a vigorous and strong economy.

In our society we have developed something of a schizophrenic attitude towards work, towards having a job. I am willing to admit there are qualitatively different types of work -- meaningful and meaningless work, for example. I also accept that the connection between working and having a job is tenuous in some cases. As someone once observed, some people stop looking for work the minute they find a job.

However, once those qualifications have been made, the fact remains that in our society we have two views of working. On the one hand, we see having a job as an economic necessity, a means of earning a living wage and a means to any number of different ends. On the other hand, we see work -- having a job -- as a social or even moral necessity.

Through work we define ourselves, become involved in and contribute to our society. It is because work is an economic necessity that unemployment is an economic problem. It is because work is a social necessity that unemployment, especially among the young, is a social tragedy.

Every member in this House knows that unemployment, not only youth unemployment but also the problem of the mature worker, is the major problem in our economy today. As the member for Sudbury I have to say that we in Sudbury are particularly conscious of that fact.

Youth unemployment is particularly troubling and disturbing because of its potential social consequences. As is stated in the throne speech, to countenance massive youth unemployment for long would be unconscionable and would diminish Ontario's future vigour.

It is quite obvious that alleviating youth unemployment is one of the top priorities of this government. Historically, the job creation record of the Ontario economy is quite impressive. Between 1975 and 1980, for example, the Ontario economy generated a total of some 544,000 new jobs, an average of more than 90,000 a year. During that period our unemployment rate was consistently below national levels, which is something of an accomplishment when one considers that increases in Ontario's participation rates and overall labour force growth were not only the highest in Canada but also among the highest in the western industrial world.

4:30 p.m.

Our economy was not immune to the impact of the recession on employment. Young workers were especially hard hit. Between June 1981 and April 1983, young workers in Ontario lost 166,000 jobs. However, as in other areas, Ontario is leading the nation in job recovery.

For example, by last month Ontario had, from the beginning of the recovery in late 1982, recovered 214,000 jobs, about 97 per cent of all the jobs lost in the recession. By comparison, during the same period the Canadian economy had recovered about 75 per cent of the jobs lost in the recession; so it is easy to see how well we have done here in Ontario. As a consequence of our better performance, our unemployment rate in February stood at 9.1 per cent, more than two percentage points better than the national rate of 11.3 per cent.

Mr. Wildman: It is about 17 or 18 per cent in the Sault.

Mr. Gordon: I am glad the honourable member brought up that point. In Sudbury, for example, people banded together -- labour, business and government -- to put together some very positive work programs and, as a result, they were able to employ about 4,000 people during that recession. More than $12.2 million in Canada-Ontario employment development program funds flowed into that community, and it flowed in because people cared about their neighbours and because this Ontario government met that need. So I do not think the member's criticism there is well founded.

Mr. Wildman: Are you saying the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) will not do anything?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury has the floor.

Mr. Wildman: What is wrong with the Minister of Labour? He is the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: As is mentioned in the throne speech, the young workers of the province have benefited from the recovery to the extent that the economy created 49,000 jobs for youth during the past year. However, I will not stand here and try to convince the honourable members that this is any cause for great celebration, not when there are more than 170,000 young people in this province looking for work.

To its credit, this government has always recognized that it has a special responsibility to assist young workers in our economy. Over the past year, as members will know, this government invested some $125 million in seven youth employment programs and other special programs targeted on the young.

In recognition of the seriousness of the problem, the government has given notice in the speech from the throne that it intends to strengthen its commitment in this area. The government will increase funding for the Ontario career action program, which since 1980-81 has received approximately $57 million in government support and created some 40,200 jobs. The government has also announced its intention to expand the network of youth employment counselling centres across the province to assist young workers to develop the job search skills they will need to compete in the job market.

Perhaps the most important commitment made by the government is that it will consolidate access to its youth job creation programs under one ministry. While this may appear to be simply an administrative change, it is a measure that will ensure we get the best return possible out of the dollars we invest in job creation for young people. By placing the programs under one ministry, the government will make it easier for young people and prospective employers to use the system to find out which programs and services are available and which of the services or programs best meet their needs.

The initiatives announced in the throne speech represent a responsible response to the problems of youth unemployment. Of course, they are not in themselves the final answer to our difficulties in this area. We would deceive the youth of this province and perpetrate a cruel hoax on all unemployed workers if we were to pretend that direct government job creation programs provide the foundation for long-term employment growth in Ontario. High levels of employment will be achieved only through policies that address the structural aspects of unemployment in our economy, encourage efficient and competitive production in our industries and maintain an environment attractive to investors.

Only when all three of these conditions are met can we realistically expect any real long-term improvement in employment and the generation of permanent, secure, well-paid new jobs. We must strive to achieve our employment goals within the context of those three factors. This means we must not give in to the temptation to adopt quick-fix approaches, which would provide at best only temporary, symptomatic relief and the illusion of progress. Rather, we must accept that improving employment levels requires a long-term effort and the co-operation of the public and private sectors.

Government has a responsibility to help those of our citizens who need assistance in finding employment during the time it takes for long-term solutions to take effect. It is essential that these long-term programs be consistent with our long-term objectives and augment, not detract from, our efforts to achieve those objectives. We would then be fundamentally wrong to introduce short-term programs that would undercut or limit or delay our ability to achieve real long-term improvement in employment.

That being said, I will say to this government, and I am sure I speak for all members in this, it must move quickly to implement the youth employment initiatives announced in the throne speech. An investment in the young people of this province is an investment in the future of Ontario. It is an investment we must make; an investment we cannot afford not to make.

Skills training programs will play a key role in determining the economic future of the province and in determining our ability to exploit new markets, new technologies and new job opportunities. Skills training also will obviously play a major part in our efforts to achieve our employment goals. The existence of a well-trained, skilled labour force is not only attractive to investors and employers but also necessary for improved productivity and competitiveness.

I was therefore pleased to read in the throne speech that the government will be taking steps to expand and co-ordinate its training programs across the province. The government of Ontario already supports such programs as the Ontario training incentive program, the technical upgrading program and the training in business and industry program. These programs and others offer a broad range of skills training opportunities to the people of the province. In 1983-84, the government of Ontario committed more than $30 million to provincial training programs.

As a representative of the riding of Sudbury, an area that was particularly hard hit during the recession, I am perhaps more sensitive than most to the need for training programs as a means not only of enhancing employment opportunities but also of furthering economic diversification. I know that in my riding workers, business people and municipal officials are convinced that training programs are absolutely essential for the economic wellbeing of the community. From the throne speech, it is apparent this government will act to meet that need.

Expansion of our training and retraining programs should greatly assist our efforts to positively respond to occupational shifts in the labour market, to strengthen economic development and to help workers, especially young workers who are experiencing difficulty in the current job market.

While our economic outlook may be cause for concern, Ontario's trade performance is cause for pride and optimism. Since the days when our trade consisted mostly of furs and lumber, Ontario has grown to become a world-class trading power. In fact, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) tells us that in per capita terms Ontario's foreign trade is three times as great as Japan's.

In last year's throne speech, this government undertook the job of doubling Ontario's trade over the next five years. I am told we are actually ahead of schedule in meeting that goal of raising the value of our exported goods to $60 billion a year by the year 1987.

Under the government's growth plan, the export target for 1983 was set at $41.1 billion. Preliminary estimates indicate we have surpassed that target by $500 million.

This very impressive record and performance can be accounted for by two things. First, the spectacular recovery of the automobile industry is currently providing, either directly or indirectly, most of the momentum in our economy. This government has long expressed its belief that our auto industry could compete in a fair-trade environment and has often urged the federal government to take the steps necessary to ensure that conditions of fair competition existed. The performance of the industry has more than justified this government's confidence in it.

It is also gratifying to note that the federal government, in its last throne speech, has responded to the urgings of this House and will now seek to increase offshore investment in our industry, either directly or by way of content requirements.

4:40 p.m.

The second factor which I believe explains Ontario's trade performance is the support this government gives to exporters and the efforts this government invests in developing markets for Ontario products. This is but another example of the partnership that exists between government and the private sector in this province and of how that relationship works to the advantage of all our citizens.

The government helps expand Ontario markets in a myriad of ways too numerous to mention here. However, I would like to call attention to one program, the Ontario export success fund, which has proved to be both extremely popular and extremely effective. As members may remember, the Ontario export success fund was established last November on a trial basis with a budget of $1 million. The purpose of the fund was to help Ontario companies break into the export field or into new foreign markets.

The response to this government's initiative has been nothing short of phenomenal. As a story in the Globe and Mail of March 19, 1984, put it, the export success fund has proved to be "a boon for export-minded companies" in Ontario. To this point, the fund has received more than 250 requests for export assistance totalling at least $5.5 million. It is estimated that if the $5.5 million is invested, sales of more than $100 million may result. That is quite a return to the people of the province.

Although we in Ontario have enjoyed considerable success in foreign trade, this is no time to become complacent. As all members know, world trade is becoming increasingly competitive. We must maintain and expand our trading activity if we are to protect the one million jobs in our economy which are directly and indirectly dependent on exports.

Furthermore, greater trade means more jobs to the people of Ontario. If we can meet our target of $60 billion in trade -- that is, if we can raise our share of international trade from 1.5 per cent to 1.6 per cent -- we will create 150,000 more jobs in Ontario.

This government does not intend to lessen its efforts to help Ontario exporters. To ensure that our auto sector remains competitive, this government will help fund retooling projects at Canadian auto parts firms. The government has also announced it will enrich the very popular export success fund. The Minister of Industry and Trade has already announced the fund will be extended for another 12 months and will receive an additional $4 million in funding. These are but two of the ways in which the government will work with the people of this province to improve our economy at home by capturing markets abroad.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, over the course of 200 years the people of this province have dedicated themselves to building a just and equitable society, a society that preserves and expresses those values of fundamental importance to our citizens and our way of life. The throne speech agenda gives this Legislature the opportunity to continue that tradition.

It is quite appropriate in this year, which marks the 75th anniversary of the Ontario Provincial Police, who have given the people of this province excellent service for three quarters of a century and who soon will be giving the people of Sudbury region even better service -- a new detachment is being built there, which will mean more jobs and better security -- that the government will be working to strengthen law enforcement and to improve the administration of justice in the province.

I am sure all members will be pleased to learn that services for victims and witnesses in our judicial system will be improved. Quite frankly, I believe it is high time we took the measures necessary to ensure that our enforcement and court agencies are made more sensitive to the needs and rights of victims of crime.

Certainly, our concern for the rights of the accused is laudable and proper, but we must not let that concern obscure the fact that we have an equal responsibility to the victim. For far too long victims have perceived themselves as the forgotten people in our justice system, which appeared largely indifferent to their needs. It is time that situation was rectified. Victim justice is as important as criminal justice.

I want to congratulate the government for reaffirming its support for the Ontario Board of Censors and for its intention to introduce whatever legislative changes may be necessary to enable the board to legally do its job of upholding community values. The whole question of the place of censorship in a society that values freedom of speech and freedom of expression is a difficult one, morally as well as legally. However, I get a bit impatient when I hear pornographers wrap themselves in those principles and scream that their rights have been violated when our society moves to exert some degree of control over their trade.

Also, I cannot lend much credence to the view that the censorship of brutal, dehumanizing and degrading pornography is but the thin edge of the wedge which will inevitably lead to the censorship of other forms of expression and, ultimately, to state control of the imagination -- the emergence of a thought police.

This domino theory of censorship, as I call it, gives little credit to the intelligence of the people of this province, nor to the very real commitment they have to the value of free speech. I must confess the logic escapes me of the process by which the censorship of violent pornographic films in which human beings, most often women, are depicted as being raped, mutilated, tortured and sometimes portrayed as actually enjoying this treatment leads to the censorship of our daily newspapers or news shows.

I appreciate this is not the time to debate this issue, but I do want to say I am proud that this government has consistently fought to make certain that films publicly displayed in this province respect the values of our community. The pornmongers have built a $10-billion industry in North America. New technology has made the distribution of their products all the more difficult to control and all the more difficult for our laws to enforce.

The eradication of this social plague will ultimately be accomplished not by the police or by the legislators, but through education in our schools and in our families. In the meantime, our support for the operations of the Ontario Board of Censors will signal that this government, this community, is not willing to tolerate this type of obnoxious garbage. It will demonstrate that this government will not be a silent partner to those who profit from the debasement of human beings.

Finally, this government will continue its efforts to broaden opportunities for all our citizens. Last year the government followed through on its promise to appoint a senior minister to be responsible for women's issues. This year the government will implement additional measures which should open new opportunities for women in both the private and public sectors. At the same time, the government will, through legislation and increased funding, provide better protection for women who are the victims of family violence or marital breakdown.

I have been able to touch on only a few of the many new policies, programs and initiatives which the government has introduced in the throne speech. I have not, for example, been able to deal with the numerous social, community and education programs outlined in that document. No doubt these matters will be debated by other members.

I opened my remarks with a suggestion that the one constant in Ontario's history has been that our progress towards a more just, more equitable and more economically secure society has been achieved by the efforts of our governments in partnership with our people. That this partnership has accomplished much is obvious to anyone who cares to look around this province. Some idea of what that partnership can accomplish in the future can be gained from this throne speech.

The speech from the throne deserves the support of this House because the programs and the policies it contains guarantee that the great progressive tradition of Ontario will be carried on. The policies and programs of this government will help the people of this province to meet the challenges which face us today and to take advantage of the opportunities open to us tomorrow. We will then build a better future on the great accomplishments of our past.

4:50 p.m.

We all know that building a better society is not an easy task, but surely it is our primary task. It is not an easy job, but the men and women who served in this chamber before us did it, and the men and women who lived and worked in Ontario before us did it. They tried and achieved so much. Dare we try to do less?

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege, an honour and a pleasure to have been asked to second the motion of the speech from the throne. As all members of this House are well aware, on December 15 last the eastern Ontario riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry chose me as the successor to a great man whose career and, indeed, whose whole life revolved around his family, the people of his riding and this very chamber in which we are gathered.

For 35 years the late Osie Villeneuve served faithfully the government of Ontario, the people of Ontario and, in particular, the people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. He had truly earned the reputation of being dean of this House. I would even suggest that no one before him has had, nor will those of us who follow have, a greater dedication to the people we represent and serve. Osie Villeneuve in his many years as a parliamentarian probably passed through the door of this chamber more often than any other elected politician. His dedication to his family and to the people of his riding is an example for us all and, may I suggest, an ideal that will not be easily copied.

The task that lies ahead for me, his successor, will not be easy. The kind of assistance I have received from my colleagues -- from both sides of the House, I might add -- is most appreciated. I can only pledge that I will make an honest and earnest effort to attempt to follow the great tradition of the late Osie Villeneuve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you and with my colleagues here in the Legislature some of the character and history of the united counties I am so very proud to represent. The great riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was one of the very first areas of this great province to be settled. The United Empire Loyalists arrived here in approximately 1784 and established communities that prospered and grew. These communities produced many great Canadians. I am thinking now of those who explored and helped to settle not only other parts of Ontario but also other parts of this great country.

The Scottish, Irish, French, English and numerous other cultures found in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry co-exist and complement one another. In my opinion, the people of the united counties serve as an example not only for the rest of Ontario but also for Canada and for the world at large. I am not suggesting that my constituency is Utopia or the land of milk and honey, but I do want to tell members that our problems relating to cultural and linguistic differences are resolved amicably with all sides having respect for one another.

As we all know, the year 1984 will see very exciting events in Ontario. During our bicentennial year we look forward to the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip. The royal couple will visit Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry on July 17, which will certainly be a special day for eastern Ontario. In September His Holiness Pope John Paul II will also be visiting Ontario. Yes, the year 1984 will be a most memorable and exciting one for all residents of our province.

Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as I said, is the oldest established area in the province. This year numerous towns and communities will be celebrating their own birthdays and anniversaries. For example, the town of Williamstown is commemorating its bicentennial. This small eastern Ontario village, situated north of the St. Lawrence River along the shores of the Raisin River, is steeped in history and is as old as our province.

The city of Cornwall, which has just recently hosted the world junior curling championship, is also celebrating its bicentennial. The town of Alexandria is officially 100 years old in 1984 and has numerous activities planned to celebrate this occasion. Several have already taken place in the months of January and February.

I am certainly very honoured to have been chosen as the elected representative on the government's side for that great riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I firmly believe the December 15 by-election provided a clear message that the work of this Legislature, this government and its leader is meeting the needs and the aspirations of the people of Ontario.

We must remember that the riding I represent is steeped in tradition and moral values which have not been swayed or altered over the years to the great degree that some of the more urbanized areas in the province have been influenced. The work ethic is still strong in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and people are still proud to say they attend the church of their choice on Sunday. People in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry are good, sound, traditional people who will stand up to be counted on all of those issues which they believe to be right from traditional points of view.

Some of our traditions are, of course, more recent than others. In Glengarry county we have for more than 35 years hosted the largest Scottish gathering outside of Scotland itself. I am referring, of course, to the annual Glengarry Highland Games held at Maxville, traditionally on the first weekend in August. May I add that all honourable members of this House are most welcome, be they Scottish or not, on that famous weekend in Glengarry. It is quite a feat for a town such as Maxville, with a population of 800, to sponsor and host a gathering in excess of 25,000 people. Yes, the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is rich in history and tradition.

M. le Président, il me fait plaisir de vous adresser quelques mots dans la langue française.

Comme vous le savez, la circonscription de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry englobe de nombreux citoyens de langue française. Comme je l'ai mentionné en anglais, nous avons toujours vécu en harmonie, respectant la tradition, la culture et la religion de nos compatriotes.

Je suis fier de vous dire qu'à Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry nous avons un système qui dessert aussi bien nos Ontariens de langue française que nos Ontariens de langue anglaise.

Nous vivons en réalité le meilleur de deux mondes. Plusieurs de nos résidents actuels ont déménagé de la province du Québec. Nous, les résidents de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry, les avons accueillis à bras ouverts et espérons que ces gens seront satisfaits d'avoir choisi de demeurer en Ontario et tout particulièrement dans la circonscription que j'ai l'honneur de représenter.

Soyez rassuré, M. le Président, nos liens avec nos voisins de la province du Québec sont toujours les meilleurs.

C'est toujours pour moi, personnellement, un grand plaisir de visiter nos voisins au Québec. A certaines occasions nous allons voir les joutes des Expos, ou nos fameux Canadiens qui ne font pas aussi bien cette année que dans le passé et tout simplement à certaines occasions une visite spéciale.

Je demeure convaincu tout de même que notre système de bilinguisme en Ontario demeure toujours le meilleur de n'importe où ailleurs.

Lors de l'élection partielle du 15 décembre dernier, j'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer plusieurs de mes électeurs de langue française. Je les ai rassurés à ce moment-là ainsi que je les rassure à nouveau que j'ai l'intention de veiller minutieusement à ce que tous nos droits acquis, comme francophones, soient toujours respectés.

Je vois certaines situations se produire ailleurs qu'en Ontario et ce sont des situations dont j'espère ne se produiront jamais ici.

Je crois que l'enchâssement serait symbolique tout simplement et qu'à ce moment-là nous perdrions la flexibilité et le potentiel d'améliorer notre situation quand le besoin se fera sentir.

En 1984, la province de l'Ontario célèbre son bicentenaire. J'ai eu l'occasion au début de cette année de visiter à quelques reprises la ville d'Alexandria qui elle-même célèbre son centenaire.

Il me ferait aussi grand plaisir de revisiter à maintes reprises cette même ville pour célébrer avec eux tout au courant de l'année de 1984.

5 p.m.

I would be remiss if I passed up this opportunity without touching upon some of the more recent events that have occurred in my riding. As you may well be aware, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is the mainstay of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

For example, the Holstein Friesian cow was first brought to Canada slightly more than 100 years ago, to the very county I reside in. I speak, of course, of Stormont county. Ever since then, the Holstein has been the strength of eastern Ontario agriculture.

As recently as last week the National Holstein Convention was held in Ottawa. This was the centennial celebration for the Holstein association. The counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry played a very great part in ensuring that the 1984 centennial national convention was a success. One of the residents of my riding was national president during that centennial year and I would like at this time to congratulate publicly the Fawcett family from Winchester and, in particular, the immediate past president of the Holstein Friesian Association of Canada, Allison Fawcett, for a job extremely well done.

Agriculture in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry as we have traditionally known it has changed a great deal in the past number of years. We now have concentrated areas where hogs, poultry and poultry products are intensively produced. We have expanding land areas which are now producing cash crops such as corn, soybeans, small grains and a limited amount of vegetables. Let us not forget the great orchards in the southern section of Dundas county, the home of the McIntosh apple. So famous is this apple and so well has it done over the years that they have now named a very successful computer after it.

As an elected member on this side of the House and as a farmer I can be justly proud of what this government has done and is doing to benefit farming and agriculture in Ontario. The speech from the throne, in this my first year as a member, included a number of initiatives that should be well received now and that should also have long-term future benefits for agriculture.

In his speech, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor touched upon the economic recovery, which is also taking place in the United States and in Europe. He mentioned that this recovery would offer wider export opportunities.

In this, Canada's largest food-producing province, we should remember that agricultural exports also contribute to our trade performance. Last year, when farmers were still suffering from the burden of high interest rates and low commodity prices, this government acted wisely in extending the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. In all, that program helped over 5,000 hard-hit yet financially viable farmers weather the storm that was threatening their livelihoods. Most of these farmers are still producing today.

This is not to say that with economic recovery farm problems have ended, because they certainly have not.

Mr. Stokes: What about cheese?

Mr. Villeneuve: We have lots of that in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, too.

It used to be that when a farmer had a bad year the loss was not so great that it could not be replaced by working harder, cutting some corners, putting off purchases or taking off-farm jobs. Today producers face much higher losses which cannot be made up as easily as they were before, while at the same time agriculture has become a much more capital-intensive business.

It all boils down to the fact that the modern farmer must also be adept in business matters and paperwork. At a recent meeting it was put very well by one of the producers, who said, "If you cannot make it work with a pencil, you will not be able to make it work with the plough." He could not have been more right.

Given this fact, particularly in the last year, more farmers have seen the need for financial counselling and the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, has acted accordingly. In the last 12 months we have seen the ministry increase its efforts to provide more financial counselling, seminars and lectures. These have provided a very valuable service.

I should also point out, since this government is dedicated to advancing women's rights not just in programs but in the community as well, that women on the farm increasingly must fill the role of business manager or co-manager.

Yet even with all these necessary and beneficial changes to farm financial management, there are producers who often face low and wildly fluctuating commodity prices. For certain commodities, a program that could guarantee at least a minimum return would go a long way to aid farm financial planning in both the short and long term and would also make dealing with banks a lot easier. Such a program would be a lot more effective if it existed in more than one province.

For more than a year, Ontario has been pursuing a national tripartite stabilization plan. Initially, I gather, the proposal was not given a great deal of possibility of success, though most were in favour of the idea. It now appears persistence has paid off and the proposed national stabilization plan for the red meat industry might be a reality by the end of this year.

Another welcome proposal from last year's throne speech, which has become a reality through the efforts of our government, is the beginning farmer's assistance program. This program can help about 1,000 young people establish themselves as farmers each year for the next five years.

This week's throne speech sees Ontario intensifying efforts to export our agricultural products to the American market. At this point such an effort is a wise one, though I am convinced that in the long term we will see greater growth potential in the countries of the Pacific Rim, Asia and the Middle East. The only problem is that many of these countries do have debt problems and suffer from the worldwide recession. Right now they cannot afford increased food spending.

By comparison, economic recovery in the United States is further along than in Canada. The money is there and obviously the market is there as well. Today, Ontario has agriculture and food exports totalling $1.6 billion. I do not know what share my riding has of that but we are close to the border and the value of our agricultural production totals about $115 million.

In Ontario as a whole, about half our agriculture and food exports are sold to the United States. The proximity of the US market makes for lower transportation costs. A similar culture also makes for a more comfortable environment when it comes to making business deals and discussing product and commodities because of our similar tastes. Language is no problem either because both English and French are spoken there, or at least French is spoken in some parts of the US, such as New Orleans.

Last year the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) organized a very successful trade mission to New Orleans which generated more than $2.5 million in sales of products such as maple syrup, maple sugar, beer, cheddar cheese, canned ham and apples. Individually, this may not sound like much but over the last five years Ontario food product exports have averaged a growth of 18 per cent. The last two years have not been the best but when compared to the performance of other countries, Ontario has more than held its own.

Ontario's ratio of food exports to goods imports has been generally improving since 1977. We are still running a deficit in our balance of agricultural trade but that situation has been improving. We still have quite a long way to go, but last year we achieved an increase of 18.6 per cent in the value of our food exports to the US. Imports from the US increased as well, but only by 5.8 percent. As our biggest food trade deficit is with the US, this represents a healthy change and reflects on the quality of our product.

By comparison, our exports to the Pacific Rim increased by in excess of 12 per cent, but we suffered some setbacks in the European Economic Community and Latin American countries such as Argentina and Brazil, both of which have deep financial problems. Trade with Mexico decreased for the same reasons. When we look at specific commodities, we can also see that export sales were down for Ontario tobacco, grain and soybeans.

5:10 p.m.

Increasing our trade missions is an important and integral element in achieving our overall goal of an improved balance of trade. In 1982, there were 17 outgoing trade missions sponsored by this government. Last year this was increased to 24. This year, with a continuing effort as described in the speech from the throne, we will see 31 trade missions conducted. Almost half of these will be to the United States, visiting such centres as Los Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago and Washington.

I am told many of the honourable members in this House have the opportunity from time to time to act as unofficial ambassadors to various Caribbean countries and to certain states of the union, particularly when it is cold up here in the north. Perhaps some of these members may have been active during their stay south of here, exerting some influence to ensure the sale of Ontario agricultural products in the jurisdiction they happened to be visiting. If so, as a farmer and producer, I would like to thank them one and all.

On a more serious note, the credit must be split between those businessmen who take part in these sales missions and those in the Ontario government who organize the missions. I do not know if it is customary for members to say what a good job our public servants are doing, but in this case we are talking about a unit of six or seven people to which we can attribute some $35 million in agricultural sales in 1983 alone. I can see how in many cases it is hard to place a monetary value on a government employee's work. In this case, l am sure we have been getting our money's worth.

I want to touch on another subject related to our goals in improving our export sales. Ontario's overall goal, to reduce our food trade deficit, can only be helped by producing more of what we need here and by making Ontario products available for longer periods of time. Assistance to our food processing industry also makes more products available for export.

Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, like rural constituencies throughout this province, has benefited from Board of Industrial Leadership and Development money, from the Ontario fruit and vegetable storage and packing assistance program. Residents of my riding are also benefiting from BILD's contribution to fund high-technology equipment for Ontario's agricultural colleges. BILD funding for Ontario cream assistance, food processing and whey processing have also been helping the food processing industry.

The food industry has a number of plants located in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry bearing well-known names such as Kraft, Carnation, Nestle and Ault. At Ingleside, Kraft Ltd. is completing a $10-million expansion program which will create almost 200 jobs. In addition, Kraft has recently received a BILD grant to modernize its whey processing facilities which will create additional jobs as well.

In the great town of Winchester, Ault Foods is receiving BILD funding to install demineralization equipment which will allow it to develop new whey byproducts. BILD is contributing $500,000 towards the $3.6-million project, which will replace imports of demineralized whey from the United States and Europe and will be the first facility of its kind in Canada.

I am also pleased to note the announcement of the creation of the Ontario Agricultural Council. While the details regarding the council remain to be spelled out by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I believe the concept of such a council is excellent.

As those of us from rural constituencies know well, it is often very difficult to establish a consensus regarding the future course to be taken in the various areas of agricultural production. This is not to say there is not a great variety of information sources. However, we have the resources of the ministry itself. We have the long-established and internationally renowned departments at the University of Guelph. We have the vital and growing colleges of agricultural technology across the province, and we have the various federations of producers, processor associations and, let us not forget, our consumer groups.

I think it is fair to say there is no shortage of opinion and advice regarding agriculture and farming. The problem is the co-ordination of the various points of view and an independent assessment of their value to Ontario's future.

As was mentioned in the speech from the throne, the agricultural council of Ontario will be established to provide research, analysis, commentary and policy alternatives directly to the minister. The members of the council will be drawn from the various aspects of agriculture, from the farm gate to the consumer's table. They will be from all parts of Ontario, but they will not represent any single group or organization. As I understand it, members of council will be asked to serve on the basis of excellence in their own field of endeavour over the past years.

The mandate of the council will be to explore both problems and opportunities in the domain of agriculture and food. Naturally, the council will not be involved in work done by the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Equally, the council will not be involved in research regarding production, for that is the domain of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario.

In the main, the council will concentrate on the longer-term complex problems, although the minister could refer issues to it at any time. In this regard, the agricultural council would function in an identical fashion to the Ontario Economic Council or the Ontario Council of Health. Both of these councils have provided the government and the people of Ontario with excellent work over the years and I fully expect the agricultural council to achieve these same high standards.

There are problems in the agriculture and food business and the Minister of Agriculture and Food is the first to admit that. The problems, however, are not insurmountable. With cooperation, understanding, proper research, deliberation and consultation throughout the province, we have the collective ability to provide the very best for all Ontario, from the farm to the table.

I believe the agricultural council will play a very significant role in achieving that goal. Let us not forget that less than five per cent of the population of this great province are farmers. They feed us all and employ almost 25 per cent of the work force in a direct and indirect fashion.

While I have concentrated most of my remarks on agriculture, which reflects its importance to my constituency, I do wish also to cover some other points from the throne speech which are significant to my part of the province.

In particular, I welcome the continuing move eastwards of TVOntario. This week it was announced that we will soon see transmitters established in Belleville, Kingston and Peterborough. I do not think the necessary licence or approval from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will be too difficult to obtain.

I am also looking forward to the results of the technical feasibility study to establish another transmitter so that the residents of my riding and those of Cornwall, Brockville and Prescott will also be able to receive TVOntario coverage in the not-too-distant future.

I could easily go on and tell more about my riding and the good people who live in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. As many of my new colleagues will already know, we have one of the most scenic areas of the entire province in the southern part of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Here along the St. Lawrence, tourism plays a very important role in the overall economy. In the last 25 years, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission has developed one of the finest parks and recreation areas to be found anywhere.

The tourist industry in this area eagerly awaits the results of the commitment from the throne speech to attract more American tourists and dollars to Ontario.

I would also like to encourage my new colleagues and I hope friends from both sides of the House to consider spending some time in my constituency along the waterfront when it is nice and warm through the summer. I know they will find the experience pleasant and relaxing.

The youth employment and skills training initiative will be welcomed by young people, not just in my riding but across Ontario. During the months of November and December, since my election I have had many opportunities to listen to young people speak of their concerns about finding work.

As a father, I have also heard a great deal about the challenges facing our youth. We have already heard my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) speak about the government's efforts to train young people and to ensure jobs for them. Knowing that there is no single ideal method to combat youth unemployment, this government has a balanced variety of programs, ranging from direct employment to assistance in setting up businesses.

Our unemployed youth differ greatly from those with few skills. The more skilled workers who are unable to find jobs have better opportunities. Youth employment counselling centres can to some degree help all of these young people, but those young people with marketable skills will always find it an advantage and use it to the best.

The announcement to extend export apprenticeships will ensure a greater supply of young people with these marketable skills. This provision of skills training and new job opportunities was one of my personal priorities back in December. I am most happy to see that it is also of great importance to this government. I was also glad to see during the election campaign that youth employment had finally become a priority for another party called the Liberal Party of Canada.

From my conversations with employers I know how well received are programs such as the Ontario career action program and the Ontario youth employment program. With the throne speech announcement, even more employers and young people will now have the opportunity to benefit from Ontario career action programs. I strongly believe that as the Ontario economy continues to improve, we should not let up on our skills training programs. As the growth of high technology increases the demand for specialized skills, we must ensure that the youth of our province have every opportunity to receive the training that is required.

I do not want to go on any longer except to say that in the coming days and weeks I very much look forward to meeting and knowing more of my colleagues and to meeting my obligations as a member. I look forward to receiving guidance from the chair and from others who surround me, as their experience is much broader than mine. I wish to emphasize, however, that it will not be political guidance that I seek from my colleagues on the other side of the House.

Again, I am happy to have had the opportunity and the honour to address this House and I look forward to doing so for a good many years.

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

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

March 22, 1984