Hansard Transcript 1985-Jun-13 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would like to make a statement on five significant initiatives recently taken by our government in the field of occupational health and safety. They indicate our continuing commitment to improve the working conditions of Ontario workers.

Building on the existing provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its underlying premise of worker involvement in hazard identification, I am pleased to announce the following initiatives:

First, a designated substances enforcement unit: This unit is being established within the occupational health and safety division. The staff of the new unit will have special training in the administration of toxic substance regulations. The unit will carry out unannounced inspections of work places to audit compliance with the regulations. It will assist in the resolution of disputes between the parties in difficult cases. It will provide guidance to the ministry inspectorate as well as to management and labour by means of information packages and training materials. Appropriate and prompt remedial action up to and including prosecution will be taken.

I believe the activities of this special enforcement team will not only deter contravention of the regulations but will also act as a catalyst to motivate the work place parties to develop effective programs to control worker exposure to toxic substances.

Second, the right to know: The issue of workers' right to know is understandably a matter of urgent concern in the field of health and safety. It is axiomatic that workers who are aware of and knowledgeable about potential hazards in their work places are better placed to reduce the incidence of occupational accidents, illness and disease.

With this in mind, I recently forwarded to the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety a draft regulation requiring as follows: first, that every employer develop an inventory in writing of hazardous substances in the work place to which a worker is likely to be exposed; second, that every employer identify the processes, occupations and work stations in which exposure of workers to these hazardous agents may occur; and third, that such inventories be subject to consultation with and review by joint health and safety committees or worker representatives and be posted in the work place.

This is the first step towards a more comprehensive policy on the provision of information on hazardous substances. Officials of my ministry have been participating with representatives of other provincial governments and representatives of labour and management across Canada under the aegis of the federal Department of Labour to develop a national scheme to improve worker access to information on toxic substances.

The report, which was received yesterday, will be considered by my officials. We then hope to proceed expeditiously to develop a package to implement that scheme in Ontario to ensure that appropriate labelling, data sheets and training are provided to workers exposed to toxic substances in this province. This will lead to the framing of amendments to the statute, in addition to the promulgation of new regulations.

Third, toxic substance regulations: I have also forwarded to the advisory council a proposed regulation adopting exposure values for some 600 toxic substances. These exposure values will be available to directors acting under section 20 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which provides for orders prohibiting, limiting or restricting the exposure of a worker to a substance where that substance might endanger health.

In addition, the exposure values will provide guidelines for inspectors issuing control orders under the provisions of the regulations respecting industrial establishments. The 600 substances and their related exposure values will be made widely known to employers and workers throughout the province, thereby informing them of the specific criteria on which control programs should be based.

Fourth, genetic regulations: Last November my predecessor published a notice announcing that the ministry was proposing the regulation of some 134 organic chemicals in an omnibus solvents regulation. In response, the ministry received 55 briefs. On the basis of the comments received, I am pleased to announce that a specific draft regulation will be published in the Ontario Gazette on June 22, 1985, setting mandated exposure limits for 133 solvents and containing the major control features of the standard designated substances regulation.

This is the prototype for a number of composite regulations covering groupings of toxic substances. By adopting this generic approach, we will accelerate considerably the pace of regulation development for hazardous substances.

Fifth, mining health and safety: Almost one year ago a tragic situation occurred at Falconbridge when a rockburst took place and took the lives of four miners. In the light of this tragic accident, and after consultation with both labour and management, my predecessor established in October last year a tripartite ground control and emergency preparedness committee.

In recognition of the importance of ground control to the wellbeing of miners and the safe development of our mineral resources, I am pleased to announce that, as part of our efforts to augment our understanding and improve our techniques in rock mechanics and ground control, a $4.2-million research program is to be conducted over five years.

It will be funded equally by the federal government, through the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology; the government of Ontario, through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development; and the mining industry itself. The proposed research includes studies at Ontario mines using extensive state-of-the-art detection technology.

I would like to acknowledge the initiative and support of my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Energy (Mr. Harris), who worked with me to conclude the above arrangements. I believe the important initiatives I have outlined are a further indication of the priority our government attaches to worker health and safety.

2:10 p.m.

LOAN AND TRUST LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Runciman: I am pleased to announce the release today of a consultation draft version of our proposed Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I would like to emphasize just how open we have been in the development of this proposed legislation, from public hearings last spring by an all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature through ongoing intergovernmental and industry input last summer and fall.

This is a complex and lengthy piece of proposed legislation. To be frank, we determined long ago that a consultative approach to its development would not be the fastest route available, but that it would certainly prove to be the most effective way of developing high-quality legislation capable of meeting the challenges facing the loan and trust industry in the 1980s and beyond. The release today of our draft proposal is the next logical step in this consultative process. The feedback we receive on this draft version will help to shape the legislation's final form.

I am convinced that a thought-provoking process of open debate will provide the key to the successful development of a new Loan and Trust Corporations Act that will best serve both the public and the industry. To that end, I would underscore the fact that this proposed legislation is not carved in stone; it will instead provide an intelligent framework for dialogue.

It would take far too long for me to describe all of the draft act's features; however, I would draw members' attention to several areas where we have departed from previous policy. For example, to ensure that trust companies can afford both the management expertise and the equity cushion necessary for adequate public protection, we have proposed an increase in the minimum capital levels required by law from $5 million to $10 million. Of course, we would maintain some exemptions for small trust companies with less than $10 million now operating or wishing to operate in a restricted or regional community.

We have also provided in the draft act for the development of professional standards for senior corporate officers. We do not want to interfere unduly with the day-to-day management decisions, but some basic standards, such as requiring a chief financial officer be an accountant, may well be in the best interests of the depositing public.

Perhaps no legislation could be devised that would be entirely fraudproof, but the creation of a legislative framework requiring management expertise and competence would go far towards promoting the kind of internal corporate controls that, in effect, would improve both self-regulation and self-discipline.

I would draw members' attention to what I see as a central issue, that of conflict of interest. This draft legislation prohibits loans to directors of loan or trust corporations, the only exception being a limited first mortgage loan on the director's own home. Thus, we can eliminate any temptation for a director to choose between company or personal benefit.

To further strengthen our safeguards against self-dealing, trust and loan corporations will be prohibited from making a loan against any security that had been owned by a director within the previous 36-month period. We feel this will prove to be a successful way to defeat any efforts at circumventing the director loan prohibition through ownership transfer.

I look forward to the public, government and corporate feedback that will be a result of today's release. We have an opportunity here for some frank and open discussion. I know all people involved will bear in mind the challenging goal of developing new legislation that will provide protection for the public, instil confidence in the industry, help to provide better service for customers and serve as a stimulus for Canadian business.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Today I would like to address two housing issues: one which was raised briefly in the House the other day involving a change in Ontario Housing Corp. policy; the second dealing with the ministry's very successful convert-to-rent program.

I wish to advise the House that Ontario Housing Corp. will expand its mandate for assisted housing to include psychiatrically handicapped persons. This change means that psychiatrically handicapped persons who are capable of living independently, but whose ability to earn a living is limited, will now be eligible for assisted housing.

The new policy will apply to all housing administered directly by OHC. Other housing agencies supported by OHC, including municipal nonprofit corporations, private nonprofit corporations and co-operatives, will have the option of adopting the policy. The policy will be implemented in consultation with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

This government believes that people who are capable of living in the community should be able to do so. This change is consistent with that belief.

We should all take pride in the fact that OHC is involved in housing nearly 340,000 tenants in more than 121,000 rent-geared-to-income units across this province. This represents about 10 per cent of all the rental housing stock in Ontario. Subsidies on those units amount to about $1 million a day.

CONVERT-TO-RENT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would also like to announce that we are making available $12.6 million in additional funding under Ontario's convert-to-rent program to generate 1,800 more moderate-cost rental units across the province. The program provides 15-year, interest-free loans of $7,000 per unit to assist in the conversion of nonresidential buildings such as vacant factories, schools and warehouses into much needed rental accommodation.

We already have sufficient applications to meet our initial target of 2,600 units, an allocation set just 22 months ago when the program was launched.

I am pleased to report that convert-to-rent is now working in more than 200 municipalities. The total program funding now amounts to more than $30 million for a total of 4,400 apartment units. Today's allocation means an estimated 3,900 years of work.

Convert-to-rent has made a positive impact in many communities, from a former shoe factory being transformed into a 48-unit apartment complex in Penetanguishene to the former Welland County General Hospital in Welland being converted into a 38-unit apartment building. People are becoming more aware that there is a feasible way of converting underutilized or unutilized assets into revenue-producing housing. The program is helping many individuals put their property to better use while providing much needed rental housing. It is encouraging the creative use of both buildings and land.

One reason for convert-to-rent's success is that municipalities, to their credit, have shown support by being flexible in the zoning process. Almost everyone shares in the benefits of convert-to-rent. Moderately priced rental housing is made available, neighbourhoods are improved and there are work opportunities in construction and renovation.

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

Hon. Mr. Harris: It will come as no surprise to the members of the House that the Great Lakes are one of Ontario's most valuable natural resources, vital to the wellbeing of this province. Because of this, Ontario, together with Quebec and the eight Great Lakes states, yesterday joined in signing a charter of principles aimed at protecting the Great Lakes from the threat of large-scale water diversions and general overuse.

The Great Lakes Charter was signed on February 9, 1985, by Quebec and the eight states. While the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) was unable to attend the ceremony at that time, it has always been clear that this government fully supports the charter and its aims.

The charter is a result of a task force formed in 1983 with representatives from the two provinces and eight states. The purpose of the task force was to evaluate the ability of current institutional frameworks to resist Great Lakes water diversions and to recommend appropriate means to protect and conserve the water resource.

I would like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of this charter to Ontario. Managing and conserving water in the Great Lakes basin will become increasingly important over the next two decades. The predicted higher consumption by the traditional user groups, along with the increasingly critical water supply problems in certain southern and western states, poses a serious threat to the ecological balance within the basin.

Any significant diversion or increase in consumption from the Great Lakes basin would have a serious economic and ecological impact on Ontario. A drop of even one inch in the water level of the lakes would substantially reduce the generating capacity of hydroelectric plants and would cost the shipping industry millions of dollars in lost revenue.

As well, it would very seriously affect the tourism industry, recreational boating, commercial and sport fishing and wetland areas, and, of course, water level fluctuations have an impact on water for industrial and domestic use.

The charter addresses these problems by providing a regional mechanism to prevent diversions out of the Great Lakes basin. It also allows all participants to develop regional planning strategies on a state-provincial level to reduce consumption and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem.

2:20 p.m.

It is true that Ontario already has the authority to prevent diversions and to monitor water withdrawals under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. However, this authority only covers such actions within this province.

For the first time, the charter will give us access to information on how water is used by the Great Lakes states. It will provide us with an early warning system for possible actions injurious to Ontario, such as increasing consumptive uses and proposed diversions.

Our Futures in Water conference, held in Toronto last June, focused public attention on the serious implications of the growing demand for Great Lakes water. The charter acts upon those concerns by guaranteeing formal, basin-wide co-operation.

This government has already demonstrated a firm commitment to protecting Ontario's Great Lakes water resource. The signing of the Great Lakes Charter will give us a further tool to meet that commitment.

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Pope: The case of young Adam, the grandson of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Obert, has raised a great deal of concern among the public and members of this assembly. I share that concern very deeply and I can now advise the House about the legal situation in this case at the present time.

My senior crown law officers and the official guardian and his senior officials have explored a number of legal possibilities in this matter. As a result of advice received by the official guardian's office, I can advise the House that Adam's proposed visit to his father will not take place this weekend, which I understand to be the unanimous consensus of all family members.

Instead, the official guardian will monitor a process of mediation under the direction of a prominent child psychiatrist who has been seeing Adam now for some months. I understand it has been agreed that there will be no visits by Adam to his father while this process of mediation continues.

The official guardian continues to monitor the situation very closely, particularly with respect to the wishes expressed by Adam, and will continue to explore avenues to resolve these issues. As there is no immediate question of a visit by Adam to his father, I prefer to make no further comment on this case which might jeopardize any of the processes now being undertaken or contemplated.

JUDGE'S RESIGNATION

Hon. Mr. Pope: At this time, I wish to place before the Legislature the following matter.

I have received the resignation from Lloyd Hendrikson, a provincial court judge of the criminal division, city of Windsor, county of Essex. The resignation from the bench is effective immediately and I have formally notified the Lieutenant Governor, who has accepted his resignation.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Pope: I wish to announce to the members of the House that this afternoon I will be introducing two bills dealing with the subject of enforcement of support and custody orders. These bills are companion pieces of legislation to Bill 1, the Family Law Act.

One of the bills will be called the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act and will create a new office within the Ministry of the Attorney General to enforce support and custody orders free of charge for the benefit of those entitled to support or custody.

The bill implements the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the Federal-Provincial Committee on Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders. Under the bill, all support orders made in Ontario will be registered automatically on a computerized system designed to monitor payments under the order and issue default notices if the order falls in arrears.

The ministry's enforcement office will have the capability of tracing defaulting spouses, instructing court officials to issue enforcement processes, such as garnishment of wages or seizure and sale of property, and representing a support creditor in court if it is necessary to summon a defaulter to appear before the court.

For custody orders, the office will act at the request of a person entitled to custody and will search for a missing child and take all legal steps necessary to obtain the return of the child to the person entitled to custody.

In effect, the bill places the ministry's enforcement officers in the shoes of the person entitled to support or custody under a court order and allows them to take all steps in the enforcement of the order that the individual could take. The office will take the financial burden of instituting enforcement off the shoulders of support creditors and persons entitled to custody and will provide them with the assurance that their orders will be enforced promptly and effectively at no cost to them.

The office will be given access to both government and private sector address records to locate a defaulting spouse and will have access, under recently introduced federal legislation, to the federal government's information banks. The office will have reciprocal arrangements with similar offices in other provinces and territories of Canada and, it is hoped, its counterparts in the United States and other countries.

The second bill I plan to introduce this afternoon amends the Creditors' Relief Act to give a creditor under a support order priority over all other judgement debts owed by the same debtor to the extent of one year's arrears at the current rate of payment.

The bill also contains technical provisions respecting the means of paying out-of-court proceeds received under garnishments issued by the provincial court, family division, and the provincial court, civil division.

The legislation implements recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the Federal-Provincial Committee on Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders, all of whom proposed that support creditors should have priority over ordinary judgement creditors.

The members of this House will agree that these two bills are much-needed measures to provide economic security for family members who must rely on a support order as one of the principal means, if not the only means, of providing food and shelter. I look forward to what I am sure will be all-party support for these measures.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Pope: As I mentioned in introducing the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1985, a further charter implementation initiative is major reform of the law relating to personal names. This reform is carried out by three bills I will introduce today: the Change of Name Act, 1985; the Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985; and the Children's Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985.

C'est un privilège et un grand honneur de proposer l'adoption de la Loi sur le changement de nom, et en anglais et en français. C'est la première fois, je crois, que le gouvernement de l'Ontario propose une loi dans les deux langues, exception faite des règles de procédure civile, qui sont des règlements.

L'adoption simultanée dans les deux langues fera que les deux versions, la française comme l'anglaise, auront force de loi. Depuis quelques années, les lois adoptées en anglais ont été traduites en français suite à leur adoption. Dans le cas d'un conflit, la version anglaise prévalait. L'adoption d'une loi dans les deux langues assurera l'égalité des deux versions. Quel meilleur début que de voir cette loi en particulier adoptée dans les deux langues, car il n'y a rien que nous tenons plus à coeur que notre nom et notre langue.

Because of the unique importance each person attaches to his or her name, it is the objective of government to protect personal choice to the maximum extent possible while having regard to the need for the integrity of public recordkeeping. Particularly in the multicultural society we promote in Ontario, we must ensure, in the words of the Charter of Rights, that our laws "preserve and enhance" the many diverse cultural traditions that make up this province. We can no longer impose the cultural practices of one part of the population upon all others.

The bills have been developed jointly with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which will eventually assume administration of the Change of Name Act. Many of the provisions are based on recommendations by the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

In addition to the choices they have now, parents will be able to give their children the same surname as the mother.

Notre disposition permet qu'un enfant reçoive le nom qui respecte son patrimoine culturel, ethnique ou religieux.

Upon or during marriage, each spouse will have equal rights to retain his or her surname, to change his or her spouse's surname or to take a hyphenated surname. In conformity with the Charter of Rights and the Human Rights Code, these rights will be available to a man and woman if they file a declaration that they are living together in a conjugal relationship.

Les procédures judiciaires pour le changement de nom, actuellement lourdes et coûteuses, seront remplacées par une simple demande au registrateur général. Ces procédures existent dans la plupart des provinces depuis plusieurs années.

In recognizing the rights of individuals to choose and change their names with minimum government intervention, we also recognize the public need to verify a person's identity. Therefore, the registrar general will make available a change-of-name index, through which all name changes can be simply traced. However, confidentiality will be retained for victims and witnesses of crime who may be in danger.

D'autres provinces ont proposé des modifications à la Loi sur le changement de nom afin de respecter la Charte, mais je crois que les réformes que nous proposons sont les plus complètes, les plus compréhensives et les plus progressistes au Canada. Encore plus important, c'est que la réforme représente une contribution importante à l'égalité et à la liberté de la personne pour le peuple ontarien.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I see the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the Minister of Natural Resources, is entitled to change hats; so I will call on him as Minister of Energy.

BULK ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Harris: I would like to report to the Legislature today on activities concerning Ontario Hydro's plans for Ontario's electricity system.

On November 1, 1984, while Minister of Energy, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) wrote to the chairman of Ontario Hydro to advise him of the government's position on the expansion of the power system in Ontario. That position is straightforward. All cost-effective alternatives to system expansion should be employed at the earliest time and to the maximum extent possible. Ontario Hydro should contemplate expansion of the bulk electricity system only when this is clearly the most attractive alternative, from both economic and environmental perspectives.

The former minister's letter also informed the chairman that the Ministry of Energy was developing policy options for the growth of the electrical system into the 1990s and beyond. Subsequently, an information paper entitled Planning the Electricity Supply System was released. This paper outlined the process involved in planning the growth of this very important service and described the major issues to be addressed.

Today I have provided to the chairman of Ontario Hydro, and am releasing, a policy paper entitled New Directions for Meeting Tomorrow's Electricity Needs.

I am pleased to note that the chairman and the president of Ontario Hydro have recently indicated in major statements an open and flexible approach towards planning the development of the bulk electricity system. They have already launched the corporation on a broad review of alternatives that may entail significant departures from the past.

The paper I am releasing today sets out the government's perspectives on these issues. It indicates to Ontario Hydro what the province's priorities will be in determining the shape of our electrical system in the post-Darlington era and it expands on the position outlined in my colleague's earlier letter.

Several important points are made.

Ontario is a growing province with a manufacturing-based economy that has benefited greatly from the availability of low-cost, safe and reliable electricity.

Ontario Hydro's committed construction program will ensure that we continue to have adequate supplies of electricity for the next decade. Throughout this period, Ontario will be seeking to obtain the maximum benefits that can be derived from our current investments in nuclear generating plants and other facilities.

In the future, we expect electricity to become an even more important contributor to our economy. This expanded role, coupled with the ageing of some of our electricity supply facilities and the long lead times required to develop new supplies, requires that we plan now to ensure an adequate supply of electricity in the long term.

Future planning should address three major questions: How much electricity will Ontario need in the 1990s and beyond? How can we best provide for this need? If new generating or transmission capacity is required, what type of facilities should be constructed?

Ontario Hydro's mandate is to supply electricity to Ontario consumers in a safe, reliable way and at the lowest feasible cost over the long term. In looking at ways to meet the province's future electricity needs, Ontario Hydro will be expected to examine the full range of alternatives. Special attention must be given to conservation and load management programs as substitutes for system expansion. Attention should also be given to cogeneration, privately financed conventional projects, purchases from neighbouring utilities and the refurbishing and redevelopment of existing facilities.

The economic use of these alternatives will strengthen the contribution of electricity to this province's economy and provide greater flexibility in adapting to our future electricity needs.

Improving the environmental performance of the electricity system is an essential goal of Ontario Hydro's planning. Ontario Hydro must develop plans that will minimize the harmful effects arising from the bulk generation or transmission of electricity in Ontario.

As well, the financial requirements and electricity rate implications of any plan will be extensively scrutinized by government. Ontario Hydro will make its future plans available for public review and comment.

The primary object of the plan will be to ensure that Ontario consumers continue to have available, over the long term, a reliable, clean, secure and cost-effective electricity supply.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Eakins: I would have liked to have asked my question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Bennett), but I notice he just left the chamber. In his absence, I will direct my question to the Treasurer.

I would like to know if the Treasurer is supportive of the budget brought in by the federal Tories in Ottawa, wherein the only reference made to the tourism sector is the delay of the imposition of the increase in the gasoline tax until after Labour Day to avoid any impact on the tourist season. This in itself is evidence of the federal Tories' attitude that we have a tourism season only during the summer time.

Is the Treasurer in agreement with that approach and is she in support of that budget?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Since the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is here, I wonder if the honourable member wants to ask him the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In relation to the Honourable Tom McMillan's support of the federal budget relating to the tax on gasoline, the honourable member will recall that there was a decrease in the price of gasoline of 0.7 of one cent and that any increase in the price of gasoline was deferred until September in some recognition of the tourist operators in Ontario.

One has to look at the much broader aspect of the budget and what the federal government has been doing to try to promote greater opportunity for tourism into this country. The Honourable Mr. McMillan has been saying he believes we have to be much more aggressive in marketing ourselves, not only in this country but also in other jurisdictions.

There are other aspects of the budget that are very positive in the field of tourism development.

Mr. Eakins: As the minister in charge of the largest provincial sector of Canada's tourism industry, was he consulted by his federal colleagues prior to the finalizing of the budget? If so, was he aware of the deteriorating tourism deficit in Canada, which was $1 .5 billion just in the first three months of 1985 and which exceeds the 1984 figure, a year that was one of the worst on record?

Given this disappointing start to our 1985 tourist season, how can he, as the minister who will face the largest portion of that deficit, possibly support that federal budget, and what does he plan to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Tourism still has an opportunity to grow in this province; the member knows that very well. Last year, there was more than $7 billion of direct expenditures in this province from tourism, or a total of $9 billion if he takes into account all the spinoff industries that come from the field of tourism. In this province, 345,000 people have their employment as a direct result of the opportunities offered by tourism in Ontario.

I spoke in this House just on Tuesday about the expansion of opportunities that we see in the Quebec, New England and New York markets. We have said clearly we are expanding the budget opportunities to advertise; that has already been looked after.

I indicated that last year we had a trial opportunity of advertising and promoting in the Boston market. We opened a tourist office there and appointed a representative. Mr. Speaker, you know very well, as does the member asking the question, that the great opportunity today is in the New York state and New England markets.

I emphasized the importance of this province being much more aggressive in marketing Ontario in Quebec. Quebeckers, like Ontarians and other Canadians, are finding the exchange rate in the United States a discouraging factor and they are looking for an opportunity to go somewhere that is less expensive. They find Ontario a very interesting place to come to. We are advertising very extensively in Quebec, both in English and in French, because we realize anglophones and francophones are looking for a golden opportunity in their own country to find new opportunities.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Eakins: Speaking on the impact of tourism on the economy of this province and of the government's investments in tourism in this province, could the minister update the House on the impact of the $45-million investment in Minaki Lodge, which he has described as the jewel in the crown of Ontario tourism? Also, could we be brought up to date on what we may expect from the proposed investment of $5 million in Deerhurst Inn which was announced today?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am delighted with that question. We sit here in this part of this great province looking at the north and continue to say the north has an entitlement to expand and develop its employment opportunities.

This party and this government realize that one of the great opportunities in the north is to develop and expand tourism. I make no apologies to the House or to the taxpayers of the province for the investment we made in Minaki Lodge.

Last year, Minaki operated at an 86 per cent occupancy rate, which is very good for any hotel operation. Indeed, it has become a magnet, drawing people from Ontario and other parts of the northwestern United States into that part of our province. I make no apologies.

We go about spending money in this part of Ontario on congress centres, convention centres, Ontario Place, the Ontario Science Centre, Roy Thomson Hall -- you mention it -- and it is perfectly okay. Let me strongly suggest, as a member from eastern Ontario, the investment Ontario made in Minaki Lodge is valuable and it helps tremendously the economy in northwestern Ontario. We have been involved with Deerhurst --

Mr. Speaker: That seems like a very complete answer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I understood there were two parts to the question. The member was looking for an answer on Minaki, which I think I have explained to him in fairly extensive detail. The other question related to Deerhurst.

We have been looking at Deerhurst for a number of years. We have had other investments in that part of the province in that operation, and it has been very valuable. Deerhurst is considered to be one of the outstanding resort operations in this province and in the rest of Canada. We have been working in this expansion program for some time. The Canada-Ontario agreement is the one under which we are extending funding to Deerhurst, federally and provincially.

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Mr. Cordiano: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The recent throne speech promised significant new funds for a homemaker program to increase services available at home for elderly and disabled adults. The obvious intent is to attempt to move away from institutionalization and allow senior citizens to stay in their homes. At the same time, the partial deindexing of old age security in the federal budget removes literally billions of dollars from seniors' pockets over the next four years and will force many of them to abandon the dream of remaining in their homes.

Is this an example of the co-ordinated federal-provincial approach we were told last September we could expect to see?

Hon. Mr. Eves: I will have a detailed statement tomorrow with respect to the homemaker program.

Regarding the federal budget, the member does not really blame this government for any measures that may have been taken with respect to senior citizens. He can easily see the services we plan for seniors in Ontario in our throne speech.

Mr. Cordiano: Home care programs for seniors were promised before, in the Ontario throne speeches in 1971, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. In each case, the promise was broken. On July 26, 1984, Brian Mulroney promised to protect the sacred principle of universality of old age pensions and to reinstate and maintain complete indexing of old age pensions to the actual cost of living as of January 1, 1985. Obviously that promise, too, has been broken.

With that sort of track record, how do Conservatives expect senior citizens in Ontario to take their promises seriously?

Hon. Mr. Eves: There already is a chronic home care program in Ontario. It has been in place for many years. We are announcing further initiatives with respect to homemakers and home care. As I say, we will have more details about that tomorrow. With respect to services to senior citizens, I think the record of this government is second to none.

Mr. Cordiano: I have another example of how this government treats seniors. It seems that the Ontario Ministry of Revenue demands a refund of the $50 annual sales tax grant for seniors from surviving spouses of the recipients, from the estates. If the recipient dies even a single day before the issuing of a cheque, this policy still applies even though the cheques are issued near the end of the year for which the grant applies and even though the recipient, if he or she dies in that month, will have incurred most of the annual sales tax expenses the grant is intended to offset.

Can the minister explain and justify this insensitive and inequitable policy of his own government?

Hon. Mr. Eves: With all due respect, I do not see what that supplementary question has to do with the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier.

Mr. Elston: Which one?

Mr. Rae: They all looked up. It is a curious phenomenon. I think they are all waiting. They all look sharper than usual today. It is quite an array.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We are looking for your blue suits. You had so many of them during the election campaign.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the question.

Mr. Rae: Are you running now? Are you waiting until next week? I do not know.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If I am, you are in trouble.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier a question about the number of order-in-council appointments that have been made recently. I practically drove my car into a hydro pole when I heard the Treasurer (Miss Stephenson) say that 999 out of 1,000 appointments were made with nobody even knowing what party the people were members of. I mean, really; that program is broadcast while people are driving to work. She has to be very careful what she says. It really is not fair to the drivers of Ontario, let alone anybody else.

The week of May 8 there were 64 order-in-council appointments, the week of May 15 there were 75, the week of May 30 there were 64 and the week of June 6 there were 129, which is a higher number. We do not have the numbers for this week. If we take 129 appointments made last week, that will be an annual total of 6,708 order-in-council appointments, which would be an orgy by any other name.

Can the Premier explain the sudden ballooning to 129 just last week?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We simply fill the positions as they become vacant.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I cannot understand the lack of applause.

The Treasurer made the statement today that these appointments were all made without any regard to party membership or affiliation of any kind. Could the Premier explain why there seems to be such a preponderance of one party? The local registrar in Brantford, a senior delegate at the last convention; the assistant crown attorney in Sarnia, an alternate delegate at the last convention; a reappointed member of the Social Assistance Review Board -- these are not for free, these positions.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Reappointed.

Mr. Rae: Reappointed. A new appointment to the Ontario Film Review Board. A tough job; somebody has to do it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you want the job?

Mr. Rae: No. I am quite happy where I am, thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are at this point in question period waiting for a supplementary.

Mr. Rae: I will compare my life expectancy to the Premier's any day.

David Lacey from Etobicoke, a senior delegate from York West and I understand, if I am not mistaken, a former campaign manager of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. Leluk).

Can the Premier explain why these appointments show such a preponderance of memberships in the Tory party?

Hon. F. S. Miller: To the leader of the social alliance party -- by the way, people are asking me about all my options next Tuesday, and it suddenly dawned on me that one of my options is to suggest the member for York South be leader.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If, indeed, that party is going to have 35 to 40 seats after the next election, which of these are moving over there? I keep worrying about that.

In all seriousness, since I have been leader we have been broadening the appointments geographically, ethnically and by sex. I am even told we asked the member's party for names.

Mr. Nixon: I hesitate to get into this little melee, but would the Premier explain to the House why Frank Drea has been going around town with an order in council in his hip pocket, dated two months ago, for an appointment to the Ontario Municipal Board instead of giving us the advantage of his service over these many weeks? Is he waiting for something better?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have no comment on that.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier explain the wording of two order-in-council appointments for Mr. Michael Perik and Mr. John Howard Tory -- the one for Mr. Tory dated May 15, 1985, the one for Mr. Perik dated May 23, 1985 -- stating that Mr. Perik be appointed associate secretary of cabinet, special projects, with the rank and status of deputy minister for the period effective from the third day of May 1985 to the 11th day of February 1988, and that Mr. Tory be appointed, again with the rank and status of deputy minister, for the period effective from the third day of May 1985 to the 28th day of February 1987?

Can the Premier explain the legal implications for us not only of the rank and status of deputy minister but also of the two-year and three-year contract periods that appear to be provided for in the orders?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Both of those gentlemen had the rank and status of a deputy minister before March 25; both of them resigned and both were reappointed. The term for an order in council for those types of appointments is normally three years; that is the term for those appointments.

PROTECTION OF WORKERS

Mr. Rae: I have another question for the Premier with regard to the two worlds of Ontario about which we are now becoming more aware each day. I want to make it very clear to the Premier that we on this side have been pressing for a long time for decent severance pay arrangements for contract employees in this House and for constituency assistants. We have no objection whatsoever to proposals that, we understand, are being made with respect to severance arrangements for those employees of the Conservative Party or Conservative ministers who are facing the prospect of unemployment after June 18.

My question relates to how other people in Ontario must be feeling when they realize they do not have the same kind of protection themselves. Some months ago, I wrote to the Premier with regard to the situation of cleaners at the Toronto-Dominion Centre who face a situation where their contract was changed but they had to negotiate a completely new contract with a new contractor. Most of them were rehired, but they were rehired under the following conditions:

They previously had Ontario health insurance plan benefits; they lost their OHIP benefits. They previously had a drug plan; they lost their drug plan. They previously had sick leave; they lost their sick leave. Six of the workers, including the one worker who was the most active in pressing for decent conditions for these workers, Mr. John Souza, are still without work. Six of them are window cleaners.

As the Premier makes arrangements for members of his own party in these last few days, will he not also take steps to make arrangements for other people in this province who do not have, and will not have, the same kind of protection? Why should there be one law for John Tory and another law for John Souza in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If one is talking of unjust dismissal, which I presume the member is talking about in the cases he referred to, he will notice we took steps in the speech from the throne to remedy that. On the other side of the coin, there are very few jobs in society that contain similar risks to those of assistants to the member, to me and our colleagues in the Liberal Party. In many cases, their tenure is totally dependent upon our tenure. It is on that basis that this assistance was given.

It is also interesting to note that at the federal level, where governments have changed more frequently, there has been a recognized program giving such contract employees certain priority rights for acceptance into the civil service. Those are not possible at this time in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: If it is not possible, there is one party responsible for that, and that is the governing party in Ontario. Let the record show that. We pressed for that and got nowhere.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr. Rae: Nowhere in the throne speech is severance pay mentioned. Nowhere in the throne speech is changing the law on severance pay mentioned, and nowhere is this problem affecting contracted-out work mentioned.

Does the Premier not feel there is a perception of a double standard at work here? There is going to be one standard that affects people who can be taken care of by the governing party in its last days and another standard for people who do not have the same protection. If the Premier wants to talk about taking risks, I suspect the people who clean the windows of office towers 60 or 70 storeys high are taking far greater risks every day with their lives than the people who are working for the Tory party of Ontario.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think the question was the risk of the job physically. We are talking about the tenure of the job or its degree of security. The member knows that from time to time we give very serious thought to that. Unjust dismissal remains the major problem for employees of that sort.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The Premier has many occasions to be speaking to the people responsible for the management of the Toronto-Dominion Centre. All he has to do is pick up a phone and see if steps can be taken to provide some work for these six people who have been affected by this changeover.

I am asking him at this time whether he is going to be taking steps. No one on this side of the House and no one in our party begrudges him taking those steps. We argue they should have been taken years ago to provide for contract workers. Will he also take steps to see that jobs are found for these six workers who have been without jobs, whose families are depending on their jobs and who face enormous insecurity in their work because of this problem of contracting out?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will be glad to get more details on it. If anything can be done, I will be glad to do it.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Reycraft: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last Thursday the Ontario Federation of Agriculture held an emergency meeting to discuss the federal budget's blatant lack of promised initiatives to the agricultural sector. The OFA noted that the budget's agricultural inadequacies were a shock to the federation and for all Ontario farmers in view of the industry's legitimate needs and because of their trust that the federal Conservatives would at least follow through on their most basic and simple election promises.

In addition to the absence of any new programs, the share of deficit reduction to be burdened on farmers by a six-year, $50-million annual cut to the Department of Agriculture's budget indicates the federal Tories have quickly forgotten that any problems exist in agriculture.

Given the particularly serious economic hardships in the farming sector, has the minister been in consultation with his federal counterpart to remind him that farmers are in trouble, to remind him of the promises that were made and, most specifically, to attempt to halt any cuts in the Department of Agriculture's budget?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: I have talked to Mr. Wise on a number of occasions in the last few weeks on a great many issues that are of current interest in agriculture. One of those issues we discussed was the continuing economic situation in agriculture and the number of factors related to it. I expressed our long-standing support of the agribond program and discussed many other aspects of mutual interest at that time.

Mr. D. W. Smith: Another important area of concern to the farmers was the federal budget's plan to drop the primary industry's levy offset program. The end of this program means an immediate rise in farmers' fuel costs of two cents a litre. With the critical condition of the farming industry in Ontario, the minister must realize the estimated $9-million cost of this fuel price increase is going to drive farmers further into debt and that for a large number it will be the final blow, driving them out of business.

I must ask the minister, once again, what representation he has made to his federal counterpart to prevent the end of this fuel tax rebate program.

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: I repeat that in our discussions we have discussed a number of issues with the federal government that are impacting very significantly on the agricultural industry here in Ontario. As a government we will continue to do everything in our power to assist Ontario producers with the many programs we have. Our main thrust is to give them the best possible expertise in good production and financial management.

As for details of the various issues which are in conflict between the provincial and federal government, and there are a number at this time in agriculture, we will continue to discuss those issues with as much strength as we possibly can to make Ontario's representation very clear.

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Attorney General. The Attorney General has given us a statement on the Adam Rounds case in which he promises he will inform us about the legal situation, but in fact he does not do so in that statement.

Has he taken steps to determine what went wrong in this case? Does he have a sense now that he or his successor will be able to institute some effective pattern to respect and protect the rights of children, especially in a case as sensitive as this one?

Hon. Mr. Pope: In this case I am satisfied that the decisions that were made were based on factual interpretations. I realize that the public response to the final decision on this case was one of disagreement. I have explored with my senior officials all the legal avenues that are available to me as Attorney General and I have been made aware of some of the courses of action that could be taken.

But in view of the fact that, from information we have received, all parties to this matter have agreed to postpone the visitation and allow a mediation process to proceed, I do not think that mediation process with the child psychiatrist should take place in an atmosphere in which there would be a threat of litigation by someone from outside the family unit that would further complicate the matter.

Ms. Gigantes: I do not believe the minister answered my question, which was how did we arrive at this state of affairs.

I would like to ask him a further question. Would he personally undertake to speak to each of the officials who may at some future date be involved in the case of Adam Rounds -- and I mean his ministry officials, officials of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and/or the local children's aid society -- and attempt to ensure that they understand the significance and the importance of ascertaining that any moves they make not jeopardize the relationship of Adam Rounds to his maternal grandparents and his ability to live in his home with them?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I agree with the honourable member that the first priority in this case is to re-establish a normal home environment for this child. Two days ago I asked representatives of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and of the Ministry of the Attorney General to consult with agencies in the area. I expressed my concern about the matter and asked for advice on possible legal remedies available to the crown.

I can promise the member I will personally pursue the case with all ministries of the government and all agencies with the best interests of the child as the paramount concern.

3:10 p.m.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Sterling: l have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. During the election the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) made several statements about the slowness in the construction of the Queensway in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Mancini: Just give us 42 years.

Mr. Sterling: You are going to have to answer soon.

I would like the minister to indicate what the present commitment of this government is to completing this work as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Before the commencement of the Queensway reconstruction a schedule was worked out with the officials of the region of Ottawa-Carleton. The project is on schedule. I do not see any reason why that should vary.

Mr. Sterling: Can the minister assure us that work is being done as quickly as possible --

Mr. Kerrio: That is what he said.

Mr. Sterling: -- and whether it is possible to pick up the schedule and issue more contracts at this time and do it in a safe manner?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I said to the honourable member, I would like to give him that assurance, but the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) over there is talking as though he were shortly going to be the one to whom that question should be asked. Maybe I could refer it to him. However, I will not do that.

We have been asked not to proceed too quickly with that contract because of congestion that might be caused if we were doing too many contracts at one time. Too many off ramps and on ramps would be closed. There would be disruption of the tourist industry and so forth. We are on schedule. I presume that will continue and that everybody in the region will be happy.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Interjections.

Mr. Ruprecht: No, this is not for the Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman).

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: I have a question for the Premier of this province on his government's shredding policy.

An hon. member: Are you going to answer that, Larry?

Mr. Ruprecht: I said the Premier; that minister has to hold his horses.

Can the Premier gives us assurances that no documents are being removed from working files without the knowledge of our transition team? Can he tell us what his guidelines are for shreddable or removable material? For instance, are cabinet decisions shreddable or removable and what about decisions that provide the rationale for policy decisions? What are the criteria?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suggest the member might ask his leader. I believe we have defined the types of material that would be taken by us as members should we need to leave and the categories of documents that would remain in the keeping of the Cabinet Office. The rest of them are matters that will be in the files of ministries. There is no shredding policy.

Mr. Ruprecht: We understand that the instructions given to civil servants regarding the removal or destruction of documents are currently given verbally. Since we have to protect the civil service from possibly receiving instructions that are misunderstood, can we have assurances from the Premier that the instructions will be given in writing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The accord I saw was in writing.

NORTHERN MEDICAL FUNDING

Mr. Martel: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Andrewes), I would like to direct a question to the Premier.

Is the Premier aware that Dr. Corringham, the oncologist in Sudbury, has resigned effective August 1, 1985? He stopped seeing new patients effective June 1. He has had 500 patients since starting work in Sudbury in August, when it was predicted he would have 300 in the first year. The work load he has is apparently already equivalent to that of about five or six doctors at Princess Margaret Hospital.

Since he has asked for the assistance of two more oncologists, is the minister prepared to provide the funding necessary to obtain those two doctors for Sudbury now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer is yes. If the honourable member looks again into our policy platform during the election and again at the throne speech, he will see we even have grants to bring specialists such as oncologists to northern Ontario because we believe firmly in the need to prevent trips to the south. That is why the centre was built there. The member knows that. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) worked very hard to get it there, and we responded to that.

Mr. Martel: I might say to my friend who just sat down that he will recall an exchange he and I had here 10 years ago over a cancer centre for Sudbury. I remember that minister then. The Premier can say that about my friend the member for Sudbury, but there have been a lot of other people more involved than he or I or the Premier.

Since this doctor who is treating cancer has resigned, there are going to be two interviews on Sunday, one with a doctor from England and one with a doctor from Africa. I want the Premier's assurance that if both those doctors decide to stay, this government will put the money up with no equivocation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

DETOUR LAKE MINE

Mr. Pierce: The question I have is addressed to the Minister of Northern Affairs. Does this minister know if the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) was really shocked and dismayed in the announced closure of the Detour Lake mine, as indicated in the Northland Post, and if there is any truth in the headlines of the Post?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I was made aware of the honourable member's comments just about two hours ago. I took it upon myself to call the chief executive officer of Detour Lake mine and was informed that they had a very ambitious $10-million development program under way and it would be on for the next 18 months. There is no foundation and there is no truth to this statement at all. The Detour Lake mine is not closing.

I would say to the member for Cochrane North -- and I am sorry he is not in the House -- that he should apologize to the workers at Detour Lake and his riding.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Ms. Caplan: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. With much fanfare, this government announced the Ontario youth employment program. Young people were to be given hope of employment in this program.

As a result of a constituent's request, I tried to determine the guidelines and criteria for qualifying for this program. Despite last year's promise by the government of a one-stop approach to getting information, my office had to make 15 phone calls. This morning, after requesting the information on June 6 and after call number 16, this brochure, which my constituent had in his possession at the time of the inquiry, finally arrived.

Perhaps the minister can simply tell me whether, under the program, students of pharmacy are eligible for employment in drug stores.

Hon. Mr. Gillis: The Ontario youth employment program will again employ approximately 53,000 students across the province and will be implemented in due course. If the throne speech of this government is passed, as I hope it will be, we will be announcing more employment under that program. I would suggest to the honourable member that the students to which she refers would certainly be eligible. Perhaps her constituent, as did 53,000 other students across the province, should have applied as soon as the program was announced.

3:20 p.m.

Ms. Caplan: It is obvious that instead of creating jobs, this government has created a bureaucratic mess. A recent survey of Metro Toronto community colleges indicated only 13 per cent of 1,200 companies even knew of the existence of these programs and that they could hire youths.

Why has the minister implemented a program that requires applicants and employers to deal with reams of red tape and as a result is both unfair to young people and to potential employers? Why are students restricted to finding summer employment in their field of interest, and is there any recourse for someone who has been denied unjustly?

Hon. Mr. Gillies: I reject utterly the member's contention that these programs are a maze of red tape or inaccessible. This government will be offering, this summer, more jobs for more students than in any previous year in our history. The jobs are accessible, and if the member has a grievance with a particular application, I would be pleased if she would bring it to my attention.

Ms. Gigantes: Has the minister ever tried phoning his own program? Dare I suggest he do it?

Hon. Mr. Gillies: I would say to the member for Ottawa Centre that I have been accused of many things over the years but never of phoning myself. I would further say to the honourable member that I will endeavour to do so next Tuesday or Wednesday.

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food with regard to the McKinlay insolvency.

Since the meeting he referred to in his response to my question on Friday between the commodity groups involved in this mess and Ministry of Agriculture and Food officials has taken place, and since he has received in writing the response of these commodity groups as to their opinion of this situation, copies of which I have, will the minister now authorize emergency funding to the Grain Financial Protection Board in order that this board can fulfil its promises to the farmers involved in this program?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: The written positions of two of the three boards involved have arrived. The corn producers favour funding this year and into continuing years. The soybean board favours funding this year but will not take a position on what it wishes to happen in future years until it goes back to its membership.

The position of the feed and grain dealers' association has not yet arrived, but I understand it has concerns about basis contracts being covered. I understand we may get requests from them to have two sorts of agreements, one for dealers who want to deal in basis contracts and one for those who want to deal without the basis contracts.

When I get all these written requests in, we will look at them and make some decision over the next few days. At this moment, the situation is not entirely clear. As I said earlier, as far as I am concerned, it is enabling legislation to allow the industry to have whatever it wants, if it is prepared to pay for the various methods of marketing grains. Until the preferred methods are clear, it is difficult to make any quick decisions.

Mr. Ramsay: I point out to the minister that it is not the feed dealers who are the victims in this piece; the farmers in the other two commodity groups are the ones left hanging. Since these farmers are the ones who entered in good faith, and they are the ones hanging on without this money and without any assurance they are going to be repaid, will the minister in the few remaining days of his regime authorize this emergency funding so these farmers will stave off bankruptcy?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: The grain financial protection program was brought into being with the agreement of all three groups I previously mentioned. If the program is going to be a success, it must have the co-operation of all members of the industry. We are dealing with all members of the industry in a very open and very quick fashion, and when those dealings are completed we will arrive at a decision.

Mr. McGuigan: How can the minister stand up in front of this House and say it is enabling legislation? There is no provision in that legislation for a plebiscite to be taken by producers. It is not enabling legislation, and the minister knows it is not. How could he be listening to the grain and feed dealers when the premiums for this program are paid by the producers?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. McGuigan: The premiums are not paid by the feed dealers. How can the minister give us such an answer?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: If the grain industry in this province is going to operate, and operate effectively, it is very clearly going to have to have the co-operation of everybody who is involved. We are trying to arrive at a position where everybody is in some sort of agreement. There is no doubt in my mind that this will be reached. We are certainly not going to react quickly and cause some problems for future development. A decision will be made within the next few days, and I fully expect that decision will have the general agreement of the people involved.

ONTARIO FINANCES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) asked a question on Monday and I did not provide the answer on Tuesday because he was not here. He was here earlier today; he is not at this point, but I think I should provide the answer anyway.

He suggested there was no accounting regarding Suncor in the statement I produced on Monday. That certainly is within the statement, because it is within the accounting of the allocation of the Ministry of Energy that the payments made on behalf of the government to the Suncor note are tabulated.

The member for Renfrew North also said, and I will quote his question: "While she is undertaking to inquire after those data, can she also confirm that, as of this weekend, the gross borrowing costs for this $650-million, 25 per cent interest in Suncor are running in excess of $325 million?"

That is entirely wrong. To this weekend, the government will have paid, on the basis of a 14.357 per cent instalment note, interest payments and capital payments that total $150 million.

Mr. Peterson: Will the minister not admit she has neglected to calculate the interest on the other portion, which was not covered by way of a note back to Suncor? She is, albeit inadvertently, misleading this House about the real interest costs. She is calculating only the interest costs directly payable back to Sun US as opposed to the interest on the outstanding balance, the half that was financed out of the consolidated revenue fund.

Would the Treasurer not agree with me that she has inadvertently misled this House and that the net cost is more than $300 million?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Although I am delighted to see the puppet Premier-in-waiting back in this House, I am sorry he does not apparently understand what the transaction was. One half of the amount of money provided was provided in cash; the other half was funded through the note. It is on the basis of that note, all of which is totally accounted for in the statement, that the government has made payments of $150 million to date.

3:30 p.m.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Timbrell), but in his absence, since my question deals with freedom of information, I will direct it to the Premier.

In recent years there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding market value assessment of properties, in Metropolitan Toronto in particular. Much of the controversy has been a result of the sheer lack of information which has allowed proponents on both sides of the issue to take hard lines without the data to back them up.

In the past, Liberal members have asked for the release of the Metro-wide impact study that the province commissioned a number of years ago, but this has been refused to date. In the light of the problems caused by lack of information, why has this government refused consistently to release the study? Are they now prepared to do so, in their twilight days?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Here is the minister involved, Mr. Speaker, but I should point out to you that you missed rotation. There was a question on this side, sir.

Mr. Shymko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that the Treasurer (Miss Stephenson) was replying to a question, and I think a member on this side should have had a turn and the normal procedure should have been followed. When a cabinet minister answers a question posed by a member of the opposition, I do not understand why that should deprive us of a turn to pose a question.

Mr. Speaker: I have had quite a number of requests for questions and replies to questions today. I was trying to work them in as fairly as possible. I recall that on many occasions in the past -- I hope I am correct -- it has been done by rotation and generally an answer to a question that had not been answered before was considered to be the same as a question. I could be wrong in that. I will certainly review it and I hope to do better, if that is incorrect.

Mr. Shymko: I appreciate the fairness you have displayed and will continue to display in the order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You accepted the question from the member who had just raised it. You had not recognized that man, and it becomes a mockery when you jump from side to side. I suggest you recognize him and then, if you want to go to that member, fine, but let him answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: I will accept the Premier's reply.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was going to redirect the question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing or the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Dean). The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I caught only part of the question as I was on my way to an appointment; I was leaving through the east lobby.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is my friend totally deflated now? As a former Minister of Health, I might recommend a remedy.

If I correctly understood the honourable member's question, it really is not something that pertains to my ministry. Since it has to do with municipal assessment, the question should be directed to the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If a question is directed to a minister, that minister must redirect. Would the Premier care to redirect?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the absence of my minister to whom the question should properly go -- oh, he is here now, the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Mr. Dean: I was not sure whether I had the floor or whether a supplementary would be asked first. The answer in simple terms is that it has been the position of the ministry that because there is no consensus among the municipalities in Metro as to how reassessment is to proceed, the impact study will not be released until such consensus emerges.

Mr. Polsinelli: With all due respect to the honourable minister, that is a ridiculous answer. We are asking for information so the local municipal councils can make a determination on market value assessment. How can they make an intelligent determination without the ministry providing them with the information?

Hon. Mr. Dean: I almost answered that in the first part by saying it is incumbent upon the municipalities in Metro to agree on the way in which they wish to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: If I might take just a moment, I was listening very carefully during the question period and a number of members were concerned about the way I was letting some of the questions go on. I did that because this was the first opportunity for some of the new members to ask questions. In the future I will be a little tougher. On some of those, because of tradition, I felt I would let those members go on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker, I might say I thought you were quite proper in allowing the questions to go that length. I think that is an acceptable practice.

Mr. Martel: Larry is going to have to get used to asking questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. O'Connor: I have the honour to present two petitions, both presented by some citizens of the great city of Brantford and dealing with the separate school funding issue. They read 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 call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

That one bears 20 signatures. The second petition, bearing 174 signatures, reads simply:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to delay implementation of the proposed separate secondary school funding until appropriate, constitutionally acceptable legislation is in place."

3:40 p.m.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I too have a petition:

"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 any action to extend public funding to separate Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas it is uncertain whether extension would contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas in democratic societies there is a recognized convention which respects the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters are debated in the Legislative Assembly, with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard before an appropriate committee of the Legislature;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government:

"(1) to seek a constitutional referral prior to any implementation to determine whether extension would conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"(2) to debate fully the issue of extension prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

The petition is signed by 175 people representing the employees of the Haldimand Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 53, in the region of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Ms. Munro: I would like to present a petition and read it in full.

"I, on behalf of the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Fathers of Confederation in 1867 agreed that in order to have a confederated Canada it was necessary and honourable that the educational rights of separate schools be integrated into the Constitution of Canada; and

"Whereas 12 years of schooling from junior kindergarten to grade 10 are now funded from government grants and separate school taxes, the recent government decision will make it possible to fund a further two grades; and

"Whereas it is the sincere expectation of more than 500,000 students and staff of the separate school system and nearly four million separate school supporters in the province of Ontario that they will not have to suffer any further delay or humiliation on this issue;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to affirm the decision of the government to implement funding for the completion of the separate secondary school system starting in September 1985."

This is signed by Dr. N. A. Mancini, 2188 King Street East in the city of Hamilton, on behalf of 170 people from the city of Hamilton and adjoining municipalities, and on behalf of the following associations: the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Toronto; the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Hamilton-Wentworth unit; the Ontario Catholic Supervisory Officers' Association, Willowdale; the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, Willowdale; and the Metropolitan Separate School Board, 80 Sheppard Avenue. It is dated June 13.

Mr. Elston: I have several petitions. There are three petitions in one form. I will read the first.

"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 any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respects the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

The petitions are signed by seven members from the Lucknow area and about 31 members from the Pine River United Church, both in the county of Bruce.

I have a petition approximately to the same effect from the great riding of Perth, bearing the signatures of 624 members. I present that on behalf of those members of that riding.

Mr. Barlow: I have six petitions, which all read the same:

"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 any action to extend public funding to separate Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

There are six petitions in all, from the teachers at Galt Collegiate and Vocational Institute, District 24 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Lincoln Avenue United Church, St. Andrew's United Church and St. Paul's United Church, all in Cambridge.

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition worded identically to the one read by the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) and signed by 198 citizens of the Sudbury area.

TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. O'Connor: I have a third petition, bearing the names of 49 citizens of Brantford, dealing with another subject.

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

"We, the undersigned, are residents and property owners in the township of Brantford in an area designated by Ontario Hydro as an alternate route for transmission facilities. Our properties are located in the area outlined in red on the enclosed map. We oppose the Highway 403 alternate route. We strongly object to this route as it will be situated on and cross over prime agricultural lands and urban properties."

HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Elston: I have, as well, a petition in the following form:

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned, have received numerous letters" -- these letters are attached to this petition -- "addressed to the Lieutenant Governor expressing concern about the Atomic Energy Control Board granting an operating licence to the management staff in the Bruce nuclear power development during the recent labour dispute;

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

"That the parliament of Ontario take all necessary steps to make Ontario Hydro more accountable to the public."

That petition is signed by three members of my constituency and contains, I think, 226 letters to the effect mentioned in the petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHANGE OF NAME ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Mr. Guindon, first reading of Bill 11, An Act to revise the Change of Name Act.

Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 14, Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

CREDITORS' RELIEF AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Creditors' Relief Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Pierce: I am honoured to be given the opportunity to participate in the debate on the speech from the throne. As the newly elected member for the Rainy River district, I realize I will have a challenging task ahead if I am to equal the accomplishments of my predecessor Mr. Patrick Reid.

Through 17 years of service, Mr. Reid demonstrated his commitment to the residents of Rainy River and his genuine concern for the development and enhancement of Ontario's north. I can only hope I will be able to build upon the work done by Mr. Reid within my constituency.

I am sure the members of this Legislature will be saddened to learn of the passing of Patrick's father, John Reid, Sr. I know all members will share in extending sympathy to the Reid family.

I am also sure Patrick would want to join me in extending our sympathies to the family and friends of Webb Calder who recently passed away. Mr. Calder was the Hydro manager at Atikokan and he played an active role in the community and the various utility associations. His contributions will be greatly missed.

In the coming months, I hope I can make a positive contribution to the daily proceedings of this House. I look forward to meeting and getting to know all the members and I believe I shall benefit from their vast array of talents and learn from their experiences.

I should like to express my appreciation to all those people who devoted so much of their time and energy participating in the recent election. I know every member would agree that without their efforts we would not be here today. I also would like to extend my personal thanks to the people of the great riding of Rainy River.

Through my past activities in municipal government and my involvement with the Northern Ontario Development Corp., I believe I have a good understanding of the concerns, the hopes and the dreams of not only my constituents in the riding but also of all the people in this great province. I would like my constituents to know that as their representative at Queen's Park my door will always be open. I am greatly honoured that they have placed their trust and confidence in my abilities. To be chosen as their representative is not something I take lightly. I will endeavour to make sure their concerns are heard and fairly addressed.

My own experiences as a negotiator with the United Steelworkers of America have taught me that problems and differences can be resolved successfully if there is open and honest discussion and if the parties involved act in good faith. It is in this frame of mind that I will undertake my duties.

As a lifelong resident of northern Ontario, it always amazes me, when I travel in the southern regions of our province, that so many misconceptions still exist regarding life in the north. Many people view northern Ontario as a vast wilderness, an endless parade of trees, lakes and rocks. While I must admit that we have our fair share of these things, they are certainly not the be-all and end-all of northern Ontario.

Most fail to realize the vibrant communities stretched across the north with people whose enthusiasm echoes the spirit upon which this great nation was founded. They are people with a vision for the future. They are people who are dedicated to seeing the north reach its full potential. They are people who have chosen to live there and make full use of the opportunities that abound. In my mind, our greatest resource is not the trees, the lakes or the rocks. Rather, it is the people who inhabit this vast and magnificent land.

This spirit of the north, this common vision which keeps us united, is not well understood in the south. Many do not understand why we live in the north and what keeps us there. I hope during my term of office I can foster a better understanding here at Queen's Park of our hopes and aspirations and just perhaps rekindle that founding spirit and vision in those who have long ago forgotten.

There is a wealth of opportunity in the north for all those who are willing to use their imagination, creativity and experience. One only has to look at the achievements that have been made and the progress that has continued since our forefathers first ventured north of Superior. The forest offered the first opportunities for our early pioneers. The efforts of these settlers established an industry which for many moulded and shaped their lives. As well, it was an industry that would become the economic mainstay for much of northern Ontario.

I am encouraged by the initiatives announced in the throne speech that will ensure the continued viability of this industry. This is especially important to the people of the Rainy River district. Since more than 75 per cent of the economy in northwestern Ontario is linked in some manner to the forest industry, its continued survival and growth is of prime importance.

Through careful planning, the government of Ontario has been able to take significant steps towards the establishment of a comprehensive forest management plan. During the early 1970s, recognition of an impending generation gap between the old and the new forests permitted the government to increase support for seedling production. Currently, the province is producing more than 150 million seedlings annually. However, as the number of trees being planted increases, it follows that programs designated to promote seedling survival must also expand.

This is the purpose of the government's tending Ontario's forests program. In addition to providing meaningful employment, this program will contribute significantly to the enhancement of survival rates and ensure the growth of new and vigorous forests. Because of the combination of that and other government initiatives such as forest management agreements, the development of hardier, faster-growing trees, and improved and intensified management techniques, I think the future of our forests is not as dim as some would have us believe. I am convinced these new, innovative approaches to forest management which have been undertaken by the government will overcome the challenges ahead.

While the forest industry has provided opportunities for northern citizens in the past and will continue to play a major role in the northern economy, I believe the greatest potential for future development lies in other areas. This is particularly true in my riding. There are enormous possibilities for further expansion in the areas of agriculture, tourism and mining. I believe we as a government have a responsibility to assist our northern residents to capitalize on these opportunities. This is why I am more than pleased with the initiatives outlined in the speech from the throne.

4 p.m.

Although some may express surprise, one of my concerns within the riding of Rainy River is that of increased assistance for farmers. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to farm successfully north of Superior. In my constituency, there are quite a number of farmers undertaking a variety of operations. There are grain farmers, beef producers and dairy farmers. The problems they encounter are the same ones experienced by farmers everywhere. There are problems associated with the securing of loans and the establishing of credit. Of great concern is the slow erosion of the family farm and the takeover by large corporations.

It may be difficult to imagine that we could be concerned about the loss of the family farm in my riding. I am sure some members are wondering whether farming has been going on long enough in the north to have a tradition associated with the family farm. I can assure members that we have been in farming for a long time in Rainy River and that the loss of a farm that has been in the same family for generations is a tragedy no matter where one lives in this province.

The AgriNorth program, which was announced last year, is beginning to make a difference to northern farmers. To date, 425 projects have received assistance from this $10-million program, a number of which are within my riding. I believe this program will do much to develop the agribusiness infrastructure throughout the north and consequently spur the expansion of this industry.

As members may be well aware, there is enough potential crop land in northern Ontario to increase Ontario's food land by 30 per cent.

Through such programs as the AgriNorth program, I believe we can reach this potential. The initiatives announced in the throne speech will further augment the work that is currently under way.

Two of the programs outlined in the throne speech are of particular interest to the farming community in Rainy River. These are the farm operating credit assistance program and a commitment to at least a bipartite red meat stabilization program.

As I mentioned, the problems encountered by farmers in securing loans at competitive rates are as real in Rainy River as they are in the rest of Ontario. I believe we are all aware that a number of factors have contributed to this over the years. Among them is the increasing use of and need for new technology, mechanized equipment and, consequently, increased credit requirements for farmers.

In addition, more and more lenders have adjusted from the earlier practice of lending on the basis of security to that of lending on the basis of the ability to pay. Consequently, I feel this $40-million, three-year credit assistance program will significantly help farmers in my riding to maintain and expand their operations. By providing operating loan guarantees and interest reduction grants, this program will enable many producers with sound operating plans and a good chance of success to proceed with their plans this year.

The commitment to the red meat stabilization plan is another initiative that will assist producers in my riding to stay in business. For the past few years the beef industry in Ontario has faced difficult times, with falling prices and decreased demand.

I appreciate the fact that the government initiated an extensive consultation program with producers and processors alike so that problems can be examined and solutions proposed. The stabilization plan outlined in the throne speech will provide assistance to beef producers in Rainy River by ensuring a minimum price for their product. This will give producers the necessary stability to plan and expand production.

These two programs, as well as other initiatives announced in the throne speech, will greatly assist northern farmers. I believe the foundations have been laid and that we are now well under way towards the expansion of a thriving and profitable agricultural industry in the north.

Tourism is an area that I believe holds the key to the future of northern Ontario. We currently have a fairly well established base industry in Rainy River. At present the industry is structured towards the American market, with canoe outfitting, hunting and fly-in fishing being the most popular activities.

However, in my opinion much more can and should be done to stimulate further development of this industry. The tourism industry is labour intensive, adds to the local economies and generates a significant portion of federal, provincial and municipal revenues. Tourism is now Ontario's second largest industry. It is generally agreed that by the year 2000 tourism will be Ontario's largest industry.

I would like to see Ontario's north lead the way in capturing and developing this potential market. I realize there is and has been a wealth of government assistance available to the tourism industry. Through the auspices of the Northern Ontario Development Corp., the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and the Northern Ontario Rural Development Agreement, more than 46 tourism development projects have been funded in my riding. Total government assistance in the form of loans or grants has exceeded $5 million.

However, I believe many tourist operators have not been able to take full advantage of the assistance available. In my opinion, this has been largely due to misinformation and a low level of awareness concerning the type of help available and the criteria needed for project approval. Consequently, I am pleased by the government's announcement in the throne speech to establish a tourism marketing board. I hope this board will be able to increase awareness of the programs available for operators and help them reach their full potential. In time, given the level of interest for further development that has been shown by communities throughout the north, I believe tourism will replace our resource industries as the largest and most stable industry in northern Ontario.

The last area I would like to speak about today, one that has potential for expansion in my riding, is that of mining. Some members may be surprised that there would be any potential for further development of mining in northern Ontario, but I can assure them the potential is there and it should be capitalized on now.

In the eastern end of my riding there is currently a fair amount of exploration activity under way. Indications are that there may be some gold deposits and other base metals that could warrant development. I believe such activity should be encouraged and I am supportive of the recently announced geoscience surveys program. This will help identify the areas of mineral deposit and serve as a guide for development.

As I have indicated, there exists a vast number of opportunities within northern Ontario. We are currently trying to expand our economic base with the aim of establishing a healthy, stable economic environment in the north. I, for one, am certainly aware of the problems that can arise when communities are dependent on one industry for their livelihood. These tragedies cannot continue.

I believe we have the resources and the abilities needed to overcome these challenges. This has been demonstrated by the northern Ontario regional development program announced in May of last year. I am convinced it will play a major role in helping communities develop a diverse economic base.

This program has met with overwhelming approval and has received a fantastic response. Within six months of its creation, 53 projects with a value of more than $8 million have already been approved. By dividing the funds available into four development areas, this program will ensure that communities can establish and build upon well-developed and diversified local economies. The announcement in the throne speech of an additional $10 million for the Nordev program will mean we can reach our goal much more quickly.

In conclusion, I have not lost confidence in this government. I believe the throne speech signifies that the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario is committed to providing responsible government and is capable of addressing the needs and the concerns of the people of Ontario.

Members opposite are fond of pointing out that they lack confidence in this government as, in their estimation, two thirds of the Ontario electorate voted for a change on May 2. I would like to point out that equating a vote for change with a vote for the Liberal Party of Ontario is a quantum leap. After all, an equal two thirds of the Ontario electorate signalled that they would certainly have no confidence in a Liberal government.

As for the party that may be soon located physically on my right and that will always be philosophically on my left, I would like to point out that three quarters of the people in Ontario have no confidence in that party at all. Its coalition with the official opposition came as somewhat of a surprise to me. I would have thought they would have learned something from their federal counterparts -- to beware of Liberals bearing promises.

4:10 p.m.

However, I feel I must speak for my constituents. Ontario's north has been well served by a Progressive Conservative government at Queen's Park. It has demonstrated that it is responsive to their needs and is prepared to assist the residents of northern Ontario to reach their full potential. I know the people in my riding would have serious reservations about the ability of a party with only one northern member in its caucus to be able to understand completely their concerns and provide them with fair representation.

Consequently, I fully support the adoption of this throne speech and reject the motion of no confidence. I urge all members, and especially those from northern Ontario, to do the same.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I am very honoured to rise in my place to comment on His Honour's address to this assembly from my perspective in Kitchener. I do so humbly because I know that as the member for Kitchener I am walking in big shoes.

Kitchener riding today is an entirely urban riding in an area that is growing faster than much of the province. Twenty-five years ago one riding took in almost all of what are now the ridings of Kitchener, Kitchener-Wilmot and Waterloo North. Our sitting member was the Leader of the Opposition at that time, John Wintermeyer.

Mr. Wintermeyer represented Waterloo North, as it was then called, from 1955 to 1963. He was opposition leader from 1958. As a young observer of the political scene, I looked up to him as a man of high principles and dedication to humanity, a man who did and said what was right and what had to be said regardless of the consequences. Today John Wintermeyer and I have come together. We serve on an outreach committee of 16 downtown Kitchener churches, and I have an opportunity to work hand in glove with the man I looked up to when I was a university student.

Since 1967 the riding now known as Kitchener was represented by Mr. Jim Breithaupt, who, I take it, is something of a legend in this House. He was Treasury and Revenue critic until 1973, chairman of the public accounts committee from 1968 to 1973, opposition House leader from 1973 to 1978 and then chairman of the select committee on company law. He spent four years working on our present insurance legislation and is part of the reason we no longer need to line up to renew our auto licences on February 28. What sort of community produces that sort of member? Kitchener is a hard-working city, diligent to a fault. There are small, diverse industries. Most people own their own homes and most of those homes are not that far from where they work.

As principled, hard-working people, the people of Kitchener have their priorities right. We are just isolated enough to keep these things in place and yet we are big enough not to ignore our neighbours. That is why the members may have noticed in this week's news that more than 200 Mennonites from the Kitchener area are in Barrie and Grand Valley helping their fellow man when he needs it.

We know how to work hard and we know how to play hard. Witness our famous Bavarian festival, Oktoberfest, with which I am certain every member of this House has some familiarity. I welcome them to come and visit it this fall if they have not already done so.

Why has this area been an oasis, unwilling to listen to the siren call of the Tories? I would suggest part of the reason is that the people of Kitchener have hearts and this government has long lost its heart. For instance, our hospitals are all underfunded. They cannot even continue their present services. All three local hospitals have found it excruciatingly difficult to deal with three Ministers of Health within 12 months who either will not or cannot accept the fact there are just not enough funds, short of user fees, to operate the hospitals.

His Honour's address speaks of a need to provide $73 million for hospital capital projects. Freeport Hospital in Kitchener must have $24 million of that $73 million immediately to provide for 183 extended care beds that we have to have. I realize that is one third of the budget. I trust there is no hospital crisis in the rest of the province or there would have been provision for more hospital capital expenditure.

Clearly, this is a problem that needs to be looked into more thoroughly. Waterloo region and the province are going to have to come up with a strategy to address this problem. I do not think it is merely a matter of adding a great number of beds to the hospitals and nursing homes. We already have the dubious honour of institutionalizing a greater percentage of our population over the age of 65 than do many countries. In England, that percentage is 5.1 per cent; in the United States, 6.3 per cent; in Canada, 8.4 per cent; in Ontario, 8.9 per cent; and in Waterloo region, 10.1 per cent of the people over 65 are in institutions.

Whenever possible, we should be allowing people to remain in their own homes as long as they are able, for that is cheaper in the long run and more humane, and it is what senior citizens are telling us they want.

For this to happen, a variety of community support services must be developed, such as Meals on Wheels, homemaking services, home maintenance and repair services and family relief services.

In Waterloo region we serve Meals on Wheels to about 240 senior citizens five days a week. This service, which is provided almost 100 per cent by volunteers, is funded by service clubs and it desperately must grow. The benefit of good, regular, nutritional intake is unquestionable. Without that, the health of the senior citizen will break down and a hospital or nursing home bed will be required. The provincial government should be playing a leadership role in encouraging the development of a well co-ordinated and readily accessible community support system.

This brings me back to my association with John Wintermeyer. With unemployment as high as it is everywhere in the province, we have found in our community a growing number of people, many of them employable and many others who are senior citizens trying to live on pensions, who simply do not have food.

Thus, because the government was asleep, it was necessary for a local impetus to start a soup kitchen. The funding for that soup kitchen came only as a winter works grant, effective from January to April. This is the time, I suppose, when people are noticed to be freezing to death. This government did not really care whether or not they were starving to death as long as nobody saw them.

That is why 15 downtown Kitchener churches were able to step in where the government had failed and raise the money to keep the kitchen open until next fall. It is interesting to note that 1,618 people were fed in March, 1,922 people were fed in April and 2,030 people were fed in May, although this government would have closed the doors of the St. John's kitchen on April 30.

Of these people, 65 per cent are employable and actively seeking work; the other 35 per cent are living largely on pensions. The number using the service increases markedly as pension-cheque day approaches and there is no money left at home for food. When the pension cheque arrives, our lineups are reduced briefly.

I am proud of the caring role that exists in our community, a caring role unmatched or even perhaps not understood in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health or elsewhere in this government. This is why Waterloo region leads this province and the nation in community justice initiatives. Volunteer community organizations work hard to make our region a safer place to live. As a result, we have one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

Our initiatives have been duplicated in the rest of the province, invariably with no leadership, no enthusiasm and little real help from this government. We had the first community resource centre in the province, permitting prisoners to work and pay for their keep, pay taxes, support their families and pay compensation to their victims. We had the first programs for victim-offender reconciliation and community mediation and the first services for victims, all begun by the Mennonite Central Committee.

We had a struggling bail recognizance program four years before it was recognized in Queen's Park. It has spread to the rest of the province, saving millions of dollars annually by policing pre-trial bail situations. This government tried to cut off funding in December 1983, and only public reaction in our region has allowed it to limp along month by month, until the government hopes it can be cut off some day when nobody is looking.

4:20 p.m.

This government does not care, and nothing has been mentioned about it in His Honour's speech, because in 10 years there has really been no Minister of Correctional Services who has been interested in corrections. There has been an arbitrary, authoritarian approach to the whole nongovernmental organization sector. In fact, of the 31 community resource centres in Ontario currently, none has a written contract with this government, and that has been the case since March 31, 1985. They too are living a hand-to-mouth existence.

What better example of all this is there than the obstructionist approach we have seen in the administration of the Young Offenders Act? The old Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908 needed to be replaced by legislation that puts the onus on a youth to be responsible for his own acts. Young people have changed; the benevolent grandfather approach is not good enough. That is what the Young Offenders Act is all about, and it would have been law 10 years ago in all of Canada had the government in this province not dragged its feet in attempting to administer it.

It is obscene that this government suggests to 11-year-olds that they are immune from criminal prosecution. Children's aid societies and police have exactly the same powers they have always had. What is needed is the will, the heart to promulgate enabling directions to administer the act and make it work.

All that is needed is direction, for instance, to probation officers. At present, juvenile probation officers are still controlled by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and they administer children to the age of 16. Adult probation officers are under the Ministry of Correctional Services, and they administer those who are over 16. Why has there been no enabling legislation within the spirit of this act to put all probation officers under one jurisdiction, where they belong?

These are just a few of the matters that concern me, as well as the many higher-priority items on the agenda for this Legislature. I realize, however, that a number of people wish to comment and a short time is available for this debate. For that reason I will curb my urge to speak on these matters until another time. I realize there are only about 120 hours left, including Sunday, give or take an hour, before we can start to work and put a new face on Ontario.

Mr. Reville: As I rise to make my initial speech in this House, may I first congratulate the members of the House on their election and re-election.

Representing the diverse interests of the people of Riverdale is a challenge that makes me feel at times both strong and faint of heart. I feel faint of heart as well when I think about the challenge of following the late Jim Renwick, who served the people of Riverdale for more than 20 years.

I went to the library and got a copy of Jim Renwick's initial speech in the House on February 3, 1965. To put it in context for the members of the House, he noted that the day before, Dr. Martin Luther King and Rev. Ralph Abernathy had been arrested in Selma, Alabama, for parading without a permit. This, of course, was the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Since then we have had the Just Society of someone else. During all that time Jim Renwick earned enormous respect in this Legislature and enormous love from the people of Riverdale, even those few who did not vote for him. He said at the conclusion of his speech, "Let us eliminate poverty in this society," a challenge we might well continue to take up.

I was puzzled by the speech from the throne, as I expect virtually every member of the House was. I know what a Tory speech is supposed to sound like. In my home there was a portrait of George Drew. I listened carefully the other day -- I think it was Tuesday -- to the remarks by the current brief Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), who said that historically the position of Progressive Conservative governments has been to do things in an evolutionary way to allow people time to adjust.

Indeed, for 42 successive Progressive Conservative years, Tory governments have stood on the shore with that shred of sisal in their hand, calling out reassuringly to a drowning public: "Do not worry. This shred of sisal will evolve into a rope."

Perhaps I will say that again; it seems to have fallen on a House that is fast asleep. Fortunately, this will be reproduced momentarily, and members can go and catch up with it again.

I believe the government has reached an evolutionary dead end. Although through this throne speech it has made a clumsy, lurching attempt to adapt, I am sceptical; my friends in the New Democratic Party are sceptical; my new friends in the Liberal Party are sceptical; and the people of Ontario are sceptical.

I have had the honour of being an elected representative in the past, albeit at a very junior level, and I have run up against the intransigence of the Tory government on a number of occasions. As I read, reread and ponder over this throne speech and scratch my head, I encounter a number of items that I struggled to deal with as an alderman in the city of Toronto. Perhaps I could briefly itemize them for the members.

On page 13 of the throne speech, the government promises to prepare right-to-know legislation. This is the very government that in February was solemnly advising the city of Toronto and the board of health for the city of Toronto that right-to-know legislation would destroy industry in Ontario because industry would not be able to protect its trade secrets and, in any event, all that workers and neighbours had to do was to ask to find out what kinds of explosions were likely to occur in their work places and neighbourhoods.

In south Riverdale it is not currently a politically correct position to be concerned about the environment. The five members of this Legislature who were here in the 27th Parliament and who are still here in the 33rd Parliament will remember hearing Jim Renwick speak about environmental problems in south Riverdale over the years. Clearly, the conversion of the Conservative government and its eloquent defence of our natural environment are not believable.

4:30 p.m.

My initial interest as a citizen of Toronto was in the education system. The throne speech crows about the adequate funding of our excellent public school system. Of course, it is no surprise to anybody who is interested in education in Metro that the share of provincial assistance for elementary and secondary schools in Metro has plummeted from 33.5 per cent in 1975 to 4.5 per cent in 1985. Indeed, the city of Toronto itself is a net funder of the educational system off the property tax base.

There was some discussion in a previous session of this House about Bill 127. My colleagues of the day warned that would be a serious attack on the educational system. We see that is true. On May 27, the Toronto Board of Education was obliged to terminate 174 secondary school teachers. The loss of at least 87 of those jobs can be attributed to Bill 127. Clearly Bill 127 must be repealed.

The assurances that protection of the excellent public school system will not be borne by the property tax leave a person in the city of Toronto even more sceptical. As succeeding Ministers of Revenue will know, property tax and the issues surrounding property tax have been of real concern to citizens in Toronto. The assessment system is bizarre, the assessment review system is bizarre and the burden that has been placed on the property tax dollar is outrageous. Serious reform of the property tax system must follow.

In the matter of health, the government indicates that in Ontario we have the finest health care system in the world. That makes me very nervous about the balance of the world. I need speak about only one section of delivery of health care services, and those are the services -- perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to say the lack of services -- delivered to psychiatric and former psychiatric patients. The members will hear a great deal more from me on that subject as this session goes on.

The government wanted the House to bear in mind its concern for the supply of rental accommodation in the province. Obviously, the government does well to be concerned about the supply of rental accommodation because it has done almost nothing about the supply of rental accommodation for so long that it would take someone with a very good memory to remember the last time Ontario was actively involved in the housing business.

In fact, some members of this House had occasion to see what happened when there was an opportunity to preserve some of the stock that exists in the city of Toronto. I speak, of course, of the famous Eglinton Avenue apartments. I was proud to be one, along with six other New Democrats and four Liberals at the city of Toronto, who would not tolerate the destruction of affordable housing in the city.

Mr. Philip: The member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) did, though.

Mr. Reville: He certainly did. The current high commissioner to somewhere claimed he did not know what the city of Toronto's intentions were with respect to those buildings.

There are a large number of housing issues that the government has not attended to and for which there are ready solutions. It requires only the will to do something, and the next government will indeed have the will to do something.

I think of the problems facing single people in the city of Toronto and elsewhere in Metro. I am happy to say that Alderman Joanne Campbell, my former wardmate and chairman of the task force on singles housing, has suggested several very useful directions in which to go. The province should be involved in them. She is watching the proceedings today, and I hope she will continue her work in the important area of singles housing.

The province's own housing company, the Ontario Housing Corp., leaves a great deal to be desired. I am sorry it has become a dormant organization. It has not built a stick of housing in a long time. My former city hall secretary, Mrs. Mollison, who also is watching the proceedings today, can attest to the fact that from the way property management is handled by the Ontario Housing Corp., it would seem the prime qualification is that the property manager should hate tenants. The Ontario Housing Corp. board is full of hacks and cronies and obviously needs to be opened up to let a little light in.

I am being glared at by the whip. I have no idea what that might mean.

In the throne speech, the government thought it might be a nice idea for all our citizens in this province to be equal. I am delighted to know the current government of this province has finally happened upon that idea. It is clear we have a long way to go in that regard. Several useful studies have proved it is still very difficult to get work in this province if one is not a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and that is a deplorable situation. We discovered in the case of Wei Fu that it is somehow all right to be racist as long as the racist in question does enough nudging and winking. Clearly, the Ontario Human Rights Commission must have more teeth in it.

This brings me to the sunshine section of the throne speech in which the writers decided it was time to throw open the curtains in Miss Faversham's room. One issue I have had some interest in, and still maintain a modest interest in, is the question of the domed stadium. The domed stadium could use a little light shed on some of the dealing and wheeling. How could it be that the members of the stadium corporation board of directors are all Tories? How could it be that there is such an interesting skein of corporate and political cosiness in the financing thereof? It is something worth looking at later in the public accounts committee.

We are going to have to do a lot better than this. We are going to have to fling open the doors of this place and let the people in.

As the session goes along, I will have occasion to comment on the state of our correctional institutions. At this point, suffice it to say I believe it is appalling that three inmates must share a cell designed for one person. I suspect the poor record of the Conservative government in the capital and renovation funding of our correctional institutions has a lot to do with the preoccupation with deterrence and punishment that has militated against meaningful reform.

4:40 p.m.

There is a difficult, perhaps unfathomable, gulf between those concerned with institutional order and those concerned with humane and functional treatment of an offender. I will say more on that later.

As well, I will have occasion to speak about the police. I have had some positive experience with the office of the public complaints commissioner. In fact, I felt very strongly that Sidney Linden did an admirable job in an atmosphere that was not always conducive to such fine work.

The question of real civilian review must be addressed yet again so that it is not a one-sided kind of approach. I believe we should further protect the rights of police officers, both in connection with the complaint mechanism and in disciplinary action in general.

There is much to do. I do not believe the Tory government will do it. I do not believe it can.

Mr. McFadden: It is a great honour to serve in this House as the representative of the people of Eglinton riding. While we may live in an era marked by cynicism, an era where our every motive is questioned and where our democratic institutions are being pressured, scrutinized and analysed as never before, there is in my view no greater privilege than to represent one's friends, neighbours and community in this assembly.

I would first like to pay tribute to my predecessor as MPP for Eglinton, Roy McMurtry. Roy is an old friend of mine with whom I have worked closely for more than 12 years. While he represented Eglinton well and effectively in this House for some 10 years, he will likely be best remembered for his outstanding contributions to public life and government as Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ontario. Through his work and the accomplishments which flowed from it, Roy McMurtry became a household name not only throughout Ontario but also throughout Canada.

Roy will be well remembered for his stand against hate literature, his concern about hockey violence, his introduction of the Family Law Reform Act, his commitment to the equality of rights and opportunities for women and minorities, his determination to bring a stop to drinking and driving and his role in the patriation of the Canadian Constitution.

Roy had a proactive approach to politics and government. Where he saw injustice or a problem that needed solving, he felt it was his duty to speak out and to act appropriately, not to sit idly by.

As the new member for Eglinton, I would hope to maintain the activist tradition established by Roy McMurtry. I am sure I am speaking on behalf of all members of this House in wishing Roy well in his new responsibilities as Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.

Geographically, Eglinton riding is located in the centre of Metropolitan Toronto. It has hundreds of interesting stores and restaurants on Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue, Mount Pleasant Road and Bayview Avenue, which offer some of the best shopping and finest food available anywhere in Ontario, even in Canada and perhaps even the world. While the shopping areas are part of my riding, the only part most people see, the stores and restaurants represent a very small part of the Eglinton community.

Eglinton is an area characterized by strong, active and involved neighbourhoods, encompassing everything from high-rise apartment buildings at Yonge and Eglinton and at Bathurst and Eglinton, through to the rich variety of low-rise housing in the upper Forest Hill, north Toronto, Lawrence Park, Sherwood Park and south Eglinton areas.

Over the years, Eglinton riding has developed a tradition of community involvement. There has developed a strong sense that people must take a direct interest in meeting the needs of their community, whether it is financing a school ground, coaching little league hockey, developing day care facilities or providing home care and home support for the sick and the elderly.

This tradition of caring is exemplified by POINT, which stands for People and Organizations in North Toronto, and by its more than 100 member agencies and organizations. This tradition of community involvement and caring is a tradition I will seek to represent here in this Legislature.

Perhaps the most important single focus of community organizations in Eglinton is senior citizens. In my riding, 20 per cent of the population is over the age of 65, double the provincial average. This just indicates that Eglinton riding is ahead of its time since it is projected that 20 per cent of Ontario's population will be over the age of 65 by the early part of the next century.

Since the early 1970s, I have been actively involved in a number of volunteer organizations that provide services and activities for senior citizens. In fact, I have the distinction of being the youngest retired president of the Second Mile Club of Toronto.

Everyone concerned about the needs of senior citizens and particularly everyone involved in the provision of services for the elderly will welcome the proposal in the speech from the throne to create a ministry for the elderly. Also very welcome is the proposal to develop a farreaching, community-based care system to keep seniors in their communities and out of institutions, and the undertaking to provide new funds for the province's homemaker programs in order to increase home support for the elderly as well as the disabled.

The ageing of our population is the most significant demographic and even social change of our time. Over the next 20 years, the population of Canada, together with that of the entire western world, will undergo an ageing trend unprecedented in history. It has never happened before in recorded history that more than 20 per cent of any society's population was over the age of 65.

An ageing and aged population will have an important impact upon every aspect of our society, including the mix of housing required, the demand for health care and other services, the kind of recreational facilities needed, the demand on government and private pension plans, and the increasing tax burden on the decreasing number of people in the work force.

With regard to this last factor, I would point out that today we have between two and three people in the work force paying taxes for every one dependent person in our society who is not in the work force because he or she is either too young, too old, unemployed, a student, sick or disabled. If the current trend continues over the next 40 to 50 years, there will be one person in the work force for every dependent person, a condition that would make it impossible for us to collect the necessary tax revenue to maintain government services anywhere close to what they are today.

4:50 p.m.

In mentioning this, I am not trying to be a Cassandra. I am just urging this House to consider carefully the range of ramifications of our ageing population. In many ways society was caught off guard by the broad impact of the baby boom and its aftermath. We have no excuse for being caught off guard by the ageing boom which we can readily see coming.

Mr. McClellan: There is no excuse, you are right.

Mr. McFadden: Absolutely, and this government has responded to it. We must ensure that we establish a framework of social services in the years to come which will meet the needs of our growing seniors population humanely and compassionately, but also in a manner which will be possible in the light of the financial resources of our society.

In the light of the impact of our ageing population, the proposal in the throne speech to establish additional beds in chronic care hospitals, homes for the aged and nursing homes will be well received by Ontarians. At the same time, however, we must face the fact that increasing health care costs could represent the biggest single spending challenge faced by this province.

Today, the Ministry of Health accounts for almost 31 per cent of the provincial budget. Over the past three years, that budget has risen by 58 per cent. In view of the fact that senior citizens account for about one third of health costs, it is readily apparent what impact an ageing population will have on health care expenditures as the number of senior citizens doubles in the next two decades.

When the factor of ageing is added to the high cost of the introduction of advanced technology in health care, it is fairly clear we could face a very critical situation in the near future in which health care costs will seriously crowd out other government expenditures. This is why the proposed extension of addiction services and public health programs in the speech from the throne is particularly appropriate today.

While the expansion of home care and home support, the introduction of medical technology in the most cost-effective manner and the implementation of new management techniques in hospitals may be very helpful in reducing the rate of increase over time of health care expenditures, it is clear the promotion and maintenance of good health is the only real way to reduce health care costs.

A doctor recently told me of a study which indicated that if we could eliminate all smoking and drinking, the health budget could be cut in half. Of course, this objective is not possible to achieve, but if we are to have any hope of containing health cost increases, the government and our community generally must put new stress on the promotion of healthful living and the reduction of self-induced illnesses caused by the harmful effects of stress, drug addiction, and alcohol and smoking abuse. We can then hope that Ontarians will go through the ageing process more healthy and independent.

I would now like to turn from the vital ramifications of the ageing of our society to an important concern facing the other end of the age spectrum, our children. That is our system of public education in Ontario.

The speech from the throne reiterates the province's commitment to extend public funding for secondary Roman Catholic schools beyond grade 10, but only after full public input on the legislation. At the same time, I welcome the guarantee set out in the speech that adequate funding of our public school system will be maintained.

In Eglinton riding we have one of the finest networks of public and private schools anywhere in Ontario. Everywhere I went during the election campaign, and also everywhere I have gone since May 2 --

Mr. McClellan: Where have you been?

Mr. McFadden: All over the place. Students, parents and grandparents have expressed concern about the future of the public school system as a consequence of the many issues raised in recent months relating to the extension of public funding in the separate secondary schools.

In considering any legislation, it is vital to ensure that the financial and academic strength of the public school system is not jeopardized. The vitality and the quality of our public schools have been an essential part of Ontario's life since the days of Egerton Ryerson and a key ingredient of the economic, social and cultural development of our province. We must work to ensure that this vitality and quality are not undermined and that the confidence of our teachers, parents and students in the system is not fundamentally shaken.

As we consider this matter in the weeks ahead, I hope we will not lose sight of the most important people in this discussion: our children. When one gets into a discussion of job security, funding formula and education theory, I have found there is often a tendency to overlook the boys and girls whose entire futures are on the line in this debate and yet who have no real voice here in this House. It is our job, as members of this Legislature, to speak on behalf of the wellbeing of our province's children.

The final comment I would like to make concerning the forthcoming education debate relates to tolerance in our society. The remarks made by the Anglican Archbishop of Toronto towards the end of the election campaign were unfortunate since they are socially and religiously divisive. We must try to ensure that the debate on this important issue takes place in a tolerant and fair-minded manner, free from the expressions of bigotry that characterized many such debates in Ontario's history. If this cannot be done, our political system, our society and our children will be the poorer because of it.

While education is of great importance to many people in Ontario, I would briefly like to discuss another vital issue for Ontarians: the cost and availability of rental housing. On behalf of the thousands of tenants in Eglinton riding, I support the reforms of the Residential Tenancies Act proposed in the speech from the throne, which will reduce the maximum rent increase permitted without review to four per cent and will lead to the establishment of a workable rent registry system.

At the same time, I also strongly endorse the initiatives proposed in the speech to deal with the shortage of rental accommodation by stimulating the broadest possible range of types of housing construction, taking in private, co-operative, nonprofit and convert-to-rent projects. There is a shortage of affordable apartments for rent in Toronto today. This has created problems for those on fixed and modest incomes, particularly senior citizens and families with young children.

The balanced and progressive approach on housing contained in the speech from the throne is the only way in which we will ever attract the kind of capital required to alleviate the current rental-apartment shortage.

Finally, I would like to deal with a concern that polls indicate is number one in the minds of Canadians: job creation and the economy. The speech from the throne set out a practical and effective approach for the maintenance of economic growth, the development of international trade and the enhancement of skilled training in Ontario. The economic statement delivered to the House by the Treasurer (Miss Stephenson) on Monday proved how well the Ontario economy has been performing over the past two years and how effective the economic policies of our government have been.

The increase in the gross provincial product, coupled with this province's remarkable record of job creation since November 1982, clearly proves Ontario has led Canada out of the recession, but we have much more to do if we are to achieve full employment. This job can only be done if we have in office the kind of government we have now in Ontario which pursues farsighted, growth-oriented policies.

Mr. McClellan: The member thinks we have full employment, does he?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I suppose they have had full employment for 42 years.

5 p.m.

Mr. McFadden: Let the members opposite not worry about that. Give us another four years and we will achieve it.

For 15 years I have worked closely with Canadian and foreign entrepreneurs in the establishment of all types of businesses in Ontario, ranging from communications and computer software companies to auto parts and chemical manufacturing enterprises. In dealing with these entrepreneurs, I have found one of the main reasons they have created new enterprises or expanded existing ones in Ontario is the helpful attitude and the positive environment for growth created by our government.

I would particularly like to single out the work of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, whose officials have always been exceedingly helpful in assisting new enterprises to get started, whether it is in providing information on plant locations, giving advice on business organization, working with business people in submitting applications to the Foreign Investment Review Agency or facilitating the securing of landed-immigrant status for foreign entrepreneurs.

While specific programs to assist business people directly are important, perhaps more important is the atmosphere for growth and the infrastructure created by our government. Businesses are created and expanded in this province because of the sound financial management of our government, the availability of reliable electric power, the first-class system of highways, the excellent system of education and the stability and philosophy of our government.

In the rarefied atmosphere of this assembly, it is easy to forget what creates and maintains jobs. Jobs are created by hundreds and thousands of entrepreneurs who individually decide to hire one person here in a clothing store, 10 persons there in a computer service company or 100 persons somewhere else in an auto parts plant.

Over the years, these entrepreneurs have brought economic growth and employment to Ontario because they have known they had a government they could count on in this province, a government which was even able to offset the albatross created around their necks in the past by the now happily departed Liberal government in Ottawa.

Of course, the work is not over. If our province is to create the number of jobs we will need in the years to come, we will require the kind of commitment to growth and the practical approach to economic management set out in the speech from the throne.

Yet that speech falls on the deaf ears and closed minds of the members opposite. The opposition takes its negative approach in the face of the fact that the speech from the throne sets out a practical and farsighted program which will deal effectively with the social and economic challenges facing Ontario today.

It is a sound program which is consistent with the practical and farsighted policies pursued to the tremendous benefit of Ontario by successive Progressive Conservative Premiers George Drew, Leslie Frost, John Robarts and William Davis. Regardless of the outcome in this House of the vote on June 18, history and events will judge the speech from the throne to be right and appropriate for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure and an honour for me to rise in this debate as the member for the riding of Mississauga North, which ranks in population as the second largest in Ontario. It is a vital part of the great city of Mississauga, a city not only in name but in fact. The greatness, enthusiasm and dynamism of Mississauga comes from its citizens, people from all walks of life, making a contribution not only to the city but to the province at large.

I am proud to represent the people of the riding of Mississaugua North -- people from the communities of Malton, Meadowvale, Erin Mills, Streetsville, Cooksville, Sheridan Homelands, the Credit Woodlands, all part of this riding, all with concerns of the present and hopes for the future.

As a new member of this great chamber, I gave much thought to what I would say today. I thought of the many people I have become associated with in my years of involvement in Mississauga. I thought of the great many workers during the election, those knocking on doors and putting up signs, telephone canvassers and office workers, who had so many important jobs and such little public recognition.

I thought of those people who contribute not only at election time but throughout the year at the riding level, by organizing fund-raisers, keeping the riding organization strong, making it a vibrant force and the local voice of provincial politics. What is their motivation? Simply stated, it is a fundamental belief in the policies of my party.

So I partake today in this debate for and on behalf of the members of our organization. The speech from the throne had many good things, and I want to give the government some credit. In fact, I campaigned on some of those pronouncements against my Conservative opponent. I wonder how this government is going to explain its speech from the throne to those men and women who ran as its candidates but worked for its policies.

I have seen a great amount of hypocrisy in my day, but none so blatant as the speech from the throne of Tuesday last. This hypocrisy is not lost on the people of Ontario. This speech from the throne proves that Ontario Toryism has no permanent allies or enemies, only the permanent interest of perpetual political power. That is not what the people need and that is not what the people want. The people of Ontario both need and deserve a government ready to implement fresh, innovative policies which reflect the realities of the 1980s.

The people of Ontario need a government having 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. This province has a great future, but achieving it is going to take a different attitude, a different direction, different leadership and different management in the future.

The people of Mississauga North and the people of this province voted on May 2 for a change. They saw my party had the policies to carry them through the 1980s and into the 1990s, and was ready to meet not only the problems and concerns of the day but also the problems and concerns of the future.

The people of Mississauga North are not immune, are not shielded from the larger provincial problems. We in Mississauga know the need for employment, for safeguarding our environment, for increased funding for our educational system and for quality day care systems.

The people of Ontario not only do not need or want the old ideas but are uncomfortable with the old ideas. A new approach, a fresh approach, is what they want.

In Mississauga North the electorate said the Conservative Party had no historical right to govern. On May 2 they said the Conservative Party had lost its will to sensitize itself to the needs, concerns and desires of all the people of this province.

It is trite to say the rate of unemployment is appalling, that we must do something about it and that people need jobs. We all know that and we all know our young people have been bearing a disproportionate share of the burden of unemployment. Too many thousands of our youth in Mississauga and throughout the province go without jobs and without hope.

We need a new direction. My party will not fail our youth. We will pave a fresh path, a renewal of hope, with positive policies ready to adapt to the job demands of the 1980s and onward.

We believe in the rich potential of Ontario and that job creation is possible with the right mix of co-operation by business, labour and government. We cannot let our youth down. The youth of Ontario are our greatest natural resource. By investing in our youth we invest in ourselves and in the future of this province.

Mr. Speaker, you may remember the city of Mississauga was the victim of a disastrous derailment of a train carrying a most dangerous chemical. The co-operation of many agencies, many organizations, the municipal council and the understanding of the citizens of Mississauga diffused a situation with a potential for tragic consequences of the most immense proportions. As such, the environment is an area which clearly and personally is of concern to the people of Mississauga North and Mississauga as a whole.

5:10 p.m.

My party is ready to act on the environmental rights bill; take action against acid rain, one of the greatest environmental threats to Ontario; stop the past inaction on the growing chemical threat from liquid industrial waste; and remove the veil of ignorance from the modern problems of water and air pollution. Those problems have existed for years and are not only continuing but are increasing.

The people of Ontario need a government that is unafraid to take the action necessary to protect our environment, that is unafraid to make the hard decisions and stand up not only for the people of Ontario but for its land as well.

At first I found it surprising that, in a throne speech of some 37 pages, only 21 lines were allocated to our public school system. However, it is less surprising when one keeps in mind that the present government has systematically reduced its portion of educational funding over the years. Indeed, it is not surprising when one keeps in mind that this government has been pulling funds out of the university sector for the past decade as enrolments have increased. It is not surprising when one keeps in mind that applications to community colleges have been allowed to proceed through something of a lottery system.

It is time to arrest the continued erosion of our educational system. It is time to restore the provincial share of funding to the position it once had. It is time to ensure the implementation of an effective, co-operative education program. It is time to make certain that no qualified student is denied access to higher education as a result of financial barriers. It is time to begin immediately with plans for an expanded community college system sensitive to the employment demands of today.

It is incumbent on all of us to realize there are individuals and families with insufficient income to maintain an acceptable standard of living. It is necessary to realize that because of high unemployment and family breakdown, single mothers form the bulk of recipients of general welfare and family benefits, not only in the region of Peel but also across the rest of the province.

We are a party that is ready to implement programs to encourage women to select a wide range of opportunities leading to meaningful future employment. We are a party that is sensitive to the needs of single mothers and is ready to implement workable policies. We are a party that understands that a day care system must be ready to meet the needs of parents with children under two years of age and to meet the economic impact on low-income to middle-income families ineligible for subsidies. We are a party that understands that in the region of Peel and elsewhere there are single parents keeping their children at home on days when their school is going on an organized class trip because they cannot afford the $2 fee.

I perceive the people of Mississauga North said to me before, during and after the election that, if anything, I am never to forget that when we talk in this great chamber about percentages of people, when we look at tendencies and the like, we are always talking about individuals. We are never to forget that first and foremost we have been entrusted with representing the individual persons who make up our ridings.

It is incumbent on us never to forget that weighty responsibility. It is something I shall always be cognizant of and something I shall always value.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express my sincere congratulations on your election to this honourable position in the House. I know you have served your riding and the province well in the past and I am sure that in the future you will do this House honour in your current position.

I would like to thank the good people of Sault Ste. Marie for giving me the opportunity to represent them in this House today. The riding I represent covers the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It is a unique riding in northern Ontario in that it is an urban riding that has the smallest area of any northern riding, but at the same time has the largest population of any riding in the north. In fact, under the proposed electoral redistribution, the riding of Sault Ste. Marie is projected to have the highest population in the province.

I am very proud of Sault Ste. Marie. I was born and brought up in the Sault, having attended Queen Elizabeth elementary school and then Sir James Dunn Collegiate. Like many Saultites, my family has long roots in our community. All four of my grandparents emigrated from Finland and Sweden to Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district more than 60 years ago. Like so many others like them, they came to a dynamic, industrial community set in a wilderness paradise.

Sault Ste. Marie is Ontario's first community. It was settled well before the white man arrived in Ontario. It has always been a transportation mecca strategically centred among the three largest of the Great Lakes. The St. Mary's rapids, from which the Sault gets its name, have been fished for centuries. It is these rapids upon which the community of Sault Ste. Marie staked its future in the 1890s.

Most people know the story of Francis Clergue, the visionary figure who got an industrial empire off the ground in the Sault in the late 1890s. He completed hydroelectric power plants in both Sault, Ontario, and Sault, Michigan. He founded Algoma Steel. He built a pulp mill and later a paper mill. He opened iron mining at Wawa and started the Algoma Central Railway.

Often lost in the focus on a hero like Francis Clergue is the role played by the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie as a unified community with a will to make things happen. Before Clergue, Sault Ste. Marie was a community of 4,000 or 5,000 people which recognized it had a tremendous asset in the St. Marys rapids, if only they could be harnessed.

Believing a major hydro plant would spur industrial development by attracting new investment, the community banded together and mortgaged its future to build such a plant. In a community effort, the city fathers harnessed all the resources they could muster to complete it. Unfortunately, by 1895 the city was on the verge of bankruptcy. No money was left and the power-plant construction had to be suspended.

It was then that Francis Clergue visited Sault Ste. Marie. He saw the potential in that uncompleted plant. The city agreed to turn it over to him in return for assuming its debt. But Sault Ste. Marie would not be what it is today if it were not for the vision and initiative of that community in the 1890s which staked everything on an investment in that power plant, an investment in itself that others said would not work. We need to redevelop that kind of co-operative community spirit and initiative in Sault Ste. Marie and in many other communities across Ontario.

In Sault Ste. Marie we face the challenge of restoring our community to what it had been in the past. The Conservative record on serving Sault Ste. Marie over the past few years is poor. It has watched the Sault endure some of the most devastating years in our history.

We have lost more than 4,000 jobs at Algoma Steel and as many as 8,000 jobs elsewhere. The lost wages could total more than $1 billion over the last three years. That money is gone and cannot be recovered. However, it is not just a matter of money but of devastating social impact -- broken lives, lost homes, bankrupt small businesses, a soup kitchen, the shattered homes of so many families. These are negative things that need not occur in a proud community such as the Sault. They are a discredit to the political and economic leadership which allowed them to happen.

Northern Ontario communities such as Sault Ste. Marie deserve a better deal than they have been getting in this province. Northern Ontario has 85 per cent of Ontario's land mass and 10 per cent of its people. The north supplies the natural resources used by the industrial south, but northerners have rarely received their fair share of this wealth.

Instead, for 42 years the Conservative government has treated the north as an area to be used for short-term profit by outside corporations. Government policies designed with Toronto in mind do not fit the north. As a result, northerners face higher unemployment, greater job insecurity and higher costs for energy, goods and services than people in southern Ontario.

5:20 p.m.

In Ontario and in Sault Ste. Marie we are confronted by many challenges. We must clean up our environment. We must give women real equality. We must give northerners equal health care. We must create jobs.

In the Sault our biggest challenge is still jobs. Our official unemployment rate is 19 per cent, and that is not counting thousands who have given up looking. It was an absurdity to have the Minister of Labour represent the city with the highest unemployment rate in Ontario. Mr. Ramsay worked very hard for Sault Ste. Marie, and I sincerely credit him for his efforts and for what he accomplished in our community; but given the constraints of Conservative economic policy, it was not enough.

The Conservatives have a strong record of talking about jobs but a dismal record of delivering on their promises. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, which the tired Tories promised in 1981, turned out to be a bust.

I wish to take the opportunity of my maiden speech in this Legislature to fill members in on some of the economic platform upon which I campaigned in this past election. Members may not know that for the past six years I have been working as a financial planner in the head offices of Algoma Steel. I feel quite comfortable and very competent in dealing with matters of economics, finance and business.

During the election campaign I issued a 10-point economic challenge to Sault Ste. Marie. It is a positive approach to a regional economic plan for the Sault aimed at diversifying the local economy and creating the solid jobs we need. My challenge to the Sault is a sensible plan that takes into account our skilled work force, our steel, our natural resources potential and our need for educational and research facilities.

Let me explain some of the major challenges facing Sault Ste. Marie.

Challenge 1 is university education and research. A well-integrated regional economy is dependent on an educated work force and the ability to react to technological change. It is worth noting how poorly the Conservatives have met the challenge of university funding in this region.

The cost to run Ontario's 16 universities this year totals more than $1.7 billion. That works out to about $350 for every taxpayer in the province. Compare that with Algoma University College's budget of $2.7 million. Dividing that by the number of taxpayers in Algoma, we find that only a paltry $35 per taxpayer is being spent in the Sault.

In university funding we have been getting back only one dollar out of 10. No wonder 90 per cent of our students have to go out of town for an education, most never to return. No wonder Algoma University College can offer only a limited arts program. If we had our fair share of university funding, we might have 700 people on Algoma's payroll instead of 70.

If the Sault is to meet the challenge of attracting new industrial and economic development in this technologically advancing world, we need more university programs and research facilities in fields like metallurgy, forestry, environmental studies, engineering and business administration. As a major population centre in the north, the Sault deserves a better deal than it received from the Conservative government in the past.

Challenge 2 is a forest products research and design centre. Forestry is the largest industry in northern Ontario, but very few finished products are produced there. A research centre in the north could be used to design and develop products leading to new secondary manufacturing opportunities in northern Ontario. It is about time we had a government that encouraged the manufacture of products that made sense in the north.

Challenge 3 is a deep-sea harbour. Along with the educational and research and design facilities already mentioned, the government must focus on infrastructure to encourage and develop new industrial growth. To encourage secondary industry in Sault Ste. Marie, adequate docking facilities must be available. Drydocks could be developed to service upper Great Lakes vessels. The Sault is sensibly located to become a regional transportation centre.

Challenge 4 concerns the mining machinery industry. Canada is the third largest mineral producer in the world, but we import almost 90 per cent of our mining machinery. Most of that should be produced in Canada. In 1982, the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery Technology was opened to help develop the mining machinery industry. To date, a meagre $3 million has been spent owing to a lack of initiative by the Conservatives.

Sault Ste. Marie is the logical centre for mining machinery production in Canada. We have the kind of heavy plate steel needed. We have the skilled labour available. We are located on water in northern Ontario close to the mines.

Challenge 5 concerns the automotive industry, Ontario's largest industry. Algoma Steel is the major supplier of steel to auto parts producers in southern Ontario and Michigan. Sault Ste. Marie deserves a share of the secondary steel industries in Ontario just as much as Hamilton and Windsor do.

In 1983, the Federal Task Force on the Canadian Automobile and Auto Parts Industries published its report. This task force was composed of representatives of the automotive and auto parts industries and the United Auto Workers. It recommended the introduction of Canadian-content legislation and concluded that such a policy could generate 80,000 direct manufacturing jobs in Canada over five years. Many of these secondary industry jobs could go to the Sault. But instead of creating new jobs, we are losing the existing ones.

The voluntary export restraint expired on March 31 with the Conservatives expressing hope that the Japanese would not flood our markets. According to auto industry estimates, the failure of the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) to stand up for Ontario will eliminate more than 20,000 jobs in Canadian assembly and parts manufacturing industries. This does not include spinoff effects such as the loss of steel jobs in Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie.

As Industry and Trade critic, I want to see that Canadian jobs in the steel and auto industries are protected. Steel industry officials have indicated to me their strong support for continued automotive export restraints not only on Japan but also on Korea. These restraints have resulted in investment in Ontario and more jobs at Algoma Steel. We need a commitment from Japan and Korea for significant investment in Ontario and provision for Canadian content. The Japanese invest in countries only when forced to. It is time Ontario workers got jobs from Japanese cars.

Challenge 6 concerns the furniture industry. Furniture manufacturing is a labour-intensive craft industry which develops many skills. It lends itself to small-business operation and provides another opportunity to displace imported goods. Its success derives from the quality of design and marketing. The development of this industry could be stimulated by a forest products research and design centre, as I mentioned earlier.

Challenge 7 is the reforestation of Algoma's timber lands. St. Marys Paper has to go well past White River to get the timber it needs because Algoma has been logged out. This is an example of the Conservatives' abysmal record on reforestation in this province. A major renewal program in Algoma's wilderness could generate hundreds of jobs for our youth today.

Challenge 8 is tourism and wilderness preservation. Here lies a major opportunity for job creation. Tourism has been, and will continue to be, a major opportunity for job creation, and Sault Ste. Marie is the gateway to the greatest wilderness area in central North America.

Most tourists who visit the Sault and Algoma come to enjoy our wilderness areas. However, environmental cleanup and renewal of our wilderness is a major concern that has not been addressed over the past 42 years by this Conservative government. We must expand Ontario's network of wilderness parks. The Tories favour mining in wilderness parks and hunting in nature reserves. I believe people want wilderness parks where they can enjoy themselves and get away from it all for a few days.

5:30 p.m.

Challenge 9 is northern alternative energy sources. The natural resources are here for alternatives in energy development. We have fast-flowing rivers for small-scale and medium-scale hydro development, forest by-products for alternative fuels and the potential for wind energy. These could reduce our regional dependence on expensive, imported energy. It is also about time we had a government that did something about the high price of gasoline and home heating oil in northern Ontario.

Challenge 10 is a northern Ontario heritage fund. It is time we considered instituting a heritage fund modelled on those of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Some of the wealth created in the north should stay in the north. It should be reinvested in infrastructure and other projects such as I have outlined previously. The northern Ontario heritage fund would be a major step in meeting the challenges facing Sault Ste. Marie and other northern communities. I know all of us in Sault Ste. Marie want to re-create the city as we knew it.

I look forward to working diligently with the other members of this assembly in making Ontario a more prosperous and more liveable place for all our residents.

Before concluding, I want to comment on the significance this day has for me. In a way it seems like a coincidence but today, June 13, is the anniversary of a few things that happened in my life. On this day in 1974 -- in fact, it was also on a Thursday -- I graduated from Harvard University. That was an equally significant day for me, and I think it is a coincidence that I should be here giving my speech in the throne speech debate on Thursday, June 13.

The year following that, I purposely scheduled my general exams leading to my doctoral work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for June 13, a Friday the 13th, and fortunately, I passed them on that day.

The first June 13 I can remember of real significance occurred in 1969; it was also a Friday the 13th. My grandfather came flying into the house that morning and told me I had just won the First Canadian Mathematical Olympiad and was awarded a $6,000 scholarship as a result.

Since then, June 13, whether it is a Friday or not, has always been a special day for me. It just occurred to me while waiting to give this speech that this again would be a June 13.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You will probably bring down the government.

Mr. Morin-Strom: That is right. If we go back even further to the year I was born, coincidentally I was born exactly two weeks to the day following a Friday, June 13, in 1952.

On that note I am very pleased to be able to make my maiden speech on a June 13, and I look forward to many years of serving the city of Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. McCaffrey: As others have done before me, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate all the newly elected members of this Legislature. In particular, I want to compliment the mover and seconder of the motion for a reply to the speech from the throne, the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) and the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland).

Also at this time I want to compliment both the Liberal and New Democratic Party candidates in the recent election in my home constituency of Armourdale, Gino Matrundola and Bob Hebdon. As members know, they nearly got me. I know a little bit about partisan politics and the way some parties operate, and I would just like to say to Gino Matrundola -- I may send him a copy of this speech -- that undoubtedly there will be people around who will say, "Now you have just about done it" -- it was 200 votes, as I recall -- "they may wish to bring in someone else to run." I just want Gino to know I think he should stick to his guns. In fact, I would strongly recommend that he be nominated again as quickly as possible and not let those people push him around.

I say to the newly elected MPPs, I cannot help but recall my own feelings upon coming into this assembly when I was first elected in 1977. I felt a certain awe about the building and this room. There is something quite splendid about this assembly. I felt a tremendous amount of pride as I walked up the steps of this Legislature for the first time, and I had a deep conviction that the work done here in this assembly and in its committees was important and relevant.

Today, eight or so years later, after having had a chance to serve on various committees, and having been chairman of a number of standing and select committees of this assembly as well as a parliamentary assistant and having had a chance to serve in cabinet for some three years, I still feel some awe about this building and the process. I still feel a great sense of pride in the work we are sent here to do, and I still have a conviction that what we do here and in the committees of this House is important.

However, usually I do not feel the work we do here is as relevant as it could be, and I think it is incumbent upon all of us, new MPPs or otherwise, to do what we can to make it so.

There is a serious and immediate need to reform the procedures of this place with a view to making the role of private members more relevant and businesslike. At another time, I hope in the standing committee on procedural affairs on which I wish to serve, I intend to offer some detailed suggestions based on my eight years around this place as to how we might accomplish that. However, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a couple of those recommendations right now.

First, I want to mention the absurd sitting times of this assembly. Sitting from two to six and from eight until 10:30 p.m. makes absolutely no sense. When I first raised this matter in 1977 with some of my colleagues in the assembly from all three parties, I was most often told: "Do not complain. It was only a few years ago, around 1975, that this assembly would often sit until two or three in the morning."

As I have said, I want to elaborate on this matter at another time and in another forum, but I would recommend that this assembly sit from nine o'clock until five and in the evenings when necessary. If it is necessary to accommodate the media, question period still could be held at two o'clock. We could break for lunch from one o'clock until two and reconvene for prayers at two o'clock.

To accommodate citizens who wish to make submissions, committees holding public hearings could and should sit in the evenings. Times for members to meet with constituents could be arranged easily within that nine-to-five schedule. One of the things to which we might seriously put our minds in order to help accommodate that matter and other things would be to introduce some form of pairing of members in this assembly.

5:40 p.m.

On the matter of committees, I would like to make one or two observations on the per diem allowances paid to members who serve on committees that meet when the assembly is not in session. Specifically, I refer to the recommendations made in the eighth report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses tabled June 5, 1985. "The commission is of the opinion that the per diem allowances for committee work should be doubled from $63 per day...to $126 per day...and that the per diem allowances for committee work should be fully taxable...."

If per diems are to continue, and that could be debated at another point, I hope we will raise the whole question of remuneration, either in the procedural affairs committee or, more likely, speaking for myself, at the first opportunity I have in private members' hour. But if per diems are to continue, obviously they should be fully taxable.

Let me express now my disappointment that the commission did not deal with the expense allowance portion of a member's salary. According to the report, the basic indemnity at present is $34,808. We have an expense allowance, that being tax free, of $11,686 per year. In its proposals, the commission recommended an increase in salaries to $40,000 but maintained the same expense allowance of $11,686 tax free.

The tax-free expense allowance portion of our salaries should be immediately abolished. I think it should be grossed up, with the appropriate tax and other deductions taken off monthly. In this way, members will receive the same net pay as they do at present.

In fairness, I am not calling for a reduction in the salaries expected by members; therefore, those who budgeted or made assumptions on the basis of the present arrangement would not receive less. But if that expense portion were grossed up, their salaries would be more fairly and honestly described to the people who pay taxes in the province. It is simply unacceptable that a member of this assembly, charged with the responsibility of spending public money raised through taxes, should have any portion of his salary free of the prevailing rate of tax.

I would like to give one specific example of why I believe so strongly that we should do this at the earliest opportunity. To quote from the speech from the throne, page 25, the government says: "As part of tax reform, to ensure more equitable health care financing, my government will freeze Ontario health insurance plan premiums and steadily raise premium assistance. My government will progressively employ tax sources less onerous to low-income families in order to finance this essential service."

I have some difficulty at this point understanding what those less onerous tax sources will be, but that will be amplified, no doubt, in the future.

What I do know is that the Liberal-New Democratic Party group is committed to abolishing health premiums and, make no mistake about it, this move will have an immediate and serious impact on our present levels of personal income tax. I think we as members of the Legislature, on both sides of the House, should have the opportunity to see this immediate and serious impact in our own wages.

For example, in our last budget the premiums in place in this province raised $1.597 billion. To raise that amount of money, I submit, there are only three sources open to the new government: personal income tax, corporate income tax and retail sales tax. It does not take very much imagination to know that the new government will not increase retail sales tax by the number of points that would be required to raise $1.597 billion. Therefore, I suspect it will come in with something like a blending of personal income tax and corporate income tax increases.

We know of the increasing number of families in Ontario in which both parents work. At present, one of those parents assumes the cost of health premiums. When the personal income tax rates increase, as they will for both parties, to offset this route of premium revenue-raising, those families will pay significantly more than they do at present and it will be reflected in their take-home pay. It is only right and proper that it be fully reflected in our take-home pay as well.

I would like to make some observations on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value, as well as a comment or two on extra billing. With regard to equal pay for work of equal value, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I approached this issue with the strong belief that the marketplace works and that this is not a method to close the wage gap between men and women.

Over time in the real world, prices paid for products and services do find their proper and fair balance. A snapshot that froze those prices at any moment would show imbalances, whether we were talking about some basic commodity prices, such as gold, oil -- which is fairly topical these days -- or copper; whether we were talking about housing prices or the cost of money as measured by interest rates; or whether we were talking about services and salaries paid to workers. All of these products are in a constant state of movement. They are adjusting to dozens of factors in the real world, but they are always seeking a fair and proper balance.

A snapshot today would show there is a serious wage gap between men and women in some areas. Many of us could elaborate on the historical reasons for this fact, but there is indeed a gap. What this snapshot would fail to show is that we are in the midst now of a major social revolution where the traditional male-female roles are in a constant state of flux. This snapshot would fail to show the rapid changes in women's roles and incomes, and, in particular, in some businesses.

Before I was elected, I was in the investment business, which, conventional wisdom has it, was and is a traditional male preserve. I think historically that was true, but today one would find countless senior women in all aspects of that industry, making very significant amounts of money in most cases.

I want members to know that I oppose the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It is regressive and unworkable in both the public and the private sector and it will thwart opportunities for both men and women. If I may, I would like to raise some specific points on the question.

There are four basic models of job evaluation. Someone somewhere will have to decide which one of these basic models is the most appropriate. We know that no system of job evaluation is completely free of bias. How can we ensure that any chosen system would be free of bias?

For example, will job evaluation be done on a company-by-company basis, or will it be centrally established? Will central guidelines be produced and, if so, how detailed will those guidelines be? What provisions will force companies to comply? What exceptions will be allowed, if any? Is any one job-evaluation model appropriate for all types of businesses? Does one allow different types of models to be used based on their appropriateness to a particular type of business? Who decides which model is most appropriate? What are the criteria for this decision? What impact does this have on pay scales between different industries?

Current models of job evaluation are very abstract. To what degree should they be modified by factors such as the differences in job definition between companies? Job A in a large company would be quite different from job B in a smaller company. That is no less true in the public service than it is in the private sector.

What about the differences in job definition between industries? Job A in industry A would be quite different from job B in industry B. How does one evaluate jobs in a company where job functions are loose and not clearly defined? In some instances, exceptional workers in a given job classification will have job functions that are uniquely tailored to them, designed for them. That, by the way, is as true in the public service as it is in the private sector. How will this be resolved with respect to job evaluation?

5:50 p.m.

We all know and we have all talked about the fact that changing technology has an impact on job value. A technological advance may result in a job classification becoming more important or less important to a company. New job classifications may be created. How often are decisions about these job evaluations to be reviewed by these job judges, as I will call them?

Once all the problems connected with job evaluation are solved, a method must be found to establish job value in real dollars and cents. Who will make that determination? Is this made on a company-by-company basis? Is it to be centrally established? Are central guidelines produced? How detailed should they be and what sanctions should be included to ensure company compliance? What exemptions will there be, if any?

If job A is determined to be worth more to a company than job B, how is the actual amount determined? Who determines how much more one job is worth than another? Is this the task of the job judge?

How does this process affect unions and the negotiation process? If, in a company composed of unionized workers, a determination is made that job A is worth so much to that company, does this impose an effective limitation on a union during contract negotiations? What sanctions are imposed to ensure union compliance? Again, what exemptions are allowed?

To what degree should the following factors influence the determination of pay provisions: the company's financial situation and the availability of qualified workers to fill particular jobs. If there is a shortage of people qualified to perform job A, should a company be allowed to pay more than the position is normally worth to attract workers? This is a key question and one that would occur daily in this province.

Who determines when the shortage exists? What criteria are used? What if the shortage is regional in nature? Again, the phenomenon is quite common in this province. Since shortages come and go, how often is the decision reviewed? When the shortage has ended, what happens to the salaries paid to workers hired during that shortage?

What happens to the exceptional worker? Sometimes, because of unique abilities and experience, a worker is paid more than others -++++++++++34+- again I say in the public service as much as in the private sector.

If this individual's salary were averaged in with the salaries for others in a particular job classification, it would artificially inflate the wage levels for the group as a whole -- or is that higher salary simply reduced?

It is difficult to determine how much a company is paying a job classification. If the payment is made on a commission, full- or part-time basis, the amounts vary greatly from individual to individual and it is difficult to establish defined pay limits. Bonuses present many of the same problems. As well, bonuses can greatly inflate the value of a job in any given year. However, like commissions, they can fluctuate wildly from year to year.

Benefit packages can be used to enhance the value of a job. Should they be included in the determination of the pay provisions? While some benefit packages are essentially the same for all workers in a given job, they are often individually set and vary greatly from person to person. As well, they differ from company to company and industry to industry.

Once job evaluations and accompanying pay provisions are established, a method for correcting inequities must be determined. Should a company correct inequities at once, or gradually over a period of time? Who determines how much and how soon?

if people performing job A should be paid more than people performing job B, does this mean that people doing job B have been paid too much, or the people performing job A have been paid too little? If the discrepancy is to be corrected gradually, should people in job A receive greater than normal increases, while people in job B receive normal increases until equity is achieved, or should people in job A receive normal increases while people in the other job receive less than normal increases?

Does a determination of pay inequity supersede a signed, negotiated contract? How much impact should it have on future contract negotiations? If one union represents workers in both jobs A and B, must it agree to hold up one group while the other catches up?

What if two different unions represent the two jobs? Do the interests of one union take a back seat to the interests of the other? What if one job is unionized and the other is not? Should sanctions be imposed to ensure that unions will allow inequities to be corrected?

Once all of this is done, should there be an avenue for appeal or review? It seems fair to me that there would, again in both the public service and the private sector. To whom is this appeal made? When are appeals allowed? Who makes the appeal and what should the appeal process be?

In general, what impact will this compensation equity have on the free market? What impact will it have on the competitiveness of Ontario industries and individual firms, on worker mobility and on closing the wage gap between men and women? On that key point, I would suggest it will be negligible, if there is any, and it will be achieved at a great cost to both men and women.

What impact will it have on the size and cost of government bureaucracy? That is an easy one. It will be immediate and there will be a massive increase in the number of job judges working throughout the public and private sectors.

Can the system work without public disclosure of a company's financial records? I think not. What impact would such disclosures have and what steps would the new government take to ensure confidentiality and privacy? I would make a recommendation now that I have made at another time and place. When they have 25 or 30 different ministers, the new government will find that each of them -- and we have just seen a lot about this in the paper in the last couple of days -- will have people on contract, their personal staff. Among those six or eight people, however many they have, there will be some jobs that are hard to define. "Legislative assistant" might be one of those, or "executive assistant" or "research assistant." Those are not easy to define. They are as difficult to define as a lot of jobs in the private sector.

The ministers will have an opportunity to address the classic male-female problem through the driver, or chauffeur, and the secretary; the latter is female, for the most part, and drivers are almost always male.

I will make this recommendation sincerely to the new government: Before it undertakes to bring in this legislation for equal pay for work of equal value and thrust it on the real world, as an internal exercise it should have one of these job judges from the Ministry of Labour do an evaluation, using a grid or whatever form it chooses, for those people on the ministers' personal staff, and bring that back to the executive council. There will be nobody to criticize it and they will be able to see, in my judgement, that it is not workable. I believe they will see it does not speak to the male-female wage gaps and, without fear of being embarrassed, I think they would see it is simply inadequate to deal with the kinds of problems we pretend we can deal with through legislation.

I would say in closing on that particular issue, one fights the marketplace at some peril and I think this concept of equal pay for work of equal value will simply put in place some permanent imbalances and will cost both men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands, but I wanted to speak about extra billing and a few other matters.

The Deputy Speaker: I suggest to the member that we are getting close to six o'clock and the government House leader wishes to speak to the agenda for next week, so perhaps you could continue at eight o'clock.

Mr. McCaffrey: I shall. Thank you.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might indicate now the business of the House for the coming week. Tonight, tomorrow and Monday afternoon, June 17, and Tuesday afternoon, June 18, there will be debate on the motion in reply to the speech from the throne.

I will invite members to drop around, particularly on Monday, when the government House leader will be participating in the throne speech debate.

The vote on the motion, by agreement of the House leaders, will be at 5:45 p.m. on Tuesday next, June 18. Members should not miss it. I will at that time perhaps have a further business statement.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

June 13, 1985

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

LOAN AND TRUST LEGISLATION

ASSISTED HOUSING

CONVERT-TO-RENT PROGRAM

GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSION

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

JUDGE'S RESIGNATION

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT LEGISLATION

BULK ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL BUDGET

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

PROTECTION OF WORKERS

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

NORTHERN MEDICAL FUNDING

DETOUR LAKE MINE

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

ONTARIO FINANCES

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

TRANSMISSION LINES

HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHANGE OF NAME ACT

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ACT

CREDITORS' RELIEF AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE