Hansard Transcripts 1984-Mar-26 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would ask all members of the assembly to join me in welcoming the Honourable Walter Davidson, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, who is in the Speaker's gallery. We had a very enjoyable lunch, and he gave me all kinds of tips.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. CONTRACT

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise members today that the Urban Transportation Development Corp. has achieved another step along the way towards a $65-million contract to supply rapid transit vehicles to Boston, Massachusetts.

Recently, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority board of directors approved the awarding of the contract to supply 54 subway-type rapid transit vehicles. When the contract is signed later this spring, it will mean approximately 250 man-years of work for the Can-Car Rail Inc. plant in Thunder Bay. Design work on the vehicles is scheduled to begin immediately after the signing of the contract, with production slated for later this fall.

The Boston contract means three production lines will be running by the end of this year, providing a plant that has been empty since January with a level of activity it has not experienced in recent years. Most important, two of the production lines will be engaged in producing products for export: the subway cars for Boston and streetcars for California.

It should be noted that vehicles supplied to the US market must have a minimum of 51 per cent US content. To achieve this level, UTDC has worked with suppliers to develop common supplier programs, which yield better overall costs, enabling the company both to compete effectively in the US market and to supply products here in Canada at the best possible prices.

The end result, of course, is more jobs for Canadians and confirms this government's strategy for building an Ontario-based transportation industry.

On another matter, I am pleased to confirm that the British Columbia government has announced an extension to its advanced light rapid transit system in Vancouver. This extension will add six kilometres to the 22-kilometre system already under construction, taking the service across the Fraser River into Surrey, BC.

This announcement confirms the BC government's confidence in the UTDC technology developed here in Ontario and is another indication that the Ontario government's policy will yield continuing benefits to our province.

GO-ALRT CONTRACT

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a second short statement. It is my pleasant duty today to announce that the tenders have been called for the first contract on the GO advanced light rapid transit system in the Pickering-to-Oshawa corridor.

This contract, which was advertised last Wednesday, will include grading for the guideway, construction of a structure over Lynde Creek, as well as expanded GO Transit parking in the vicinity of Brock Street in Whitby.

Work on this prebuild portion of the GO-ALRT system will extend from 0.6 miles east of Harwood Avenue in Ajax to Henry Street in Whitby. This work on the exclusive GO-ALRT alignment will provide the base for installing trackwork in a future contract. It is one of 11 civil works contracts proposed for tender during 1984-85 on this eastern portion of the GO-ALRT system.

As honourable members know, the extension of GO service from Pickering to Oshawa has a high priority because of the increasing number of commuters using GO's existing rail passenger service. When completed, the Pickering-to-Oshawa GO-ALRT system will link local regional transit to the established GO and Metro Toronto transit networks.

In closing, I wish to note that this important project, which is being administered and funded in part under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, is the initial step in one of the most innovative transit schemes ever put forward in Canada.

As such, it will have far-reaching effects on job creation and on the social wellbeing of Ontario's commuters and will enhance the economies of all those communities surrounding the Metro Toronto area.

NORTHERN ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, last May Mr. G. Rodger Allan was appointed "to inquire into and to report to the Ministry of Education upon the provision of secondary education in the Lake Superior Board of Education and other matters related thereto, including, but not limited to, the financing of small secondary schools in northern Ontario, the governance of education in northern Ontario, and the support services available for secondary schools in northern Ontario."

Mr. Allan was also instructed to identify and report upon other small secondary schools in northern Ontario where school boards do not provide a full range of programs at the basic, general and advanced levels of difficulty.

In response to Mr. Allan's report, I am pleased to inform the House that the government will provide additional funding to address the special needs of small remote secondary schools in the north.

Small remote secondary schools are defined as those north of the French River having an enrolment of fewer than 120 pupils per grade and those located more than 80 kilometres from all other secondary schools in the province which have the same language of instruction. The additional funding will be provided by the Ministry of Education and will be approximately $1 million during the 1984-85 school year.

As well, I am pleased to announce that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has committed a significant amount of money for up to a minimum of three years and will be making a statement about this tomorrow. Under the joint leadership of officials in correspondence education, the senior and continuing education branch and the computers-in-education project, the Ministry of Education will move towards the development of a number of courses for secondary school students using the computer-assisted instruction method and the computer-managed mode of pacing and monitoring. The Ontario Education Communications Authority will be involved in determining the most appropriate and effective way of delivering the courses to small secondary schools in the north.

The Ministry of Education will consider the further development of self-learning packages in priority areas, which might include electronics, data processing and word processing. Materials already available from the colleges of applied arts and technology will be examined for possible use.

2:10 p.m.

We acknowledge, in response to Mr. Allan's excellent report, the need for additional human resources to implement effectively curriculum policies in the north and to enhance the range of secondary school course offerings in that part of our province. We intend, therefore, to second up to nine resource persons with specialized skills to provide direct services in selected subject areas. The specific needs will be determined by the officials within the ministry's northern regional offices in co-operation with the northern school boards.

I am pleased to be able to make this announcement today and to distribute to all the members of the House the report of the ministry's response to the Allan report on northern secondary schools.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding and with the indulgence of the House, I would ask all members to join with me in welcoming the Honourable Clarence E. James, Deputy Premier of Bermuda, who is in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

PORT ARTHUR CENTENNIAL

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As the member for Port Arthur, I would like to bring to the Legislature's attention that in this time of dubious bicentennials we are this year celebrating a genuine centennial. Exactly 100 years ago yesterday there was acclaimed in this Legislature an act which proclaimed the town of Port Arthur and separated it from the municipality of Shuniah. I would like all members to join me in wishing Port Arthur a really happy 100th birthday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education. How does she explain to the House, particularly in view of statements made by her seatmate, the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), the continuing record in the school system of this province over which she has some responsibility for leadership, if not jurisdiction, of inadequate representation of women in senior positions?

The minister must surely be aware, aside from her own pre-eminent position, that women share in positions of leadership as directors of education, principals and so on at a level of approximately 10 per cent or less in most parts of the province. Does this concern the minister? If so, what plans does she have to persuade the various school boards and other leading jurisdictions to correct the situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk asked that question. I would like him to be aware that we have taken some very significant initiatives in the past four or five years in the Ministry of Education related specifically to the roles played by women in the educational system. We have been particularly enthusiastic about the kinds of things we have been able to do.

One of the first, and I think most important, acts I have been able to be a part of since assuming some responsibility for this ministry was the removal of the quota requirement for admission to principals' courses in Ontario. As the member knows, there was a very restrictive admission procedure which almost ensured that very small numbers of --

Mr. Nixon: That is when the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) was Minister of Education.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure he introduced it, as a matter of fact. I believe it has been there for some time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now to the question, please.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We removed that requirement. Since then there has been a very dramatic increase in the participation of women in the principals' courses, and 35 per cent of the enrolees in those courses are now women and will have the qualifications to assume the roles of greater responsibility about which the member speaks.

In addition, I would invite the member to participate in, or at least to come and listen to, a very important conference that is being held at the end of this week in conjunction with the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, other teachers' federations and my colleague the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. We will be discussing very precisely the kinds of things we are proposing to do in the future related to increasing the opportunities for women in areas of responsibility, beyond the very important responsibility of teaching in the classroom within the school system of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: We recognize the minister's own responsibility in being a rather imposing token in this connection. But is she not aware --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: No human being has ever accused me of being a token, and this one is not going to get away with it.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the supplementary.

Mr. Nixon: Since she is the only significant woman in a position of significance in education, I will not withdraw "token" but I will withdraw "imposing."

I wonder if the minister does not recall giving me the same answer at least 18 months ago to a similar question when she had persuaded the Deputy Premier to support her in the withdrawal of the rather ridiculous exclusion that kept women out of that course. Is she not now aware that, while women do have better access to the principals' course, in fact, the overall numbers being appointed to principalships have actually gone down, according to a recent report that was made public, I believe, about three weeks ago?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think perhaps the honourable member's time memory may be a tiny bit warped. None the less, it is of significance that there is an addition to what I said at that point, which I pronounced today. The honourable member also has to recall that the number of principalships available has decreased rather dramatically in the time frame about which he speaks as well, since the numbers of students in our elementary system also have declined rather dramatically.

It is a matter of grave importance to everyone within the education system because of the fact that there has always been an understanding that women were equal in the delivery of education programs in the classroom. That has been one of the principles upon which education has been based for these past three or four decades at any rate. But the real problem related to the advancement of women in the administration is one that has been of real concern.

To say there are no women in roles of importance is entirely wrong. There are not enough of them, but there are some very significant and very imposing women who are responsible for the administration of education within Ontario, far beyond the small figure of the Minister of Education.

I would also remind the honourable member that this province shares this difficulty with a number of other jurisdictions. I am delighted to see that there is a worldwide movement to the resolution of the problem. There are many jurisdictions that have traditionally never had a female Minister of Education which now do have just this kind of representation. In Canada itself the number of ministers on the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, who happen to be female is increasing by leaps and bounds annually, a matter that gives me some satisfaction regularly.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the minister's leaps and bounds, I wonder if she can confirm that the number of women who are principals today, not only in absolute numbers but as a proportion, has declined over the last 10 years, according to the recent figures. Can she confirm that fact?

Given the fact that this is happening, why is the government so reluctant to introduce mandatory affirmative action programs that would apply to boards of education and to the rest of the public sector instead of relying on an entirely voluntary approach, which clearly is not working and is not doing the kind of job that needs to be done for the women of this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There has been a very strong commitment on the part of government to demonstrate to all those agencies that our example is a very good one. I would ask the leader of the third party to cast his eyes upon the university system of this province. If he thinks the elementary-secondary school system has a problem, he should take a look at the universities, and our universities have done significantly better than some others.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have been working diligently with many bodies related to education, attempting to demonstrate to them as clearly as we possibly can the advantage to the system of ensuring that they utilize effectively all the human resources available to them. This is precisely what we shall continue to do. But we are demonstrating to them that our example is a very good one and one they should follow.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: The minister probably understands that the universities have been more progressive in this regard since they are autonomous, but the school boards come under the regulation of the minister herself, who said, as I understood her just a few moments ago, that a women's place was in the classroom.

It is unfortunately true in this jurisdiction that most of the women going into education do find their top usefulness in the classroom, where they do a marvellous job. We on this side of the House are concerned that the policies enunciated by the minister and her colleague immediately to her left are very high-sounding in many respects, but are not practical in assisting women gain positions of true significance in administration in education in this province.

Naturally the minister and others can point to individuals who have achieved high positions, such as the minister herself, but the statistics still indicate that under her jurisdiction and regulations the proportion has actually gone down. The answer she gave previously is the same one she gave many months ago. What new initiatives is she going to bring forward to correct the situation, which is an embarrassment for everyone in this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I suggest to the honourable member that I would be pleased to make an appointment for him with either the appropriate neurologist or hearing specialist, because I did not say what he said I said.

I said women in this province have done a superb job in the classroom, but that we need their expertise and their capabilities in administration as well as in the classroom. I remind the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that if he were to look at the statistics, he would find they were significantly better in the elementary and secondary school system up to this point than they have been in the university system.

Autonomy is the argument he was giving. Nothing is more autonomous at the present time than boards of education in Ontario. We certainly will continue to work with them.

The reason I invited the member to the conference was so that he would hear what it was we were going to be proposing to discuss with the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario and others this weekend regarding the roles of women in administration in the school system.

FARM BANKRUPTCIES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Anticipating his response that my question should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), I waited very patiently all last week for the minister to show and he failed to do so.

The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) are not here today, so the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) is going to be given an opportunity to rise to the occasion, as he is so often wont to do.

Farm bankruptcies in Canada are higher this year than they were at the same time last year. The majority of farm bankruptcies are occurring right here in this province. For more than two years, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has said he will not provide assistance to the red meat industry similar to that in the other provinces because it would appear to be bargaining in bad faith for a federal-provincial agreement on a tripartite stabilization program. Such a program has not materialized to this point and the speech from the throne gave no indication of this government's consideration of the immediate and long-term requirements of the agricultural industry.

Does the Deputy Premier not think the agricultural industry in this province is too important for the government to ignore as it has been doing? If he thinks it is an important industry in this province, what assistance is being planned for the farmers who are facing financial ruin at this time and have been for two or three years?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, there is absolutely no question in my mind or in the minds of my colleagues with respect to the importance we attach to the whole agricultural industry. I think the record of this administration speaks very clearly with respect to that and I think we are agreed as to the role that industry plays in the economic wellbeing of this province and of Canada.

In fairness, I should point out that it was my understanding the Minister of Agriculture and Food was in his place on Thursday of last week during question period.

Mr. Ruston: Just for the vote, not for question period.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is a matter of fact which could be established one way or the other. No doubt when he comes back -- he has other responsibilities -- he can clear that up.

The speech from the throne was clear because of the items that were set out with respect to the creation of a widely representative advisory council on agriculture to bring the best people together to assist in some appreciation with respect to the problems faced by this industry, the commercial crop development fund to which reference was made and the crop research in so far as the north is concerned, and the intensification of effort to expand the export markets.

Certainly those, among others, are some indication of the importance the government places with respect to agriculture. No doubt the minister will be expanding on the initiatives referred to in the speech from the throne at the first opportunity.

Mr. Riddell: An advisory council to the Minister of Agriculture and Food will render absolutely no assistance to the farmers who are in trouble at present or to the farmers who will be in trouble next year or the year after. I am convinced of that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: Furthermore, I think the Deputy Premier should realize that this government's commitment to the agricultural industry amounts to less than one per cent of the total provincial budget.

In view of the fact that the last two or three years have been very difficult years for the beef producers of this province and many of them have gone bankrupt, and in view of the fact that this past year has been a virtual disaster for pork producers with the average price down to $68 per hundredweight, hitting a low of $58 last September, which is down from $80 last year at this time --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: -- and in view of the fact that the great majority of the farmers, at the very best, have only been recovering direct costs with nothing left over for their debt payments or management costs, what assistance --

Mr. Speaker: All right, away you go -- what assistance?

Mr. Riddell: What assistance are you giving to your farmers in Peterborough, Mr. Speaker?

What assistance does this government have for the farmers who are not going to be able to continue meeting their obligations with the price of food the way it is, with the high interest debts and what have you? What subsidies and programs are going to be given to our farmers so that they can at least survive until such time as a tripartite stabilization program comes into effect, if indeed it ever does?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have been in my place here on many occasions when the Minister of Agriculture and Food has responded to this type of question from the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). I do not think there is any question that the plight of the agricultural producer is a very legitimate concern. The member knows that in the red meat industry there was the establishment of the agency to which reference was made and there have been specific programs with respect to financing and dealing with them on an individual basis.

At this stage, I hope we do not lose sight of the advantage of bringing together for purposes of consultation representatives from many segments of the agricultural area. On this side of the House, we believe in consultation. No doubt there will be a great deal of benefit derived from that, in addition to the ongoing programs at present in place, about which the Minister of Agriculture and Food has commented from time to time in response to questions or at the time of making his announcements.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Deputy Premier could tell us if the Minister of Agriculture and Food is in hiding because both his programs of assistance to the farmers and his leadership aspirations are in shambles. He has not been here to answer any questions so far this session.

Recognizing that the Deputy Premier may not be terribly familiar with agricultural matters and statements that have been made, does he not realize that the estimate made by both the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the federal Minister of Agriculture was that no tripartite program for red meat will be signed before July at least?

Does he not realize this means no program can be in place until at least the end of this year? Farmers are going out of business and are going bankrupt now. Bankruptcies were up 50 per cent in the first two months of this year over the previous year. Does he not realize that the tripartite program may be in total jeopardy? There may be no federal government at all by July.

Recognizing those facts, and they are facts, would the Deputy Premier at least promote with the Minister of Agriculture and Food the immediate implementation of a provincial red meat stabilization program such as they have in the other provinces so that our farmers can at least get some assistance this year, even though it is two years behind what other provinces have done?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two observations, if I may be permitted. First, the Minister of Agriculture and Food in this administration certainly has been very definite as to where the leadership should come from in this matter. He has reminded this House from time to time where that leadership should stem from, and it is to be hoped that as the federal minister is giving some consideration to his future he might include some positive initiatives in this regard, as our Minister of Agriculture and Food has been saying from time to time.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) makes one mistake in his preamble. He suggests I do not have any familiarity with matters of agriculture. I have represented a rural riding in this House for nearly 21 years and I am very proud of that. I think he slights the people of the riding of Lincoln and the people of the riding of Brock to suggest their members have not been familiar with matters of agriculture.

Because of the particular interest of this government in that area, we have seen the agriculture industry grow. We can only hope the benefits that flow from agricultural production in our area might be enjoyed by all who are involved in this, and it is about time we saw some evidence of this by sound federal leadership. That is what we need in this matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Food keeps saying he cannot assist the Ontario farmers in case it would jeopardize the tripartite stabilization plan, is the Deputy Premier not aware that as long as the other provinces can keep us at a disadvantage they are in no hurry to bring in a stabilization plan? As long as they are getting good programs and have them in place, they do not care if there is never a stabilization plan.

Would it not be better for Ontario to move in the same direction as the other provinces and bring in these programs for Ontario now? In my opinion that would help bring on the stabilization plan at a later date, because then we would not be the disadvantaged province and we would be up there with the rest of them.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think our Minister of Agriculture and Food has been very clear with respect to this matter, and I doubt very much that the member opposite really disagrees with him basically when one thinks of what the ultimate and proper solution should be with respect to this matter.

Mr. Rae: I thought the ice dancing was finished on Sunday, Mr. Speaker, but obviously it is not.

Mr. Harris: That was just a replay.

Mr. Rae: That is true. The one-man Torvill and Dean has just sat down.

CURRICULUM GUIDELINES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. A number of things were mentioned in the speech from the throne, some of which are only now being fleshed out and flushed out of the ministry as we try to come to grips with exactly what is the meaning of some of these so-called reforms.

I would like to suggest to the minister that, while the thrust of the reforms is directed towards the advanced-level student in the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions program, and the academically oriented student in the program today, the concern we have in this party is with those students who are dropping out of the system. Of those who begin this general level course today, only one in 25, or four per cent, will complete a community college course.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: In particular, I would like to ask the minister what she is doing about the drop-out rate in our secondary schools today, about the students who are leaving school early and about those large numbers of students who, because they are not able to take advantage of our education system, are at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to competing for jobs and competing for skills training in Ontario today.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member for York South to reread the documentation that was developed at the beginning of the secondary education review project.

In this House and elsewhere, I stated very clearly the very purpose of that project, which was that the system of public education in Ontario had done a superb job in general to support those students who are academically inclined and who are going to proceed to university; it was because we had concern about the students who were being taught at the general level and at the basic level that the SERP activity was initiated, and it is in toto in that report and in the response of the government that we have concentrated primarily on the students who will be studying at those other two levels.

There is not a great deal that we have to do to improve the academic programs for students studying at the advanced levels. They are being dealt with very well.

We still have significant concerns, particularly about students studying at the general level, and for the first time we are developing a curriculum specifically for those students. It is not going to be a watered-down advanced-level curriculum. It will be a curriculum developed specifically for those students in subjects such as mathematics and English.

Specific curriculum has been developed for them in the past in the areas in which they studied primarily, but we are looking at the other core subjects as well. Our concern about that has led us to Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Secondary Divisions curriculum guidelines and the Renewal of Secondary Education.

If one gets past the headlines of the newspapers which talk almost only about fast-tracking the academically oriented students so they can get into university in four years instead of five, and if one looks at all the recommendations contained in both OSIS and ROSE -- if one looks at all three -- one will find out that we are concentrating very heavily on the concern for those students in the general-level courses.

That concern remains and it is an active part of all of the industry of the Ministry of Education at this point. In conjunction with representatives of the college system and with teachers who have had experience teaching the students who study at the general level specifically, those new curricula are in the process of being developed. Some of them have already been developed, but most of them are in the process of being developed and will be introduced for their benefit. Surely if we make their courses more relevant and more understandable to them in their value and worth, they will not drop out at the rates at which they were dropping out in the past.

I would also like to remind the member that the drop-out rate has declined quite significantly over the past couple of years and we have a greater retention of students in the secondary school program than in the five or six years before that. I hope that will continue, because the students will understand the worth of their secondary school courses.

Mr. Rae: The minister may take pride in a 40 per cent drop-out rate in the secondary schools, but I do not think anyone in this House can be satisfied when we have that kind of problem --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: The minister can huff and puff all she likes, but she is sitting on a very real problem in our educational system that is systematically discriminated against in terms of opportunity and chance -- a chance to learn and a chance to earn -- for the average student in this province. That is the difficulty a great many people are having with the so-called reforms she is introducing.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: If everything is so okay in the system, how can the minister justify the decline in the last year in the number of apprentices in Ontario at a time when youth unemployment is at a peak? How can she justify the fact that in absolute numbers the number of apprentices has gone down?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member asked that question either Thursday or Friday last week and it was explained to him very clearly that there was a one-year decline last year, during a year of rather severe economic downturn when there were not as many apprenticeship places.

I hope the member will be aware that as a result of the introduction of the linkage program we have a very large number of students, approximately 12,000 annually, who come out of the secondary school system with one third of the academic portion of a registered apprenticeship already in hand by the time they leave the secondary schools. They are in need of apprenticeship places in industry.

It is not the school system which is at fault. At present, we are attempting to encourage industry to become more actively involved with the provision of the remainder of the hands-on procedure which is necessary for an apprenticeship.

The member reminds me of the question about who is an optimist and who is a pessimist. I ask him whether his glass is one quarter full or three quarters empty. That is the kind of turn of phrase he is attempting to impose upon the remarks which I made about the rate at which students leave and drop back into the secondary system.

As the member may know, we have had considerable success with drop-back programs in a number of boards, particularly in urban areas, in the last two or three years. A very large number of students are coming back to the secondary schools because they realize they need that educational program to proceed to the kind of training they require.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister expect boards of education in Ontario to successfully implement the OSIS proposals --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I expect them to do it without splitting infinitives anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the classroom instruction.

Mr. Bradley: The minister has almost thrown me off, but not quite.

How does the minister expect boards of education in Ontario to successfully implement the OSIS proposals when she has provided less of the percentage of the cost of education? It has gone from more than 61 per cent of the cost of education in 1975 on an average across the province being provided by the provincial government, to a point today where it is about 48.5 per cent of the cost of education being provided by the provincial government. How does the minister expect boards of education to deliver on the great plans she has for them when she refuses to fund them adequately?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is no refusal to fund them adequately at all. As a matter of fact, I am sure the honourable member will be aware that if we take into account all the funds provided by the provincial government in support of education, the total support provided by the province in 1983 is something on the order of 58.4 per cent.

Mr. Bradley: I used the figures the minister gave me.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member would just like to subtract the things he does not want to see in there.

The number of dollars being provided annually for students has increased regularly. I believe that regular increase will continue and will provide the boards with the wherewithal to do what is required on behalf of students.

Mr. Rae: The minister stated that OSIS is directed at the general-level student, which I think is contrary to the facts and the experience. Can she tell us whether her ministry has done a survey of boards of education with respect to the options students are currently choosing? Can she confirm that a number of boards and schools are finding that students are orienting themselves almost entirely to the advanced program and that the number of technical and vocational courses being offered is on the decline as a direct result of the OSIS program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I cannot confirm that. There have been some statements made by some representatives of some school boards, particularly in certain subjects, who believe there will be a decline in the number of applicants and that the number of students they are talking to may be slightly fewer than last year. We will probably not have that information until the June report of the boards because that is when we will have the understanding of what is being provided.

There is no reason whatever for a decline in participation in technical and business subjects. For the very first time, technical and business subjects are a mandatory requirement for credit for graduation from secondary school in this province. Surely the number of options left beyond those that are mandatory provides students with adequate space to ensure they participate in those programs.

I remind the member there is no law that says the school program has to be from nine o'clock in the morning until three o'clock in the afternoon. There is no law that says a student in secondary school has to stick to only six or seven subjects in a year; in fact, they can acquire more if they wish to try. There is no law that says the schools themselves cannot schedule more flexibility within the curriculum than they have been able to do in the past. I hope all those circumstances would come into play.

HATE LITERATURE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Deputy Premier in his role as the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. I am sure the Deputy Premier is aware of the decision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in the Red Eye case. I am sure he will be aware of the fact that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code specifically prohibits the publication or display of any material that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the grounds of race, creed, religion, colour and sex.

He will be aware of the fact that a sociology professor at the University of Saskatchewan was able to bring in action against the Red Eye, a student publication at the university, which was found by the commission to be offensive towards women on the grounds that it reinforced and legitimized prejudice against women and prolonged the existence of hangovers of prejudice against equal female participation in education, work, aspects of social life and the professions.

Yet if the same publication were found in Ontario, it would not be possible to bring an action against the publication under the Human Rights Code of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Is the Deputy Premier aware of the fact that Ontario does not have legislation which protects women in this way and gives them a cause of action under the Human Rights Code? Is he prepared to introduce amendments to the code which would protect women against abusive publications of this kind and give them a right of action under our human rights legislation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would be supportive of any legislation or regulation that would make it quite clear that it is unacceptable in this jurisdiction, as it should be throughout the entire country, for any depiction of women that would be degrading from the standpoint of these particular matters. I do not think there is any excuse to permit the exploitation of any person along these lines.

Mr. Rae: If that is the minister's view, will he introduce amendments to the Human Rights Code to allow women protection against this kind of material?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I answered in the way I did because I would want the opportunity to satisfy myself, in consultation with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and others, that this is the case.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, if any amendment is to be introduced -- and I hope the minister might look at it in this context -- surely hate literature or literature that is degrading to any person should not be covered. Whether it is going to be covered under the Human Rights Code or otherwise, would the minister expand the scope of his mandate to decry this kind of literature, not simply against women but against all people?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I thought in my answer to the leader of the third party, I made it quite clear that I am opposed to the exploitation of any person.

Mr. Rae: If that is the case, if the minister is so concerned, can he explain why it is that in Ontario, joined only by British Columbia, we do not have legislation that allows racial groups, different individuals, as well as women as a class, to make representation to the Ontario Human Rights Commission with respect to publications that belittle them or expose them to this kind of degradation? Why is it that Ontario is last in the pack in terms of this kind of legislation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The difficulty in responding to questions such as these is that in responding it would be reasonable to assume that I am agreeing with the preamble to the question.

In response to the main question, I indicated I would want to satisfy myself that the opinions contained in the main question were in fact the situation. I will take this matter up with the Attorney General.

PITS AND QUARRIES POLICY

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. It concerns his plans to impose gravel extraction areas on municipalities through the recently released mineral aggregate resource planning policy and its application to the Planning Act.

In view of the fact that serious concerns have been expressed by a number of municipalities over the attempts to award dictatorial powers to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) over the location of gravel pits, while at the same time bypassing debate in this legislature on the proposed policy, will he now withdraw the policy statement and put the policy through proper consultative processes of public hearings where it can be debated?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member had wanted to have a discussion on this policy, which has been out for a year now –

Mr. J. A. Reed: No, it has not.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes, it has. It was stated by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and myself in this Legislature more than a year ago. The member had better get his facts straight.

If he had wanted to discuss this policy, he could have done so in the estimates of this ministry last November and December. He chose not to. It is on his head. We distributed the policy to the municipalities throughout the province and are engaged in the public consultation process about which he speaks so eloquently.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, as a point of clarification or perhaps a point of privilege: The minister knows the municipalities did not receive copies of the proposed policy until December 1983 and were told to reply by February 3.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. J. A. Reed: One of their great complaints is that they have not had time to properly assess what the policy means to each of their municipalities. In view of the fact that he has yet to reintroduce his new Aggregates Act, which was to replace the Pits and Quarries Control Act of 1971 -- which was withdrawn in 1981 and which has never seen the light of day since, but which has been promised a number of times -- will he now defer this policy until he has introduced the legislation to complement it, rather than trying to slip this nonsense through the back door?

2:50p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not know where the member has been for the past year. The Minister of Agriculture and Food and I made a public statement in this Legislature on the same day. We distributed that policy to the members. We distributed it to the various interest groups, including municipalities, and there was discussion during the past summer.

Mr. J. A. Reed: What are these letters?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Just relax. It then went to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing under the provisions of the Planning Act. The provisions of the Planning Act --

Ms. Copps: Where is your brother?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Go exercise your pout somewhere else.

The provisions of the Planning Act which came into effect at the end of August then necessitated the implementation of the provincial policy planning process. Under that process we redistributed it again in the fall of the year. Some municipalities have written to me lately to say they want an extended period of time to comment. That is fine. I have extended periods of time for comment, but I am not going to abandon this policy; nor are we going to abandon other necessary environmental protection planning policies under the Planning Act.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, even if that is true, where is the Timmins food terminal?

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Is the minister aware of a study by the product safety branch of the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to establish a data bank of accident injury information?

Is the minister further aware that in the case of only four hospitals out of 1,000 institutions in Canada that participated in this study, one of them being the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, of the top 20 products of activities that have caused accidents, hockey has the highest incidence of accidents, some 1,165 cases of serious accidents in the four institutions alone? Is the minister aware that these involved 576 boys between the ages of five and 14 and another 394 between the ages of 15 and 24? Is the minister aware that this represents 13 per cent of all the accidents and, finally, most of them --

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Martel: This is serious, because 28 per cent represent head accidents, and 13 or 15 were skull fractures. When are we going to have enough courage as a society to put an end to the goon tactics that still plague hockey today?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully aware of all the details of the study that has been alluded to by the honourable member, but I am fully aware of the ongoing concern in the hockey field. We are concerned about safety in all sports, but particularly with hockey because it is obvious, as the member has pointed out, that there seem to be more injuries in that sport than in any other.

We have taken up this matter with organized amateur hockey on many occasions, as I know the member knows. We have considered with them the possibility of government taking a more direct hand in controlling the sport. As the member knows, because he has been part of these discussions, we have so far tended to back away because we feel it is always a question of how far government should be involved in controlling amateur sports.

The concern he has expressed is a concern that we continue to have. It is one that we have been taking up with amateur sport and amateur hockey, and we will again approach them on this. Over the past five, six or seven years we have spent an enormous amount of money, largely through Wintario grants, for the purchase of protective equipment for hockey players. As many here know, the best protective equipment in the world sometimes is not going to prevent injury if there are, as he has referred to them, goon tactics.

All I can say to the member is that we are aware of the problem. We are trying through various ways and means to mitigate the problem and to reduce the dangers of injuries; that means continuing to talk with amateur hockey people. However, there may well come a time when, very reluctantly, government is going to have to take a very strong hand in this and, frankly, for me that would be a sad day for amateur hockey.

Mr. Martel: I agree with much of what the minister is saying in that I do not think we should have to interfere. However, in view of the past five or six years' experience and in view of just one hockey tournament I was at recently, where in one game two youngsters were taken to the hospital on stretchers, are we prepared to move in and say to amateur hockey, even though we do not want to, that we will outlaw fighting, that we will insist bodily contact remain out of the game until midget level and that we will insist on stiffer penalties for the use of the stick as a weapon, which is creating many of these injuries?

Finally, are we prepared to introduce a new rule that will not allow charging from behind, as has just happened in Manitoba, where you are not allowed to hit someone from behind because there is no defence against it?

Are we prepared to move in those directions to protect boys up to the age of 16 until they are mature enough to look after themselves, or are we going to let this mayhem continue, despite the fact that we do not want to interfere?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am not prepared to commit myself or this government to any specific intervention as to how high one can carry a stick or what one can do with respect to one's conduct on the ice; I am not prepared to respond on the specific issues.

What I want to say here, and we have said this to amateur hockey in this province, is that if the problem continues, we may, with the greatest of reluctance, have to take much sterner measures than we have before.

Finally, just a few months ago we asked Mr. Syl Apps, who is a well-known hockey player in this province and around the world, to spend many hours talking to amateur hockey people in Ontario, trying to get them to understand that this is one of the problems and trying to help them in their organization.

At this time I do not know precisely where the matter stands, but the concern is here. If it continues, with the greatest of reluctance we are going to have to do more about it.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has disbanded the group of people within his ministry that was working directly on hockey, what mechanism does he have within his ministry to deal with this problem? With whom is he talking? What kind of communication links does he have with amateur hockey in Ontario? It is all very well to stand here and tell us his concerns, but what mechanism is in place so he can deal with this issue?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are in a period of transition. Through the efforts of this government and my ministry, two or three years ago we established the Hockey Ontario Development Committee, which helped the amateur hockey associations to improve their refereeing and their coaching, which in turn certainly results in a safer game and so on.

The organized amateur leagues in this province felt the Hockey Ontario Development Committee was not quite the kind of mechanism they wanted, and that is why we asked Mr. Syl Apps to work with them to set up some kind of mechanism, the kind of thing the honourable member is referring to, a better mechanism to work with organized hockey.

That is where the matter stands at the present time, but I certainly welcome the questions and interventions by both members on a matter that is of the utmost and greatest importance to us.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION BILL

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister is obviously aware of Bill 142, which deals with the annexation of a large tract of land in Vespra township by the city of Barrie; and he is aware that a lot of interest has been shown in this and, indeed, a lot of opposition to it.

3 p.m.

Given the fact that the material presented to the standing committee on general government was overwhelmingly in opposition to the bill, will the minister give the House his assurance that he is now prepared to withdraw this iniquitous piece of legislation and thereby spare the people of Vespra losing over 90 per cent of their commercial assessment and a lot of other important land which they so dearly would like to keep?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question is, very simply, no.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the taxpayers of Barrie and Vespra expended a great deal of money on the number of hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board and other judicial bodies, will the minister recommend to his colleagues the compensation of legal, planning and other consultative costs to the two municipalities of Barrie and Vespra so that because of this piece of legislation, which took precedence over all their other hearings, they would get some kind of compensation in their expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees and other costs?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I understand Barrie and Vespra have had a number of discussions. They met again, I believe last Wednesday or Thursday evening, with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I believe the member for Waterloo North was there as a representative of the municipality as well.

It very clearly is stated and set out that the amount of money that will go to Vespra in exchange for the lands that go into the city of Barrie is negotiable. What is included in those negotiations is wide open.

I am hoping that Vespra and Barrie, with the assistance of others, will come back to the ministry with a recommendation on what they believe is a clear and proper settlement. We have not excluded any items being put into that for settlement purposes.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he intends to proceed with this legislation despite the fact that these financial negotiations have gone nowhere and are nowhere near being concluded. Does he intend to proceed with the legislation or has he completely turned this bill over to the Solicitor General? Is he the minister whom we should now question on this particular matter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, the bill is not turned over to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has been very supportive and helpful in trying to find some solution to the problem. Vespra has not indicated any willingness to sit down, discuss and negotiate a settlement for its own benefit.

The legislation very clearly spells out that Vespra has the opportunity, along with Barrie and the county, to negotiate an appropriate settlement. If no settlement can be determined by those parties, then it ultimately is the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, through his colleagues in cabinet, to make a recommendation.

GREAT LAKES STEEL LTD.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder if I could also have the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). I think he has had some involvement in this issue.

I would like to refer to the matter of some 50 employees of Great Lakes Steel in Thunder Bay who were laid off about three weeks ago and are only now being called back. Can the minister explain why, when Great Lakes Steel did not go into bankruptcy or receivership, the men were unable to cash their cheques from the Bank of Nova Scotia in Thunder Bay for some two to two and a half weeks?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that matter has been cleared up. Is there an ongoing problem? Have they not had their money?

Mr. Foulds: I want to ask the minister why they were unable to cash their cheques or have their cheques cashed when the company was not in receivership or in bankruptcy. I would like him to assure us that his government will take legislative steps so that kind of thing does not happen again.

I would like to know if, in his investigations, he found out whether China Steel of Sault Ste. Marie, the parent company, was draining the subsidiary company so that the cheques could not be cashed.

I would also like him to give us the assurance that his employment standards branch in Thunder Bay will process immediately any complaint by those workers or other workers in similar circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I can respond to the third part of the honourable member's question very quickly and very positively. Certainly, regardless of the complaint brought before our employment standards people, they do investigate it very competently and very quickly. That will be the case as far as Thunder Bay is concerned.

I understand the problem arose from a disagreement between the parent company and the particular bank branch in question. That problem was resolved and people had their money. It is as simple as that.

PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour. The minister, I am sure, is aware of the growing concern over the abuse of probationary employees in our province. Specifically, I know he will recall the details of the situation at Central Stampings Ltd. in Windsor, which I provided to him earlier this winter during our exchanges of correspondence.

In a recent period, only 25 of 160 probationary employees survived their probationary gauntlet. The remainder were thrown back on the unemployment rolls because they took sick time, were injured on the job, were called unsuitable or the employer claimed a lack of work and then hired new workers the following week. Has the minister investigated the situation at Central Stampings, as I requested two months ago? If not, why not? What action is he prepared to take to prevent the abuse of probationary workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that my ministry did not investigate Central Stampings, as requested by the member.

Mr. Wrye: Quite frankly, I am appalled the minister has not looked into this matter. It seems to me when 160 workers are hired over about a two-month period and only 25 survive the probationary period, there is something very wrong. I would urge him, once again, to look into the matter.

I want to question the minister specifically in my supplementary about the release of workers who have suffered work-related injuries, since this minister is also in charge of the Workers' Compensation Board. I am going to send him a list of nine probationary employees of Chrysler Canada in Windsor, who were released over the past few months after they filed legitimate claims for workers' compensation. The list provides one more example of the need for legislative change to protect probationary employees.

What action is the minister prepared to take to protect workers who are injured during their probationary period from being arbitrarily dismissed as a result? Does the minister intend to propose changes in the law to deny companies the right to dismiss any employee, while that employee is temporarily disabled as a result of an on-the-job injury?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member and I have had considerable detailed correspondence on this matter. While we are not investigating the particular circumstance he described, we are taking a look at the whole matter of probationary employments and separations. Whether there will be any changes or amendments to the act, I cannot say at this time.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel that it is at least worth looking at amendments to the Human Rights Code and to the Workers' Compensation Act to give people protection during this 60- or 90-day period so that if they are legitimately ill or injured on the job through no fault of their own, they cannot have their employment terminated?

Let me give the minister another example of an employee at Chrysler Canada, who during his 90 days missed three days because his mother died. The company fired him, saying his attendance was poor, even though the only three days he missed during his period at Chrysler were the three days he was off to attend the funeral and to be with the family.

Does the minister not understand that unless he takes action to protect workers, because of high unemployment the companies are treating employees as if they are just objects? Because it is an employers' market, they have no respect for these people. It is up to the government to take appropriate action to protect them.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I accept what the honourable member is saying, but I cannot quite agree. I find it difficult to think a responsible company such as Chrysler would deliberately peddle in probationary employees and would go out of its way to take advantage of those probationary employees. I also feel this is a matter that can be addressed by collective bargaining in the case of Chrysler.

Despite all that, the point is yes, we are looking at it. I believe I wrote to the member not too long ago suggesting that if he wished, he could bring in representatives from one of the unions in question. I would be pleased to meet with them and to discuss the matter further.

3:10 p.m.

It is a complex matter, and I do not want to make any snap statements here on what the eventual outcome will be. Certainly, we will take a look at it and talk to the people involved. We have already made that offer, and I am sure we can work something out.

HAMILTON GO-ALRT

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. If he would like to follow protocol and return to his seat, we can proceed with the question.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead, please.

Mr. Allen: I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to GO advanced light rapid transit and the issue that prevails in Hamilton at this time about the alternative entry routes.

First, with respect to the whole discussion and the process of the discussion, why have the GO-ALRT public relations style and processes been designed in such a way as to sideline genuine public debate and to keep individual citizens separate from public interest groups so that the debate might not proceed until a very late date? Why is it that whenever the minister is asked about the discussion of alternative routes of entry and destination in Hamilton, his final word -- and, indeed, the final word of the minister from the neighbouring riding of Wentworth, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) -- usually ends in the form of a subtly couched threat that perhaps the system might never reach Hamilton or will perhaps end on its outskirts or terminate in Burlington?

Does the minister or does he not have confidence in the public in the Hamilton West region and in its elected officials to make the best decision for Hamilton and for the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth with respect to the GO-ALRT entry route?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of confidence in the public participation method. If the member were to go back over all the public participation procedure that has taken place in the city and in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth with regard to the GO-ALRT program over quite a number of months past, he would find that the technical advisory committee that worked for approximately a year to put forward the recommendation is a committee made up, I believe, of 10 people, eight of whom are citizens of Hamilton and of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

Ms. Copps: What about site selection?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Only two of those people are provincial people. They have put forward what they feel is the best technical recommendation, and it is now going through a process of public participation. There were drop-in centre meetings last week in Hamilton and a full-day meeting on Saturday, I understand, that was well attended by both municipal representatives and the public. This is all part of the public participation process, and it will continue.

Ms. Copps: It is a watered-down farce and the minister knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Eventually, I expect that the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and the city of Hamilton will make some recommendations to me. Whether those recommendations can be lived with, whether they will be acceptable, I cannot say at this moment.

Ms. Copps: Site selections should be made by the people of Hamilton, not --

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Hamilton Centre -- thank you.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

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

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by a number of residents from my riding of Beaches-Woodbine and by a number of people from other ridings in the Toronto area.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition, which reads as follows:

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

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This was signed by women across the great community of Hamilton who support not only the concept but the implementation.

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

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

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by a number of teachers from the community of Hornepayne in the Algoma riding.

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

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

"As representatives of member organizations in the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, we, the undersigned, petition that the act to amend the Employment Standards Act, which was introduced in December 1983, Bill 141, be amended to provide for equal pay for work of equal value."

This petition is signed by 263 women attending the annual meeting last week of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. They were delegates from most of the 280 organizations affiliated to the committee and represent approximately three million women across Canada. A large number of the petitioners live in Ontario.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, alternative and independent schools are a growing phenomenon in Ontario. Supporters of these institutions are currently being denied their basic right to choose this education for their children at no cost. Eight provinces in Canada provide various degrees of support for alternate schools. Ontario does not. I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, urge you as our representative to plead our case in the Ontario Legislature and correct this basic denial of human rights."

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 36(b), we, the undersigned members of the provincial parliament, petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Labour be referred to the standing committee on resources development for the purpose of committee consideration of the ministry's approach to enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act at Westinghouse in Hamilton.

This petition is signed by 20 members of the Legislature.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITFEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill 100, An Act to revise and consolidate the Law respecting the Organization, Operation and Proceedings of Courts of Justice in Ontario.

Bill 122, An Act to revise the Architects Act.

Bill 123, An Act to revise the Professional Engineers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bills ordered for committee of the whole House.

3:20 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Shymko moved, seconded by Mr. Robinson, first reading of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. Sheppard, first reading of Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing before the Legislature a series of amendments to the Liquor Licence Act. One of these amendments will prohibit a second application for a liquor licence for a period of two years following the rejection of the initial application when such rejection is based on the results of a public hearing.

I am told that on several occasions some applicants have filed new applications with the board shortly after each rejection, apparently in the hope that local opposition to the granting of a licence would simply be worn down. The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will retain the discretionary power to process a second application within the two-year period, if and when it is satisfied there has been a substantial change in the circumstances surrounding the application.

Further amendments contained in the legislation will provide for the formal amalgamation of the Liquor Licence Appeal Tribunal and the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. The merged operation would continue under the latter name.

The amendments would also provide the LLBO with the authority to prescribe by regulation other types of identification to be given equal status to that of the Ontario photo card. Such regulations could conceivably permit the use of other legitimate photo identification, such as passports and so on.

Finally, section 1 of this bill will amend the act to broaden the definition of Ontario wine to include wine made from a combination of Ontario apples and imported apple juice. This amendment stems from a request from two of Ontario's wineries that wish to use imported apple juice to blend with cider produced in this province.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today what is essentially housekeeping legislation.

The first set of amendments relate to the ministry's Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal and deals with such operational issues as membership, current limitations on the size of the tribunal and basic procedural matters, some of which are related to the amalgamation of CRAT and the Liquor Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The second amendment will permit ministry employees carrying out duties under the authority of one act to provide such information to other ministry staff working under another relevant act or to a peace officer where the employee has reason to believe a criminal offence has been committed.

CITY OF PETERBOROUGH ACT

Mr. Pollock moved, seconded by Mr. Sheppard, first reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Peterborough.

Motion agreed to.

ASSOCIATION OF THE CHEMICAL PROFESSION OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Association of the Chemical Profession of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying politicians do not occasionally use a little hyperbole or stretch the truth. The Premier (Mr. Davis) will be quite familiar with that himself. But to ask me to agree with the throne speech and its lack of direction would be to shame me forever in the eyes of every intelligent person in this province, in this country and perhaps even in North America. Therefore, I cannot bring myself to mouth the words that the Premier would like.

3:30 p.m.

However, I must say I am delighted that the Premier is in the House today. It is a rare privilege to have him here to listen to one of my speeches. He is a busy chap.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do not provoke me. I am liable to remind you that you did not even speak in the throne speech debate last year.

Mr. Peterson: I am quite happy to provoke the Premier, because he always embarrasses himself when I do provoke him. I am delighted in more ways than one that he is here, knowing he contemplated the vicissitudes of entering the great federal race. It is interesting that he clearly made the right choice in the circumstances, because he would have been completely out of politics for ever had he taken that route.

I note with great interest that his chances of a federal sinecure after the next federal election are diminishing also. We are very glad to have him here, particularly --

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier said something.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just said Mr. Nixon's candidate --

Mr. Peterson: Do not be so sure about what is really going on there. The Premier was quite right in not plunging into the great race himself, because it would have embarrassed him. That is all I am saying. In spite of his sins, many of us in a curious way are rather fond of him and do not want to see him embarrass himself in the twilight of his political career. We do not want him to have to go through what his federal colleague Joe Clark went through, attempting to cling to power by his fingernails.

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: I just pass on certain observations to the Premier from across the floor when I see his colleagues regularly salivating and sheathing their daggers behind him. I understand some of the pressures that go with leadership of a political party, particularly when people are in decline, as the Premier has pointed out.

I wish him well because the issues we will be discussing now and some time in the future are this Premier's agenda, this Premier's vision for the province and his stewardship of the past decade or so. In fact, it runs back far longer than that, 22 years now in high public office, being a minister of the crown or the Premier of the province. He has brought with that a certain perspective, a certain responsibility for the past, as well as a responsibility for the vision of the future and presumably for some ideas that would be constructive to the debate.

We on the opposition side were looking to the throne speech for a clear indication of the government's view of Ontario's great future. I can say those of us who hungered for some substance ended up very hungry after that throne speech. It was an opportunity, we felt, to put forward in clear, concise terms not just the vision but the specifics as well. According to the Premier, we will presumably be waiting for that for some time to come. Perhaps some of that will be forthcoming in the budget.

How can one expect an opposition to be even somewhat satisfied when the government, less than a week after the throne speech, has already equivocated on so many of its promises? I ask the Premier, what about province-wide testing? We have now had about seven or eight different opinions from the Premier, from the single most important bureaucrat in the province, Mr. Ed Stewart, and now the minister today said two or three different things. No one has any idea what this government's position is on province-wide testing.

I use that only as an example of the either ill-thought-out or not-thought-out policies of the government that leave very disappointed those of us who care about these things and are looking for clear direction and obviously looking for a redefinition of our educational institutions and the role they will play in our society. I assume we will go on for ever trying to extract the true meaning of that throne speech. I use that as an example of so many other things that went on in that rather vague document.

I intend to deal with my remarks in three parts today. First, I want to lay before this House my view of some of the realities we are facing in Ontario today, realities that must be dealt with, realities we can no longer shove to the back burner and hope they will go away, realities that will shape the life he has and the lives the members have and the lives our children have.

Given the government's predisposition for rationalization, explanation and running away from realities, I believe the impact of these factors is going to be far more severe in the future because we have neglected to face up to them realistically. Perhaps that is the problem of an entrenched government which on one hand presumably is supposed to look forward and which on the other hand has to rationalize the past, the many mistakes that have been made.

We need not only an understanding of the realities of the present but a clear break with the past; in the sense that it does not serve us well we do not have to explain or rationalize any more. In my view we will see, as we go through those issues, we have a number of great opportunities if we first attempt the problem of at least defining some of those forces that are shaping our society at the present time.

In the second part of my remarks I will deal with our agenda -- not the old ideas, but our agenda in the Ontario Liberal Party -- of what we have to do to realize the great promise and future that can be ours if we direct our minds to that end.

The third thing I want to address is the management of the present system; the accountability of the present system.

Let me start with the first part, if I may. I am proud to be a legislator in this House. I am very proud to be the leader of our party, and I am proud to be one who is, I hope, making a constructive input into the public policy process in this province.

Each legislator in this House has unique special responsibilities. The background of each one of us is different and I am proud, in the leadership of this party, to coalesce the great, different sensitivities and thoughts that so many of my members bring, the different backgrounds, all concerted towards moving the public policy in a direction that we think, collectively, is instructive.

There is not a pessimist in the group. There is not one person here who does not think we can do better. We all believe in the capacity of individuals and political parties to change the course of history, and we are dedicated to that end, being a reform party, as we are.

Let me deal briefly with some of the realities that I think either the government does not understand or is not prepared to articulate, not prepared to define, so that we can start on the reconstruction process.

We are going through a profound industrial restructuring in this province and it has been going on for a decade at the very least. If one were looking for signposts in the course of history, I would say one would have to look to the oil embargo -- on October 15, 1973, as I recall -- that profoundly changed the way the western world had been doing business and will do business in the future.

So many of us, confronting some of the structural changes and not really wanting to deal with them fundamentally, were much more prone to dismiss those changes as aberrations of a cyclical downturn. We said: "It is going to come back. Everything in the future will be as it was in the past, if we can only get out of this abhorrent recession. So wait for the recovery. Wait for the feds. Wait for the western world. Wait for Ronald Reagan. It will all come back the way it was."

It is my view that it will never come back the way it was. If we take Ontario's traditional sources of wealth, such as our great manufacturing industry, even now those are in the process of declining in relative importance, in terms of wealth creation and in terms of employment, than they were in the past.

The great automotive industry, which I respect and very much want to keep in this province, will probably in the future never employ as many as it did in the past and provide that one job in five, as it did.

3:40 p.m.

The steel industry, a world-class competitive industry, is in the midst of great transition. The whole nature of the steel business around the world is changing, and it is incumbent upon us to recognize that reality.

In the forestry industry and in the pulp and paper industry, I believe that because of the neglect of the past, northern Ontario is threatened in fundamental ways it has not been in the past. As we look ahead to the fierce competition from other faster-growing areas in the world, we run the risk in this province of seeing a northern Ontario which, 20 to 30 years from now, will be dramatically different in shape and in function from what it was in the past.

We are going through so many technological revolutions as we move from steel to plastics, from mechanics to electronics -- the list goes on and on. We are being industrially restructured right under our feet. On the one hand, the whole thrust of industry is to invest in capital equipment to lay people off. On the other hand, the whole thrust of public policy is to employ people. At the present time, we have two of the great forces in society running in dramatically opposite directions.

I think those two different trends are compatible with a different view of our responsibilities in government. However, if the government does not believe my premises, let us say that even in the midst of this industrial restructuring, one of the unfortunate offshoots at the present time is massive unemployment -- unemployment heretofore uncontemplated in the history of this country. If 10 years ago one had talked to any politician about 10, 11 or 12 per cent structural unemployment, he or she would have laughed and said no government could survive it or it would just never happen. Yet here we are dealing with those realities in a way we have never had to deal with them before.

Either we can look to the traditional sources of wealth creation and job creation in our province, or we can look for some of the new and magic opportunities that the changing technologies present for us.

It has become the role of government to deal with that massive unemployment. At a variety of meetings, I know the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has sat down with businessmen and said:

"Pretend you are the treasurer for the day. What would you do? Shall I throw money at it; shall I not throw money at it?" In one meeting he said: "I have lots of money, so I can throw it at it, but shall I?" He is dealing with these problems in a way that I do not believe is relevant to the major task at hand, which is going to be new thrusts in our educational areas.

Even the brightest optimist looking at this huge pool of unemployment -- 500,000 unemployed, 163,000 of those being young people, many of them out of work for half a year, a year or even two years, and statistics running at 20, 25 and 30 per cent for a two-year period in certain areas of Ontario -- would see that we have a problem of giving up on that or addressing it in significant and profound ways in this province. But that problem has not had the attention it should have had from this government.

Another profound fact is affecting our society. We have an ageing population, which is putting major new pressures on not only our pension funds but our health care system as well. That reality is going to change dramatically the way we fund our system, the way our system produces revenue, as we have fewer people producing real wealth so they can be taxed and more people on the receiving end of those pensions.

Perhaps, for the enlightenment of the government, I should go just a little into the way in which Ontario has abused its pension funds.

We now have a total debt in this province of $17 billion to $18 billion. The vast majority of that, almost all of it, has been borrowed from internally generated captive pension plans paying, on average, below-market rates. Unless we go into a massive increase in contribution rates, or unless we restructure those programs in new ways, those funds will be bankrupt by the year 2003. Any way we restructure them is going to require a massive intergenerational transfer of wealth.

John White, one of the great Treasurers of this province -- I use that term loosely -- believed that every pension fund dollar available to him was his to spend and he did not have to pay it back.

That is the premise upon which he was one of the architects of the financial system in this province. Right now we owe those pension plans $17 billion to $18 billion. In 1986 or 1987 we will reach the first crossover point, where we are going to have to start drawing down interest on the Canada pension plan; in the year 1991, we will start drawing down capital in the Canada pension plan, and it will be bankrupt by the year 2003 at present contribution rates.

It is not easy to talk about enhancing the Canada pension plan, or any other plan, before we deal with the problem of financing the one we have. What are we going to do? Are we going to increase contribution rates? Are we going to ask one generation to pay for another? Are we going to cancel that great debt? The Treasurer is confronted with that dilemma and is now talking about writing off that debt. For all intents and purposes, those who contributed will never see their own funds returned. They are looking to other generations to pay them.

If that kind of swindle or fraud happened in private enterprise, it would be very clear who the perpetrators would be. It is interesting that governments can do a $10-billion intergenerational heist and get away with it, the only excuse being, "What are the choices?" or "What else can we do?"

When we carefully analyse the financial management of this province in the 1970s, as well as in the late 1960s and the early 1980s, we see that those people frequently had access to and their hands on great pools of capital, and they chose to invest that, not to get a real rate of return back to the province but to get maximum political return.

It is the old story that in politics, the future is always the next election; the next decade and the next generation do not tend to matter so much. That is clearly the way this government has managed. They have been quite prepared to borrow from anybody in the future to serve the political purposes of the time and the day, because none of them will be here.

One of the great realities of this province, indeed of Canada and the western world, is that these huge debt levels have encumbered our options and our ability to move, even in the face of probably the greatest social and economic problems we have ever faced. We have fewer options than we had in the 1960s and the 1970s because of the squandering and some of the ill judgements of the past.

That is one of the realities under which we all have to live. You cannot cheat reality; ultimately, someone must pay. You can defer reality. You can shove it ahead a little bit. You can make your kids pick up your messes or your debts, but you can never cheat. You will find that either in a lower dollar or higher inflation, some way or other the chickens always come home to roost. This government's contribution to those problems is as significant as those of most other governments we are talking about at the present time.

Frankly, I do not expect the New Democratic Party to understand this. I really do not. That is one of the reasons they have the problems they have at present.

Mr. McClellan: We have said it a thousand times. We understand too well. You are saying the same thing we said four years ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Peterson: A decade or so ago, when things seemed to be going relatively well for Ontario and Canada, I believe the leaders of the day chose to take the easy way out rather than make some of the investments they should have made at the time.

We know about our dismal record of research and development in this province and in this country. In 1968 we were spending 1.4 per cent of our gross national product on research and development. Today, it is 0.9 per cent. When other countries recognized the reality that they had to dig in and invest in the future rather than leave their economies in a state like ours, where some 80 per cent of the technology we use is imported from across our borders, they dug in to get their share of the international pie.

Today we have a problem resulting from lack of investment in that area, and we are going to lose out further to our trading partners. One of the things we have to realize is that we are facing ruthless competition from our trading partners, particularly because of the changes in the tariffs which significantly affect the manufacturing base in Ontario. If we do not have some proprietary products, proprietary technology and proprietary brains, we are not going to be able to compete with other people who are impressed with the realities of ruthless international competition.

3:50 p.m.

Before I got into politics, I used to work for a living and I travelled a great deal. I travelled a great deal in the Orient. I am not suggesting those models are transportable, but I will say there are a number of lessons there that are very important to the way we organize our industrial society here. They keep their industry in a constant state of transition. They are planning now for the day when they will never build another automobile on Japanese soil.

With great respect, the government is absolutely wrong again. It has been so wrong in the House the past few days, it is not credible on very much when it comes to facts.

In the face of a ruthlessly competitive economy, Japan has developed industrial aims and goals on a consensual basis involving its great institutions and corporations as well as management, labour and government. They have been able to work together to keep that country, which has very little besides human ingenuity and brains, in the forefront of technological and industrial change in this world and to provide not a bad standard of living for its people. They learned some of those lessons facing up to the realities they had to face.

Perhaps in this country we had too much, too easily. There are very few jurisdictions in the world that have been so blessed with natural resources, beauty, scenery, access to market, a stable history and all those things. Perhaps we took the easy way out of some of those situations, not recognizing those changes that started in the world 10 years ago.

Many of the aggravated problems in unemployment, social problems and trade problems we are talking about today and are experiencing were, I believe, predictable. This is not the first time I have spoken about some of these things.

I do not want to be a prophet of doom, because I believe we have a great future, but achieving it is going to take a different attitude, a different direction, different leadership and different management in the future from what we have had in the past.

Look at the grim realities. Our productivity levels are among some of the worst in the western world; there was negative productivity growth last year. Look at our contribution to research and development on a relative basis; we are fighting it out for 16th place with Turkey, of all the countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Those are realities.

Look at the erosion of some of our physical infrastructure. For example, a very high percentage of roads in this province is now below the provincial standards because we have decided to defer those expenditures to someone in the future. What is our choice? We either repair those roads in the future or do not have them at some time or other.

The government has deferred every cost that was deferable, not recognizing that in the future the price is going be very much higher than it was when the government should have made the original expenditure. It is the case with research and development, with education, with roads and with a whole bunch of other things in this province.

The same is true of environmental questions. The piper has to be paid; there is no escape in economic terms or in any other terms. The question is, do we do it now or do we allow the problem to compound itself and become more expensive and solve it later? Those are the issues, as I see them, unless the government is content -- and I do not expect it would be -- to see further environmental degradation and neglect and to defer those problems in perpetuity to our children. But the cost of not cleaning up is far more significant than the cost of cleaning up in broad terms. That is another reality of this province.

I will not deal with this at any more length now, but I do believe some of those fundamental truths have not been understood by this government. If they have been understood, the government has not been in a position to mobilize the public will or to organize its own policies to try to combat those problems. Perhaps the reason is that anything positive it did in the future would be denial of its policies of the past.

We do not need the old ideas; we need a new agenda for this province. I want to talk about our agenda. Specifically, I want to talk about what we would do. We have never shrunk from our responsibilities to put forward, in clear and concise terms, exactly where we stood on the issues of the day and what we would do.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is Monday's policy.

Mr. Peterson: What is bothering the Minister of Northern Affairs? We put them forward in clear and concise ways, I remind the minister; perhaps he has not read them or has not been in the House often enough to hear about them.

Unlike his federal leader, who hides in the weeds and criticizes, and no one knows where he stands, I take a very different view of my responsibilities as leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. For years we have been putting forward constructive programs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You cannot sell that. Even your own colleagues are smiling.

Mr. Peterson: Do the members hear the Premier's response? "You cannot sell that." He does not care. That summarizes everything about this Premier: "You cannot sell that." He does not care about the worth of the product; he only cares about its saleability. That represents his regime and his government. He does not care about the steak; he only cares about the sizzle. He has Dalton Camp, Norman Atkins and Hugh Segal to manufacture the sizzle for him, which he thinks he can sell, the "keep the promise," all the razzle dazzle and "Davis can do it."

Whether or not the Premier knows it, his kind of politics is running out of gas, not only here but also right across this country. He and his party colleagues should try taking another $40 million or $60 million out of the public purse to advertise what good people they are prior to the next election. They will try it.

I want to talk about what we would do and where we would start. There is no doubt that number one on our new agenda is the question of education, skills training, unemployment, university training, apprenticeship and vocational training. They are all related. By almost any standard one wants to use -- and we have employed the figures in the House many times; contribution to skills training, per capita transfers to universities, name it -- we have one of the worst records in the country.

It has been neglected by this government for what reason? Perhaps they thought they could turn the thumbscrews with impunity. It is another way of cheating the future, because we have a situation today where 163,000 of our young people are unemployed. At the same time, according to the last report of the Ontario Manpower Commission -- and he will not make public the most recent report probably because it is more embarrassing -- we will go wanting for some 48,000 skilled workers by the year 1985, a year from now, and some 28,000 semi-skilled workers.

I have travelled this province widely. In Windsor they told me they need 600 tool and die makers this year. In Sudbury, in the face of massive unemployment -- some 14,000 or so, as I recall the figure, and I could be wrong -- they need platemakers. Everywhere in this province there is a demand for skilled people and semi-skilled people who have not come out of our educational system because of the failure of our policies here.

That is not something you can say is Mr. Trudeau's fault, the federal Liberals' fault or anyone else's fault. It is clearly the responsibility of this government in this province. There is a classic mismatch between the results of our educational institutions and the demands of the marketplace.

I have talked to industrialists across this province who are not happy with the skills that people are provided with when they come to them. Industrialists are now forced to set up their own skills training, to train people in their own skills, because they are not happy with what the Premier's system is doing.

I see the current Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) attempting to dismantle the system of education this Premier created when he was Minister of Education. She still does not know what she is going to do with it, but now with Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions, province-wide examinations and a variety of other things, she is trying to rectify the experiment this man did with the children of the 1970s and early 1980s.

4 p.m.

The reality is that the experiment failed. The question now is, what kind of recompense are we going to offer those results of his experiment? We have a school system where roughly 50 per cent go into the marketplace with absolutely no specialized skills whatsoever, no vocational training and no university training.

I have the figures in front of me and I will share them with the members: 11.4 per cent of our young people graduate from universities, 7.7 per cent graduate from the community colleges and 2.5 per cent graduate from apprenticeships. That compares with the 5.6 per cent who drop out of universities, the 6.3 per cent who drop out of community colleges and the 3.7 per cent who drop out of apprenticeships.

Fifty per cent of our young people have absolutely no specialized skills whatsoever. If members agree with one of my original premises that this world is changing profoundly, that the kinds of skills that will be necessary in order to compete in the future are dramatically different from those of the past, then very clearly the issue is education and making it relevant to our changing society. This government has failed in every respect in meeting those challenges.

That is our priority. We have put forward our program in very specific ways. Members will recall that shortly after I was elected leader of this party, I asked my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), a noted educator, to chair a task force on job opportunities for young people, because it was clearly identified as an item of priority for us. He put forward a thoughtful report, which is still a model and is something of which I am very proud.

We have put forward in very specific ways programs and ideas, which we have costed, that would employ thousands of our young people by using our government institutions instead of letting these people sit on welfare, on unemployment insurance or in idleness. These are programs that would give them a real work opportunity as well as counselling and upgrading. Is it not a tragedy in Ontario in 1984 that so many of those young people need help just in simple literacy? That is a commentary on the system.

We would use public funds to employ those young people to avoid the hoop the Premier talks about, the catch-22 situation where, on the one hand, they do not have any training and, on the other hand, they do not have any experience. We would give them experience and training so they would have something on their résumés that they could go out and be proud of and take around to prospective employers. It is not a perfect program, but it is a hell of a lot better than nothing, and that is what we stand for.

We have put forward in very specific ways skills training ideas that would be responsive in the short term to some of the problems we have in this province, meeting some of the customized training needs that are so necessary and using the existing institutions to try to respond to that immediate shortfall between the needs of the marketplace and the results of our educational institutions.

We are trying to be constructive. All the ministry officials have our documents. It is interesting to note how some of our documents and our research are being circulated through the various ministries, which want to know how we feel about these issues and how we would handle the problems. I am delighted as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to share that information and those ideas with the government. I commend them to the government and I say, "Steal them."

I was heartened, I must admit to the Premier, that in his great speech a month or so ago at the Empire Club he admitted for the first time that there is a massive problem of youth unemployment in this province. It created great expectations for me and for many people, but his feeble response was an insult to everyone who cares about this issue.

This is no longer a lower-class issue; this is no longer just a remote issue in most people's lives; this is a real issue in most people's lives in Ontario. There is not anyone who does not know people who are individually affected by it. There is not one member in this House, regardless of party, I will venture to say, for whom half the people who come to see him in his constituency office when they make appointments do not ask: "Can you help me get a job? Can you give me a reference? Can you do anything? Where can I go?"

Am I wrong? I would be surprised if any member of this House has had a different experience. There is desperation on their faces, the desperation of young men with 200 letters of rejection all neatly organized. I ask any one of the members how long he would have to pound the pavement, knock on doors and be rejected time after time, not because he is a bad fellow but because there is no opportunity, before he lost his confidence, questioned his self-worth and perhaps said: "This system does not have much for me. I have to look at other alternatives."

If we cannot provide a system that opens the door to economic opportunity for these young people to participate, to get a reward for risks taken or recompense for effort expended, if we exclude 20, 30 or 40 per cent of our young people from those opportunities, then I believe -- and I am not being overly dramatic -- the very underpinnings of our society are going to be threatened.

That is the great challenge for us. It is not only an economic challenge but a human, social and ethical challenge as well. Believing as we do that human beings are the greatest asset in any jurisdiction, be it Japan or Ontario, we would start our recovery process with people. We would start with job programs in the public and private sector. We would start with educational programs and we would rebuild excellence in education in Ontario.

I would not be proud of the fact that in this province we have the worst record in university funding. There is not one thoughtful observer of our university scene today who is happy with its quality. Granted that quality is tough to measure, granted that we are not able to put it on a computer, granted that it is not easy to compare these things, although we can in statistical terms, there is not one objective observer I know who thinks the quality in the system is what it used to be or the quality is as good as it could be with sensitive government policy.

Now we are shortchanging the future. The last place we should cut back on is human resources, and that is a priority for us. As my colleague the deputy leader and others have discussed at many different times and on many different occasions, that is where we would start in the recovery. Members opposite will hear much more from us on this subject in the months and years to come.

I want to speak briefly about another issue of great concern to members of my caucus, that is, the agriculture issue. My colleague, that eloquent spokesman, the member for Huron- Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), had a discussion about this with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) today. I want to draw to this government's attention that the face of rural Ontario is changing. If members opposite thoroughly understood it, I do not think they would like what is happening. It is largely a function of the tough times on which the agricultural community has fallen, not only in the last year but in the last several years.

There has been a conspiracy of forces that is changing rural Ontario, the sociology and the way people live. Lest we want to see that change, we need remedial programs now. We have specifically --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I still have farmers in my riding.

Mr. Peterson: Just because the Premier has farmers in his riding -- his farmers are all developers. He is selling off all that stuff in his riding. That is what he is doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member says that to Tom Jackson he will be in trouble.

Mr. Peterson: Whoever Tom Jackson is --

Mr. Riddell: Tom Jackson told you people what he thought at the Ontario Cattlemen's Association convention not too long ago.

Mr. Peterson: It is interesting that the greatest encroachment on farm land in the province at present is in the Premier's riding. That speaks in some small way to the personal commitment.

4:10 p.m.

Let me pursue this point for a moment. We have a hungry world and we know we have the capacity to be net exporters of food, yet we are net importers at present. Our position has been diminishing for a decade at least. We see the agrifarms move in and the family farmers move off because they cannot afford to be there any more. When we see the face of rural Ontario changing, we have a real problem in front of us.

My colleagues and I have put forward in a very specific way an eight-point agricultural strategy we believe would address some of those problems, at least in the short term. We have never shied away from our responsibility to be specific and positive in our responses to these problems.

Unless the members opposite are persuaded there is a problem -- I do not know what persuades the members sitting around the cabinet table. Perhaps it is the polls; perhaps it is pressure from their colleagues; perhaps it is travelling about and talking. I have no idea. Whatever it is that persuades them, I would like to use my voice at least to persuade them we have a disaster in the making.

My colleagues and I sat down a few days ago with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It is pleading in desperation not only for short-term assistance to keep people on their farms, but for a long-term agricultural strategy as well that would restore agriculture to its rightful place in Ontario. I do not think I am being unkind, and my colleague will correct me if I am wrong, in saying they feel neglected, abused and shortchanged. They feel the very quality of life in Ontario is being threatened as a result of that neglect.

I have appointed my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), wherever he is -- he is probably on the job today -- to take a serious look at rural Ontario. We have a task force on rural Ontario that is looking seriously at these problems. We in this party will continue our commitment to the family farm and to the needs of rural Ontario.

I want to deal with a number of other issues. I recognize time is running on. I want to tell the House about another commitment the Ontario Liberal Party has.

Ontario is changing face rapidly and dramatically in terms of the ethnocultural makeup of this great province. I know some of the individual ministers are sensitive to what I am talking about. I know many of these communities feel totally alienated from the political process. It is our responsibility, individually and collectively, to bring more and more people from the ethnocultural communities into the governmental process and to make multiculturalism not just the subject of speeches but a living political fact in this province. This should not be just at an elective level, although that is important, but in the power structure, the bureaucracy and the boards, agencies and commissions that control this great province.

Our party is pledged to restoring a real balance, to elevating and changing the way this province is governed so all those special sensitivities are reflected in the decision-making process.

It is impossible for us really to understand what it might be like to be an unemployed black person in this province and to go through some of the special kinds of discrimination they go through. Those sensitivities can be reflected if a member of the black community is on the board that has to deal with the problems that affect their lives.

That is why I profoundly believe we must change the way the power structure runs this province. Those boards, agencies and commissions under our government would not be just repositories of patronage or privilege, but would reflect the face of Ontario in real ways.

I note with some interest the government's road to Damascus conversion with respect to women's issues in this province, with the appointment of a senior minister who is known as probably the greatest skater of them all. I noted the great reluctance, and I do not know many years I fought here -- five or six years -- to change the child-rearing dropout provision, which is really a very modest change and minimum cost, if members want to know the reality.

For how many years did we have to bring resolutions and debates forward to try to persuade this government to move? How many debates and resolutions, discussions and questions did we have with respect to single pensioners to get changes with respect to the guaranteed annual income system provision? Why does it always take so long? In the face of an obvious injustice and constant badgering from the opposition, it seems to me we do not have to be last in response. We were last in response, with British Columbia, in terms of the childrearing dropout provision. Why can we not be first just once in rectifying some of these injustices of the past?

My colleagues and I will continue to press forward with the initiatives of my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) with respect to equal pay for work of equal value. That will become a reality in this province some day. The only question is when. Why are we always the last?

We will continue in our push to ban violent and pornographic material in this province. When we had discussions some months ago, the Premier pooh-poohed our suggestions, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) pooh-poohed our suggestions, and the New Democratic Party had no idea of what to do on the subject. Finally, in the throne speech, the government has announced it is moving towards our policy, but again that is very unclear.

I asked the minister. The minister is the most famous --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Welcome aboard.

Mr. Peterson: Let the minister never welcome me on any of his boards because his boards are so ineptly run I do not want anything to do with them. But this is the one --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have read all the member has said.

Mr. Peterson: Let the minister go back and read Hansard. He would be embarrassed because, when we came forward, we said, "Here is where we stand and here is what we would do specifically." The minister and his colleagues said, "We will not do anything about it." Now they come our way, and I am glad about that. I do not expect them to recognize whose policy is whose.

Mr. Rotenberg: This year's policy and last year's policy.

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps they are following their pollsters. I do not not expect the minister to stand up in this House and say: "Yes, the opposition had a good idea and we are going to follow them. Thank you for your good contribution."

Mr. Nixon: They are not big enough for that.

Mr. Peterson: I do not expect him to stand in his place and be a big man.

As I say, we will continue that fight and we will monitor that, although I know there has been some equivocation already on those promises brought forward in the throne speech.

We are going to continue with our thrust in health care, as we see erosion of the principle of universal access. We will continue to oppose opting out, but I want to say I do not believe that is the single biggest problem facing health care in the province today.

We have a problem of chronic underfunding, we have a problem of chronic care beds and we have the need to address new and innovative approaches to the treatment of our elderly and our sick. We have to form new options for living. We have to build home care programs that assist these people so they are not institutionalized. As members know, in Ontario we have one of the highest rates of institutionalization in the entire world. There is much room for more humane, sensitive and individualistic approaches to the treatment of our institutionalized, particularly our sick and our elderly.

In the next few months members will be hearing much more from us with our specific, positive alternatives to the existing system, but surely our seniors deserve to have their independence respected. Public policies should be developed to encourage independence and not dependence, as the system now does.

4:20 p.m.

At the weekend I heard someone discussing a doctor who was reported to me to have been involved in shunting one of our senior citizens back and forth between a hospital and an old age home four times because there was not a hospital bed for that lady, who needed it at the time. This is the biggest crisis in our health care system today.

In order to have universal access, we must have hospital beds and proper treatment. When one looks at the lists for elective surgery going on six, eight, 10 months; when one looks at the time required; when one looks at the way the lists are handled; when doctors are saying that people are seriously ill and perhaps dying because the beds are not available, then in the face of this overwhelming evidence I do not believe we can neglect this problem any more.

It is a problem that must be addressed by this government. It will not be addressed if they say only, "It is the best system in the world," or "We cannot do any better," or if they feel they have to defend the past. We are going to have to be very innovative and forward looking to solve the problems of the ageing population.

I talked earlier about industrial restructuring. The words "industrial policy," "economic strategy," "industrial strategy" are very emotive to some people; they think it means interfering with the marketplace, picking winners and losers, deciding who is going to survive and who is not.

I do not see it in those crude terms; I see it in terms of survival. I see that the dialogue among labour, government and management must go on in a far more thoughtful way in the future than it has in the past and it is going to take some new kinds of voices in the process.

The Premier is going to have a great conference in two or three months. I want members to know that I was at another conference he had when he was under similar pressure three or four years ago. I remember that the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) was there when she was the finance critic for the New Democratic Party, and some of the others were there.

We sat down and got a good dose of the Premier's humour. All the cameras were there, a conference was held and the net results were zilch, because what we have is a government pledged to govern by way of conferences, meetings, task forces, committee hearings --

Mr. Bradley: Gallup polls.

Mr. Peterson: -- Gallup polls and public relations, as opposed to dealing in substantive ways with the issue.

Oh, I know that some of those painful discussions that go on with management and labour and the agonizing behind closed doors may be difficult and may tax one's patience, and I know there may not be any cameras or media there. But that is the way it is going to happen; it is not going to happen in one and a half days in front of the lights at the Harbour Castle Hilton.

Unless we understand the difference between substance and public relations, unless we understand the difference between progress and hokum, we are going to go on denying the existence of those real problems in Ontario. We believe it can be better, and that is why we are here in Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Unaligned as we are -- and I am proud of it -- with the organized union bosses on the one hand or the Bay Street barons on the other hand, I believe what this world needs are moderate voices, voices that are prepared to build a consensus and that are beholden to no organization or individual.

That is one of the reasons my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party is having so many problems today. My sympathies are with him, because from time to time we all have problems --

Mr. Bradley: But nothing like his.

Mr. Peterson: -- but nothing quite as severe as his, as the member has said. Unless we get to the stage where we are prepared to represent all of society, not just certain sectors, then I believe that not only the base of the political system is threatened but the political party as well, and there is obvious evidence of that at hand right in front of our noses.

I said I wanted to deal with the management of the present system because this is still an important responsibility of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. After all, if we do not call the government to account, who does? The government never stands up and tells itself it made a mistake. There are no shareholders to which they have to account at the annual meeting. I am delighted the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) is here. If I were him, I would be in my office trying to figure out my job.

I was absolutely astounded at the famous Wasaga Beach convention where he stood up for every good burgher in Wasaga Beach to hear and said he did not know what he was doing in his own portfolio.

Here we have his list of rules, The Manual of Administration, trumpeted before us as being one of the best in the world. It is trumpeted as the best set of rules by which to run government. It is almost like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations having a good set of rules to run the trust companies. If the members do not believe him, ask his predecessor, the member for London South (Mr. Walker). There was no enforcement, nobody understood the problems and as a result there were huge problems happening right under the government's nose. It is our historic responsibility, our sacred responsibility, to make sure that every nickel of taxpayers' funds is well and properly spent.

This issue of accountability is not just a series of contracts. It is how the government uses its ingenuity to cheat its own system, such as splitting up contracts, describing something as a proprietary product that is not a proprietary product, running contracts untendered year after year. It is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more.

The Premier stood in this House the other day and said there are 29,000 daily transactions or contracts of his government. We checked with Management Board and it had no idea where he got the figure. It thinks it was made up out of thin air and said there were nowhere near that number of contracts. Again, the Premier is wrong in his facts. But, very clearly, there is no will, let alone understanding, to enforce the present rules.

We find that a remarkable confession by the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet when he virtually said he did not know what he was doing and is now spending $290,000 to hire a consultant to tell him his job. Either the government abolishes the job or it should get someone who is prepared to enforce the rules of the government. They are not my party's rules; they are this government's rules. This pattern has revealed a promiscuity in this government that in my view is completely unacceptable.

That same accountability runs through Ontario Hydro. We have been very specific in this House about how we would bring Ontario Hydro back into a system of accountability to this House.

If one contemplates in its internal reports the spectre that it is now going to borrow $64 billion over the next 20 years, then I am sure the former minister would agree with me. When one reads Hydro's own internal reports where it says the financial security of that institution is going to be threatened, and if the Treasurer knows the financial security of that institution bears directly and immediately on the financial integrity of this province, then this is a problem for public discussion. It is completely denied to this House. The minister either comes in and pleads ignorance or pleads it is not his responsibility. There is no way to have a meaningful and ongoing dialogue with those who run Ontario Hydro.

Such huge mistakes have been made at the top level. I do not have any quarrel with the technical competence of Ontario Hydro and/or its staff. That is not the issue. It is the decision makers. It is those people who have made the critical decisions that affect our utility, our province and our future that were so wrong and whose decisions we have to change. That comes under the umbrella of accountability.

It is the same way the great Suncor purchase comes under the issue of accountability. When I look across this House, I do not see too many defenders of Suncor here.

4:30p.m.

I suspect that in even their own ridings they are terribly embarrassed about it, but I do not blame those members for being embarrassed because they did not know about it. Even the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) was embarrassed about, it, as I recall the press clippings of some time ago.

Here we had a government, a Treasurer dragged kicking and screaming at the time into the decision, the chairman of the Ontario Energy Corp., Malcolm Rowan, and perhaps one or two others, making this decision to spend $650 million of taxpayers' funds when we were so strapped in every single area. It has netted us nothing.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and I will bring it to the attention of the honourable members because I know they would like to use it in their constituency reports, the government paid $50.03 a share.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) is not in his own seat and must stop making comments.

Mr. Peterson: I paid $15 a share for the same class of shares. There is a net unrealized loss on those shares of $455 million.

Mr. Rotenberg: Which friend did you buy them from?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my sleazy friend the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) is trying to accuse me of the same thing the Premier did. I bought those shares from a broker, as the member could buy them from a broker if he wanted to.

He is accusing me, presumably, of something that is patently untrue. I have no idea who the owner of those shares was before I bought them. I put in an order with a broker. I bought them across the counter and now I am the happy owner. Just last week I got another $2 dividend cheque from Suncor.

Look at the size of the unrealized loss. Look at the size of the interest payments. We have already established that the taxpayers of this province are some $130 million net out of pocket after a year and a half, net after increase in equity, net after dividends, to carry that expenditure. It has brought no oil and no jobs to Ontario.

Look at the dangers of having a system with no accountability. Who in this House was prepared to stand up -- perhaps they did in caucus, but not publicly -- and say, "The Premier made a terrible mistake"?

I will bet you one thing, Mr. Speaker -- because I suspect there is going to be a succession fairly soon over there -- the next leader will very clearly stand up and cut bait with that decision of the past because it is so wrong, particularly when our resources are so scarce.

The same thing goes on to justify the past with Minaki Lodge, a $550,000 loan turned bad. In fairness, governments do make mistakes on loans. I understand that. In private enterprise, people would cut their losses. They would say: "We are sorry. We made a mistake." They would not go on and spend $45 million trying to justify the past.

That characterizes this government. It will spend any amount of money, including on Ontario Hydro, to justify the past, to justify a mistake, rather than channelling scarce resources into things that would build productively for the future. The past has so crippled its capacity to move in the future, given the absence of any vision, that it is no wonder this government is becoming increasingly fossilized.

We have had a series of regulatory failures, be it the trust companies affair -- where there still has not been a charge -- the grain elevators, travel companies, real estate companies falling, regulated companies in which the consumer has a direct interest. All of them have lost because the watchdogs of this government are asleep at the switch. Who is to ask for that accountability? Whose responsibility is that? That is our responsibility and we will continue to put that forward.

Government members have developed such a closed mentality they think they have a divine right to govern. They think the information they have is their information rather than the taxpayers' or the citizens' information. Why else reject, year after year, with flimsy promises, freedom of information legislation?

It seems to me that when they aspire to govern they start with certain premises about their relationship with the people who elect them. Are the people working for the government, or is the government working for the people? It is public information they are suppressing, not the government's information. The people have a right to know everything, except in extreme circumstances. They are paying for it, not the government.

I believe we are elected to serve the people and we can serve them better if they have full information on which to judge us. They are not here to be manipulated; they are here to be served. This government takes the view that secret information it will not share will be used to manipulate the masses. Why else would they not answer our order paper questions?

The government House leader (Mr. Wells) is here, and I say to him that hundreds of order paper questions are going unanswered because his government refuses to share that information even with the members of the House, who have a right.

This is the attitude of a government that believes it has some historic right to govern. It has been around so long it has lost its sensitivity and is not even embarrassed any more by the politics of privilege or by the politics of patronage.

Unless I am wrong -- and I may be, because I have been wrong on other occasions; I humbly admit it -- there is a change coming about in this province. The political winds are changing slowly, sometimes a little slower than I would like. The people in this province are looking for a credible, positive alternative in this province.

Two years ago, we took the view that we were going to build the depth and the breadth of our party, as we have been doing. There are many groups that come to us today and say: "It is time for a change. We do not need people who simply justify the past all the time. There are too many serious problems we have to face. We no longer need the politics of privilege and patronage just favouring the friends of the government. We need a stiff broom brought to bear at Queen's Park." My colleagues and I are prepared now to fulfil that sacred responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons and many more l do not have time to enumerate, I will close by proposing an amendment to the throne speech motion.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Peterson moves, seconded by Mr. Conway, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words:

"This House, however, regrets that the speech from the throne fails to recognize and adequately respond to the fundamental changes in Ontario society and the problems currently facing it, and condemns the government for the following:

"A total lack of government initiative and leadership and policy necessary to vigorously attack the concerns of youth unemployment in Ontario;

"Continuing a dismal, decade-long policy of neglect in the areas of education and of skills training as a means of providing jobs for today and tomorrow;

"Permitting the erosion of universal access to quality health care, post-secondary education and public housing as a result of ongoing provincial underfunding of these systems;

"Failing to enact legislation guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value, and failing to provide an overall day care strategy for Ontario;

"Responding too slowly to the urgent needs of Ontario's pensioners and for the lack of appropriate care in administering the pension funds of this province;

"Pursuing a shameful policy of ignoring the continuing crisis in the agricultural community, preferring to study the problem rather than take any direct initiative;

"Failing to make Ontario Hydro adequately accountable for its actions and decisions;

"Ignoring on a routine and regular basis its own rules to safeguard the administration of public funds;

"Allowing the ongoing deterioration in the capital infrastructure of this province, including roads;

"Failing to adequately protect the public interest in monitoring the affairs of provincially regulated companies and not ensuring adequate and equitable compensation for people affected as a result of the government's regulatory failures;

"The continuing neglect of the needs of northern Ontario, particularly the failure to provide adequate education and health care services and to safeguard adequately our natural resources, in particular, our forests;

"Ignoring the legitimate aspirations of Ontario's multicultural communities to participate in the decision-making process.

"Therefore, this House declares its total lack of confidence in this government."

4:40 p.m.

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

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: My colleague tells me I referred to member for Wilson Heights as sleazy in a flight of rhetoric. I apologize for that and I withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I remind the members that we will continue with the debate on the reply to the speech from the throne tomorrow afternoon. The lead-off speaker will be the leader the of the New Democratic Party followed, if time permits, by other members until six o'clock. In the evening, we will deal with the motion for interim supply.

The House adjourned at 4:43 p.m.

March 26, 1984