Journal des débats 1986-mai-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

Mr. Martel: I thought the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) would stay to hear this. It is going to be good stuff.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have a House leaders' meeting.

Mr. Martel: He will hear it down there then.

I will not bother talking about the throne speech. There was not much in it. I will dismiss that very quickly.

Mr. Bernier: Tell us something new.

Mr. Martel: I am going to tell my friend about a trip I just finished making. I took five weeks, went to 13 cities and received more than 200 briefs.

Mr. Bernier: At whose expense? Who paid for it?

Mr. Martel: Not that member. I did not even get paid, unlike some members who were sitting on committees.

I visited 13 cities, received at least 200 briefs, interviewed 200 or 300 people and obtained the documents surrounding health and safety that we are going to use during the next couple of months to show that the Ministry of Labour in the preceding government and in the present government has virtually destroyed the use of Bill 70. We might as well not have it in Ontario today, because Bill 70 does not protect workers. What the Tories did with that bill was a disgrace, and the Liberals have continued to do precisely the same. The bill does not protect working people.

In 1982, I made a similar tour. The act was relatively new then, and companies had not learned how to ignore the act; nor did they know the Ministry of Labour had no intention of enforcing the act. That has continued down to the present. We have had two governments, both of which have enforced the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the same way, which is to allow companies to do whatever they want.

During the next couple of months, we are going to document many examples. We saw two in the House yesterday, when I called the Ministry of Labour office at 400 University Avenue the swamp. The inspectors themselves call it the swamp, because everything gets filtered in, it sinks in the quagmire and nothing comes out. We saw that yesterday with respect to two fatalities that occurred last September in this province. It took seven or eight months even to decide whether there would be prosecutions.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) got up in his place yesterday and said it was a very complex issue.

A member of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was working on a seven-foot culvert by himself. The ministry did not provide a safety jacket for him, and he fell in the water and drowned. There were three contraventions of sections 35, 36 and 37 of the construction safety regulations; yet the minister and the legal department say it is very complex to sort out whether they should prosecute. There is something crazy about that.

What made it difficult is that MTC wanted to appeal the orders by the inspector. The ministry does not want to provide safety jackets for people working around excessive quantities of water in which they may drown. That is what they are going to appeal. Can members imagine it? An agency of the crown is going to do this. If they get away with it, what will the public say?

It is complex, the minister says. It is anything but complex; it is simple. The ministry violated the act. We do not apply the Highway Traffic Act that way in Ontario. If people get caught half snooted up, going down the street in Toronto, they are put in the can. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, on the other hand, 80,000 orders were issued last year and virtually no one was prosecuted. I will come back to the figures.

I remember my friends across the way being irritated when their task force on health had a civil servant follow the members around for days on end. When I went out to start this task force, that is what the Ministry of Labour did to me. I did not mind. I said to the minister, "1 do not mind, as long as you first do not go back and try to clean up those plants but forget the real problems." That is what the former Minister of Labour, Ramsay, did. When I toured last time, the Ministry of Labour did not deal with the problems of the act. They cleaned up the plants where people came forward and did not touch the act.

When we had been out on the road for only four days, OPSEU, which represents the inspectors, made a presentation to us. What really irritated me is that the inspectors were given a letter from 400 University Avenue telling them not to speak to me under any circumstances. That is what they were told. I have a copy of the letter. That is unconscionable. The minister himself sends someone around from his ministry, and then somebody on his staff sends a letter out to the inspectors, saying, "Don't you dare talk to Martel."

They did talk to me; they did it late at night. That is how I come to know what the inspectors, in that department at least, think of the Ministry of Labour at 400 University Avenue. They call 400 University Avenue the swamp. Everything gets fed in and nothing comes out. It is like Okefenokee. I say to my friend the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) it just sinks in a quagmire or quicksand and stays there. It never comes out; it gets lost. That is the first thing we heard about from the inspectors.

10:10 a.m.

I have been trying to point out that what is going on out there is ridiculous. Companies still have advance notice of when things are going to occur. Both the workers and the inspectors said to us that when an inspection is going to occur, it is strange how many bosses are running around with an armful of masks, hearing plugs and glasses. How does a company know when to put them out on a given day? It is obvious. There has been a tipoff. "Somebody is coming. Clean up the place." It still goes on. My friend Russell Ramsay-Wrye says, "No." However, his inspectors and the workers in at least 200 plants tell me it does.

The new rules say the union has to be notified too. I said to the workers, "Under these new instructions, who has been told?" There has not been one yet. I know the minister has put out the instructions. However, there is a carryover from the past regime. The old regime said, "We will not prosecute." That is still in place in the new ministry.

I learned another interesting thing. One of the inspectors came to see us late at night. He said: "I can recall recently suggesting that this company be prosecuted. The company did not talk to me. They picked up the telephone and phoned 400 University Avenue. Somebody at the top" -- I know who it is, but I will not name him; I will save that for another day -- "picked up the telephone, phoned the district office," where I was speaking to the inspector, "and said, `Look, drop that nonsense about the charges; go out there and mediate this situation.'" That is what is going on.

I do not know another act where we mediate 80,000 violations. It is certainly not the Highway Traffic Act. However, we mediate the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We are chicken in this society. We think workers are expendable and that they can be killed and maimed. Last year our accident rate went up by 40,000. We now have 420,000 or 440,000 compensable accidents a year. I remember last fall, sitting in here when we introduced the stuff on the Highway Traffic Act and getting tougher on violations by drunken drivers. I agreed with it and I believe in it. It was put in effect. There were 80,000 injuries on the highway last year. With 440,000 accidents in the work place, we want to mediate the act.

I would like to know why there is the double standard. Why can people get slaughtered in the work place, but we are going to get tough about the highways? I do not think I am asking for something unfair in asking that workers be protected. I think they have that right. I said that the wrong way. I think they have to have the right and the authority to protect themselves. Bill 70 does not give them a jot of protection. They are merely consultants in a game of chess. I will come to it in a moment. They have no power and no authority; they cannot even protect themselves.

Let me say what else the inspector said to me. There are cyclical inspections. I tried to get this across the other day, but it is very difficult in question period or in a 30-second statement. Cyclical inspections occur every 12, 18 or 36 months at certain companies, depending on whether they are good, bad or moderate actors. That is gone. They have now put them under a code 99, whatever that means. In plain layman's language, it means those companies that come under code 99 will no longer be inspected.

The 18-month and 36-month inspections have gone, and that is by order. Verbally, the 12-month inspection has gone. Then there is another little part of the regulation that says there are routine inspections. Routine inspections are to make sure that the internal responsibility system works and that the regulations are being followed. If that is what it is, what are the cyclical inspections? Cyclical inspections are the routine inspections, and the routine inspections have been eliminated. The only time there is going to be an inspection is when there is a fatality, a serious injury or a work stoppage.

My friends to my right destroyed the act. In 1981, there were 235 or 245 inspectors, and they allowed the number to drop to 205. The Liberals are going to build it back to within 11 of what it used to be. Here we are, seven years after the act came in, and we have finished up by hiring 11 fewer inspectors than we had in 1981. We are really committed to protecting the workers of Ontario when there are more than 200,000 work places and just 235 or 245 inspectors.

At the same time, members heard me make a comparison between the number of accidents on the highway and the number of industrial accidents and diseases. There were 80,000 accidents or injuries on the highways last year and 440,000 in the work place. We have 15,000 or 20,000 policemen in the province and we have 225 or 235 inspectors in the work place. It does not make much sense, does it?

The government allows mayhem in the work place because workers are expendable. On the highway and in the municipalities, we have 15,000 to 20,000 police to protect the citizens and we have 235 inspectors to protect people in the work place. There is something sick about what we do to the working class.

Let me tell members how the act works. I am going to tell them about the internal responsibility system, and this is the crux. That is not in the act, by the way. The Tories never thought to put it in the act, so it is not in there. It works under what is called the internal responsibility system, except that it is not in there.

The theory is that labour appoints so many workers to the health and safety committee and management appoints so many. Together they go around and tour the plant and decide what has to be changed. That is wonderful. They make a decision as a committee and then it goes to upper management to decide whether it is going to implement the change. If upper management says, "No, we are not going to implement the change," nothing happens. That is the end for the workers.

There is one little section I will come to later on, but that is where a worker puts his neck and his job on the line and gets fired. The Ministry of Labour has yet to prosecute one person for firing someone under section 24 of the act. That is the theory of internal responsibility, but it is not in the act, not explained and not written down.

If a problem arises in the plant, it is difficult even to deal with the problem because who is going to inspect? If it is not a serious accident, the union representatives are not called in. If a worker loses half his hand, that is not critical; so the union representatives do not inspect. They are not called in, nor are they allowed. If a worker loses half his foot, that is not critical enough either. Can you imagine a worker losing half a foot, but the worker representatives on the health and safety committee cannot investigate to develop policy that will prevent it from happening again?

If the representatives take a chance and go there, the workers are fired, suspended, demoted or not allowed to work overtime. Every type of intimidation possible goes on in the work place. That is the second problem with the internal responsibility system.

10:20 a.m.

The first problem is that if upper management chooses not to make the change, it is not made and the workers have no power to force the change. The second problem is that if there is a serious accident, and accidents are supposed to be reported, if it is not critical, the representatives are not called in. The definition in the act is "critical." What is critical? Does the worker have to lose a certain amount of blood? I do not know how they measure the quantity of blood the worker has to lose before the representatives are allowed to come to investigate the work.

What else happens on this internal responsibility system? Management decides it is going to have the minutes typed up. Management is constantly changing the discussion of what went on at a meeting and what the minutes are. There are great battles about whether the minutes reflect what was discussed at the health and safety meeting or what management wants in them.

The interesting thing about the inspectors is, as long as an item stays on the monthly report, the Ministry of Labour does not get involved. An item about ventilation can appear for 18 months, 20 months or 24 months. As long as it appears in the minutes of the meeting, even as an unresolved problem, the workers continue to work in conditions that cry out for a new ventilation system. When I was out for five weeks, I said to the workers: "Take the item off. The Ministry of Labour inspectors are using you. Take it off and tell them it is an unresolvable issue and the Ministry of Labour staff is going to have to deal with it. As long as it stays, they are not going to."

What else happens in the internal responsibility system? As I said, some of the workers are to be chosen by management and some by labour. We have a company we recently turned in to the Ministry of Labour. The father owns the company and is head of the occupational health and safety committee for management. The worker representative is his son. I do not know who chose his son, but it is not a violation of the act.

I can tell the Minister of Labour, as I used to tell Russell Ramsay, there are literally thousands of violations that can be put before the Ministry of Labour, but the ministry will not issue an order that leads to a court trial, except where the worker is at fault. The ministry is so fair that it always intrigues me. Somewhere in this mess I have before me is a list. It does not matter. I will tell the members what happens.

If an inspector walks on to a construction site and a worker is not wearing his safety glasses, he is fined on the spot. The amount of the fine is already determined at $58. If he is not wearing his hard hat or his safety boots, he is also fined on the spot. He is given a ticket, which leads to a conviction. Management had 80,000 orders against it last year. In the industrial branch alone, there were 50,000 orders, 10 per cent reissued and 50 fines on convictions. On the other hand, workers are fined right on the spot, and it was the government that started the process.

Mr. Warner: The Tories did it for years.

Mr. Martel: For seven years. There were on-the-spot fines to workers compared with 50,000 orders, 10 per cent of which had to be reissued, which meant a second violation, and 50 convictions; so one tenth of one per cent might be convicted. Now the minister is telling me some company is going to be worried. It is cheaper for companies to ignore the Occupational Health and Safety Act than to enforce it.

Mr. Shymko: And the Liberals are doing nothing about it.

Mr. Martel: The Tories did not do anything for seven years.

Mr. Shymko: The New Democrats are propping them up and they are not doing anything about it.

Mr. Martel: There is going to be a change in the act.

Mr. Warner: The Tories never cared a jot about workers' safety.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: So my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) can get it straight, yesterday the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) did his little rant about occupational health. He used to be in the Ministry of Labour. He was a parliamentary assistant at one time. He was in there and did not do a thing. In his speech in February in committee, and it can be checked in Hansard, he said the Ministry of Labour was being too tough on companies. He cannot have it both ways. That is not three months ago. That is how those people have been committed to health and safety. We are trying to get the minister to clean out some of the -- I am not sure of the appropriate word -- junk that is down at 400 University Ave.

Mr. Andrewes: Swamp.

Mr. Martel: Swamp.

There is the internal responsibility system. Management, by the construction safety regulations, is supposed to present to the health and safety committee within four days a report of every accident. This does not happen. That is a violation of the act. I ask why, when there is violation after violation, the minister takes the position of "Well, that is fine; you can break the regulations."

If the ministry does not convict them, if it does not charge them, what is the purpose of having regulations? If the regulations say the company has to give to the health and safety committee the accident report, within four days of an accident, why does the ministry not enforce that part of the regulations? I cannot understand it. Maybe I am obtuse.

Mr. Shymko: Fire the officials.

Mr. Martel: Some should go. I am convinced that until we do a housecleaning down there, nothing is going to happen. They have to go.

I said to the representatives of the health and safety committee, "How do you feel trying to protect your fellow workers?" They said, "It is worse than any job we have ever had because of the intimidation." I am going to give a list in a few minutes of how workers are treated and fired and the fact that Ministry of Labour in seven and a half years has never once laid a charge for intimidation and so on against a company, even though it has written examples. Not one.

Let me give members the first example of a violation, which is from Canadian General Electric in Peterborough. If members recall, I said the internal responsibility system indicates there will be equal numbers of representatives from labour and from management on the health and safety committee. That is the intent. It is not written in the act, but it is there.

CGE has six people on its health and safety committee, three from labour and three from management. There are 2,700 employees in that plant, and the committee gets part of a day a month to do an audit. The plant is one city block in size.

The union has said for years: "Look, we do not have enough time to investigate. There just are not enough hours in the short time we have before us." The company resolved its problem. It appointed a bunch of hacks and flacks of its choosing and made some new committees, but not in keeping with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Not at all. These are people they wine and dine and for whom they buy theatre tickets.

For four and a half years, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America have been trying to get the Minister of Labour to stop that. For four years -- does the member for High Park-Swansea hear that?

Mr. Shymko: Yes.

Mr. Martel: For four years, they have said: "Look, this is not the intent of the act. You cannot appoint a bunch of hack guys." The company has appointed them. The union appoints its representation and the company appoints its. In this case, the company has appointed between 120 and 150 people to serve on subcommittees. The company appointed them. They run counter totally to the main health and safety committee under the regulations. For four and a half years, the union has been trying to get that stopped because that is not the intent of the act. They do not give the health and safety committee more than half a day a month to visit a plant that has 2,700 employees. They let them appoint their own committee as management, 120 to 150 people to work on the floor, most of whom are wined and dined, given tickets to the theatre and bought dinner.

10:30 a.m.

I say to the Minister of Labour I received the letters and I remember bringing this stuff into the House question by question. However, four and a half years later, Mr. Melinyshyn is saying, "It does not contravene the act because it is not in the act." We know what the intent of the act was. The Ministry of Labour knows what the intent of the act was, but the intent of this company is to bypass the appropriate health and safety committee. In four and a half years, the union has not got 400 University Ave. to move on it.

It goes on day after day. There is this great internal responsibility system that does not work anywhere. Interestingly, one of the best briefs we had presented to us during the tour was by Inco. People have heard me malign Inco on occasion over the years, but in 1975, Inco, with its union, decided it had to do something about its health and safety program. Injuries were rampant: 13.8 for every 100 employees. They signed an agreement with the union. In fact, in the last contract, they have 13 paid health and safety inspectors from the union who do nothing but go around.

They are now down to 2.8 accidents per 100. It works. They have doubled production per man in that time and reduced their accident rate by 500 per cent. It can be done, except that most of the companies are not interested in doing it.

Mr. Warner: One has to believe it; neither is the government.

Mr. Martel: My friend is right; neither is the government. It does not matter which government.

I do not want to disillusion my friend the member for High Park-Swansea. I want to tell him the figures up to March 31, 1984. His party was still in power then. I have the figures with me.

Mr. Shymko: I was just a back-bencher.

Mr. Martel: It is always easy to say, "I was just a back-bencher," or, "It is just Russell Ramsay-Wrye."

These figures are from my friend in the industrial health and safety branch. In 1983-84, there were 48,000 orders issued, 4,800 reissued and 67 convictions.

Mr. Shymko: Where did you get those figures?

Mr. Martel: I have them. There were 48,881 orders issued and 4,876 repeated, and every order is a violation of the act. There were 88 cases prosecuted and there were 67 convictions.

Mr. Warner: Those are the known violations.

Mr. Martel: Yes. These are only the known violations.

In Ontario, of all the companies with unions, only 63 per cent have health and safety committees. In other registered companies without unions, and that is the vast majority, only 32 per cent have health and safety committees.

The act says the act will be posted and there will be a health and safety committee in every work place with 20 workers or more. Why is there not a conviction every time an inspector walks into a plant where there is not a health and safety committee? Why is there not a conviction every time he walks in and the act is not posted, as it is supposed to be under the act itself, so that the workers can read it in a language with which they are familiar?

I am not talking about that type of order. Where the workers are unorganized, fewer than one third of the plants in Ontario have a health and safety committee seven years after the act came into existence. Does the minister not think something has to be done about that? I say to my friend the member for High Park-Swansea that was 1983-84. That was one year of Toryism. My golly, the Tories were still in power until March 1985. There were 50,643 orders, 5,418 repeats, 91 prosecutions and 50 convictions. Are we not making progress? We are going down.

Mr. Pierce: I can tell by the smile on his face the member is happy.

Mr. Martel: Yes. We are really protecting the working class of the province.

Mr. Shymko: It will keep going down as long as the Liberals are in.

Mr. Martel: We had 50 with the Tories. We could not get much lower.

Mr. Shymko: We will see the figures next year.

Mr. Martel: I ask my friend how it would be possible --

Mr. Shymko: Does the member think there will be a change?

Mr. Martel: I have given the member the figures for the last two years the Tories were in power. In the industrial sector, they got 67 convictions in 1983-84, and that was reduced to 50 convictions in 1984-85, which is one tenth of one per cent.

Mr. Pierce: The member just told us things were getting better.

Mr. Shymko: That is right.

Mr. Martel: I did not say that. I said we ought to houseclean down there. That is why I called it the swamp, as the inspectors did. Imagine one tenth of one per cent who might be convicted for violating an act.

Mr. Shymko: Unacceptable.

Mr. Martel: I heard the crap my friend threw at me yesterday. The Minister of Labour said it was a complex issue. If the government is not going to lay charges in the case of fatalities, what is it going to lay charges for? That is so serious that someone loses his life. That is in the industrial sector. Things are the same if one wants to check with the mining sector. It is not very good too. The number of orders issued in 1983-84 was 5,000. Let me see if I can find the number of convictions. I cannot find them. Maybe they do not even issue them.

We hear a lot of stuff about capital punishment in the event that policemen get killed. Do members know how many miners in Ontario were killed in 1984-85? There were 15 miners killed. That is a much higher figure than that for policemen right across Canada. I happen to represent a mining community, and there were four killed in one shot last year or the year before. I do not hear anybody saying, "Let us get serious."

There was a conviction in the death of a miner in Windsor recently. Do you know what the fine was, Mr. Speaker? It was $5,000. Life is pretty cheap if one is a miner. Life is pretty cheap if one is a working person in this province. Do members know what happened in that instance? Somebody changed the logbook. Somebody entered in the log that there was a piece of loose that would require a piece of equipment to be used to remove it, and somebody changed the logbook.

The miner went in without the equipment, and the loose fell on him. He was using a bar to try to scale, as my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) will know. It fell on him and crushed him. For changing a logbook in a case which led to a fatality, the fine was $5,000. Life is cheap. There were 15 miners killed last year and nine the year before. That is far greater than any number of policemen ever killed.

Mr. Warner: Nobody goes to jail.

Mr. Martel: People do not go to jail. They do not even pay fines or go to court.

A young miner in Elliot Lake, about whom I have been raising Cain, four times in August warned that the gate underground did not work properly. He was killed by that gate in September. He was 33 years old. It took from September of last year till yesterday to find out they might prosecute.

10:40 a.m.

I wonder where governments have been in protecting working people from what are more than accidents, from what are crimes against humanity. Workers get injured in such ways, and no one gets anything back for what has been done to working people.

I want to talk not just in terms of accidents, but also in terms of industrial diseases. In Elliot Lake, 275 underground miners have now died of cancer. Half of the widows get pensions and the other half get nothing. I have never been able to figure out the difference.

I remember when this bill came into existence as a result of the action of the United Steelworkers in Elliot Lake. My friend Stephen Lewis, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), Linda Jolley and I spent all kinds of time in Elliot Lake. I remember going after the government then. The then Minister of Natural Resources, who now sits on the front benches of what used to be a government, used to say to me: "You exaggerate, my friend. You take it out of context, my friend."

Now 275 underground miners are dead. Miners now are dying of cancer at Elliot Lake at a rate of three a month. We have known the effects of radon daughters since 1919. I say to my friend the member for High Park-Swansea that the Department of Mines in 1961 said in its own annual report that we had to be aware of the hazards that would occur to miners working in uranium. It took a wildcat strike in 1974 to bring about this bill. We have stood still ever since the bill came about because we do not have the guts to enforce the act.

I have been talking on this topic for many years. In fact, the first question I raised at Queen's Park was on behalf of the people working in the coal plant in Sudbury. I was told by the then Minister of Mines, the white knight, Lawrence of Ontario, Allan himself, about trying to get inspections without advance notice. It is still rampant today. All working people ask is that when there is an inspection, it will be the conditions under which they work that are observed, and that is not happening.

Let me go on with this little tour I did. The workers now realize there are two ways the act can work. The first way is the internal responsibility system, and Inco and most big companies will say that unless upper management wants it to work it cannot work. It is not the health and safety committee that makes the determination; it only points out the problems. It is upper management that decides to change it. If it says no, then nothing can be done.

The second way is called enforcement. I put forward the figures for two years in one sector alone, and there is no enforcement. Actually, there is a third way. It is section 23 of the act on the right to refuse to work. Section 24, which follows it, says that if you refuse to work and a company threatens, harasses, attempts to intimidate you and so on, that is a violation of the act. There is yet to be a charge in Ontario for a company that does this.

We picked up a case, and I will document it more fully later on, of a young woman who refused to work in a store where for five days the heat was 52 degrees. The management fired her. It put right on the slip, "Dismissed because she refused to work." It is pretty clear that if the Ministry of Labour wanted to lay a charge, it would not have to look very far to find out there was intimidation or reprisal. The company wrote it out for the ministry, which will not lay a charge. The ministry will not do a thing. This is under the tenure of the current Minister of Labour; this is not even under the Tories.

Mr. Mancini: Oh, come on, Elie, you know it is not that bad.

Mr. Martel: I say to the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) that I am sorry, but that is the reality. These guys are no better; they are worse. They are the ones who created the monster.

The Ministry of Labour takes the position that a worker can go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and have a hearing to go to arbitration. That is not quite true. If one does not have a union, one cannot have arbitration; so that eliminates two thirds of the work force in Ontario that cannot go to arbitration. That is compliments of the Tories. The Liberals have not changed it yet, but the change is coming in the act. I am hopeful it will change.

They can go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. A friend of mine handled this case for the young woman for nothing. He got her a settlement. However, she does not have a job, the company was not fined and was not prosecuted. Does anybody worry about the Ministry of Labour? It is a joke.

Mr. Warner: They do not have to take her back.

Mr. Martel: The company does not take her back. She is out. It is in writing.

This is a case I raised earlier this spring. I do not want to give any of my new cases away. I will tell members how stupid this ministry really is. Five years ago orders were issued to the Robert Hunt Corp. , which makes windows and doors in London, that it had to change from using fork lifts that exhaust carbon monoxide to electrical ones, so people would not get sick. Five years later that has not changed.

Mr. Shymko: Is that in the riding of the Premier (Mr. Peterson)?

Mr. Martel: No, I do not think so. I think it used to be in Gordon Walker's, but it does not matter. The point is, nothing has happened.

Let me tell this true story. One worker, Frank Stilson, has taken on this company by himself. He has been suspended twice -- once for five days and once for three days. He has been taken out of the plant and sent to another plant. He has been intimidated. He gets no more overtime. If that is not bad enough, five years later the company has the same equipment exhausting carbon monoxide. The company came in recently, in March, and painted the floor.

It is interesting that the Ministry of Labour approved plans for a warehouse for this building, which is supposed to be a factory. A warehouse does not have exhaust systems in it and it does not have ventilation. The company gave plans for a warehouse, which turns out to be a factory, and the ministry does not do a thing. It does not have proper ventilation; so it paints the floor. It has to do some stuff on the floor; so a construction company comes in, does it and provides its workers with masks, breathing apparatus and the whole business. Their workers get up, leave, go home and are all healthy and safe. The next day, in come the workers for Robert Hunt. The first day 39 were taken to hospital; so they call in the Ministry of Labour. It sends in some of its flunkeys from London.

Mr. Mancini: Is that what you call civil servants?

Mr. Martel: That is what I call these guys. I will call them worse before I am done, my friends. Flunkeys.

Mr. Shymko: They are all flunkeys from London. That is right.

Mr. Warner: They are useless, Remo.

Mr. Martel: They send in this flunkey -- an inspector. I will tell his name -- Sullivan -- so the member will know whom I mean. Listen to the rest.

Mr. Mancini: I have listened to everything you have said.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Martel: This guy sniffed around and said: "Oh, it is safe. The workers can go back in now." In they go, and what happens next? They take 14 more to the hospital. The guy should be fired for sending in workers without doing any testing. That man should be gone, fired, dismissed, got rid of.

This happened in March. Let me add to it; it gets better. A couple of days later, six more go to the hospital because of monoxide fumes from the hoist, which the company had been ordered five years ago to get rid of. The Ministry of Labour goes in and issues 23 more orders. For five years the ministry has been issuing orders, and they do nothing. Frank Stilson used his right under the act to refuse because he had enough courage. He is a young man.

I will tell my friend the member for Essex South another interesting story. I met with the Minister of Labour one night right here privately in my office. There was a guy working for Imperial Oil.

An hon. member: Russell Ramsay?

Mr. Martel: Russell Ramsay-Wrye. I met with him. There was a young worker for Imperial Oil who had a couple of citations for doing a good job in occupational health. This was nonunionized labour. He knew he was on his way out because he had found some asbestos in a laboratory. He kept pestering the company about the asbestos, which was in chunks all over the lab at Imperial Oil in Sarnia.

I said to the minister, "My friend, I would like you to send an inspector in there unannounced." The company was on a two-year cyclical inspection. By the way, cyclical inspections are gone now; they do not exist. I said, "Why do you not go in, have the guy check around and see whether this man is right? If he is, I think the company is going to fire him."

Down goes the inspector. He talks to management for an hour. He then gets on the intercom and calls my friend to his office. The last thing I said to the minister was, "You cannot let them know you are going in there to do an inspection to see whether this guy is right." They take the guy around, they write out a bunch of orders about asbestos and the kid is fired. What a ministry. What a bunch of hooligans we have in that ministry.

Mr. Shymko: Does the Minister of Labour not consult the member at any time?

Mr. Martel: No, and neither did Russell Ramsay or Bob Elgie -- none of them.

We are going to change the act. I have gone on long enough. I am just starting on this. Let me give members some quick examples of what is going on. It does not matter where. This act is being violated and it is totally useless. I am giving the minister notice of what we intend to bring up.

Regarding nursing homes, the former government pulled down all of those institutions where people who had mental illnesses were. We do not have any homes in the province for them. We do not have aftercare. Do members know where these people are? In nursing homes. Do members know what they are doing? Pounding the living daylights out of the female staff in nursing homes. It is a fact. I have the statistics on the assaults on staff. It is rampant.

By the way, because of cutbacks by government in hospitals and so on, nurses now equal miners for back injuries. I tell the member for High Park-Swansea that did not happen only yesterday. That took a long time and a lot of cutting back. These women weigh 115 pounds. They try to lift somebody weighing 200 pounds by themselves and suffer back injuries equivalent to those of miners. Assaults are rampant.

I will tell an interesting little story about hospitals. There is a hospital in Ottawa, but I will not name it yet; I will later on. When doctors operate on someone, there are these bad parts that have to be taken to an incinerator. They used to take them away to the Department of National Defence. Is that not what they said? Does the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) know? They took it to the National Defence incinerator. When they came back they had the back of the Volkswagen full of pizza. Happy days are here again.

Mr. Warner: Oh, Jesus.

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes, it was full of pizza.

Mr. Shymko: Is the member serious?

Mr. Martel: Yes, I am dead serious.

Ms. Gigantes: It is true. I was with it.

Mr. Martel: My colleague was with it. They were bringing the pizza in the back where they had just carried all the infected organs to the incinerator. What does one say?

I got the Minister of Labour to send five of his people into a hospital in September about asbestos. They are going to reconstruct it. Five people from Toronto went to Ottawa. They got in on the inspection and they were going to do all these wonderful things. Four weeks ago the hospital decided that before it does the reconstruction, it is going to change its phone network from Ma Bell --

Ms. Gigantes: To Mitel at the end of February.

Mr. Martel: -- to Mitel at the end of February. Patients were in their beds. Visitors were there. People from Mitel were drilling holes through the walls. The asbestos fell into rooms, around the patients. They sent for the Ministry of Labour inspector. He came in and said, "With all the construction, I cannot write an order." For three days this went on with the patients right in their beds, the visitors and staff there and these clowns drilling holes with asbestos floating around and being ingested or inhaled by patients.

Ms. Gigantes: They brought in a vacuum cleaner, remember?

Mr. Martel: Yes. The Ministry of Labour inspector said: "I cannot write an order. This new regulation on asbestos does not become effective until the middle of March." All he had to do was take clause 14(2)(d) of the act to take any precaution necessary if he thought there was a problem. It did not have to pertain to the asbestos regulation. He could have protected people.

It was interesting. The member for Ottawa Centre and I were there. We were at the Public Service Alliance of Canada building. I will tell the members how crazy the ministry is. This humungous crane came in right next to the building. It started lifting all kinds of things right over the entrance with no protective barriers, nothing. One of the workers picked up the phone, phoned the Ministry of Labour and said, "You know, Martel is in that building right now."

Mr. Warner: That is probably why they went in.

Mr. Martel: Yes. The member should have seen the fur fly. They were down there in 10 minutes. An order was issued and the job was stopped. By mid-afternoon all the barriers were up. I was there. That goes on across this province constantly everywhere. People walk in and out of buildings and bloody cranes are operating overhead with no protective barriers. The act is totally useless.

I came away from the hearings after five weeks, exhausted and literally emotionally drained because the act, the way it is written today, is a pretty good act. We could amend it, put in the internal responsibility system and give the workers power to protect themselves.

Mr. Shymko: That is the constitution; it is all good on paper.

Mr. Martel: It has been so totally wasted for the past seven years that management knows it does not even have to look at the act. I can go on and I will. Last year civil servants in the Ministry of Correctional Services had 1,600 accidents. There is no protection in offices, mines, libraries, universities or schools.

Does the member for Essex South know what they did in Windsor in a school? Formaldehyde is carcinogenic, and when the students are in biology, playing around with the rats and the frogs and so on, they are supposed to be given protective gloves that cost 19 cents a pair. They had the kids in a high school cutting these frogs with formaldehyde without protective equipment. It is everywhere.

11 a.m.

For years I have been trying to get a minister to give people the power to protect themselves. We have that on one side; on the other side, we have the Industrial Accident Prevention Association.

I know I am running late, but I want to finish up on this. What a magnificent group is the Industrial Accident Prevention Association of Ontario. It had a three-day convention in Toronto a couple of weeks ago that cost $365,000. That is not bad. There were 8,000 people there.

We have all heard it. Every last Tory and Liberal has heard industry complaining before the Workers' Compensation Board about the assessment rates and the unfunded liability of $5.6 billion. Every company in Ontario belongs to one of the groups in the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. They received $31.5 million last year from the Workers' Compensation Board to teach health and safety in the work place in the province. That was for nine associations, and every operating company belongs to one of the nine.

Who is fighting the act? Who is preventing it from being useful? Who intimidates, fires and dismisses? Who does not bring in adequate testing of toxic substances? Who covers up constantly? Companies. Yet they got $31.5 million.

It is interesting that there has never been an audit of an accident prevention association. They get carte blanche from the Workers' Compensation Board. They argue it is their money. However, Weiler and other noted people say it is public money. The associations do not do a thing. They are totally useless.

It is the same companies that want it both ways. They want the assessment from the Workers' Compensation Board cut and, on the other hand, they are the ones that are violating Bill 7.

Ms. Gigantes: They have done some nice ads.

Mr. Martel: Yes, they have done some ads, pardon me. They have done some beautiful ads. There is that dumb worker. Have members ever seen an ad put on by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario? It is always the stupid worker out there; he does stupid things and gets hurt. It is never that management sends him into it.

My friends and I were talking about the minister from northern Ontario. We heard some wonderful things about some of the pulp and paper plants in Hearst and Kapuskasing. One plant spends $15 a year for health and safety equipment. A worker gets one set of ear plugs. If he loses them, he has lost them for life. By the way, the pulp and paper industry has one of the highest incidence of noise levels.

The forest industry has the highest accident rate -- almost all the people in it -- and it fights health and safety like mad. Some of the government's friends in Timmins, some of those great little companies, spend $15 a year --

Mr. Shymko: Do they get charged for not wearing those hearing aids?

Mr. Martel: Yes, the workers get charged. If they get caught by the Ministry of Labour without hearing plugs, they get charged on the spot.

Mr. Shymko: What is the charge, $15?

Mr. Martel: It is $58, not $15.

Industry cannot have it both ways. It cannot be opposed to health and safety and be running to government saying: "You have to cut the assessment at the Workers' Compensation Board. We are going out of business. It is too costly." If industry wants to change it, there is one way. If it wants to reduce the assessment, it can improve its health and safety record. That is the only way. Yet these companies, which are represented by safety associations that get the $31.5 million, fight it more than anyone else I know. They do not want health and safety.

Mr. Shymko: They do it with public funds.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

What does labour get? Labour got $420,000. This year it is getting $1.7 million. Labour represents 4.5 million workers. The accident prevention associations are getting $31.5 million.

Not only must we provide the money for labour to teach its members how to protect themselves, but also we have to establish worker-controlled clinics so we can hire doctors and hygienists to do the investigation to determine whether workers become sick from the work place to which they are exposed.

Mr. Shymko: Such as the one in Hamilton.

Mr. Martel: The ones that do not get any government funding, such as the one in Windsor, the one in London or the lakeshore area multiservices project. None of them gets a cent, but we give $31.5 million to industry. They hire all the doctors and lawyers possible to prove one does not get cancer from working with uranium.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Who pays that?

Mr. Martel: That is public money. I know who puts the money into the Workers' Compensation Board, but I also know Weiler and two royal commissions said it is public money once it is put into the board. Why do we not share it? Why do we not give $31 million to the Ontario Federation of Labour to establish worker clinics around this province, with doctors and hygienists?

Mr. Shymko: Even $15 million.

Mr. Martel: Why do we not split the $31 million in half and give half to industry and half to labour? I would go for that. We can hire people to balance it out.

Mr. Shymko: Elie, it takes a change in government.

Mr. Martel: We have one. I hope it will.

I want to quit on this last point about clinics. The thing I saw the most when I was out there was the concern people had in working with substances they did not know they were working with, such as carcinogenic substances. When we were in St. Catharines, we visited one company that provided data sheets. Interestingly enough, it had just changed them when I got there. The original data sheets gave the formula, the chemical composition, the hazardous effects that it causes tumours in rats -- and the protection. The company brought in a new data sheet with the warning about cancer in rats removed. It was a good data sheet, was it not?

Talking about the Ministry of Labour, I have one case right now from McDonnell Douglas regarding a substance with a threshold limit value of 350 parts per million. When the workers refused to work there, the substance was tested and it was 6,072 parts per million. I got the answer on my desk just yesterday. The company provided masks that were good for TLVs of 500 parts per million. Yet the limits reached were 6,072 parts per million.

When the workers refused to work there, it was not handled in the proper way. The minister admits that. There is a violation for inappropriate handling of a work refusal. The company was providing masks that were not adequate to protect against levels of 13, 14 and 20 times higher. They were adequate for levels of 350 parts per million, but the levels reached 6,072 parts per million. Do members know how many charges were laid? Not one. In fact, it was a doctor from the Ministry of Labour who said it was safe to go back in there.

Workers are afraid of the things that cause cancer, and there are 300 carcinogens. Company after company says it cannot provide the data sheets.

Mr. Shymko: Goodyear is another one, the rubber industry.

Mr. Martel: Yes, Goodyear. We are going to bring them all out as we go along.

The information is there. If workers cannot get it through the company they work for, there should be a place where they can get it. As I said, if they had independently funded clinics that could hire hygienists, adequate staff and specialists to be advocates for their health, we would be doing something positive in Ontario.

11:10 a.m.

I have been in this business a long time -- 19 years -- and I get frustrated. Although one talks to ministers and governments, it seems they are more interested in protecting industry than in protecting the health and safety of working people. Some day I hope we will have a government that will have enough courage to do only three things. One is to establish health and safety committees made up of labour and management that will run a health and safety plan and will say: "It does not matter who is in power. It does not matter who the civil servants are, we are going to run it." Second, I hope we will have a government that has enough courage to say, "We are going to give power to the health and safety committee in the work place."

I know it is radical to give power to workers and to say, "You have to make the change or the place does not operate." Industry will go mad. When the funding does not flow in, people will say we cannot do that for all kinds of crazy reasons.

We heard them all at the beginning of the debate on Bill 70. Workers have never abused it. They have the right and the responsibility to protect their health and safety because they have families at home. Surely to God there is a government somewhere that has the courage to give working people the power and the funds necessary to hire the people to protect themselves from industrial disease and trauma. Before I leave this zoo, I hope I see the day when we will give working people that power.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments?

Mr. Mancini: I enjoyed the member's comments, as I always do. When I came in this morning, I was not too sure that the first thing I wanted to hear was the voice of the member for Sudbury East, but after a while things got in their normal groove and it was quite pleasant. Because of his long years of experience in the House, some 19 years, and because of the interest he has shown in mine workers and others, no one has ever denied that he is quite knowledgeable. Many of the incidental points he has brought forward here today and in the past to the members of the Legislature are correct and he has pointed out some flaws in the system.

With the new government and the new Minister of Labour, we have turned over a page in matters that involve labour and workers, particularly in the area of health and safety. As he demonstrated with the situation in Windsor, with the Valenite-Modco situation, the new minister has shown some courage that was not demonstrated in the past. He has stated quite clearly that he wants to be more aggressive in the area of safety in the work place. Time will prove that my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich will be an effective Minister of Labour and will protect workers from unsafe situations. I know even the Conservative Party members would not want to see any of their friends, relatives or people in their constituencies put in a situation where they might have to be in a work place that is unsafe. They never had the courage to do anything about it. The Minister of Labour does have that courage.

The member will probably not be running for re-election after this term. I hope we can find a suitable place for him where we can use his skills, perhaps in areas like health and safety.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other questions or comments? Does the member for Sudbury East wish to reply?

Mr. Martel: I will just say two things. If the minister was going to something at Valenite-Modco, he would have laid charges. He talked tough and did nothing. It was all in place, and that is what worries me.

Second, he has a bunch of people around him who apply the act. Over the years, they have taken the position that one does not prosecute, one mediates. I do not know another piece of legislation where one mediates. That is why I say he has to do a housecleaning job because that group has what one might call a mindset on mediating. As I toured, I talked to inspectors privately who told me that nothing has changed.

Mr. D. W. Smith: It is a pleasure for me to rise to take part in this throne speech debate in the second session of the 33rd Parliament. I want to state how it will affect the people of Ontario and, in many ways, the constituents of Lambton county.

I have enjoyed listening to the many speakers who have taken part in this debate, especially my colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), who so colourfully and graphically described his riding of Prince Edward-Lennox that I am sure he will have tourists travelling there all summer. He did an excellent job. However, now that we have the St. Clair River cleaned up, I am sure everyone will want to come to Lambton and enjoy the beautiful St. Clair River and Lake Huron as well.

This throne speech is endeavouring to make the people of Ontario aware that we are in an era of transition and that there will be changes in the way issues are dealt with to better serve the many sectors of society.

When deregulation was applied to some of our industries, this told us that the rules were changing from those we had been accustomed to and that the people affected in Ontario should prepare for some innovative ideas. We are a large province in area in a large country with a relatively small population, and we cannot always accomplish our objectives as efficiently as some other countries can. As we read in the market reports in the financial pages, programs that used to work in the marketplace are no longer responding as they did in the past. It is quite possible that deregulation is happening too quickly for the general economy to react and respond to it. We have to realize that new approaches will have to be taken for us to remain competitive with other importing countries that are flooding our markets with products made with new technology.

I want to take members back in history 50 years. It seems rather ironic that we are having to address some of the same issues today as members of the Legislature were addressing then. For instance, they were hoping the federal government would be able to provide unemployment insurance on a national scale to help the unemployed of that era. Today we are hearing from time to time of workers being laid off from a number of our plants in the Chemical Valley as well as elsewhere in the province. I am sure our government will be addressing this issue in the future.

Another interesting comment made in the throne speech of 1938 was on the capital expenditures for Ontario Hydro in 1937. They were $8,245,000 then, and now Ontario Hydro spends 40 per cent of that figure every day on the Darlington project.

Another issue under discussion at that time was the dollars being spent for health purposes. They had to ensure then, as we have to ensure today, that health care is affordable to all and accessible to all.

I bring these historical facts to the attention of this House and of the people of Ontario to show that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

I was pleased to see health care mentioned to a great degree in the throne speech. The government wants to see this province maintain a health care system that is the envy of the world, but it also recognizes that the system must be revamped and changed to meet the changes of an ageing population and the need for the independence of our senior citizens, wherever and whenever possible.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and his ministry for the assistance and support they have seen fit to provide in the hospitals and health care facilities in the riding of Lambton.

I also want to mention how important the tourist trade is to Ontario. I am pleased to see it addressed in the throne speech. We as the government of this province must endeavour to create programs, in conjunction with private enterprise, to entice American travellers to visit and enjoy our cities and countryside. We have come to grips with the environment and we have made people more aware of the need to clean up. It is with pleasure that we can invite everyone to the beautiful blue St. Clair River, Lake Huron and the many other tourist attractions within Lambton.

11:20 a.m.

I want to talk for a short while on the agricultural problems in Lambton county and in the whole of Ontario. I am pleased that agriculture and small business were brought into the throne speech in a positive way. The agricultural community is going through a tremendous period of adjustment, and I believe it reached this point for a number of reasons. We have come through the inflationary 1970s and are now in the deflationary 1980s.

In one way of adjustment for some, we can talk about small milk plants and cheese factories that were purchased by large companies and then closed down. This had a very negative effect on our small towns and businesses within the small communities. The farming community has gone through this transition period of extreme increases in import costs which are based on the Canadian economy. Now they are left with those high costs but are forced to sell on a world market.

There are no products grown, such as grains and vegetables, or stock raised that could not be produced more cheaply in another country. In order to maintain a stable economy within the province and the country, however, we must have a strong, viable agricultural community or we shall soon become slaves of some other country or regime that will provide us with food at whatever cost it decides we should pay. I believe this government will be responding to these concerns in the future.

To show how important agriculture is to everyone, I was told by a constituent that a survey was done in the town in which he lives showing that residents of the town itself spent only 18 cents of their wage dollars within the town. Those residing in the outlying community spent 35 to 40 cents of their wage dollars within the town. It is very important that the family farm and the agricultural community are helped through this difficult period in order to help improve all sectors of society.

Over the years, there have been many professional people who have worked with the agricultural programs and have understood the theories of farming very well. I believe, however, that the practical aspect of farming can be so different that this knowledge cannot be gained without that first-hand experience. We have to keep all people's opinions in perspective at all times.

I remember a number of years ago we were advised to specialize in our farming operations to enable us to become more efficient with our products. Specializing made the farm operation much more vulnerable to the cycles of the marketplace, however. At the same time, large companies were diversifying or generalizing and were much less vulnerable to the changes in the market.

It may sound as though I am opposed to large companies, which I am not, but they appear to have been able to handle their position very well over a great many years and decades. They seem to able to hire the smartest lawyers, accountants and executive officers, and we cover all their costs of production through their products, which are paid for by the consumers in the end. I believe agriculture must be given all its costs of production as well.

This government recognizes that there have to be changes made quickly. As I read through the throne speech, I could see the message was there. I hope the budget can address some of our problems more specifically.

I have heard the comment so many times from people who have never actually farmed and do not understand basic economics that farmers are just complaining again. I want to tell those people that if the agricultural community cannot buy a new tractor or truck or fertilizer, then the factory worker who helps to produce those items will not have a job or a very comfortable, secure living either. The farmer has to get all his costs of production, plus a profit, equal to the wage of the industrial and service sector workers, or our community will not thrive and possibly will not even survive as we understand it today.

I want to pass along a comment made to me by a person who worked in the Chemical Valley for some 37 years. During that time, he received a wage increase every year, and sometimes twice per year, and retired with a good pension. If the agricultural community had received the same treatment, we would not be faced with the social problems we have before us today. Each sector of society would be in balance one with the other. I mention this because in Lambton a great number of farmers have to work in these plants in the Chemical Valley to obtain enough income to keep going. If agriculture were given its cost of production, more jobs would be available for the people who live in the towns and cities.

To give another aspect or view of the farm problem, I want to tell this House that three pieces of equipment in 1974 that listed for $21,500 would list at four to five times that price today, while the prices of our commodities are either the same as they were in 1974 or possibly a little less for some farm products.

A great deal of new wealth is created in agriculture to make our capitalistic system work efficiently. During the past couple of years, I have been able to speak with members of the banking community, and they have implied that it is possibly easier dealing with a chief executive officer of a large company than with a number of small businessmen or businesswomen and family farmers. However, dealing with a large company such as Dome Petroleum has not been too profitable to the banks or the taxpayers of this country and province. It alarms me a bit when a company owing money to banks and possibly the government, which is the people, says it is not going to pay the principal or the interest on its debt for 14 months. If this is possible with one large company, the same conditions should apply to other sectors of society.

We have to start listening to the grass-roots people from all walks of life in this province. I am not sure whose voices inspired the previous administration. This throne speech has given us general guidelines for the next 14 years, taking us into the 21st century. I am pleased to help in some small way as part of this government party.

I want to close with a quote from William Bryan, in which he said in 1896, "Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up again as if by magic, but destroy our farms and the grass will grow on the streets of every city in the country."

Mr. Baetz: Along with thousands of other Ontarians, I was looking forward to the throne speech with great anticipation. I thought that surely we had a right to expect, after 42 years in preparation, a visionary and cohesive master plan, a carefully thought out blueprint that would guide the people of this province out of the 20th century and into the 21st.

Instead, we have witnessed an exercise in blowing bubbles in the air. The speech, like bubble-blowing, was not a repugnant exercise; indeed, it was rather pretty. It was full of very colourful words and phrases giving it all the colours and hues of a verbal rainbow. The problem is that as one tries to grab on to and examine the contents of these bravely and vaguely stated intents, they, like the bubbles, burst and vanish into thin air. Very simply, there is no substance in the speech to back up the claim that this is an "agenda for the next decade" offering "a framework for long-term achievement rather than a list of short-term promises."

11:30 a.m.

It would have been better to have given us a short list of specific projects and promises rather than this exercise in vague abstractions. It is unfortunate that the speech was so void of vision, because this government inherited a rich legacy from the previous administration. The solid base to launch the province to even greater social and economic heights is here to build on. The economy is strong. Our labour force is growing rapidly, as the speech itself has noted. Some 179,000 new jobs have been created in the last 12 months. Housing starts in the province rose to an annual rate of 78,000 in the fourth quarter of 1985, the highest rate in seven years.

The speech notes that the Ontario system of health care and social services ranks with the best in the world. I agree. What an excellent inheritance and basis on which to improve.

The economic activity has driven the unemployment rate down to 6.8 per cent, the lowest in Canada. All these activities were really generated and initiated before the present administration assumed power. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that the government, if one is to assess it by this throne speech, simply does not have the necessary vision to capitalize fully on the good fortune it has inherited.

I will confine my comments to the social policy field, where it is particularly and painfully evident that this government lacks the vision to assist to the fullest potential the people of Ontario to improve both their quality of life and their quantity of life.

If the throne speech generally must be severely criticized for being simply a hotchpotch and a mishmash of old programs and ideas, this is nowhere more evident than in the whole field of social policy. Here even more than elsewhere one cannot help but get the impression that the authors are some neophytes in this field who have suddenly discovered ideas, concepts, plans and programs that had been evident for decades.

For example, we need not be reminded that we are now entering and must be prepared for the post-industrial society. That is an observation and a realization that has been around for at least 20 years. Nor do we need to be told that we are in a period of transition, as we were told repeatedly throughout the speech. Surely that too is something as self-evident as to note that the future is imminent.

There is above all a very disconcerting overall impression that social policy is very much an adjunct to economic policy as far as this government is concerned. Social policies, social programs and social development all appear on the cost side, the expenditure side of the provincial balance sheet. Economic development, on the other hand, is the revenue-producing side. Therefore, it is argued that only to the extent that the economy produces wealth can the social programs, health, education and so on be financed.

This kind of truncated, bifurcated, double-vision approach to our society does not bode well for a government that wants to build a world-class society, to use the author's favourite phrase. This kind of thinking completely overlooks the fact that provincial expenditures in education, health and some of the other social programs are also important investments in our economy. The development of our human resources is every bit as important and, indeed, will be more important to our economy in future than the development of even our commodity resources.

This throne speech makes it abundantly clear that this kind of progressive, comprehensive view of society is simply not there. The approach to health care in the throne speech clearly manifests the philosophy of health care being a cost item rather than an investment. The speech admits that Ontario's system of health care and social services ranks with the best in the world. It has not said, of course, that it is thanks to the previous administration.

It thus goes on to announce a major study and review of health care, but prefaces it all with a stern warning about the escalating costs of the past decade of the system. There is not a word estimating the benefits to the economy of our time in having a healthy population.

This frothy, bubbly approach to social policy is all too evident in the proposed plan in education, with its stress on scientific disciplines. While there is no doubt that we are moving into an ever more scientific and technological society, surely the key to human happiness -- and that is, after all, the ultimate goal of all of this -- does not lie only in the development of the scientific mind. Indeed, an argument can be made that in this ever more technological society, if people are to retain their humanity, our educational system for those at a very young age should be evoking in the children intellectual interests that go far beyond running a computer. There is something very unsettling about a future, as expressed in the speech from the throne, that intends to further accentuate the scientific side of our educational curriculum in the elementary and secondary school systems.

Perhaps the most eloquent appeal for greater concentration on the humanities is reflected in the writing of the speech from the throne itself. The wordsmiths who wrote the speech and their political bosses who approved it may be skilful in the use of the computer, but they lack the necessary perception and understanding of our society. They should know better than anyone else the limitations of the adage re the computer: garbage in, garbage out.

The speech speaks in a somewhat prophetic, visionary manner about the creation of geriatric assessment units in selected community hospitals. It may come as something of a surprise to the authors to know that after a great deal of study and planning under the distinguished leadership of a visiting British geriatric specialist, a geriatric assessment unit was established in Ottawa one year ago, with financing made available by the provincial government of the day. This centre has been in operation for one year, based at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, and has been proven to be well planned and conceptually sound.

The one statement that is missing is about a mobile team that would do assessment of geriatric patients in their own homes. Unfortunately, this program has now been seriously thwarted and its outcome frustrated by the present provincial government because of inadequate funding. The care facilities that have been identified by an assessment team as the most appropriate for the patients are simply not there. One result is that far too many patients are still occupying acute beds in hospitals, even though an assessment of their needs indicates they should be in chronic care beds or in their own homes with proper home care.

In other words, because of the lack of adequate provincial funding, we have in Ottawa today the bitter irony of a growing backlog of geriatric patients, all of them assessed but with nowhere to go. Neither these geriatric patients nor those organizing and running the program require the further insights and rhetoric of yet another white paper on adequate geriatric care. What they require is an adequate degree of funding to implement the appropriate care that careful assessment indicates should be given.

The throne speech has a vague promise to establish a multidisciplinary department of geriatrics at one of Ontario's universities. That promise has puzzled many geriatric experts. The concentration of limited resources in one such super geriatric department at one university could very well be a misdirected waste. A far bigger bang for the buck could be obtained by enriching the teaching of geriatrics at all of the five Ontario medical schools.

Currently, geriatrics gets about only one per cent of the teaching curriculum. Family practitioners, especially, should receive extra training for their growing number of geriatric patients. The appeal for the establishment of "a world-class" -- to use the pet phrase of the author -- department of geriatrics at one university may be great for a government that is interested in show, but it is an idea that should be dismissed quickly if it results in taking limited funds from increased funding for geriatric teaching for family physicians.

11:40 a.m.

The speech promises to launch a thorough review of Ontario's social assistance system to determine ways more effectively to combat poverty. One cannot help but become sceptical, even cynical, at the proposal for such a major review. Poverty is a subject that has been virtually studied to death in Canada over the last two decades, beginning in 1971 with the comprehensive report, Poverty in Canada: Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty, which was headed by Senator Croll. Most recently, the National Council of Welfare issued its annual report entitled Poverty Profile, 1985. Virtually every community social planning council in Ontario, including that in Ottawa-Carleton, has produced reports on poverty.

The Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto has produced a number of valuable reports on the welfare system and its impact on poverty from coast to coast. The Canadian Council on Social Development has produced many reports over the years. One of the most recent ones was entitled Not Enough: The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty in Canada. The National Anti-Poverty Organization has produced a number of useful studies on various aspects of poverty. One could go on and on.

We are not lacking insights into and knowledge of the causes and effects of poverty in this province and in this country. What we are lacking is enough public will and political will in its mitigation. I am therefore very sceptical about the value of yet another major review. It provides a very cautious minister a great excuse not to take the steps that must be taken.

The comments of the poor New Brunswick potato farmer, in reply to a proposal that he should attend a course in agriculture during the winter months, are relevant here. He said: "Heck, why should I learn more about farming? I ain't using half the knowledge on farming I have got right now."

It is more than a little revealing of how narrow and limited this government's approach is to combating poverty, and especially its causes, when it approaches this complex subject of the social assistance system operated under the Ministry of Community and Social Services. To make any useful inroads into the various causes of poverty requires a far broader attack on this ancient evil. It requires broadly based taxation reform designed to produce equitable income redistribution. It requires better urban planning to reduce ghettoization of the urban poor, which in turn leads to a cultural poverty that spreads the disease from one generation to another.

A real war on poverty requires greater effort at community development programs in disadvantaged and depressed rural areas. It requires better outreach programs for transient youths to provide them with the necessary initial stability and encouragement to develop whatever innate resources they may have. An attack on poverty demands better labour laws to protect the ageing and aged employees who can and want to continue in their employment beyond age 65.

A truly effective war on poverty requires all of these measures and many more. It is therefore little wonder that we become sceptical and even a bit cynical when we hear in this throne speech that this government plans to combat poverty primarily through the social assistance system and will start it all with another comprehensive review. Obviously, it is through the social assistance system that we must mitigate the raw realities of poverty today and treat the casualties that are in our midst right now. It is the social assistance system that must not only provide the means of daily survival -- adequate food, clothing and shelter for the victims -- but also, in those cases where rehabilitation is even remotely possible, assist the individuals in building for a better tomorrow.

The social assistance system must do what it can to sustain at least some glimmer of realistic hope for the victims of poverty, because when hope has died within the victim, the social assistance program can really do little more than provide palliative care -- we hope with sensitivity and understanding.

I was interested several years ago when our colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) went on his poverty diet to experience raw poverty. I was not sceptical or cynical about his attempt to do this, but I suspect when he went on a diet that was comparable to that of the welfare assistance cases, even though he might have experienced the physical pangs of hunger that the welfare cases experience, what he did not find or discover was the major component of poverty, which is loss of hope. He never lost hope. What makes the difference between poor and being poverty stricken is hope for the morrow. I suspect that all of us when we were university students were living on very low incomes in garrets. We did not regard ourselves as victims of poverty. We had hope for the future.

It is the social assistance program that reflects how and to what extent society at large is prepared to assist or not to assist the casualties of poverty. When the collective will of the majority is not strong enough or is even mean-minded in what it is prepared to give to those on welfare, it all too often uses the social assistance system as the scapegoat.

Society generally can rid itself of its collective feeling of guilt by castigating those who work on its behalf on the social assistance programs. The charges directed at the social assistance system range all the way from the system being incompetent, insensitive and inflexible to it being antiquated and bureaucratic with unimaginative personnel.

It is probably understandable that the general public might carry some of these feelings, because very few among of its members have an intimate knowledge of what the system is all about, the kind of work that the front-line workers do and how the system functions; but it is not understandable nor is it forgivable that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) should charge that the system is antiquated and 50 years out of date, as he was reported as saying in the Toronto Star of April 14.

To suggest that the social assistance program in Canada has not changed drastically for the better since the Dirty Thirties illustrates that the minister simply does not know the system or that he is deliberately playing to the gallery. Neither I nor anyone else who is interested in social assistance claims that the program is entirely adequate and requires no change. Obviously, change is constantly necessary. Thanks to thousands of imaginative, sensitive and dedicated workers, from deputy ministers to front-line, nonprofessional community workers and thousands of volunteers, this system has made some progress. It is working.

Simply to say that the system is 50 years old, antiquated and out of tune is totally to ignore the brilliant work carved on by some of the senior people in our social assistance system here in Canada. I should mention the late Dr. Joseph Willard, Deputy Minister of Health and Welfare in Canada, Dr. Richard Splane, Dr. Fred McKinnon of the Department of Public Welfare in Nova Scotia and our own Dr. Jimmy Band here.

I could go on to talk about my predecessor at the Canadian Council on Social Development, Dr. Richard Davis. We can think of Bess Touzell and of the late Harry Cassidy. I am not going to talk about his son, but Harry Cassidy was one of the great visionaries of our social assistance program when he was dean at the school of social work here in Toronto. These are all brilliant people who have brought our social assistance system into the late 20th century.

None would argue that the system does not need improvement, but for the minister to stand up here and say that this system is 50 years old and it has not changed over five decades simply does not give us the right assessment of what the system is all about. As I say, there is room for improvement. Over the years I for one have been advocating a guaranteed annual income, and so was Robert Stanfield back in 1972. Maybe the time has come when we should once again look at the inauguration of a system of guaranteed annual income. Certainly, it is much more flexible and adaptable in helping the working poor.

It is unfortunate that the minister should simply play to the gallery, as it were, and say the reason we still have poverty is that the social assistance system is antiquated. The same minister said on April 14 in the Toronto Star, with great concern, that we are putting an awful lot of money into the welfare system, $1.6 billion. He said: "That's an awful lot of money and it should be going a long way towards solving that problem. What is wrong?" His answer is that 50-year-old welfare system. I wonder whether it ever occurred to the minister that we spend an awful lot of money on welfare because there is an awful lot of poverty in our midst.

11:50 a.m.

In the same article, he cites homelessness as "a very serious problem" in Metropolitan Toronto. The reason we cannot cope with this problem, he feels, is that too large numbers are flocking to Toronto for jobs or the excitement of the big city. My own assessment is that they are flocking to Toronto for excitement in the big city because there are no jobs available for them in their home towns.

On April 14, on the CBC radio phone-in program, the same minister said: "No matter how much money you make, how much money you have, it never really is enough because there are other things that you want to do. For example, a single mother would say: `I do not have enough to live on because my child cannot play hockey. I cannot afford to buy skates.' Then you have to ask yourself, is the government-sponsored income support system designed to buy hockey skates? You see, at this point in time, it is not. It is designed to put food on the table, a roof over your head and clothes on your back, and that is all. That may not be enough, but who makes that decision as to what is enough?"

I would respond by saying that the decision of what is enough is to be made by the minister and his government. This is a negative, sterile attitude expressed by the minister about the severe limits of his social assistance program. All the vague talk in the speech from the throne about combating poverty through social assistance programs is simply another example of blowing bubbles in the air.

I would like to make several comments on ageing. No statement on social policy today would be complete without substantial reference to the age group in our population which will be growing the most rapidly, namely, the elderly, those aged over 65. Between today and the year 2001, the senior citizen population will increase by more than half a million, a percentage increase of 55 per cent. This contrasts with the overall anticipated population increase of 13.8 per cent.

The task force on human and social services of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has just produced an excellent report on Care for the Elderly, subtitled Developing a More Coordinated and Community-Based Approach. It is a valuable, up-to-date, forward-looking document that will serve as an excellent guide and discussion paper for those interested in developing sound social policies and programs for the elderly. No doubt my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) will speak further on this report during this or subsequent debates.

I would like to expand on an observation made by that discussion paper. It notes correctly that when we speak of the elderly, i.e., persons over 65, we are really speaking of three very different age groups. I have referred to them from time to time as the young old, the middle old and the old old, in age brackets ranging respectively from 65 to 74, 75 to 84 and 85 and over.

Although many of our labour laws and pieces of social legislation treat these three age groups as a homogeneous unit beginning at the magic midnight hour of age 65, there are vast differences in lifestyles and social and economic needs among the elderly during these various ages and stages of growing older. This lumping together of all ages in our legislation surely violates what is or should be a basic social policy, namely, that of providing the greatest degree of personal individual choice and encouraging their full independence as long as possible.

Nowhere is this weakness in our current social policies more apparent than in the matter of mandatory retirement at age 65. If there is one emerging predominant characteristic of our post-industrial society's labour force, it is to get away from rigid work schedules established for various sectors of the labour force and clearly determined consistent career patterns followed through a lifetime.

Much of this rigidity has given way to far greater flexibility and individual choice through such mechanisms as flex hours, time-sharing, prolonged leave of absence, career retraining and changing of careers. In the past week, we have heard of a two-day working weekend that is comparable to a full week of work. All this shows us that we have become very flexible and adaptable in our attitude to the hours spent at the work place. if we believe in this principle of flexibility, then surely we should extend to all people the greatest degree of personal choice, which is the cornerstone of our free society. We should do so for the aged and not ring that bell at midnight at age 65.

Indicative of the lack of any comprehensive and coherent social policy in this speech is the fact that virtually no reference is made of the fundamental unit in our society, namely, the family. The only mention of the family was made in a fleeting manner in relation to child abuse and day care spaces. The Canadian family, the traditional cornerstone of our society and the wellspring of future generations, remains the basic unit of our society, even if it has undergone enormous changes during the past 25 years. The changes in the roles of wives and mothers, in the size of families and in family lifestyles have been dramatic.

A throne speech that purports to have a framework for long-term achievement in social policy, and then merely alludes to these fundamental changes and fails to take them fully into account in future governmental plans, cannot be taken very seriously as a major social or political document.

Today, in sharp contrast to several decades ago, the majority of wives have joined their husbands in the labour force. This increase in labour force participation has greatly exceeded all predictions and expectations. For example, in 1976, the Economic Council of Canada predicted there would be a less rapid rise in the number of women working in the labour force in the late 1970s and early 1980s than in the previous 15 years.

The council argued this was in part because many of the women who wanted to work had joined the labour force by 1976. The council was wrong. The rapid rise of participation in the labour force by women and, above all, by women with very young children has continued. By 1984, 52 per cent of women with children under age three were in the labour force, compared with 32 per cent in 1976. In other words, in eight years there has been a dramatic increase of 20 per cent in the number of mothers of children under age three joining the labour force.

Today it is estimated, and again perhaps even too conservatively, that 73 per cent of the mothers with children under age three will be in the labour force within the next decade. These statistics deserve, indeed demand, far more attention than a cursory mention in any throne speech that boldly claims to set forth a framework of long-term achievement rather than a list of short-term promises. Under the circumstances, we would be better served by short-term promises.

Working mothers or, more correctly, the working parents of young children have become a major and permanent characteristic of our labour force. Sound social policy must accommodate this vital phenomenon. The obvious answer of adequate day care spaces has been cited and discussed at numerous times and in numerous places. While the throne speech makes some passing reference to increasing the number of organized day care spaces, that is not an adequate response to meet the needs of all the young families.

The most recent national day care study, chaired by Dr. Katie Cooke, recommended the introduction of free universal day care at an estimated eventual cost of about $11 billion annually. While there is no doubt that additional space for day care is very much needed, I do not believe it is realistic to expect in the foreseeable future the kind of universal network of free day care services envisaged by Dr. Cooke's committee.

Even if we were to expand the number of organized day care spaces, it would not provide an answer for those young families with both husband and wife in the labour force, but who wish to care for their own children, especially during those very first critical bonding years. We need to introduce measures that will provide reasonable guarantees for working parents, mainly mothers, who are employees, so that having and caring for their very young children does not cost them their jobs. Conversely, keeping their jobs will not require them to abandon the essential family obligations during the early years of their children's lives.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the member could find a suitable time to adjourn the debate.

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

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY CARE

Mr. Cousens: Yesterday I addressed the federal government's special parliamentary committee on child care and presented a series of recommendations that call on the federal government to respond immediately to a comprehensive program of federal-provincial co-operation with respect to child care.

This action reflects the continuing commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to providing for increased government support in day care initiatives. We strongly believe the federal government must respond to the needs of our changing society.

Among the points made were:

1. The federal financial share, through the Canada assistance plan and the grants system, must be increased to help expand adequate day care.

2. Tax deductions for families requiring day care need to be re-evaluated to compensate for the high cost of these services for the working parent.

3. New incentives need to be developed for the expansion of work-related day care.

Improving child care in this province is one major step in responding to the changing needs of our society. Increased federal co-operation within this realm will serve to ensure its success.

TAX INFORMATION

Mr. Foulds: We in the New Democratic Party, unlike the party to my right and the opportunists opposite us, have always tried to provide real alternatives to the policies of the government of the day. That is proved by the fact that the most progressive and popular initiatives of the present government have been taken from and first appeared in our party's program.

As my party's Treasury and Economics critic, I have argued that the government should provide a complete accounting of its tax revenues and expenditures. Only with this information can we judge the full extent of the unfairness of our tax system on the ordinary Ontario family. For example, our best estimates are that the province loses $1.5 billion in corporate tax loopholes and giveaways. To know where to begin the task of making our taxation system more fair, this Legislature needs that information.

I have asked for this information in my replies to the last two provincial budgets and in recent correspondence with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). The federal government has done it and other provinces have done it. It is my sincere hope that this government will publish a complete accounting of its revenues and tax expenditures with its budget next Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: Statements, the minister -- I am sorry; the member for Brantford.

DUNNVILLE DAM

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, was that déjà vu or foreshadowing?

I rise to express a concern that has been brought to my attention by the good people of Dunnville. Last April, the then Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), travelled to Dunnville and met with a large number of municipal officials to discuss that town's proposal for restoring the dam and weirs that form such a vital part of the history of the Grand River.

Since a good part of the Grand River is in the area of the province I have the honour to represent, I am aware how useful it would be to provide an expanded facility for recreation and beautification of the whole area. To accomplish this, the town of Dunnville will need provincial funding for a marine lock railway system that will permit marine vessels once again to navigate the Grand River.

Last April, the previous government made a commitment to the town of Dunnville that it would receive the necessary funding to restore the Dunnville dam. But now the good people of Dunnville, after months of trying, have been unable to secure a commitment from the current Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that he will honour the commitment of the previous government.

I am hopeful that the Treasurer, who like myself has a large part of the Grand River running through his riding, will do what could be seen as the fair thing to do and will honour the commitment made by the previous government to the people of Dunnville.

HELP CENTRES

Mr. Warner: Unemployed help centres in many communities throughout this province have been able to meet the immediate social and economic needs of unemployed workers and their families, have been able to assist in the process of re-employment and have worked with other community-based organizations to establish a support network for unemployed workers and their families.

First the federal government abandoned these worthwhile centres, which had been providing a variety of useful services to many unemployed people, and now the provincial government is similarly abandoning the centres. I call on the government to reverse its decision to close the unemployed help centres and ask that it review this horrible decision and provide the necessary funds so help can be extended to those so unfortunate as to be out of work in our province.

TULIP DISPLAY

Mr. Andrewes: From time to time it is appropriate that we as members of this House offer congratulations to various public employees. I want to offer congratulations to those of the Ministry of Government Services who so carefully and studiously planted the tulips around Queen's Park.

Members will recognize that these tulips are the ongoing kindness of the government of the Netherlands. I recommend to members a stroll down the front walk towards the southerly regions of the Legislative Building.

However, as an objective observer, I must say there seems to be an unusually large number of tulips this year of one colour. Perhaps this is only a coincidence. That colour is a very deep, bright red. However, even as May melts into June, the colours will fade, the petals will find their way into the breeze and the only constancy at Queen's Park will be the deep blue of the sky.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that members wishing to make statements have only 90 seconds. Please allow them that time.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has made several glowing remarks about inspections and orders from his ministry. Cyclical inspections of the work place, which occurred on a 36-month basis, an 18-month basis and a 12-month basis, are now gone. Once a firm is placed on what is called a code 99, the company will never again be subjected to a regular cyclical inspection. The only time code 99 firms will be inspected will be when there is a critical injury or a work refusal.

Ministry policy on routine inspections is to audit the internal responsibility system and to ensure compliance with the act and the regulations. This is eliminated by code 99. Inspections not considered routine ensure that companies are given adequate notice of impending ministry visits, so that in fact there will not be any unannounced visits in the future.

The minister claims in his new policy that the unions are given notice of impending visits at the same time the company is. When I tried to find out from approximately 200 presentations made to me whether any of the unions had received any advance notice, I found they had not. The only ones getting advance notice were the companies.

2:09 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TELEVISION AWARD

Hon. Ms. Munro: I believe the members of the House will want to join with me in congratulating one of our provincial agencies on achieving one of the highest awards in its field of endeavour.

TVOntario has won many awards over the years, some 250, which is a fitting tribute to the quality of Ontario's television and film producers and managers. Today, Wally Longul is in New York to receive the much-coveted George Foster Peabody Award, an award comparable in prestige to the Pulitzer Prize. He receives it for the TVOntario coproduction The Final Chapter?

The Final Chapter? is a scientific assessment of the devastating effects of nuclear war. It is one of several TVOntario learning programs that deal with science and technology, its bright and productive side as well as its darker aspects.

The George Foster Peabody Awards for excellence in public service in broadcasting recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious public service. The award for The Final Chapter? is the only such honour given this year to a Canadian organization.

The recent commitment of this government to TVOntario will help fuel its production of more top-quality science and technology programs such as The Final Chapter? Programs such as this not only provide enriched learning opportunities for the people of this province but also bring international acclaim to Ontario, its resources and capabilities.

Mrs. Marland: We join in the congratulations to Wally Longul on the announcement made this afternoon. We share in the pride of the success of TVOntario, having been the government that established this service in Ontario. However, we do have grave concern as to the future of that service and would like to know what the current government is going to do about the shortage of funding to TVOntario.

Mr. Rae: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate TVOntario and, in particular, the producers and creative people behind the programming.

I do not think it is widely known, but the award that has been won by that group is the equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize for public broadcasting. It is a significant achievement. Those of us who believe so strongly in and are committed to public broadcasting, and in our party I think I can say our commitment goes back more than half a century to the old days of the Canadian Radio League, are proud of the achievements of TVOntario. We want very much to associate ourselves with the achievement, in which all of us can take some pride.

I also take this opportunity to say how much we are looking forward to the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) on Tuesday to see how far he will deliver on the promise made in the speech from the throne with respect to additional funding for TVOntario.

Anyone who realizes the potential of TVOntario and the potential of public broadcasting, educational broadcasting and cultural broadcasting in this province realizes we are on the verge of a time of great opportunity, great employment prospects for broadcasting and for culture and communications. It would be nothing short of a tragedy if the Treasurer were to take away at all from the steps announced in the speech from the throne with respect to funding for TVOntario.

I know the people of the province are expecting an announcement that will relate not only to this year but also to next year and the year after in terms of steady increases in funding for TVOntario. We look forward to that announcement in his budget when it comes on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education.

Mr. McClellan: Sufficiently rehearsed?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not know whether it is going to be as unrehearsed as the comments from the --

Mr. Breaugh: There was no pause written in your speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not come to question period yet. This is statements.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am being provoked, Mr. Speaker. I was only going to say that perhaps it will not be as unrehearsed as the comments of the caucus of the third party about the leader in the weekend press.

Mr. McClellan: Rehearsed, not reversed.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not like to be provoked, so I will try not to be distracted.

SCIENCE EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: The speech from the throne clearly stated this government's commitment to the twin goals of excellence and relevance in education. It also emphasized the importance of science and technology to the future prosperity of this province and its citizens.

The Ministry of Education recognizes that scientific and technological literacy is a vital part of education. Our future work and lifestyle are tied to advances in science and technology. Our education system has some excellent programs in science as a result of the commitment of our teaching profession and the efforts of local school boards. However, I believe we can do more in science education in Ontario.

The Science Council of Canada's comprehensive study of science education in 1984 concluded that elementary students are most in need of improved programs. In addition, the science council's report points out that girls require more encouragement and improved opportunities for studying science. If we improve science programs in our elementary schools, it will benefit both girls and boys and increase their scientific interest and skills.

I am pleased to announce today a $3-million program to renew science education in the primary and junior divisions of Ontario schools. This program, which will reflect the excellent work done by the science council's study, will focus on four key areas:

1. The development of science curricula from kindergarten to grade 6 in a way that devotes more time and attention to this important area in the early school years;

2. Support for teachers at the elementary level through training and retraining in science curricula;

3. The provision of the necessary learning materials in both English and French and equipment for science education at the elementary level; and

4. A public awareness campaign in science education to encourage the support and active participation of parents, school boards and members of the public, including the private sector.

We will be consulting widely in developing this initiative. I am pleased to announce that Dr. Graham Orpwood, who is in the special members' gallery this afternoon and who directed the Science Council of Canada study, has been appointed as my special adviser in this area for the next three months.

One of the central messages in science education must be that science is a part of all our lives. Science is not just for the scientists, the university-bound student or only for boys. Science is for everyone.

If we can successfully convey that message -- and despite the carping of the third party, I believe we can -- our children will be better prepared for the systematic study of science at the intermediate and senior divisions. They will be better able to link the science they study in school to the science in the world they know. Most important, our students will be better able to use science and technology to enhance their lives and those of future generations.

Mr. Baetz: We cannot help but congratulate the government on its intention to develop the science curriculum beginning at a very early age. We are amazed and astounded at the enormous perception demonstrated this afternoon by the Minister of Education in stating that science is for everyone. We had not realized that until the minister told us about it. We can only congratulate him for carrying on in the excellent tradition set by our outstanding Ministers of Education, some of whom are here.

One final observation is that the minister should try to achieve and maintain a balance between science and the humanities. I sensed in the speech from the throne perhaps a little too much of a leaning towards scientists, because he should remember science in itself does not lead to human happiness, which is the objective for all of us. We will look forward to seeing how the minister is going to achieve the balance between the humanities and the sciences with the unmentioned amounts of money he is going to spend on this program.

Mr. Harris: I have one brief comment on the statement by the Minister of Education. He neglected to tell us how much Dr. Graham Orpwood will be paid over the next three months, information I am sure the Legislature will be interested in hearing.

Mr. Rae: With respect to the profound announcement made today by the Minister of Education, I think we will now all call him Dr. Wizard. I remember, and I am sure the minister remembers, watching Dr. Wizard over the years. Listening to the minister, who has his own profound understanding of the world of science and his deep training therein, as much as all members opposite clearly reflect their understanding, it is great to see the minister undertake this initiative.

My oldest daughter is in junior kindergarten. Last Friday her whole school had something called Space Day. We have space day every day here, so for me it is nothing different. On coming home from school that day, she asked my wife and I whether she would be able to go to the moon when she grew up. That is an indication of the very changed consciousness on the part of members.

An hon. member: Put it in the accord.

Mr. Rae: It is in the accord. Wait for it. Do not push it. At the same time, she pointed out that her friend Elizabeth had been to the moon and she wanted to join her. The kids are away ahead of the minister. He is talking about that, and these kids want to go to the moon. I think the minister had better catch up with the kids, the young girls and boys who are far ahead. Join them and the time will come for it.

Mr. Allen: In pursuing this objective, a highly laudable one which I have personally advocated on many occasions as the Education critic for our party, I hope the Minister of Education will take advantage of TVOntario's new enrichment and possibilities to field the whole question of science education through audio-visual devices and programs, as some other countries do most effectively with their young children.

I compliment the minister on his choice of adviser in this respect. He could not have done better. We know the commitment Dr. Graham Orpwood has in this regard, so we are looking for good things in this program.

I remind the minister that some fundamental underlay is needed for this in more than just the creation of a program. The school system, in terms of its textbook capacity and spending per student under the past administration, is the lowest in the whole country. He will have to do something about that. He will have to make sure he has a good supply of science teachers from the core programs of sciences in the universities. It will take some basic core funding improvements to field both the educational initiatives and the broad ambitions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with regard to the whole span of science and technology. The government has a great future ahead of it in this respect, and I hope it will fund it well. Otherwise, it will not work out.

2:23 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier and it relates to a quote in the newspaper. Can the Premier tell the House whether he was correctly quoted when he said with regard to the rally in front of Queen's Park yesterday, "Frankly, it is irrelevant to me whether there are 10 or 10,000 or 100,000"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was correctly quoted.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder therefore whether the new message handed out by the Premier, in a government which he alleges has no walls or barriers, is that if 10,000 or 100,000 single mothers or 10,000 or 100,000 injured workers wish to demonstrate in front of Queen's Park, the Premier equally does not care whether there are 10, 10,000 or 100,000.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I welcome people to come to Queen's Park to express their point of view. That is part of our democratic tradition here, and it is a legitimate expression of their opinion. However, I remind the member at the very same time that this is not a government that changes its mind with each little poll that comes along. It does not change its mind from day to day. It is not a government that has different views from the member's left-hand man sitting beside him and then from the member the next day.

We do not have that kind of inconstancy. Frankly, with regard to changing our minds, it does not matter how many people gather there or how many people present a petition. We believe we have a responsibility to govern with an even hand and with a degree of constancy. Surely my honourable friend, my worthy friend opposite, would learn the peril of inconstancy which is constant from him and his colleagues.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the Premier that we remember when opting out was at 18 per cent, and he and his party were in favour of extra billing.

Two of his ministers have flip-flopped all over the place on the issue of bacillus thuringiensis spraying. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has flip-flopped all over on the issue of chemicals in the waters. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) has flip-flopped all over on the issue of guarantees of French-language services. No one in this House needs a lecture from the Premier on flip-flopping.

Mr. Speaker: Was your question, "Do you agree"? Was that your question?

Mr. Grossman: No. It was not.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. Quickly.

Mr. Grossman: At the rally yesterday, where the Premier did not care how many people were out front, Dr. Myers said: "We are prepared to accept a call for a truce. I challenge Mr. Peterson to initiate a movement towards peace in a situation where he has provoked confrontation."

If the Premier heard those comments as he peeked out his window to watch the rally, can he tell us whether he or the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) called the Ontario Medical Association and asked: "What terms? How can we discuss the truce you asked for?"

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me add parenthetically that before the member left government, he arranged for a substantial increase in research funds for all the parties of $2 million, $3 million or $4 million, or whatever it was. We are very grateful, because the entire research department of our party is devoted to tracking the member's various positions from day to day on all the issues. We do need those funds to keep track of where he is on the issues.

Let me respond to the member's particular point. He will recall -- and it is important to go through the history of this situation -- that shortly after we assumed office in July 1985, we contacted the OMA and said we were going to ban extra billing and would like to enter into discussions on how to do that. It was not prepared to talk about that. Finally, legislation came in late in December 1985. There have been a number of meetings subsequent to that time. We have put forward very specific written proposals, and it knows where we stand on the issues.

Just because the member has not been at those meetings does not mean they have not been held. I can assure him that on a number of occasions the tone has been very constructive.

Mr. Grossman: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for another supplementary. New question.

Mr. Grossman: They are waiting for a call for a truce, and the Premier will not call and offer a truce.

DAY CARE

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I hope the minister will have heard by now the very sensible recommendations made by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) with regard to child care.

My colleague suggested that additional money be allocated to provide more subsidies to low-income families, that provincial grants to licensed nonprofit spaces be matched, that provincial capital and startup grants for nonprofit centres be matched, that the child care expense deduction be eliminated to free up funds to expand services and that incentives be provided for employers and employees to develop work-related day care spaces.

Does the minister not agree that these are excellent suggestions, each and every one of which is worthy of support?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I agree they are excellent suggestions, and I point out to the honourable member who just made them that they are being implemented by this government. I remind him that on taking over this government, we increased the number of subsidized spaces by 50 per cent above and beyond what it had done in 40 years.

Mr. Cousens: While the minister makes promising statements on child care to the press and the other media, his government had only a single sentence on child care in the speech from the throne. Has the minister lost the battle with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in making a significant investment in child care?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The critical issues with respect to child care are to have sufficient spaces so that parents can make a choice and to have them structured in such a way that all parents who use child care can afford to do so. That is precisely what the statement in the speech from the throne addressed itself to: first, spaces and the availability of those spaces, and second, spaces provided on the basis of economic equity; in other words, so they could afford them. That was the purpose of the statement, and that is what will be addressed.

Mr. Cousens: It was not as strong as the minister is now. When can we expect this highly publicized white paper on child care that provides for licensed child care spaces to 50 per cent of Ontario's children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Soon.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about extra billing. It is time we got on with it.

Given the statement yesterday by Dr. Myers that he does not intend to make any further changes in the position of the Ontario Medical Association and the correspondence between Dr. Scully and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) which has been made public and establishes very clearly that the same positions have been going back and forth not for a couple of weeks but for several months, well prior to December, does the Premier not think it is time to bring the bill out of committee, where the hearings have been completed, and bring it into committee of the whole House?

Let us get on with it. Let us pass the legislation, stop the dithering and confusion and get on with the end to extra billing, which is costing this province so much.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the honourable member's question is no. I do not think it is the right time, but it is perhaps getting close to that right time. More meetings are scheduled, in spite of the speeches of yesterday. I read about them in today's press and am aware of what they said. I am also aware of the discussions that have been going on.

I am sure the leader of the third party will be the first one to acknowledge that a resolution to the problem will not be found by shouting at each other on the front steps of Queen's Park. I acknowledge that, and I think the doctors acknowledge that. The minister has other meetings scheduled, and we will have to judge that day by day. If we come to the conclusion that no progress can be made, the suggestion of the leader of the third party will be followed.

Mr. Rae: These discussions have been going on for several weeks now. It is clear not only from statements in the newspaper but also from actual correspondence between the OMA and the government negotiators that there has been absolutely no change in position with respect to the fundamental question on extra billing, either by the OMA or by the government, with respect to what has happened.

Does the Premier not realize that his own indecision is becoming the problem? Does he not realize it is his indecision that is getting in the way? The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has spoken about the need to bring on the legislation. The Attorney General has made his indications. Does the Premier not realize he is now the person who is standing in the way of reaching an end to this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the honourable member with respect that I do not accept that proposition at all. He is quite wrong. If we had followed his approach, if we had just brought it in three months ago and let the devil take the hindmost, the situation would have been a lot worse.

Mr. Martel: What is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is the approach the third party is taking. As one who comes from a long tradition of believing in so-called free discussions and negotiation, I am a little surprised at the member for taking that view. We have to make these judgements as they come, and the minister has handled this situation extremely well.

Mr. Rae: The Premier's position is that if we pass the bill, which he wrote, drafted and introduced, that would be the worst possible thing we could do. That is a bizarre position for a government to take, but now we have that as the stated position of the Premier.

My colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has a constituent who telephoned him. She is expecting a baby in June, obstetrician said it is going to cost her an extra $800 to have that child. Does she have to change doctors, or are we going to have an end to extra billing by the time she has her baby?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot tell the member the answer to that question. What time in June? Is that going to be early in June? I cannot give him the specific date. I just hope the baby is not premature.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I want to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I draw his attention to a sentence in the Slater report, which is subsequent to a discussion on the liability risk and the huge premium increases. That short sentence reads, "It does seem clear that there is an element of overreaction to the situation on the part of the insurance industry."

Given that statement implying rates may already be too high and given that he will not be dealing with that report until well on in the fall, is the minister going to sit idly by until the fall and not raise a finger to cap or require justification of the new round of massive rate hikes, which are already starting?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I welcome the member's question. Several allusions have been made to the fact that we are not going to do anything until next fall, but that is not correct. I am giving the public and anyone involved in the industry until the end of July to respond. Having said that, we are and have been anticipating some of the replies from Dr. Slater and are working on them right now.

Mr. Swart: I suggest that vague answer is not good enough.

Does the minister know the 130 hospitals that insure through the Ontario Hospital Association had an increase in their liability rates last year of 362 per cent? Is he aware that in the submission to our insurance study committee less than three weeks ago, the association had enough information to predict another increase, which will bring the total increase to more than 600 per cent?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you aware, Minister?

Mr. Swart: May I put my question?

Mr. Speaker: You asked twice, "Are you aware." Are you aware, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am aware.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not think the hospitals have more worthy needs than enriching insurance companies? Will he tell this House he is going to require justification before those hikes can be implemented on July 1?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We are reviewing all of the report that Dr. Slater recommended to us. We will be taking action on his recommendations.

Mr. Swart: When?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Some we will move on immediately, some we will move on after we get input and some we will deal with once we have the data.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Gillies: In view of the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), I will ask my question of the Premier.

The Premier may be aware that his get-tough Minister of Labour issued a work place safety order against Metro Toronto's main sewage treatment plant. That order comes into effect tomorrow. Very important changes to the ventilation system are needed in that plant. The existing situation is presenting a threat to the health and safety of the workers there.

Is the Premier's get-tough Minister of Labour going to prosecute if the order is not complied with tomorrow, or is he going to reissue the order against the plant as he has said repeatedly in this House he will not do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I cannot help the member, but I will ask the Minister of Labour, who is on top of these situations and demonstrating in this matter leadership such as we have not seen in Ontario for several decades. He will get back to the member.

Mr. Gillies: I hope the Premier will apprise the minister of the situation and perhaps advise the minister that his Rambo rhetoric is not solving the problems that exist in the work place in Ontario.

Is the Premier aware that because of the ventilation system in this plant, the workers are having to work at least part of their shift every day wearing 20-pound respirators? They have had to do this for three months, and Metro is saying it cannot have the necessary ventilation equipment in place for another six months. Is it the Premier's wish that these workers lug around 20-pound respirators for another six months, or is it his wish that his minister will take action?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister will take action on this and on many other matters that have been neglected for a long time. I thank the member for his new-found concern on these issues.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can he verify whether Rexnord Canada Ltd., an American-owned multinational corporation, which is closing its plant in North York and laying off its workers, has applied to remove $310,000 from the hourly rated workers' pension plan, members of United Steelworkers Local 5465, $3,213,000 from the salaried workers' pension plan and $572,000 from the pension plan of Mathews, a Rexnord-owned company in Port Hope represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not aware of that incident, but I will be very pleased to follow up on it and find out what I can about it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell us whether he approves of this kind of legalized theft? Will he tell this House whether he has decided that pensions are no longer deferred wages, contrary to the position he took in this House on January 13, 1986?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On that issue, as the member knows, one challenge is before the courts. The position we have taken -- and we have taken it in our draft legislation on the Pension Benefits Act -- is that if the contractual arrangement between the employers and the employees allows for the removal of surplus funds, then with the approval of the Pension Commission of Ontario it can be done. We have now made provisions that, notwithstanding the fact that there is no provision prior to this, any removal must be done with notification to all those people concerned.

FASHION SHOW

Ms. Fish: My question is of the Premier. He will be aware that today marks the first full day of the 1986 Festival of Canadian Fashion, a festival that showcases the up-and-coming designers as well as the established ones, such as Shelley Wickabrod and Bernard McGee of Clotheslines Inc. and Alfred Sung, in an industry that represents a trade deficit for us of about $3 billion.

Can the Premier tell me why, in the face of that highly successful and terribly important trade show for a major industry, his government has classified it as an amusement and raised the admission prices by 10 per cent by collecting an amusement tax?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know of the honourable member's interest in fashion, but I cannot tell her the answer to that. I was not aware of it.

Ms. Fish: The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has promoted this very extensively as a trade fair. In fact, in Ontario Business News, on a famous page 3, is a picture of the logo of the trade fair on a sweatshirt on a mannequin of a woman who unfortunately is wearing nothing but a sweatshirt in the picture taken by government photographers.

Will the Premier please tell me and the women of this province whether, by taxing this show as an amusement and by putting out another page 3, he is not really saying that Canadian fashion is just a girlie amusement show?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the picture the member talks about. She can send it over and I will have a look at it.

The industry is an important one; it is a growing one. If the member finds this offensive, I am sorry for that. I do not know who drafted up this magazine. All I can say is that my wife frequently wears just a sweatshirt; I do not find it offensive, but others may.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for St. George has already placed her supplementary.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. McClellan: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the same subject, the legalized theft of so-called pension surpluses. The minister maintains the fiction that pension plan surplus withdrawals are a result of contractual arrangements, whereas he knows the plans are imposed by companies on the work force.

I am sure the minister is also aware that the latest figures from the Pension Commission of Ontario show that between April 1, 1985, and January 1, 1986, $187,142,000 was taken out of workers' pension funds and stuffed into the pockets of the companies.

Why has the minister continued to allow this legalized theft to take place, even under the aegis of his new Pension Benefits Act, instead of using the deferred wages in excess of actuarial value --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. McClellan: -- to provide inflation protection for workers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member maintains it is legalized theft --

Mr. McClellan: Of course it is.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is the member's opinion that it is legalized theft. In the opinion of the pension commission, after careful documentation and examination, the withdrawals are within the purview of the agreement, and it does not look at it as legalized theft.

Mr. McClellan: Whose money is it?

Mr. Martel: Is it the companies' money?

Mr. McClellan: The minister is aware whose money it is.

I am sure the minister will be aware that at today's inflation rate, which is the lowest inflation rate we have seen in many years, a $100 deferred pension benefit at age 30 will be worth $25 at age 65. Since the minister has continued to allow surplus funds to be ripped off under his proposed legislation, what advice does he have for a 30-year-old worker who stands to lose 75 cents of every dollar that he owns in pension benefits at this time?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to bring all members of the House up to date as to a situation. With a defined benefit plan, the workers know what they can expect from their pension plan. We have a situation we are dealing with right now. If we have a company that has an unfunded liability of several hundreds of thousands of dollars, no one will go to the workers and say, "You have to make up the difference in that fund because the company cannot afford to do it."

Mr. Rae: The minister is going to have the fight of his life on this one; he is not going to know what hit him.

Mr. Warner: Monte Kwinter, CA -- corporate apologist.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member has to understand that we are aware of the problem. We are making sure that the plans are not arbitrarily stolen from, as he says, that the provisions in the plan are honoured and that they are done under the scrutiny of the Pension Benefits Act with responsibility.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister has destroyed the pension plans in the work place.

Mr. Laughren: He does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Harris: In view of the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), I have a question for the Premier, who no doubt will be aware of the confusion and the bungling with this year's insecticide spraying program.

The ministry told Ontario aerial applicators, by letter of January 13, to "secure appropriate aircraft and licensed pilots as soon as possible." Many of them did just that. Can the Premier explain why a Quebec firm has been given 80 to 90 per cent of the work and why dozens of planes are being imported from the United States, when many of these Ontario operators who did what the ministry directed back in January were given little or no work at all?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, I want to honourable member to know that we in this government do not have a policy that discriminates against Quebec aircraft, and I hope he will not ask us to build provincial barriers in this province.

Second, he will be aware that the spraying program this year has about six times the number of aircraft it did in 1985 because of the expanded programs. In essence, this says there are not enough aircraft in this province and in this country to meet all the requirements that have to be met on an emergency basis. I am told that 16 per cent of the aircraft, 165 of them, are registered in the United States, but because of the emergency situation they were brought in here.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Harris: I am sure the Premier has been well briefed on this. When things get this fouled up, he usually is briefed. The Premier will know that many of these contracts have been cut back. Some were given where firms were not invited to bid. Some have been added on. On some, payments were made at a higher price than the bid submitted. We are told all these things are going on. Tibor Ribi, an Ontario operator, is here in the gallery today. He believed the government notice of January.

Mr. Speaker: And the supplementary is?

Mr. Harris: Mr. Ribi believed the ministry notice and bought a new plane, but now he cannot get any work in Ontario with all the American planes here. What is the Premier going to do for him? Mr. Ribi followed the rules and now is facing bankruptcy.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Ribi bid on three of a possible 25 contracts. His bids ranged from 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher than the lowest bids. If the member's position is that we should not contract these out or that we should pay twice the lowest bids, then that is an interesting proposition. I do not know the circumstances under which Mr. Ribi committed himself to planes and other things.

When I was in opposition, I dealt with Mr. Ribi on a number of problems he had with the previous government. I am not in a position to tell him how to conduct his business. We have an open tender system. That is the way it worked, and that is why he did not get the contracts.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier regarding to the negotiation of the free trade agreement. In the past, both he and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) have refused to answer questions about what they would do in the hypothetical case that the auto pact is put on the table by the federal government. With the talks two weeks away, we now know the federal government is intending to put the auto pact on the table for discussion with the United States.

Will the Premier give us the assurance that his government will ask the federal government either to withdraw from the talks or at the least to suspend the talks until the federal and provincial governments have their act together and the provincial governments have had a chance to explain their position on what should be done on this major issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think the member's suggestion is constructive. At this point, neither President Reagan nor Peter Murphy is going to listen to me talking about the role or posture of the American government with respect to discussions with our federal government. I will give the member the assurance that we will be extremely vigilant in the protection of our interests. We have seen that demonstrated in the past, and will see it demonstrated in the future. The auto pact is of fundamental importance to Ontario. We recognize that, and that is why we are fighting for it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Mr. Reisman has been quoted as saying, "I continue to operate...on the assumption that it is the federal government that is responsible for the conduct of international negotiations in the trade field."

In view of this statement and in view of the refusal of the Prime Minister to discuss the trade negotiations with the Premiers when they had the opportunity to do so in Vancouver last week, it seems clear the provinces have no role in the free trade negotiations. Will the Premier and his government indicate they will not support free trade negotiations or any agreement until there has been full participation and agreement on the part of all the provinces?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The House is very much aware of our position on this matter. We should be sorting out the domestic role. We have put the proposition in very constructive terms to the federal government. The member is suggesting that we drop a bomb into the middle of it or just refuse to show up or not talk to anybody until there is a resolution of these matters.

There are a number of substantive process issues outstanding that I can assure the member are of great concern to me and to my peers across this country. I have discussed this with Premier Pawley, Premier Bennett and others. We are of one mind on this issue. We are now waiting for a response from Prime Minister Mulroney with respect to the proposals we put to him. As the member knows, the Prime Minister is in the Orient. We hope he will be home soon to deal with these issues.

It is of concern to us that there has not been a response from the federal government on these issues. That proves to me that we have to be there watching what is going on all the time. We should not threaten to take our baseball bat and run away. That is not appropriate at the moment. We reserve our right to protect this province's position over the long term. We will do that.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Cordiano: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on another matter dealing with the United States. In view of the fact that the US authorities appear to be backing down on their commitment of funds to address the acid rain control program, what action are we in Canada taking to ensure that the commitment made is met by the Americans?

Mr. Grossman: Pretend it is a new question. Pretend you did not write it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a good question, one of the better questions I have heard in this House.

As the members will be aware, an announcement was made some time ago after the summit meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the US. There was a concession by the President of the US that acid rain was a transboundary problem. In addition, discussion of a $5-billion program emerged from it, which in essence is clean-coal technology.

I agree with the member that there have been reports recently that there seems to be some backsliding on that commitment on the part of the US. The federal Minister of the Environment and I have made representations, including personal representations, to members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives so the action that can be taken may be generated at the legislative level as opposed to the administrative level. It is obvious there has not been the activity at the administrative level that we feel is necessary.

Mr. Cordiano: Is the Ministry of the Environment prepared to take court action in the US to ensure that the Americans do their part to solve this problem?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The members of the House may be away -- may be aware --

Mr. Grossman: The cabinet is away.

Mr. Rae: We are all here.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I see the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) is not here, and for once the Conservative members have not filled the seat behind him so that on camera it will look as if everybody is here on those benches. However, that was not the question.

Mr. Speaker: It had nothing to do with the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The question relates to the action we have taken. We have joined in two actions in the US involving the Environmental Protection Agency, which would have the effect of reducing the ability, particularly on the part of Midwest utilities, to continue to belch out sulphur dioxide emissions as they have done for some time. It appears the legislative route is rather slow, and the administrative route appears not to be moving at all in this direction. The court route appears to be the most productive in this case. That is why we have joined in this action in the US in the hope that we will see an actual abatement program as opposed to just clean-coal technology, which will not solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Gillies: Thank the guest speaker.

Mr. Grossman: And his straight man.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Treasurer, who was here when that oration -- there he is; I thought he might be writing a question for one of his other back-benchers.

In today's press reports, unbelievably, the Treasurer is quoted as saying, "I do not think we hit the consuming public very hard in our last budget." I remind the Treasurer that what he does not consider hitting the taxpayers very hard was a $700-million tax hit in his first budget. Given that on a per capita basis that increase was substantially higher than the one the federal government brought in with its last budget and given the approximately $3-billion nest egg which the Treasurer finds himself with, will he make a commitment to the taxpayers of this province that he will not raise taxes further next Tuesday?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows that the comments in the press were based on a question about taxes on beer, alcohol and tobacco. He also knows that some of his colleagues were quite bitterly critical of the fact that tobacco taxes were not raised as much as they thought they should be. The record is clear on that. When I said the increases were not as large as they might have been, it was a direct response to questions dealing with those products.

Mr. Grossman: Is the Treasurer telling us he acknowledges that he hit corporate income tax, personal income tax, gasoline tax and land transfer tax hard enough in the last budget, and with $3 billion available and tobacco and liquor targeted, he need not raise again any of the four taxes he raised last fall or the retail sales tax?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the honourable member is aware that the financial situation we inherited required going to the people for additional financial support. We did have revenue changes that were substantial in nature. It is not a question of acknowledging that. It is factual.

When it comes to a request from the Leader of the Opposition and former Treasurer for some sort of commitment now, a few days before the budget, as to what the tax action will be, that demonstrates a certain lack of understanding of the system. Of course I am not making that commitment.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I want to raise the question of drinking water standards once again with the Minister of the Environment. Despite the presence of numerous chlorinated organics in samples taken within Metropolitan Toronto, we continue to have the same kinds of assurances from officials of his ministry as we had under the previous administration that the quality of drinking water is improving and that no guidelines have been violated.

If that is the case, is the minister prepared to follow the suggestion I made in the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, tabled in November 1985, and make those guidelines law and give us the right to sue if we find those guidelines have been exceeded?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member raises an interesting and valid observation with regard to drinking water around the province. I do not think anybody considers finding any of these substances in our water acceptable. The recent report that came out on toxic rain indicated there are multiple sources, in many cases coming from stacks, either through dry deposition or toxic rain. The other source is effluent going into waterways that ultimately come into the plant.

In regard to the member's specific question about standards -- I knew I would get around to that eventually -- there is no question that, in conjunction with our federal colleagues and our colleagues from other provinces through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, and in conjunction with authorities on the other side of the border and with the World Health Organization, we are developing standards on an ongoing basis that people consider acceptable. That development has to be accelerated considerably.

Mr. Grossman: Is this an old Jimmy Auld answer?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In Sarnia, the Leader of the Opposition said this was a yuppie issue.

Mr. Grossman: Do not get off track.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yesterday I made a comment reminding all members that they were to disregard interjections, which are out of order.

Mrs. Grier: If the minister has done such an extensive examination of guidelines and jurisdictions all around the world, no doubt he is aware that in many of those guidelines, health effects are not the only criterion used in the establishment of standards. Can the minister assure this House that when the long-awaited day arrives that we have some standards in this province, those standards will take only public health considerations into account and the level for carcinogens such as dioxin will be zero?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We will want to take into consideration all the factors the member has mentioned. I think she recognizes this is not simply a Toronto question, nor is it something in which only the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of the Environment and the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) are interested. All members of the House are interested.

We have to develop that. Our goal in this province and across our nation is to remove all the persistent toxic substances. That is translated in other areas as saying that we are working towards zero discharge so that ultimately we will reach the goal the member and I share.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McCague: I have a question for the Premier. Given his commitment to open, accessible and no-walls, no-barriers government, why has his government refused to respond to 33 questions that have been standing in Orders and Notices for five to seven months and 26 that have been there for more than 60 days?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are not afraid to answer any questions. Some of the ones I have seen are frivolous. If members want to amuse themselves that way, it is okay with us. We do not mind providing this information. We are happy to do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I recommend the member read some of the questions his party has asked. They are unbelievably silly. However, we are happy to answer them. As he knows, it takes time to gather up some of the things members want, but we are happy to provide them. Maybe the honourable opposition House leader could be more constructive.

Interjections.

Mr. McCague: It is not the questions that are frivolous; it is the answers. However, the government has more than 81,000 civil servants; maybe it will get around to it eventually.

Rather than paying lipservice to his pledge of accessibility, why has he not made public nine orders in council, which I understand are appointments. They are orders in council 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 1009, 1014, 1015 and 1016, which were passed April 17, 1986. Why does he continue to hide this information from public view?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, I do not know the specific orders in council. Maybe we appointed Tories and were embarrassed about it. I have no idea what the answer is.

Let me remind the member what we have done. We have made public all the appointments that are available, which was never done by the previous government. It has been tabled in this House. It is all open for everyone to see. If my honourable friend wants to send down his researcher, he is welcome to do so.

I ask members to scrutinize appointments. We have brought people from all walks of life to serve -- some of the finest people in this province. We have reformed the faith people have in this system, because the previous government had driven it down so low.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure you all want to listen to the member for Sudbury East with a question.

PRISON FACILITIES

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services.

An hon. member: We listened all morning.

Mr. Martel: It was good stuff too, was it not? With massive unemployment across northern Ontario and with the government not having any policy in place to reduce that, can the minister indicate whether his government is prepared to put $13.9 million into the creation of 200 to 225 permanent jobs by reopening the Burwash facility rather than considering the expansion of the overcrowded facilities in southern Ontario?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We do not intend to expend funds without looking at the long-range consequences, which is contrary to what the previous government did when it completed a facility in 1975 and immediately closed the same site a few months later. Looking at the long-range corporate plan of the Ministry of Correctional Services, we have decided where in the province we need certain types of facilities. At the moment, Burwash does not appear to be the most appropriate place to expend funds, but we are looking at the appropriate use of government dollars in that area.

Mr. Martel: Quite frankly, the minister does not sound different from the Tories.

Since the deputy minister presented a somewhat biased, pro-expansion program for the south, as opposed to the introduction of facilities in the north, and recommended that prisoners from the north can still come to southern Ontario to be incarcerated rather than vice versa, and since the government does not have a policy for northern development, does the minister not think it is time he took $13.9 million and created some 225 jobs in the Sudbury basin rather than have a $20-million --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We have a policy for northern development. I am concerned about the policies of my ministry. We have plans that look at the north and that will be expending moneys and creating jobs in the north in the field of correctional services. At the moment, there are plans before Management Board of Cabinet which will attest to that. I am sure they will be acted upon very shortly.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Curling: On Tuesday, May 6, I promised to get back to the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) on two aspects of Bill 11, the Rental Housing Protection Act.

First, the honourable member asked whether the act would permit an appeal of the recent Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing the severance of row housing at Overbrook and Carlington Park in Ottawa. The answer is no, the decision cannot be appealed to cabinet. The decision was reached on February 19, 1986. The board's approval is final under the law and the policy in effect at that time.

The second question relates to a building, the Bonaventure, which the owner is apparently trying to turn into a so-called apartment-hotel. Under Bill 11, all conversions to commercial use and all renovations requiring eviction will require municipal approval and therefore will be appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board and then to cabinet.

If the building in question is being converted to a hotel, that will be a commercial use, and the conversion will require municipal approval. If the apartment-hotel is classed as a residential use, the building will continue to be subject to rent review. The rent review legislation that is currently before the House, Bill 78, contains a provision designed to prevent landlords from removing their buildings from rent review through apartment-hotel conversion.

I believe that responds to the questions the member raised.

Mr. Speaker: On previous occasions I have reminded members and ministers about the length of questions and responses. I am going to add a minute to the question period. That was fairly long.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a great deal of sympathy with your ruling in this regard, but obviously the answer required a detailed and specific answer since the question involved addresses and locations. If you are going to rule that, surely you should indicate when the question is asked that it is an Orders and Notices question. Then the problem would not arise.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Gigantes: I would be quite content to treat it as a policy matter --

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear a supplementary.

Ms. Gigantes: -- because they were raised as examples that would indicate policies.

Given these examples and given the minister's responses, does he not accept that unless he retroactively brings in the provisions of Bill 11 over the next few weeks, every building and every unit to which Bill 11 could be applied is going to be up for grabs in terms of applications? Unless there is some element of retroactively, precisely what he has described as the situation --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the honourable member is saying Bill 11 is urgent. I hope she does not hold it up. The longer we hold up this bill, the more cases such as these will go through. I encourage the members of the New Democratic Party and of the official opposition to pass Bill 11 as quickly as possible so these things will not happen.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has been adamant in saying that it refuses to put up its one third of the funding for the new northeastern Ontario cancer treatment centre to be built in Sudbury. The minister indicated in this House that he would work with his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to set the matter straight. Will the minister provide the one third of the funding that the foundation is refusing to come forward with so the northeastern Ontario cancer treatment centre can be built?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would like this question to be answered by the Minister of Health, because he is already having discussions.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to receive the question. We have undertaken discussions with the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation with respect to the matters arising in regard to Sudbury. I have had communications with a number of people engaged in practice in the Sudbury clinic, and we are currently making progress with respect to planning the facility. In fact, we have given an undertaking to the community of Sudbury that the facility will go ahead.

Mr. Gordon: Perhaps I should direct this to the Minister of Health since it was referred to him. It has been stated in this House that this government is expecting a windfall of more than $3 billion in revenue. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) will probably be talking about it next Tuesday. I remind the minister that the present cancer patient load in Sudbury is what it was projected to be in the year 2000; however, it is happening right now in Sudbury. We have cancer patients coming from all over northeastern Ontario. They also have to come to Toronto and suffer the injustice of being away from family and friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: I will place my question.

Mr. Speaker: Please place it.

Mr. Gordon: Will the minister make a commitment to the people of northern Ontario that no matter what goes on in the discussions between the government and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, he is prepared to see that there is a full-fledged cancer treatment centre in Sudbury, with all three modalities, and that the necessary programming that has to go on will occur?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure exactly what the member wants to get at further than what I have just said. We have proceeded to planning for the implementation and building of that facility. I am in discussions with the foundation, and we are coming to grips with not only that facility in Sudbury but in effect also the role study report done for cancer services around the province. We are making progress on that. Planning has not been held up, and that facility will go ahead.

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Health about the problem my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) raised. It has to do with the very strong feeling in the Sudbury community, including the board of directors at Laurentian Hospital where the cancer treatment centre will be located, that the attitude of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation is such that virtually all the resources and money made available will go to the Princess Margaret Hospital rather than to the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury and other places in Ontario that require it. Will the minister ensure that this does not happen, and will he meet with the board of Laurentian Hospital, along with the northeastern Ontario oncology program and the local members, to resolve that problem?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elson: The honourable gentleman has raised this concern with me, and along with the other members from the Sudbury area, has been in the forefront in expressing the concern about this problem. It is not a new item. I want to reaffirm my position that financial assistance will be available.

Although I cannot guarantee where the foundation will put all its money -- I do not know that his assumption about its putting all the money at Princess Margaret is correct -- we are making progress with respect to arrangements that will address the needs of the Sudbury basin, and I can assure the members here that those items of progress are real.

Mr. Laughren: I do not think the minister understands how serious the problem is. I would like to quote very briefly from a letter from the acting director of the northeastern Ontario oncology program to Dr. Meakin, the executive director of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, in which he states:

"It is only fair to let you know that unless a more realistic understanding of these difficulties is attained and unless adequate measures are implemented now to satisfactorily resolve them, we will be forced to resign and to leave Sudbury."

The problem is very serious, and I ask the minister whether he will now set a date to meet with the board and with the local members to resolve this problem before it goes any further.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot set a date at this time, right on the spur of the moment; I do not know what my schedule is. I can say to the member for Nickel Belt, whom I always enjoy hearing from, that people from my office have been in touch with board members and have spoken directly to the good doctor just quoted. We are well aware of the circumstances about which the member has provided information. We are making progress, and I will advise with respect to meeting dates at a later time directly to the three members.

FASHION SHOW

Hon. Mr. Peterson: A question was asked by the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) a little earlier. Perhaps I can respond to her to set her mind at rest. She is worried that the fashion show is treated as an amusement subject to amusement tax.

I remind the member that all shows of this type are subject to the so-called amusement tax. Perhaps this is a misnomer, but home shows, boat shows, ski shows, sportsmen's shows and all similar operations, all of which are industries extremely important to this province, are subject to that tax. Therefore, this fashion show was treated no differently from any other one.

We have a number of representatives there. I am told the Ontario government was lauded for its support of the fashion festival. We brought 50 buyers from the United States and subsidized more than 75 booths in the show. From what I hear, they were delighted at the leadership displayed by this government.

Ms. Fish: Is the Premier not aware that the show's organizers requested the tax-exempt status that Ministers of Revenue are able to provide and have provided on other occasions? Does the Premier still stand behind page 3 of the official publication of his ministry, which he feels has been so terribly supportive?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the first question, that is the tax policy of the province. The responsibility is to gather up those moneys. Requests come to government every single day; I am sure the member is aware of that. However, the policy is administered with an even hand.

I was not aware of this picture, but I guess it is a matter of judgement. The member finds this offensive. I suspect she would be offended every day she opened the Toronto Sun and many other magazines -- the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star too, for that matter. That is fair enough. If the member is offended by this, I am mindful of the kinds of things she is trying to raise. However, I am not sure her view on this particular photograph would be shared by a lot of other people.

That having been said, there is no place for sexism in this or any other instrument of government. I am told that last night there was a fashion show and there were no male models there; there were only female models. The member may have been offended by that too.

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. When we talk about festivals, I hope the minister will be promoting our Tulip Festival in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I know he will be very supportive of that.

My question relates to a report the minister received in January from the president of Algonquin College in the city of Nepean as to a proposal for a new tourism and hospitality facility there. Over the past few years, as the minister knows, existing tourism programs in the business school have been overfilled; in other words, all the applicants could not be accepted. In addition, two or three jobs have been available for each of the graduates.

Mr. Speaker: Therefore, your question is.

Mr. Sterling: We appreciate that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Sterling: Yes. I heard in the throne speech many promises for the tourism industry. I hope the government will do something of substance --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat. The throne speech debate will continue after question period.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Jackson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Why is the Premier (Mr. Peterson) unable to respond to the question I raised in the House three days ago when he was able to respond to an earlier speaker today so quickly? The question I raised concerns 150 students whose employment is in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You may place that at the next sitting.

Mr. Bernier: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I appeal to you because I think my privileges as a member of this House have been abused. On December 9, I placed question 141 in the Orders and Notices.

On December 19, I received a letter from the secretary of cabinet, who said: "There will be additional time required to prepare the response to the above question. A final answer will be tabled on or about February 28, 1986." I waited a considerable amount of time, and on April 8, 1986, I wrote to the secretary of cabinet and asked if he would reply to my question. To this date I have not received a response.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for putting that on the record. It is not a point of privilege, but it could be a point of order. I believe the standing orders say there must be a response within a certain length of time. You have acted correctly by placing it on the record.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: During question period today the government House leader (Mr. Nixon) took a minute or so of our question period time to admonish -- I am not sure -- on standing order 29(a). I would like to comment on that.

Standing order 29(a) reads, "If in the opinion of the minister or the Speaker the question requires a lengthy answer, either the minister or the Speaker may require it to be placed on the Orders and Notices paper." There is the remedy for the ministers on that side of the House.

Second, the minister may take it as notice, but he cannot both answer it and take it as notice. Third, where it requires a lengthy statement, it is a statement.

Mr. Speaker, you ruled quite correctly today. You were well in order, and I think 29(a) covers the situation very well for all parties concerned.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Leluk: I have a petition signed by 700 Ontario residents of Etobicoke, Toronto, Scarborough, Thornhill, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines and Welland. It was forwarded to my office by the Canadian Automobile Association and it reads:

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

"We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a similar petition to that just presented. It is signed by 40 people or their representatives in the great riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. It reads as follows:

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

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Grandmaître, first reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act and the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This legislation implements the request of the council of the regional municipality of Sudbury to reassess all property within the regional area to a common base by property class. It provides companion amendments in the method of taxation to allow the lower-tier municipalities, the regional municipality and the school boards to levy a common residential mill rate and a common commercial mill rate within each of their jurisdictions. It also allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs to provide financial assistance to phase in intermunicipal cost shifts that will result from the reassessment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Baetz: Just before I moved the adjournment of the debate, I indicated that there has been a very remarkable and dramatic increase in the number of mothers working in the labour force who have very young children. This development has been with us for some years. There is no sign of it ending, and therefore it seems to me that we have to do much more to provide adequate day care services for children of working parents.

Today during question period we heard my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) talk about the recommendations coming out of his excellent task force on day care, suggesting ways and means whereby day care space could be increased. In addition to those excellent recommendations, however, I am proposing that we do considerably more in another field that would assist in caring for very young children whose parents are both employed in the labour force.

Even if we were to expand very substantially the number of organized day care spaces, it would not provide an answer to those young parents who are in the labour force but who wish to care for their own children, especially in their own homes, during the first critical bonding years. Therefore, we need to introduce measures that will provide some reasonable guarantee for parents -- in reality, mainly mothers who are employees -- that having and caring for very young children will not cost them their jobs and, conversely, that keeping their jobs does not require them to abandon the essential family obligations during the early years of their children's lives.

I believe it would be sound social policy to take steps so that one of the employed parents will be (1) guaranteed the right to be absent from work for child-caring up to a maximum period of time, including a guarantee that the employer will take the parent back in the same or a comparable job after the authorized parental leave has expired and (2) provided access to sufficient income replacement during this leave so that employees are realistically able to take advantage of the leave of absence.

The present maximum maternity leave of 17 weeks, of which 15 weeks' maternity cash benefits are paid under unemployment insurance, is not long enough to cover the crucial bonding period between parents and their infant children. It should be extended initially to at least 26 weeks and preferably to one year. The issue of expanding considerably, even if by stages, maternity or parental leave from the work force for young mothers, and in some cases fathers, essentially rests with the province. As we all know, this is because more than 80 per cent of employees in Canada are covered by provincial rather than federal labour legislation.

This proposal of expanded and extended maternity leave, along with increased maternity or parental cash benefits, is not a pie-in-the-sky proposal. In many European countries, maternity leaves range all the way from six to 47 weeks, with benefits replacing up to 80 or 100 per cent of income. In some instances, maternity leave without financial benefits is available for up to two and a half years, during which time the young mothers collect their statutory benefits.

Here in Canada, the major source of parental cash benefit funding should remain within unemployment insurance, where the maternity benefits program now is located. Enrichment of maternity parental benefits would have to be regarded as separate and distinct from other employment insurance benefits and would probably have to be financed through earmarked contributions to the fund from employers and the government. In whatever way the added maternity cash benefits would be administered, there is no doubt that if we are to expand maternity or parental leave, some additional cash benefits will have to flow or many young parents would not or could not avail themselves of the additional leave.

These are a number of ways in which maternity leave could be expanded and maternity cash benefits enriched. I hope this government will show some leadership in talking to the federal government, because obviously it would have to be involved in making these proposals possible.

In concluding my reply to the speech from the throne on what I call the broad social policy field, I would like to say one or two words about the arts. Unfortunately, the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) has just left.

Regarding the social policies that emanated from the throne speech, and social policies obviously include the arts, I was astounded that virtually nothing was said about the arts. There was an obviously last-minute, afterthought comment that the arts are important and have to be financed, but have to be retained at an arm's-length distance from government. That was it, pure and simple.

I wonder what the minister or her good deputy minister, David Silcox, did to deserve that kind of back-of-the-hand treatment. Surely the arts and culture play a central and vital role in enriching our society. The arts are not a frill. They are not the icing on the cake, a little extra if there happens to be some extra time and money. Rather, the arts are central to our lives, as important to our wellbeing as the air we breathe and the food we eat.

3:40 p.m.

We need only think what remains in societies that have long since disappeared; it is the work of their artists, their poets, their composers and their architects. For example, how many names of dukes and princes who lived during Shakespeare's time are a household word today? How many politicians who worked and ruled during the lives of Bach, Brahms, Mozart and Beethoven do we remember? One could go on. Nobody remembers and no one really cares about the accomplishments of the Dutch leaders of commerce. It is the artistic skills of the Dutch masters group of painters who have immortalized the Dutch tycoons of commerce.

These are simply a few illustrations to indicate that, when all else disappears in a society that has gone down, it is the work of the artist that remains and is immortalized. The case for the arts in our society could be made in volumes. Suffice it to say that they are central and deserve more than the kind of afterthought they received in this throne speech.

The present government has inherited a rich legacy in the arts in this province, all the way from our large, well-known cultural institutes such as the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Canadian Opera Company, the Toronto Symphony and the National Ballet to a wide array of museums across the province, local art galleries and local symphony orchestras.

Indeed, thanks to a very caring government during the past many years, the arts are flourishing in this province, and it seems to me they deserve more attention than simply a back-of-the-hand, afterthought mention in the throne speech. Let us hope, frankly, that the arm's-length distance between the government and the arts as expressed in this throne speech does not mean the distance is so great that the arts are out of the sight, the thought and the mind of government.

These are some of the gaps, omissions and weaknesses in the social policies in this throne speech. One could talk about more of them at great length, but the point has been made. This is not a serious social document. Rather, it is a pretty exercise of blowing bubbles in the air. Sooner or later, I am sure the general public will also recognize the throne speech for what it was: an exercise in blowing pretty bubbles.

Mr. Callahan: I was quite pleased when the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) started out, because it appeared as though he had read the throne speech and understood it. Unlike him, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) started his, it was totally negative. The member for Ottawa West did indicate he had at least read and understood it, and he tried to put forward some suggestions.

I have to take issue with one or two of them. The first one was the question of whether it is important to launch a thorough review of the Ontario social assistance programs. During the days of the formulation of those assistance programs by the previous Conservative government, we did not have such things as bag ladies on the streets of Toronto. We did not have several other instances of modern-day needs that have to be addressed. The Conservatives created a book and a hierarchy such that, as I said yesterday, one needed a master's degree to find out where to go to obtain the assistance.

With reference to the health care system, the cost of providing health services was allowed to escalate by his government without any possible reaffirmation or reconsideration of modern approaches to it. This throne speech indicates that aggressive, modern and visionary approaches are going to be taken to the delivery of health care other than through the traditional hospital setting. That is a very healthy attitude, recognizing the projections in the throne speech that, if we continue to allow it to grow, as the member's government did, we will find that the 31 per cent of the budget it now occupies will perhaps have doubled by the year 2001.

Mr. Breaugh: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is over here provoking the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), and that is a very volatile situation. I would not want to be caught in the radiation splash that might come from that.

Mr. Martel: I have a hockey stick.

Mr. Breaugh: I am sure the member has.

I have listened to the throne speech itself and to other members' comments on the throne speech. One of the things that always strikes me about it is the unreal air of expectations. The throne speech -- I have seen it read 11 times now -- is a social occasion. It is a day when the Lieutenant Governor -- and we have a fine new Lieutenant Governor -- comes up the street in a landau. Everybody gets out the Brasso and polishes buttons, the bands play and all the caucuses have parties; but that is what it is.

I have not yet heard a throne speech that was a hard and fast political program. None of them has been like that. All the ones I have heard have been of the same variety. There are no details in it, there is a lot of vagary about it, and there are a lot of faint hopes and wild promises; but it is not meant to be and it never has been an occasion when a government really lays out in a hard, firm way exactly what it intends to do. It is meant to be a social occasion.

I accept it for what it is, because it gives me, as an opposition member, a chance to say what I want to say. There are no longer a lot of occasions when the rules of this House provide an opportunity for an ordinary member to get up and talk about the things that are important to him or her in a riding that does not dominate provincial politics.

This is a throne speech that obviously was put together by a world-class knowledge worker, probably done at his or her little personal computer at home late at night. It is full of the jargon of our age. It is full of all the current and trendy things. It is a very yuppie type of throne speech. It is perhaps one that is precisely what one would expect from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his new government.

It reflects some concerns we all have. It poses some general premonitions on which this government is going to operate from here on in, and I believe they are things that should not be ignored. It is true that there is something called, to use the catch-phrase, world-class competition out there now. We know that. We know the cars that are made in Oshawa are now sold on a world market and they have to compete with vehicles that are made in Japan, in Germany and all over the world. They sell in that market, and more and more, the people who produce products in those countries sell in this market.

Not long ago in North America, if one suggested for a moment that import cars would take up more than 20 per cent of the total marketplace, people would say: "That is ridiculous. No one will buy those small vehicles. They do not want that type of car." Not too long ago, the imports were seen as a nuisance in the marketplace, not as having a major impact.

I went to a local Chevy dealership in Oshawa a little while ago and tried to find a full-sized vehicle. I could not find a full-sized Chevrolet; they did not have one in stock. There were all kinds of vehicles that had been down-sized, that looked like the imports, that were the General Motors version of the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, but there were no full-sized cars there. That is a remarkable change in the auto industry itself.

Let me touch on a couple of old thoughts, because I would hate to leave them this late in my career.

Every year I have been here, I have made the plea that we ought to televise the proceedings of this House. I am taken aback somewhat that for the first time I cannot make that plea. This process is now being televised. There are members here who will be inconvenienced by this. I know that already. There are people who are very concerned about what they look like on television. There are some who are very concerned about what the House in general looks like on TV. I have been told the sound system is inadequate. I knew all these things, but I am pleased to hear them again.

It is true that the place is different from most forums. It is a little more rowdy in spots. I do not think it will change very much. In the first few days of the televising of the proceedings here I noticed the place was a little bit quiet. However, I also notice that as each day goes by, the politeness has dropped and the rowdiness has returned. I believe we will fall into the pattern that every other legislature has seen, that when the proceedings are televised, for the first few days the members are not quite sure what to do. In that era of uncertainty, they often revert to being almost polite.

3:50 p.m.

I want the people of Ontario to have a chance to see how this House functions. For example, when what was then called the standing committee on procedural affairs wrote its report, the guidelines essentially said, "We would like to show the people of Ontario their parliament at work and to show it as accurately and honestly, warts and all, as we possibly can." Without question, that will embarrass some members. Perhaps those members should be embarrassed. Some people will say it costs too much. They will be the people who spent twice that amount of money for a party on the front lawn for one night. I know who they are, and I am waiting for them to make those arguments.

I believe the people have a right to know. I believe they have a right to see what their Legislature is like day by day. I think they have a right to see what their local member does day by day. More important, I hope it will change the nature of politics in Ontario, because now they will be able to assess political leaders and political parties on more than just an advertising campaign. They will see them at work in their work place every day of their political lives.

Not everybody is going to turn off The Young and the Restless to watch the old and the restless. We know that already. They will watch from time to time to keep an eye on us. It is much the same as putting one's child out to play in the backyard: Every once in a while one takes a look out the window and sees what is going on out there. I suspect most of the people in Ontario will take much the same attitude towards televising these proceedings. They will check it out every once in a while to see what is going on, to see how the new Premier is performing, to see how the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) is settling into his role, to see what the third party is up to these days.

To me, that is a significant improvement in their ability to see and understand how the political process works. It provides access to people all over Ontario. When the finalized procedure is put together, we will probably have done about as much as one can do to see that people in every part of the province have an equal opportunity to have access to the legislative process. That is difficult. That is not easy in this part of the world, but it can be done and we intend to try to do that.

Let me say too that I would welcome the comments and suggestions that members on all sides have formulated over a reasonable period of time as well as comments they have picked up from the people back home.

One of the things that already strikes me about televising the proceedings is that when I watch it with my son or my wife at home I have to spend a little bit of time explaining what is happening. I do not know whether we need to bring in Howard Cosell for a week or so, but there are things about the rules of the House, and the way we proceed with things here, that are not readily understandable to most human beings. That is something we can forgive them for, but perhaps in proceeding with televising these things we will have to find ways and means of explaining what is going on.

This is not the most glorious example to pick, but for a long time it irked me in watching the federal Parliament that when a member was named, one never found out who the member was and one never saw the member. All one got to see was the Speaker calling for order and informally naming a member. Unless one is a member of Parliament, one does not know what is going on.

At least I have this much to claim for our small victories here. The other day a member was named, and we found out who the member was and we actually saw the process at work. If I may, I would like to say that is an example of what we are trying to do. We are trying to explain the process, to let people see the process in terms they can understand. That is important.

In the long run, I believe there is a larger goal here, and an important one; that is, that people will have access to the parliamentary process.

I used to get up on these occasions and give my little tirade about rule changes. Being a fan of the parliamentary process and one who is involved in procedural matters pretty regularly, I believe the parliamentary process is the best in the world from the point of view of a system that works and has traditions to lean on. It also should have a lot of flexibility, because this parliament is a lot different from the ancient Parliaments in Britain.

We have changed the rules substantially here. We have not done all that I would have wanted to do. We have not done all from the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, that is for sure, but we have made some major changes.

From a few weeks of operation, I would like to make a couple of comments on that. We have given members an opportunity to make little statements at the beginning of the day, and I believe that is a very worthwhile thing to do. I do not hear the frivolous points of order any more. The members have their vehicle whereby they can say something that is important to them and their constituencies. There is a clear vehicle there.

The response to ministers' statements is a good give and take period. It will not be consistently wonderful stuff to watch, but there is some fairness in that. I believe in the question period changes that have happened. More ordinary members are getting a chance to ask a question. That is as it should be.

At the end of that part of our legislative day, many more people -- probably two or three times the number as did previously -- have had a chance to say their piece, to ask their question and to respond to a statement. That is a good parliament at work. It allows members on all sides to have a regular opportunity to participate, which is incredibly important for the process. It means the domination of the process by the party leaders will diminish somewhat and, on balance, will mean more give and take. The heart and soul of any parliamentary system is that there is give and take. The government gets a chance to take some initiatives and opposition members get an opportunity to respond to them. Those changes are healthy. They have resulted in some changes already and more changes are on the way.

I want to put in a commercial for two things that have not happened. We will review these at the end of the year, and I hope we will have another opportunity to go at them again. The parliamentary calendar concept -- that is, we all know when the spring session starts and when it ends and we all know when the fall session starts and when it ends -- is just common sense. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that was not accepted. It seems to be such a straightforward concept, however we work out the mechanics of it. We are not finished with that argument by a long shot. We will come back to it, and one of these days we will, like everybody else who has a job somewhere, know when the job is going to start and when it is going to finish.

The other things that did not happen -- and perhaps this is understandable -- are some recommendations we made about dealing with the estimates. We said we should set up a new committee and refer all the estimates to that committee. We said we should give that committee the resources to go after the spending of the government, while the money is being spent, before it is spent and after it is spent. We set up the committee, but the rest of us are still left with all these wonderful estimates to go through.

For people who do not know what a parliament is all about or what estimates are, they are supposed to be an opportunity for opposition and government members to query the spending practices and policies of a government. In reality, they turn out to be long bull sessions, to be polite about it. They are not particularly productive, but -- and I want to put this on the record too -- they are as expensive as all get out. That point is sometimes forgotten. When the minister walks into the room with three briefing books, somebody has been paid to put the briefing books together. When the ministerial staff arrives, and in some estimates the people arrive in waves, that costs us money. It costs us money to bring in deputy ministers to sit around the table and to fill the room with all those people who are monitoring the proceedings for some reason.

It is an expensive and counterproductive process. More important, I believe there is a better way to do it, and we suggested that in the report. I know it is traditional to have estimates done in committee. I know there are members who want the right to go in and flail away for a while, but I suggest once again it is not a particularly productive exercise and there is a better way to do it. We outlined in our report some of the ways we might do that. I hope that when we review the procedures again at the end of the fall session, we will have yet another run at that.

It is high time this province had a workable way to scrutinize the spending of our government. The truth is, right now we do not. Every municipality in Ontario has better accountability on the part of the local town council than we have here. Every member of a town council or a school board in Ontario has better access to information and more opportunities to question spending and to make an impact on a budget than any member in this House. That is ridiculous. That is truly crazy.

A school board must put together its budget in public, and the members of the board have the opportunity to analyse, ask questions and change things. We recognize that for municipalities, but we do not for senior levels of government. In this day and age, with the amount of money being spent by the province, that is a sin that ought to be corrected.

Let me make a couple of comments about what is called the accord. Members and a lot of other people will know that at the end of the last election my party and the Liberal Party realized there was a minority situation for, I think, the third time in four elections and decided we had better find some ways and means of establishing a government with some stability for a while. We put together a rather different kind of agreement on how to proceed from there.

4 p.m.

It is difficult for me to assess how the population as a whole views this. Many of them have liberties which members of the Legislature do not have. People I talk to at home say, "Never associate yourselves with either the Liberals or the Conservatives." I try to explain to them that they can do that. That is a privilege that is open to them, but it is not open to me. As a member of the Legislature, I am sent here to vote on bills, for example. I have to vote with one side or the other. I cannot take a walk all the time.

We had to make a decision which was unique to us to fulfil our responsibilities, and we did. I am uneasy about it because nobody has ever done this before. We are not formally a part of the cabinet and we do not have that kind of input into it. The main thing that hits me again and again is that it is different, it is unusual and there are not many precedents for it, but I would do it again in a minute. I believe whatever political party one belongs to, if it holds power for 42 years, it is in trouble and so are the people it governs. That really works against the democratic process.

If a government gets a huge majority, it causes itself problems. We are seeing that now at the national level. No one has to attack Brian Mulroney. He is attacking himself every other day. Some minister of the crown is in hot water again. Nobody has pushed him into a corner; he fell through the floor all by himself. The parliamentary process works well when there is a balance and give and take, when there is a government trying to do something and an opposition saying: "Wait a minute. There is a better way," or, "Do not do that. Try this." Democracy is served better when there is a balance on all sides, when there are checks and balances and when a government does not have the opportunity to ram something through all by itself.

I do not regret that for a minute. It causes a little unease in spots because we are walking unfamiliar territory, but I believe it has been good even for the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario. It gives them a chance to regroup and rethink without having to be the government every day. I am sure this is not exactly a pleasure and they would much rather be the government, but in the long run, it will do them some good. I have met the odd Tory who is prepared to admit to that.

Let me move to what I see this new government being up to. For starters, it is doing okay. There is not good news or bad news all the time, but it is doing all right. I have said that about Tory governments, so I do not feel bad saying it about Liberal governments. What has happened is pretty obvious. The government came in with a tremendous legislative program that was generated by the accord. There is no question about that. That stuff was all put on the table. It had to take those initiatives and it has begun to do those things.

If we add up what has been truly accomplished, we have to admit it is not a great deal as yet. There is a lot of work that must be done, but the initiatives have been taken. That is important. People I talk to are refreshed by that. They are happy that somebody is doing something.

As a member of the Legislature, I sat here during the previous four years and looked at all kinds of inconsequential bills. During that time, this Legislature did not do a great deal, at least in legislative terms. Now, if anything, we are overworked. Our committees are backed up. We are trying to get the legislation through. Our members are tired. They have been in session since the election. There was no break for members of our caucus when we adjourned just after Christmas, because we had to come back in here and work on that legislation. That is not an argument for higher pay. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing. We are here, sitting as a parliament, dealing with legislation. That is what we are paid to do. We should not complain when we are asked to do that.

If it does anything, the throne speech gives a fairly clear indication that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his new government have seen themselves to be aligned on the left. They wanted to take a step or two to the right and they did that. That is why the language of the throne speech is very much the language of the chamber of commerce. There is a lot of jargon and jingle in there. That is fine by me. I do not object to that.

The first objection I want to put on the record is an unfortunate one. Just after we got back to work, the government brought in back-to-work legislation for the Wheel-Trans drivers. I regret that because it is sad. The Premier said that he does not care about the numbers, but I put it to him that if there were 80,000 instead of 80 Wheel-Trans drivers, nobody would have tried to ram a bill through this House in one day. I believe that to be true.

One of the reasons there are some delicate negotiations around Bill 94 is because there are a lot of people affected by it. The Wheel-Trans drivers are a small group of people. The first mistake I have seen the new Premier make was to pick on a group that small when he could have exercised several other options that would have resolved the labour dispute. It was quite wrong.

I think I understand why he did it. He wanted a signal that this was not a government that is all on the side of labour or on the left. This is a government that can walk on the right-hand side of the street too. Back-to-work legislation is a good way to get that message out, and he did, but surely among all the young yuppies that work around the Premier's office, somebody should have told him he cannot put a bill through the House in one day. He cannot pass legislation that nobody has ever seen. He has to have it printed, put on the order paper, order the debates and all that. Somebody made a little mistake there, a stupid mistake, I believe. There was no need for that at all, and this House would have been quite wrong to have allowed that kind of legislation to go through in one day.

That is the first mistake that has been made. The second one may turn out to be a mistake. I am sure in the Premier's office they do not view it this way at all.

If one watched the news, the history being made about the legislation to ban extra billing, one would have asked: "What is going on here? Did the government not clearly announce its intention to ban extra billing?" Yes, it did. "Does the Premier not get up in the House every day and say that is still what it is going to do?" Yes, he does. "Then why in the world would the government hold public hearings on the bill, take it through committee and then put it on the back burner?" There is no good explanation for that unless one is into modern political theory. There is a theory of politics today that it is very important to do something called issue management.

The best example I can think of was when Bill Davis wanted to build a domed stadium in downtown Toronto. I am sure he knew that was a rather preposterous thought and that there would be municipalities around here that would object to Toronto once again getting a whole lot of money to build a domed stadium, so Bill said, "Let me try this on for size."

Then he said, "I am not too sure about that Toronto site; maybe we had better set up a quasi-royal commission here and invite all these municipalities around us to make applications," which he did. I attended a couple of those on behalf of some people in Durham who wanted to put one in Oshawa or Whitby or Ajax or wherever. I am in favour of that because it would have saved me a couple of hours of driving to the stadium.

In the process, what happened was that all those municipalities that might initially have said, "We are not against the domed stadium, but do not build it in Toronto," had now made submissions, saying, "The domed stadium is a great idea; build it in my backyard." They were all on side. By the time Bill Davis got through with the domed stadium idea, it went from about 20 per cent to about 70 per cent of the population that thought it was a good idea.

That is issue management. Take something one wants to do and do not rush with it. Play with it; desk here; give it a couple of steps over there and a couple of head fakes; get a couple more people on side. I believe that is what the Premier is trying to do with the ban on extra billing, and in the process the doctors are playing right into his hand. What he wants he almost got yesterday -- almost.

That was a pretty genteel demonstration out front. Everybody was well dressed and well behaved. They ate ice-cream cones. They did not throw beer bottles on the lawn. They picked up after themselves. I noticed that whoever organized the demonstration was right on the ball. They anticipated they were not going to draw 15,000 people, so they moved the stage about halfway down the field and the whole front lawn was pretty much covered with people who would nearly have occupied that little space at the front of the building. It looked good; it was well produced; the thing went off well. I congratulate them on that.

What the Premier was looking for was an angry doctor. He wants that one picture, and I am convinced he will get it before he is through. The Premier is in here every day looking calm, relaxed and reasonable but firm. What he is fishing for is the angry doctor. As in every other dispute I have ever seen, when there is a demonstration out front, the photographers are looking for the one worker who is mad and who says or does something untoward. That is the picture that will be on the front page.

4:10 p.m.

That is what the Premier is angling for; he wants that angry doctor. When the doctor gets really angry and the picture appears, right beside it on the front page, there will be a picture of the calm, reasonable Premier saying: "My goodness, I will have to do something about this. I did not want to. I waited; I negotiated; I talked; I delayed. I gave you every opportunity in the world to be reasonable, but you are being unreasonable."

That is issue management too. That is a government that has determined what it wants to do, is a little unsure of what should happen here and is milking that for everything it is worth. In the end, it has worked. Let us admit that. Every day since the Premier introduced Bill 94, he has said he is against extra billing and it has been news every day since he introduced it. By all rights, it should have been off the front pages long ago. It should be done with.

I believe the government has chosen to manage this issue a little bit, to keep the Premier in the spotlight, to keep him calm and reasonable and to have him wait for the angry doctor to appear. He or she probably will. The dénouement will come when the Premier says: "I have been so reasonable, so calm and so righteous about all this and you are being so unreal, unreasonable and angry that you are forcing me to pass the bill I introduced six months ago."

Mr. Wildman: Does the member really think he is that cynical?

Mr. Breaugh: I do.

That is liable to backfire. I want to caution the Premier. I know his advisers are telling him the issue needs to be managed a little bit more and he has to massage that around a little bit, but a lot of people are getting hurt in the process, and that is about to surface. We are now beginning to understand that while the Premier waits and manages this issue a bit more, there are more and more patients paying extra amounts of money. Many of them cannot afford it. I know people in my constituency who have put off operations for themselves or their children because they cannot afford the money for them. They are waiting until extra billing is banned so they or their children can get these operations. The people I talked to are not complaining about $10 or $20. These are people who have been referred out of my hospital's catchment area to the downtown Toronto high-technology hospitals. We are not talking peanuts here, fans. It is at least $1,000 and in some cases $2,000 or $3,000. That is a lot of money.

I believe that is wrong. If the Premier manages that issue much longer, I believe we will have a real problem on our hands. I caution him not to play with that too much longer.

Let me touch on some other things that were mentioned in the throne speech. There is a lot of jargon about high technology, whatever that is, and all its ramifications. We are beginning to understand it is very fashionable to talk about the hardware side of it -- all the machines we are going to build, all the changes that will happen in the production place. I want to generate some talk about the other side of it, the human beings who have to deal with high technology. I do not believe we are getting ready for that and we have to. We are not ready to deal with the technology we have.

People who work in offices tell me: "It is tough because there is no old-fashioned typewriter any more. It has been replaced by a computer or a word processor and I do not know how to run one of those things. As fast as I learn how to operate the new equipment, there is more new equipment in the office." The office is changing.

When we talk about workers, many of us think of some male who gets up early in the morning, sticks a lunch pail under his arm and goes off to an industrial work place. That work place is changing dramatically as well. The most significant change for many people is that the work place is no longer there. That is sad, but it is a reality that the people in my community and I live with. We have lost the bulk of our secondary manufacturing industry. The things that are happening now in the northern part of the province, such as in Sault Ste. Marie, happened in my area three, four or five years ago. It is tough.

I would like to invite all the people who talk about new technology, changes in the work place, increased production facilities and the hardware side of it to come to Oshawa, sit at some kitchen table and listen to people who have had their lives destroyed because the plant closed down. It was the plant they hated all their lives, where they complained to no end about what a lousy place it was to be. Yet it is there no more, and they are sad about that. They had a healthy, human investment in that work place and it was torn away from them, as was their financial security. Their hopes and dreams about a house, their kids' education and providing for their families are wrecked by an economic decision.

We have not come to grips with that. We have talked about notification of plant shutdowns and some other very simple, straightforward ideas that have to be done, but we have not learned a great deal about how to deal with the industrial worker who is ripped apart by an economic decision, which I am sure makes good sense in Florida, Philadelphia or wherever the head office is. That continues to be the unfortunate trend in some parts of our province -- fortunately not in all parts. That is something we have to learn a great deal about.

We have to begin to come to grips with larger issues. In this part of the world, as in all parts, we have operated for a few centuries with some kind of industrial pollution under way. There is a simple notion that all one does with industrial pollution is disperse it, get it up in the air, dump it in the lake, truck it somewhere, do something but just get it away from oneself. That was seen to be a reasonable solution to all of this muck and mire one did not want to keep around.

For centuries we have dumped every imaginable chemical in that lake at the foot of the street. We have dumped them in the streams, lakes and rivers, anywhere we could. We have dumped them on farm land and pumped them out of smokestacks. We are just beginning to have some idea of how ludicrously expensive that was in dollar terms, people's lives and the quality of life. We are beginning to do some analysis of something that would have been unthinkable in this part of the world not too long ago.

People are asking whether the water they drink is safe. So far, it is only a question. Frankly, we do not really have the technology to determine whether it is safe. We are not sure of the standards or how to measure. We do not monitor all that much. The assumption that the water in this area of the world is relatively safe to drink is no longer a safe and reasonable one. It was not very long ago when someone in Ontario could say, "That is never going to be a problem here. We have so much clean, safe drinking water that it will never be a problem here." We are now beginning to understand it is. We do not quite have the tools to deal with it yet, but we are thinking about it.

Places such as Toronto are now asking, "If we cannot drink the water from Lake Ontario, how do the people in this city get water? What would one have to do to provide them with water?" The first suggestion that has been talked about is building a pipeline to get the water from Georgian Bay down to Toronto. The reason Toronto is here is it was next to a source of water, among other things. Now we are talking about piping water back and forth across the province.

However farfetched that kind of solution may seem to us now, I hope it is not seen in 20 years as the only solution to an ever-growing problem. It may be. More and more people are beginning to understand the problem. Not very long ago one could probably say that all of this environmental stuff is -- as I heard today -- a yuppie issue and only environmental freaks are into that talk about air, water, earth and all of that. The flower children were interested in this, but nobody else was.

In my office we hand out a whole lot of those guides about what kinds of fish are safe to eat. The people who ask for them are not yuppies by a long shot. They are people who simply like to enjoy themselves by fishing. They are now aware that one cannot just eat a catch of fish. One should now know what is likely to be in that fish, how many one can eat, when and how many times a year. The awareness level is a little higher than some of us might have anticipated. People know and are taking precautions. They understand the air is not as clean as it ought to be and the water we drink is not as clear as it used to be or should be and produces effects on fish and wildlife that are dangerous to people.

4:20 p.m.

That is a sad commentary on the world in which we live, but I believe it is true. More and more people are going to demand that governments stop playing around with the environment. Last fall they applauded when a major polluter was nailed with a reasonably substantial fine for the first time in the history of this province. They were not yelling because they thought the polluter should be penalized. I believe they were applauding because they thought it was a signal that this government might actually be serious about its environmental laws and that would surely be a change. Instead of the polluter getting a piece of paper saying, "Please do not do this any more or we might actually get tough and put an order on you," he would be charged, just as I would be charged for speeding on a highway. People are arguing about simple fairness.

If we write a speeding law for the whole population that says, "You all have to conform to this law," and if we put cops on the road with radar guns to make people conform to that law, they do not like it but they accept it. All they want is for the government to apply the environmental laws with the same vigour. It is as simple as that. That is not unfair. However much a company might yell and scream that it cannot afford it, there should be no exemption. It should not be outside the law. It should comply with the laws that exist as every other citizen does. That would be a substantial change.

Although this is harder, people are getting a little more aware of health and safety in the work place. Mine is a very industrialized riding and there is a lot of concern about it. We have a piece to go on this; I am the first to admit it. In the work place, workers themselves now are at a level where they are aware that there are health and safety laws that should be obeyed. They are aware that they have consequences for their personal lifestyle and health. It is at the point where it is great stuff until you order them to wear steel-toed work boots and they do not want to wear them. It is at that level; we are getting there.

In this day and age, I would have thought that we would have acknowledged that health and safety laws, such as they are in Ontario, are valid and have to be obeyed by everyone -- workers, owners of companies and the provincial government -- and that we should make them an efficient and workable system of controlling health and safety in the work place. Some of us are trying.

It is difficult. I remember talking to industrial workers who tested chemicals in a vat by sticking their finger in it and licking it with their tongue. That is how they would test for chemicals. To me, that was bizarre to say the least. To them, that was the way they always tested whether there was a right mix of chemicals in the vat. You tested it with your tongue just as your wife would test cooking in the kitchen. In the work place, that is what the man would do. In part, it was stupid, macho stuff; in part, it was a lack of knowledge of what chemicals were in the vat; in part, it was "That is the way I learned to do this job." It is as simple as that.

Miss Stephenson: That was a slightly sexist remark. Surely you cook too.

Mr. Breaugh: I do. I cook chili in my kitchen every day. I always taste it. In the kitchen, it is not too bad. In the work place, it is a particularly dangerous thing to do.

This is an issue that is going to be of more and more concern as we learn more and more about the effects of various chemicals in the work place. It is the tip of the iceberg so far. We have begun to write the laws. We have begun to accumulate the knowledge. We do not know all that is happening in anybody's work place. We do not know the long-term effects of a number of chemicals in work situations. That will continue to be a substantial problem.

Let me say a little about the economy. I have some high hopes. In my area, General Motors just announced what may turn out to be a $3-billion investment in its production facilities in Oshawa. For those who like this, it is going to be world-class stuff.

Mr. Wildman: World-class? Where have we heard that?

Mr. Breaugh: World-class; it is right out of the throne speech.

There is hope in all this. Along with all this new technology and all the changes in the work place is coming a change in the philosophy of work, in how you do your job. By about mid-1987, there will not be an assembly line at the Oshawa production facility. That is a phenomenal change in the structure of the work place.

Talking to workers, it is odd, but the phenomenon I discussed a bit earlier is still there. They hate the assembly line; they cannot stand it. If you ask an assembly line worker, "What is it you cannot stand about your job?" he will say it is the line, the killing line. A guy in Oshawa wrote a very good book about that, and the members ought to read it. It is the concept that says: "My life as a worker in a plant is totally subordinated to a production line. I can fall dead at the work place and no one will care as long as I do not fall across the assembly line and stop the line." That is what is really bad, that General Motors will run its plants in any country in the world, with a revolution in full swing, as long as the revolution does not stop the assembly lines.

It is a symbol for workers, one they love and hate. They love it because in a very real sense, through union contracts that have been toughly negotiated over the years, the assembly line has brought them an economic status their fathers and grandfathers never could obtain. They hate it because it is a grinding work place; it really does grind them. With this new investment will come work stations, teams, responsibility for production, assessment of performance and assessment of auto parts. It will be a whole change in working life for these people.

I am gratified because I have always been an advocate of what used to be called democracy in the work place, where workers would have some control over their lives in the work place, and they could say some things to management and there would be changes. It has perhaps been made popular because the Japanese do a lot of it. They talk about the quality of the work place and they talk a great deal about production ideas. They design their plants with suggestions from the workers. To some degree, the workers feel that they have, not control over but an influence on the work place. When they tell somebody in production management how he can make an improvement, he actually does it. That is not a rare occurrence; it happens daily.

That is so rare in our production facilities that we have tended to say, "You ought to get an award for it." Somebody gives you a plaque or $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever for a suggestion you have submitted. There is a change under way. The change is that management now understands that workers are human beings with good ideas, that no one knows a work place better than the worker who work there every day of his or her life and that the workers have knowledge no one else has.

Management does not have that knowledge. Management people may never have worked in that facility. They may have been in office jobs all their working lives. They may never have known what it is like to listen to the noise on a production line. They may never have known that kind of stress. They would know another kind, but not that kind. They would know a great many things, but they would not know what it is like to use one's hands to build a Chevrolet. The workers know that.

It will not be an easy transition. In the end, I believe it will be a good transition, a process that will be better than what we have now, one that will be a little saner and a little more productive. From General Motors' point of view, bless its soul -- I do not get to agree with management at General Motors a whole lot, but I do about this -- it is very straightforward: This is not an act of kindness on the part of General Motors, but is an act of productivity. They want to increase profit and they want to build better automobiles.

From their point of view, they are arriving at the same place by a very different route. I come at the whole concept of democracy in the work place from a human being's point of view. They come at it from a ledger's point of view. If it makes better economic sense to change the work place, they will change it. To their credit, that is exactly what they are doing. In their announcements, they have indicated clearly that they understand this will not be simple. It is a dramatic change in the work place but one they believe is for the better, for General Motors as well as for the workers. That is why they are there.

Let me put in another little commercial. This is the second occasion on which I am agreeing with General Motors, in this case with its president. I went to a local businessmen's group where he gave a speech in which he came as close as I have ever seen the president of General Motors come to criticizing government policy. Management for some reason does not do that.

In essence, he said: "We are fed up. We are in the private sector, investing billions of dollars in Canada's economy. We do not want much for that, but we want some fairness." He said it was not fair to come to General Motors and say, "Invest your corporate entity here in Oshawa, Ste. Thérèse, St. Catharines and Windsor; spend your money privately;" and then to invite in its competition from offshore, most notably the Japanese, saying, "We want you here" -- we do, for a lot of reasons; and offering cash incentives to underwrite their loans, to provide them with land and to provide them with training facilities.

4:30 p.m.

The government is subsidizing the offshore producers. I thought he had a fair argument. He said, "Bring us all in." He does not welcome competition. General Motors is not that stupid, but it knows competition is inevitable. He was arguing for simple fairness. That is a strong argument. He simply said, "If you expect us to invest this kind of money" -- $2 billion twice in two years, in one production facility -- "surely it is fair to ask our competitors to come in here on exactly the same basis." I believe him. He is right; there is some fairness in that.

I know this is not a terribly popular thing to say in many parts of Ontario where there are new offshore producers either here or on their way. However, it is something we should write into the back of our minds. When we bring offshore production facilities into Canada, and in fairness, I believe that should be done, if they are going to compete in this market, they should have to build those products here. I am also aware that is not a simple notion.

When I went out to buy a microwave oven, I could not find anything that looked even vaguely Canadian, but I found a Hitachi that had a little red maple leaf on it. I guess in some wonderful federal bureaucrat's mind, it qualifies as being made in Canada; so they put a little red maple leaf on the sales sticker. That is fine. I suppose we will have to do things such as that.

However, I want to reiterate that I thought that was a fair and reasonable request on his part, from a company that has made its fair share of capital investment in this country. It has done well here. It is not doing any of these things out of the goodness of its heart. It produces automobiles in this country because the people who work in those plants consistently produce a quality product. They are consistently at the top of the General Motors chain of production facilities. General Motors is here because people here do a good job, because they produce a good product and because it makes economic sense to be here.

In terms of developing what goes on around Ontario -- and I know this is a little different perspective from the one that some members would put on it -- there are economic problems occurring in the northern part of our province. There will be responses to these problems. Based on tradition, somebody, such as the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his budget next Tuesday, will announce a make-work program. If I may put in a plea, the Treasurer should do that if he wants; that is fine. However, he should make sure the programs designed are useful.

I have a suggestion. The Treasurer should go to the municipalities, as I know the minister, the deputy ministers and some of my colleagues already have, and ask them: "What needs to be done in this area? Which are the roads you need built? What are the facilities that ought to be put up at this time that would help you through this gap?"

The Treasurer should take their suggestions. He should not sit in Toronto and have his bureaucrats fantasize programs for the north, the east or anywhere else. He should have the common sense to go there and ask people what they need and what would be useful and helpful in that situation. He should take those suggestions and fund them.

In the long run, the government will have to address itself to the long-term problems of several parts of the province. The north is one that is dramatic. Any of us who has had the opportunity to travel through the north is struck by the differences between the north and the south. They are dramatic.

If one goes to a place such as Moosonee, the only thing that can be compared with southern Ontario in the whole town is the liquor store. There is a first-class liquor store in Moosonee. However, they do not have paved roads yet; they are supposed to come in this summer. They do not have jobs for people or the same standards of health care and social services. All these things needs to be addressed in a substantial, long-term commitment.

We have to begin to find ways to develop the economy of northern Ontario, and eastern Ontario as well, in ways that are not traditional. It is great stuff; I admit it and I believe it. Tourism is now and is always going to be important in those parts and all over the province. However, I remind members that tourism is not exactly the world's greatest place for the worker. There are minimum-wage, short-term and seasonal jobs. It is folly for any of us to say he or she can support a family on what he or she would make in a resort. Members should understand that. There are limits to what tourism can do for us. I think we ought to take it right up to those limits, but that cannot be all.

There has to be the generation of thought and the generation of an industrialized base that is diversified around Ontario. It has to extend into the northern part of this province. It has to be much more than taking the resources out of or from the top of the ground and shipping them somewhere else. This is insanity. We should have learned that lesson in this country a long time ago. However, it appears we have not learned it yet.

I am making the plea to learn that lesson. If we are going to use the resources in the northern part of the province or in eastern Ontario, we have an obligation to those people to build a local economy component into that. They cannot be just truckers; they must have full-time jobs in their community, and they have every bit as much right to economic security as people anywhere else in the province.

We are in a position where we can do that. We have unemployment problems that are not general any more. They are not what they should be, but it is not a disaster all over Ontario. The problems are localized. Let us take this opportunity to solve some of those problems, not with a quick fix but with a long-term change. I am making the plea that it has to be incorporated with the wishes, the desires and the real needs -- not the perceived needs -- of those communities.

Let me make a couple of other points that have to be made. A lot of people have said to me lately, for a variety of reasons -- perhaps because it has been in the news a lot -- that the price of gasoline is out of line and that the level of taxes on gasoline is absurd. Many of them are people who have just come back from a holiday somewhere else and have found that a gallon of gas in the United States costs about half, and a little less than half in some places, what it costs here. The difference is the tax structure. They are saying this is starting to hurt.

I urge the government to take this little message and to stop taking what I know has always been seen as a traditional almost free ride. It feels it can tax gasoline as much as it wants to because nobody ever sees the tax on that. One does not see the kid pumping gas at the corner station as a tax collector for the government, even though he or she probably is.

I believe the government will have to take some steps in that regard because many of our people, especially many of our pensioners, are paying an inordinate amount of money for transportation. It would be fine if we had transit systems around Ontario such as there is in downtown Toronto, but we do not. In our community, we have not a bad transit system, but it does not extend the way transportation does in downtown Toronto. That is the case in many of the communities of members from outside Toronto. Some areas have no transportation.

Going back to the Wheel-Trans debate, one of the things that struck me was the hypocrisy of it. That Wheel-Trans service in Toronto was absolutely essential, and we just could not live without it. I have been a participant in providing transportation for the handicapped in my own community, and I have gone through the raffles, the visits to service clubs to get a van and seeking government grants to pay the drivers. In most parts of Ontario I have been to, there is no such service for the handicapped.

When it happens in Toronto, because it is news and because the media are here, that is an essential service all of a sudden. If it is an essential service here, how about in rural Ontario? Can anybody identify for me a rural part of this province that has a transit service for the handicapped? If there is such a thing, it is probably the guy down the road with a station wagon who can pick them up and take them somewhere, but there is no publicly operated, as-of-right transit service for the disabled.

We have opportunity here, but we have a number of problems. Let me get into one other area, and then I want to finish up with a slightly different concept.

There has been a lot of discussion in this House and in the federal House about free trade. The irony of it is that I cannot remember a time in the history of the world when there ever was free trade. In the great old days of the British Empire, there was a rumour that trade was free, but it seems to me in my reading of the history books that the price for that was they always had to conquer somebody. They always had to kill somebody, take over a country, and then they had to go back and fight off the revolution for a few hundred years or they had to bribe somebody. I do not know of a time in the history of the world when there was free trade. There have always been rules, regulations, negotiations and all of that.

The problem is that many of the people who advocate free trade want to have a theoretical argument. That is fine. If we all want to go off to our universities to organize forums on free trade, we are never going to do it. We can have the academic argument about whether it would be more noble to have free trade and whether we could compete in a world market with free trade. This is fine, up until the point one does it. It would be sad if we had this wonderful, noble argument that free trade is such a wonderful blessing and we will all do so well, and then we found the next day that everything we had was on the bargaining table.

4:40 p.m.

The chairman of the committee that dealt with this matter to fast-track it -- I think that is the term -- in the American Congress said every fish that swims is on the table now. They mean it. We had an opportunity to talk to American senators and congressional people. They are very serious. If the government wants to jack around with free trade, fine, but everything is up front on the table.

The government may choose to think we can bargain with the United States on an equal footing. In my view, it is crazy. They have a subsidized agricultural process down there that is phenomenal. When they put even a small shift into their regulations, farmers in western Canada, who theoretically should do very well under free trade, are dying on the vine. They are not just losing theoretical arguments; their farms are going bankrupt. We should understand that. This is not an academic argument; it is for real.

The plants that will close under free trade will be in my constituency and in others. The day that free trade is totally opened up in my area, I will be able to go around and almost put a little mark on the buildings of those places that are going to close. Most members here are in the unusual position of having some working knowledge of where the competition will come from, who runs the furniture factories in the US, what they can produce, how much money it will cost them to produce and what will be the impact on the Canadian market.

We know the boat builders, for example, with massive advertising budgets, are looking for any new market. It does not have to be a big one. Any new market is found money for them. They will come in here and wipe out whole sectors. There will not be a recording industry here. Why would there be? There is a brewery somewhere in St. Louis that can produce enough beer for all of Ontario. Why would they bother with local breweries here?

We should understand that. This is not an academic argument; it is for real. The plants that will close are in my riding and in those of other members, and the people who will be dislocated -- that is the pleasant word these days that means being thrown out on the street -- will be our constituents. We have to understand that. That kind of argument about free trade is just fine, but it has to be for real and it has to be about facts, not political theory. That is the sad part about the current discussion on free trade.

The part that disturbs me is that people want to fantasize about it. Would it not be wonderful if we could get access to the big American market? That is one part of it. The Americans also get access to this little Canadian market. There is a major problem there.

Let me close with one other theme that I hope to spend some time on. We used to talk a great deal about how much influence any human being can have on his or her life. Some people like to call this empowerment. I do not know what that word means, but I will take a shot at explaining it. What it means is, does one feel that one makes a difference? Does one feel that one has any control at all, in the work place, where one lives or in designing one's future? Does one have any influence on the process, or is one a victim of that process?

I am an advocate that, however small it might be, however inconsequential it might be, I am not going to be a victim any more in my life, I will make a difference. I will pound on the government's door. I will annoy it. I will bother it until it changes just a bit, until I see that I have had an influence. Quite frankly, it works in my personal life.

When people seize the opportunity to make a difference, when they go out to make it happen, it happens. More of our people are going to have to understand this process, where they work, where they play and where they are governed; they must have some sense their vote makes a difference. We went through a round of municipal elections last fall. Most people did not bother to vote. Most of the ones I talked to said: "It does not make any difference. I cannot influence anybody with my vote." We have to try to make them understand that they do.

My world has changed totally in the past 12 months. This time last year, if I had been asked, "Will the Tories form a government?" the answer would have been fairly straightforward. In my lifetime, they had always been the government. They do not form the government any more. Where one -- a little guy from Napanee -- has anything to do with a change in government, that is a phenomenal thought. It turns out, I did. Can one change the structure of politics in Ontario? It turns out, I did. I did not do it all. I do not have control. I do not have power. But I did my little bit. I played my role.

More people will have to understand that. For example, those who work in the new General Motors plant in Oshawa will be expected to take control of part of their lives. They will not be expected to come in and be told what to do any more, but to come in to make a car the best way they can, to use their ingenuity, their ideas, and their intelligence to shape and mould their work place.

They are beginning to understand about their environment: the air, water, earth and all that. They just have to make a change in that.

Even a simple, undramatic thing such as garbage is now a major problem. We used to say: "Garbage is a problem? Put it on a truck, take it out to Pickering and dump it there. Pickering is way out in the boondocks. No one knows where it is and no one will see it." Now we have major problems in major landfills in Pickering. We know that. That same problem is occurring all over Ontario. People are saying: "Wait a minute. You cannot just dump this stuff any more. You have to find a better way of treatment. That has an impact on me, on my family and on people I care about, and I will not let you do that. I am going to take a little control, at least to this extent."

One can now find little groups springing up in all parts of the province. I talked to one again this morning which said that something a government was doing was not liked in that neighbourhood. A few years ago, these groups would have just accepted that this is what governments do; governments are mean, cruel and heartless. Now this group is saying, as are a lot of other groups: "Wait a minute. You cannot do that. You are only the government after all. We are the people. We have a right to organize ourselves to respond to an initiative taken by a government."

That has to come out in our society in everything we do; that we can make a difference, that we have an influence and a responsibility to do certain things and that we have an obligation, most of all to ourselves, to take on this role. We do not quite know how to do this yet; we certainly do not know how to do it on a large scale.

I come from a community that has a long tradition of that. People say, "There are not enough houses to go around." In my community, that is an open invitation to build a co-op. They may need a little help from governments, and they will get it. They may need a little help from their local member, and they know they will get it. They demand it. They know that they are not powerless and that they can do these things. If they are having trouble with the banks, they will go to the credit union and run that financial institution. If they are having trouble with grocery store prices, they will open up the biggest food co-op.

They have the sense that they are not victims, that they are not powerless and that they can change things. They have developed the mechanisms, and they have been very strongly influenced by the trade union movement. People learned the skill there that even the lowly workers can take on the biggest corporation in the world if they get together. They can have that power if they accept the tradeoffs that are part of belonging to a union, and they exercise their influence.

That is a theme I will come back to several times in the next little while. It is something our society has to and will understand. It affects every facet of our lives. We are changing, adapting, responding and doing all those things. It all comes back to the fact that each of us, as an ordinary human being, can make a substantial difference in the way we live our lives, in what type of life we live, in economics, in health and safety in the work place, in the environment and in the structure of our society.

That is an important lesson for us to learn. It is new ground for many of us and it involves a lot of challenges, but I believe it is ground we are going to walk, whether we like it or not. We might as well get used to it, get good at it and utilize all the resources we can muster to make it an easier journey. That might have been vaguely hinted at in this speech from the throne.

The government has identified the high-tech stuff. It has found out about the Pacific Rim countries, and we are setting up trade offices over there. That is not to say we will do much business, because a whole new world has to be learned over there.

We are at the beginning of a very exciting era in the history of Canada and of Ontario. We have the resources to come through this and do well. The challenge will be, frankly, not to be stupid in the first instance, and then to utilize all the resources we can because it will be very difficult as we go through this transition period. I hope we make it.

The speech from the throne does not do a great deal to encourage me about it except to signal little things here and there to indicate that this government is aware that changes are coming, whether anybody likes it or not. The work place, the environment and the lifestyle will change. It does not have very much to do with beer in the comer store, but it has a lot to do with all those other things we talked about earlier. It is quite a challenge for the people of Ontario, and I hope we are up to it.

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I always enjoy listening to the member for Oshawa, because his speeches, although he may smile when I say this, are thoughtful speeches and he covers a lot of territory with the experience he has had in the House.

I want to comment on a couple of areas. The first thing he mentioned was that when he and I both sat in the opposition, he was one of the strong proponents of televising the proceedings of this House, and for very good reasons. He has outlined those reasons; I need not repeat them.

It has been good for the process that we have been exposed to the public of this province in the legislative end of things. They know what we do in the constituency; they know we can write them nice letters and things of that nature. But they do not often know what goes on in the Legislature on an ongoing basis. He was one of the members who worked very hard to see that this was changed.

The second matter I was pleased to hear him address was that of the automotive industry. He and I share municipalities that are very dependent upon the automotive industry. Some of the changes that are coming are exceedingly important to us, and the protection we need for that industry is quite obvious.

The third matter, which I appreciate most particularly as a minister, was his comments on the environment. Although we have exchanges in the House, it is an issue that transcends party lines. Everyone now recognizes the importance of cleaning up the environment, doing it on a very thorough basis and bringing about --

Mr. Barlow: I am certainly glad the minister got on Highway 401.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Cambridge knows how quickly he gets action when things are on the side of the road.

However, the member for Oshawa identifies this as being an issue that is going to be exceedingly important to all people. Even in the corporate sector, where one might expect a lot of resistance, we are seeing considerable movement towards the goals that government and this Legislature will be setting.

I thought the speech had an excellent tone. Even though it came from an opposition member, it deserves a compliment.

Mr. Wildman: I want to comment briefly on one aspect of my colleague's speech. I was very happy as a northerner to hear him, as a representative of a riding in southern Ontario, talk so much about the needs of the north.

The reason my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and I have pushed so hard to have the standing committee on resources development look into the serious economic crisis resulting from the announcement of the Algoma Steel Corp. that it intends to down-size is that we want to give many of the members who represent ridings in southern Ontario the opportunity to understand the crisis that faces a one-industry town in northern Ontario when an announcement of this sort is made.

If all the members had the kind of understanding that my colleague from Oshawa has of the difficulties of one-industry towns in northern Ontario, we would be moving a long way to making an effort as a Legislature and putting pressure on the government to develop an ongoing policy so that we are not simply, as some people have said, trying to put out brush fires, reacting to problems, but actually planning ahead and being able to develop a strategy for economic development in the north, which perhaps would end the chronic boom-bust cycle that we have endured in northern Ontario for so long. I was very happy to hear my colleague from Oshawa make those comments.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I was very happy to be here in the House today to hear the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) speak. I wish to comment briefly on the early part of his speech, in which he referred to the accord and to the sense of apprehension that he and perhaps some of the members of his party even outside the House may have shared at that time. The Liberal members would agree that when we went out and spoke here and there throughout Ontario, many Liberals also shared this sense of apprehension.

However, the member for Oshawa and I, in reviewing the policy matters on which we both ran in the last election, would agree that neither he in his party nor we in our party were required to go outside, beyond or against those very policies on which we ran. We were able to assure the people that these were shared policies and that there was such a backlog of work to be done within those areas that we would have no trouble working together on neglected fields within the policies we shared.

We have differences. No doubt in the future we will move on to examine those differences and to disagree more often. However, it has been a very productive time for Ontario that we found those common grounds, and the member's party and our party have seen a very productive year. I anticipate another productive year in which the shared territory will be used productively to make up for several years in which so little was done.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I would like to compliment the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) on the very powerful and thoughtful statement he made on a number of points to the Legislature. The tone of his speech was admirable indeed.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. One is with regard to the issue of free trade and the possible losers in all our ridings. I invite the member to take a look at a report that our committee had done by Professor Fred Lazar of York University in which he looked at the Kennedy and Tokyo rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, with a view to looking at an economic theory at that time and who the winners and losers should have been.

Professor Lazar found that so many other things intervened over the long haul that we could not have told at all, on the basis of economic theory, who the winners and losers would be. That comment speaks for the leading around and around that occurs with economists from time to time, while at the same time it means that whether or not we do it, we have to take a leap of faith.

The other thing I want to comment on is that it is a bit unfair to compare General Motors and Toyota. The $400-million investment that is coming from Toyota is an investment in the future. It is an infant industry; GM is an established industry. I suggest that the comparison not be made.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to reply to a couple of points. A lot of things still have to happen here. In my committee, we have gone through a long session now on appointments in the public sector. We have that in final draft form. We have tabled that so other people can see it and argue a bit about it before we finalize it. I believe that whole process has to change. That is still to come.

There is a lot of work to be done. I believe it is important work. For example, I gave a speech to the Municipal Police Authorities last week and I talked to them about appointments. They were somewhat apprehensive about that. However, by the end of the session the members agreed that yes, the appointments process had to change. They understood that. They said it would be a bit of an inconvenience to some of them, but they also understood why.

As long as there is a rational way to present it, as long as there is a reason behind it and some logic, and it is not just "line up at the trough" time, people do understand that appointments in the public sector have to have a public process to them. The appointments have to have a rationale behind them and people do have to have some qualifications.

I believe that would happen even among people who would not be advocates of that. As long as one has geared one's self well, with some logic and some background to it, one can make that something that may not be pleasant for them but that they can accept. I am sure a lot of people would rather get a patronage appointment quietly through the back door, pick up the money and run. However, there are also a lot of people out there who want to do more than that. They want to help people run their communities and our society a bit more, and they accept that a reasonable process should be in place.

Finally, I say to the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) that I am not sure Toyota would take it as much of a compliment if he called it an infant company anywhere in the world.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to be able to speak during this throne speech debate, and I want to take this opportunity to compliment the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) for his speech. I remember when he had a long filibuster going here a few short years ago.

Mr. Wildman: A filibuster?

Mr. Epp: Yes, a filibuster or something of that nature. He spoke for a number of hours.

Mr. Breaugh: A fine speech it was. It was 11 hours long.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He was reading the Oshawa telephone book, I think.

Mr. Epp: I think so. That was when a different government was in place.

Miss Stephenson: He was exceeded only by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) in terms of length.

Mr. Epp: He was exceeded by the member for Renfrew North not only in length but also in eloquence, I believe.

Miss Stephenson: I am not sure about that. I would match them.

5 p.m.

Mr. Epp: Nevertheless, during these debates it is customary for new members in particular to speak a little about their ridings. As a member who has been here a number of years, I would like to change that tradition a little and speak about my riding.

I am very proud to represent the riding of Waterloo North. As we travel about the province, particularly when by-elections are going on, we get a better idea of the various ridings people live in. In going to York East, to Scarborough West or to Sault Ste. Marie when there are by-elections, I get a better understanding of our ridings.

During the throne speech debates, budget debates or whatever, we have opportunities to speak a little about the ridings and to tell people about the composition of the ridings. In Waterloo North, for instance, there is the city of Waterloo and two townships, as the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) well knows. We have a population of approximately 86,000 people. Those three municipalities and their populations have a number of interesting aspects.

The industrial heartland of our area is to a large extent in Waterloo North. We have some very large and important companies there. Seagram is a company all members can readily identify with. Labatt's Blue comes from Labatt's. We even have a small brewery, the Brick Brewery Co. I am sure all members have used those fine products from time to time and have helped the economy of Waterloo North by purchasing them.

We have other types of industries. Raytheon produces the radar for airports and for various industries. IBM is a large international business company. In addition, because we are the Hartford of Canada, we have the head offices of five or six insurance companies. When members purchase insurance, the money they pay probably comes back to Waterloo North, and I thank them for that.

Although we do not have any hospitals, the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who is just a short distance behind me, has two hospitals in his riding. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) has the other hospital. Waterloo is probably the only city with a population of more than 60,000 that does not have a hospital in its jurisdiction.

Mr. Barlow: You have two universities. Tell us about those.

Mr. Epp: We have two thriving world-class universities, with one of the leading engineering, computer and mathematics faculties in North America, if not in the world. The present government and the previous government have both been very generous to the city of Waterloo from time to time.

Mr. Barlow: Particularly the previous government.

Mr. Epp: As the member for Cambridge knows, the previous government promised to contribute $30 million to the William G. Davis computer building, which is now being built, and the present government is honouring that promise.

Mr. Barlow: That is very good of them.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: People have learned at the universities how not to get sick.

Mr. Epp: One of the interesting things about not having a hospital is that very few people can ever say they were born in Waterloo. There are so many people who would like to be able to say they were born there, but they cannot. That is unfortunate, and it is something we are going to have to deal with in the future.

Mrs. Marland: They will be able to, with the new midwives.

Miss Stephenson: I would hope not. They are not returning to medieval standards.

Mr. Epp: That may help the situation somewhat. The other interesting thing is the mosaic of people who live there. They are very reasonable, understanding, hardworking people. They believe in the work ethic. There are those who would not want to identify with the work ethic, but I am glad to be able to identify with it, and I think the people of Waterloo North closely identify with it.

When we are talking about the educational system, it is interesting to note that we have not had a strike either in our large secondary school system or in our large separate school system. The teachers, trustees and negotiators have been very reasonable. As a result of that reasonableness and willingness to co-operate to build a strong, world-class educational system, we have had no strikes. That is a compliment to both the teachers and the trustees.

In addition to being the industrial heartland, as I like to call it, a number of farmers live in the area. Many members have heard about the Mennonites and their various sects: the Amish, the Old Order and so forth. They live in the constituency. Many of them are moving away because of the progress and the industrialization in the area. They feel they do not want to live too close to urban areas. As a result, they are moving 100 to 150 miles farther north.

Some of the Mennonites have carriages; they will not have cars. Some of them have electricity in their barns, but will not have it in their homes. Others will have it in their homes and in their barns. Others will buy cars. Some of them will paint the bumpers black because they do not want the chrome showing. Despite these differences from the general population, these people make a very valuable contribution to the area, not only from the standpoint of their farm production but also from the standpoint of the tourist industry. A lot of people come to the area just to drive by their farms. When people go by some of those old Mennonite churches on a Sunday morning, they may see 50 or 100 carriages with horses standing outside.

In addition to the people, we have a number of important festivals. We all remember Oktoberfest. There is probably not a person in this Legislature who has not been able to come down and partake of some of the Wiener schnitzel, Schneider's sausage, buns and particularly the beer. Although the four German clubs that are the centre of that festival are in Kitchener and Kitchener-Wilmot, there are many other clubs. The largest club entertaining people during that time is in the city of Waterloo. This Bavarian festival attracts about 300,000 people to our area every year. It brings a lot of money to the area and helps provide a very high standard of living for our citizens.

The unemployment rate is only about five per cent in our very thriving area. We are almost to the level where only unemployables are not employed. I would not want members to tell too many people about that, because people will start going down to Kitchener-Waterloo and we will have even greater pressure on the housing market. It is very difficult to buy the kind of house one wants there without taking into consideration the high inflation in the prices of homes during the past year. House prices in Kitchener-Waterloo, and primarily in Waterloo, went up by 30 to 35 per cent last year, even though inflation went up by only four or five per cent. That is a tremendous increase in home prices. It means a lot of people are not able to buy those homes, as they would very much like to do.

5:10 p.m.

Going on to more specific aspects of the throne speech, I notice some of the members in this chamber have been critical that the throne speech is very general in nature. If these members go back a number of years, they will find throne speeches by their very nature are general documents. Throne speeches are not specifically designed to address the kinds of things one wants and to give the time and place, the number of jobs they are going to create, the cost and so on. Besides, if they did that, we would not give the government another opportunity to make those other announcements in which it could be more specific.

The members of the official opposition know this is exactly what they tried to do when they were in power. They tried to be very general in their throne speech addresses so they would then have another opportunity to be more specific in the budget, which is meant to be specific, and during ministerial statements as well as during the introduction of government bills.

The throne speech did address a number of specific things. It was not designed to be a shopping list of 2,001 different items; it was designed to address the kinds of things that the Liberal government of Ontario feels are very important for 1986 and possibly for the next decade.

As a result of that, the speech spoke about the senior citizens and the kinds of issues we have to address to try to correct some of the difficulties surrounding that area of concern. It addressed women's issues. We want to bring women to economic equality with men, something that has not occurred for many years; in fact, I do not remember when it ever has occurred. I hope it occurs in our lifetime, but I do not expect it is going to occur within the next few decades.

The throne speech also spoke about nuclear power. It is important that we find alternative ways to bring power to our homes and industries. Two things are happening that the government is looking at very closely with respect to alternative ways. The former member of this chamber for Halton-Burlington, who decided not to run during the last election, as members know, is working in the Ministry of Energy and is devoting much of his time to finding alternatives to nuclear power. He was a leading authority in this chamber on that issue, and he is now in a position to address it on a more full-time basis. All of us will be beneficiaries of his intelligence and dedication to that issue.

The other important issue that occurred is the Chernobyl disaster. As a result of that, as unfortunate as it is, we will be forced to address alternative sources of power more aggressively in the immediate future.

I noticed that the member for Oshawa mentioned a number of things that are happening in northern Ontario. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) complimented him for addressing problems that are in the northern part of this province. That is important, and the reason we are addressing more things in the north is that this government is sensitive to the things that are happening up north as well as to those that are happening in eastern Ontario.

It is so easy to address our concerns only to southwestern or southern Ontario, where most of the population lives. But with the change of government and with the change of emphasis, given the importance of the province looking at areas that have not been addressed as thoroughly and as aggressively in the past as they might have been, this government is looking at eastern and northern Ontario, where there is more unemployment and where they need more industrial development.

I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) tries to encourage industry, including the Toyotas of the future, to go to eastern and northern Ontario. As much as the member for Cambridge appreciates the fact that they have gone to Cambridge -- they have had some unemployment problems in Cambridge, which is immediately adjacent to my riding -- nevertheless in the future, if we can give incentives to companies to go up north and to eastern Ontario, then we should do so. Not only will it help those areas, but it will also help all of us in bringing about a more balanced industrial province than we have.

All of us should be very proud of the province we have. It is one of the finest places in the country and one of the finest places in the world.

The member for Oshawa is in a good position to speak about the rules of the House. As chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs for four years -- he now is chairman of the new standing committee on the Legislative Assembly -- he was instrumental in bringing about some of these changes in the rules of the House, as the member for St. Catharines indicated.

I am pleased that the whole procedure has had an airing and that the transition went so smoothly. I have not heard any real complaints about the new rules. I believe they give all members, particularly the back-benchers, both in the opposition and on the government side an opportunity to address some of the issues of the day. Even if they have an opportunity to speak for only two or three minutes, they can get their thrust in at any time if they wish.

I was on the procedural affairs committee for almost four years. We went to Ottawa to study the new rules there. Our rules probably are an improvement. The fact that we do not have evening sittings is a welcome change. I never thought they were very productive. We have not added hours as far as the length of the sittings is concerned, but we will accomplish more during the hours we are here.

The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is shaking his head. I am not sure whether he disagrees with me or with something the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) said. I guess it is the latter.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Brantford; I never disagree with you.

Mr. Epp: Thank you.

I like the idea of the statements the members have an opportunity to give at the beginning of the sitting. A limited amount of time is allotted for that, but it gives each member who is not in the cabinet an opportunity to address issues of importance in his riding, to introduce guests and so forth. That was denied to us under the previous rules.

Now that television is in the chamber, the people back home can see what we look like and the ties we are wearing and whether they are red or blue or whatever the case might be. l see a little smile on the face of the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton). I am sure he will be up at the end of this speech giving his --

Mr. Warner: A lovely job. Is there something wrong with his tie?

Mr. Epp: Not at all; it is very neutral.

Mr. Warner: You have a nice one.

Mr. Epp: Thank you.

The changes we have made are important. They are bringing a breath of fresh air into the chamber as far as the participation of the members is concerned.

The throne speech spoke about skills training. I was a counsellor at a high school for a number of years. At that time, many students in grade 9 to grade 13 did not know which occupation they wanted to choose. With the new emphasis on skills training by this government, counsellors in the various high schools across the province have to be educated to try to encourage people to develop their skills at an early level and build in some goals early in their careers. There are thousands of occupations they can choose from.

5:20 p.m.

One of the problems we always faced was that students went out into the work force but there were no proper apprenticeship programs in this province and probably in this country. With this new skills training, I hope that more apprenticeship programs will actually develop and that our young people will be able to get the proper training so we do not have to bring in citizens from other countries to fill skilled positions in this province. That has been an unfortunate situation for years. It is one that we spoke of in opposition and one that we now have an opportunity to correct. I am sure that, under the proper leadership, we will be able to correct this in the foreseeable future.

The other matter I want to speak about has to do with the world-class system of care. On average, our citizens are getting older every year. By 2001, we will have an increase of 41 per cent in the number of citizens over 65 years of age. The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), the minister responsible for senior citizens affairs, will shortly be tabling his white paper on care for our seniors and on how we must address these problems. I await that with some anxiety, because within a few years all of us will be senior citizens. Some of us may already have reached that stage.

Mr. Ferraro: The member should speak for himself.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He just feels that way.

Mr. Epp: Not yet.

As a result, we will have to remain productive and perhaps be even more productive in the future. We have to find ways of keeping our citizens in the work force as long as possible. I am sure that many senior citizens would like to do that, despite the fact that they may not want to be there on a full-time basis. The strategy that this government and this Legislature have to develop has to be very meaningful and is going to be very important in charting our course for the future.

One of the other concerns I have has to do with the Election Finances Reform Act and the reform that the throne speech promised in the foreseeable future. All of us have gone through leadership campaigns. For instance, we found that some candidates used the Election Finances Reform Act to give tax credits to contributors to their campaigns. Other candidates did not want to do this because they did not feel it was right or legal.

I believe the new act has to address the contributions to leadership campaigns as well as the amount of expenditures during a campaign. As we know, some people spent $10,000 to $15,000 on election campaigns in their ridings, and other members spent up to $100,000, or even more, on their election or re-election. Some of them won those campaigns and some of them lost. In my riding, I spent about $36,000 and won; the candidate who came second spent $37,000 and lost. The relationship in expenditures between the two top contenders for that riding is fairly close. As a result of that, we should look at averages that were expended in the last election and try to put a ceiling on the amount people are going to spend. In doing that, unfortunately, we are going to have to keep very close tabs on the way money is spent in the various campaigns, whether before the writ is issued or after it is issued.

The other concern I have is about the fact that there is no tax credit for municipal candidates. Although we are in a provincial forum here, what has been happening in the past in some areas -- not right across the province -- is that some municipal politicians have had support from provincial riding associations. I do not believe that is right. I do not believe the tax credit was designed so a provincial organization could raise money and then give it to a municipal candidate.

When we revise the act, I believe it has to address that problem, which is otherwise known as laundering money. I do not like the term "laundering," but that essentially is what happened in the past when municipal candidates got support from provincial organizations. This is one change on which we are going to get nearly unanimous, if not unanimous, support in this House.

One of the matters that members have spoken about a great deal in this chamber has been the $1-billion high-technology fund that is to be established under the leadership of the Premier. This is particularly relevant in my riding as well as in industrial Ontario. The more than $500 million of new money that will be generated and put into that fund will be an incentive to create jobs across the province. It will be helpful from the standpoint of having people in the academic area of our province address new problems.

For instance, I notice that when an innovation comes out in one part of the world it takes about four or five years to have that innovation implemented in Japan. In Canada, it takes about seven or eight years. That is two or three years longer than it should take. I hope that $1-billion fund will address the problem of reducing the time from innovation to implementation, to bring it closer to that required in Japan as opposed to the current requirement in Canada.

The science and entrepreneurship chairs that are going to be established in some universities are innovative and progressive steps which I think we all applaud.

Also inherent in the address with respect to the high-technology fund is the challenge to our young people to look more aggressively at the problems in this country that surround technology, particularly in this province. Many of them will take mathematics, science, computer science and engineering more seriously in the future.

In all, I commend the Lieutenant Governor for having read such a fine document. It is something I am sure we all applaud and, if we look at the progressiveness of this province, be able to support when that vote comes next week.

Mr. Warner: Where did the member for Waterloo North find the reference to apprenticeship training in the speech from the throne? In particular, where is there any reference to having for the first time the kind of apprenticeship program that will involve all three partners, government, business and labour? In my reading of the throne speech, I found absolutely no mention of mandating the kind of levy-grant system that has been so successful in West Germany.

Second, I was surprised the member made reference to waiting for this magical white paper to appear with regard to services for seniors. I must assume the member has not seized the opportunity to read Bill 3, An Act for the Provision and Integration of Community Based Services for Seniors, otherwise known as the Seniors' Independence Act. I commend him to read it, and I invite him to appear in the House on May 29, when this bill will be debated. Of course, I would appreciate his support.

5:30 p.m.

I remind the member for Waterloo North that while the white paper may be of great interest, all the services that can and should be provided are outlined in Bill 3. Perhaps he would do all of us and the seniors a favour by reading the bill and supporting it, as many municipalities across this province are already prepared to do. If the member has a moment, perhaps he will answer my question about skills training.

Mr. Barlow: I wish to make a few comments to my colleague the member for Waterloo North. The member for Kitchener, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and I share Waterloo region. I agree with pretty well everything he said about his riding up to the point about the figures on the unemployment rate. Fortunately for Waterloo North, it has an excellent employment rate. We in the riding of Cambridge are not quite as fortunate. Our unemployment rate now is probably around 14 per cent. We have high hopes that when Toyota gets mobile, the rate will improve drastically. We look forward to that.

Every once in a while the member referred to the throne speech. That was good; I was glad to hear him refer to the throne speech once in a while. Talking about throne speeches traditionally being in generalities, this is the most generality-filled throne speech I have heard in more than five years around here. There were a lot of generalities. There were a lot of programs borrowed from former throne speeches and from programs the previous government had initiated, announced and prepared for during the past year or two. For many of these programs, the mechanisms were already in place. The member was very proud of the $50 million a year that will be going to the SOB program, the son-of-BILD program. If the government had taken a good look at what could and should have been done, it would have come up with a lot more new money than $50 million a year.

Skills training has already been mentioned. There was not enough about the skills training program.

Mr. Gillies: I listened with rapt attention to the speech of my friend the member for Waterloo North. I think the highlight of the speech was his reference to members' ties. There is quite a science to this. If the honourable member checks with a media consultant, he will find the biggest danger on camera is ties with a pattern that seems to crawl. I do not think the member's tie looks as if it would crawl. I watched with rapt attention when the member for Oshawa spoke. His tie is a very comforting, low-key maroon. It is not a tie that is going to alarm the people of Ontario as they watch this debate on television.

Mr. Warner: Do you like my tie?

Mr. Gillies: I do not want to comment on that tie; I think it is okay.

I can appreciate that even a speaker with the eloquence of the member for Waterloo North fords it difficult to find things to talk about in this speech from the throne. I am not surprised he talked about ties. What else is there? He used the watchwords of this throne speech. He used the words "world class" at least twice. This is a throne speech that indulged in truly world-class rhetoric; there is no question about that.

The member touched on new product development and on how we have to improve in that area. I could not agree more. He mentioned how the Japanese tend to get on to a new product and develop their own version of it in perhaps five years, whereas in Ontario and Canada it may be closer to seven years or 10 years. With all the references in the throne speech to the year 2000, it appears that the aim of the government is to try to get that up to 15 years or 20 years. I hope this trend can be arrested.

In conclusion, the Minister of the Environment spoke in defence of night sittings. I join with him in that. I think the night sittings were truly remarkable occasions that will be missed by truly remarkable members.

Mr. Breaugh: I was intrigued that the member hit on the theme of a municipal elections expenses act. Since I am an advocate of that theme, I wonder whether he will help us out. Is it the government's intention to move, finally, to put in place a municipal elections expenses act, such as we now have provincially and federally? It is something that is long overdue and there is a crying need for it. It would be wonderful if the new government would actually take that problem under its wing as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other questions or comments? Does the member for Waterloo North wish to respond?

Mr. Epp: Yes, very briefly. I was interested to hear the member for Cambridge referring to the SOB fund; I guess he was referring to the son of BILD fund, rather than something else. I want to get that clear. He said it so quickly that I was not quite sure he understood what reference he was making.

Mr. Barlow: I think that is what I said.

Mr. Breaugh: He was the father of that project.

Miss Stephenson: We have no difficulty understanding that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There she is.

Mr. Epp: Yes, there she is.

With respect to the apprenticeship program and the skills training, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is very cognizant of the problems we have in this area. Since the throne speech is a very general document, there may very well be some incentives taken in the future that would help us to expand on the apprenticeship programs we have in the province. I do not see any particular difficulty there.

I was not surprised the member raised that issue; I was surprised that although he was on his feet for at least 30 seconds to a minute, he did not call for anybody's resignation. That was surprising.

Mr. Partington: I welcome this opportunity to address the House in response to the speech from the throne. While I recognize this was the government's maiden throne speech, I am being charitable in saying I was not only disappointed with the content, but with the lack of content. Given the number of high-priced employees the government has at its disposal, I expected a more thoughtful and progressive document than the one presented in the Legislature two weeks ago.

The omissions that were glaringly obvious were references to the automotive and automotive parts industries, the promised work-place child care initiative fund, a concrete approach to housing, equal pay for work of equal value and the mining and forestry industries. This is by no means a complete list of the urgent issues facing Ontarians which were not addressed in the speech from the throne.

The government outlined its intended reforms in the justice area, but curiously neglected any mention of the small claims court system. In its preamble to how the Ontario justice system will be reformed, the government said, "Steps will be taken to improve the public's access to the justice system, regardless of income, and assure speedy resolution of disputes." How can the government believe the taxpayers and citizens of this province will take this statement as a serious commitment when in Ontario today there currently exists one small claims court system for Torontonians and another, less equitable small claims court system, for the rest of Ontario? It is not the fact of two systems that disturbs me, but that the system existing outside Toronto is substantially inferior to that in force in Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There is a nice courthouse in St. Catharines now.

Mr. Partington: The member for St. Catharines should also be concerned that this injustice is continuing for too long.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I like the word "continuing." It was for 42 years.

Mr. Partington: I missed that.

Mr. Barlow: He just got here; he is working on it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The members for Cambridge and St. Catharines will please not interrupt the speaker.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Partington: If this government claims that public access to our justice system is to be improved to guarantee access to all, then the $3,000-limit in small claims court in the city of Toronto must be extended to the rest of the province.

Mr. Warner: Hear, hear.

Mr. Partington: I thank the member very much. That is unusual, but I will accept that.

To further bring home the degree of inequity that currently exists in the small claims court system, I would like to read the contents of a letter I received on Monday of this week. The letter is from Dennis Dunbar, president of Lincoln Collection Agencies, in St. Catharines. It reads:

"I am writing to request your assistance respecting an increase in the monetary jurisdiction of the Niagara area small claims courts. It is my understanding that legislation presently exists to effect such a change and that a major prerequisite is the appointment of a full-time judge for the venue concerned."

"As you know, Judge Kingston has been small claims court judge in the Niagara area courts for some time. He also sits in the Toronto area courts on a regular basis, where this increase has been in place for several years. He obviously is experienced in handling claims in courts of higher jurisdiction."

He is obviously, as the member for St. Catharines will agree, a very well-qualified individual. I will continue with the letter from Mr. Dunbar:

"For years I have found it necessary to reduce claims being filed in the small claims court on behalf of my clients for sums considerably in excess of the present $1,000 limit. Lately those numbers have significantly increased, and creditors in the Niagara area small claims courts are being unjustly penalized by the court's inability to entertain the full amount of their claim. To file a claim in district court would be ludicrous if the amount were less than $3,000, bearing in mind the time delays and excessive costs related to the amount that might eventually be recovered after judgement.

"The Niagara courts presently enjoy most of the amenities necessary to afford an increase in jurisdiction. There is an immediate need for an increase if creditors are to be treated fairly before the courts and given the opportunity to claim sums that are justly theirs, as is the case in other areas of the province.

"I respectfully solicit your support in this cause and request that you take this matter up with whomever might bring about the necessary changes."

I have questioned the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) about this in the past in the standing committee on administration of justice. The message back to me was that the $5-million cost in implementing this plan across Ontario could not be justified under the current circumstances. That is an absolutely unfair position to take with respect to the people of Ontario. The citizens of Ontario deserve justice and fair play. The citizens of St. Catharines, London or Sault Ste. Marie deserve to be treated as fairly as the citizens of Toronto by the court system.

Why does Toronto have a $3,000 limit for small claims court while the rest of the province remains at $1,000? The result of this is to permit people in Toronto to process their claims in small claims court while justice is not available to many of our citizens in the rest of the province.

It would be easy to introduce this system in St. Catharines, Hamilton and Ottawa where qualified judges currently exist. Earlier mention was made of Judge Kingston, a man who carries out his duties in Toronto with the highest degree of professionalism. The citizens of the Niagara area would be well served by having Judge Kingston able to make available his time and services to the people of the Niagara region. I am sure the member for St. Catharines would support me on that stand.

The government was unquestionably remiss in neglecting to include a statement of intent within its speech from the throne. If the government can afford to spend $50 million on a denticare program and give up $1.9 billion in Ontario health insurance plan revenues, it must be able to afford $5 million to improve public access to the justice system across the province regardless of income. The government must extend its limit on small claims court and it must do it now. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Tourism, which is Ontario's second-largest industry, was also shortchanged in the government's maiden speech from the throne. While the north and east received specific mention, major tourism areas along the Golden Horseshoe and in southwestern Ontario were buried in vague rumblings of world-class this and that.

In the light of the government's stated intent to improve rest stops, perhaps the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) should give consideration to changing Ontario's slogan to "We seat you royally," as opposed to the current slogan "We treat you royally."

Our province needs more than improved signage, rest stops and travel information. It needs more than the minuscule packet of goodies tossed out to it by this government. If Ontario's industry is to remain healthy, it needs and begs a commitment from this government to change its tax structure. It needs a commitment to reverse some of the highly contentious and regressive taxes imposed by this government in its economic statement. Our tourism industry deserves financial encouragement and incentive from this government if it is ever to reach its full potential.

As members of all parties in this House are aware, the leader of my party recently released a Progressive Conservative discussion paper, Care for the Elderly. That paper called for a massive expansion of community programs and services to allow senior citizens to live healthy, independent and dignified lives outside institutions. Ontario will experience a 55 per cent increase in the number of senior citizens over the next 15 years. If we maintain our current pattern of institutionalizing our elderly, it will cost an additional $6 billion to build and operate new facilities. I find it somewhat inappropriate that the government currently spends $855 million per year on the placement of the elderly in institutions, compared with only $85 million on alternative community support programs.

It is my belief that these funds could be better spent in improving the network of community-based services for the elderly as well as increased housing for seniors. Services and programs such as home care, homemakers' services, nursing care, respite care, Meals on Wheels and handyman programs could and should be co-ordinated at the local level by placement co-ordinating agencies. They should also be linked to the extended care system. The placement coordinating agencies would then co-ordinate home support services for their area.

When nursing homes and homes for the aged are not appropriate options for elderly citizens unable to remain in their own homes, alternative housing options must be available. The granny-flat concept, which was introduced under the Progressive Conservative government, is one housing alternative which should be expanded into every region of the province. Granny flats are self-contained, single-storey dwellings designed for easy installation in average-size suburban backyards. They cost less than institutions and have the advantage of allowing the elderly to remain in close proximity to their families and friends. Other housing alternatives for consideration are the elderly enriched housing program and senior citizens' co-operative housing. Many other options are available for government consideration, but government commitment to the elderly must come first.

In my party's discussion paper, Care for the Elderly, to which I referred earlier, there was a recommendation that a multidisciplinary department of geriatrics be established at one of our province's universities. I was pleased to see that the government intends to follow this recommendation.

On June 10, 1985, I had the pleasure of responding to another speech from the throne. I am glad to see the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) is here tonight, because I know of his concern for this issue. At that time, I indicated my concern for the environment. I spoke of the need for the assurance that our water is safe to drink, our fish safe to eat and our lakes and rivers safe to swim in. I am still concerned about our environment. I am concerned that the water quality of the Niagara River has not improved over the past year and that it continues to be little more than a convenient dumping ground for industry on the American side of the river.

5:50 p.m.

It is imperative that the government redouble its efforts to hammer out an agreement with the applicable American levels of government to put an end to this travesty. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) indicated earlier today that the government has joined in two lawsuits in the United States in furtherance of this goal. Perhaps the government should consider an action in the International Court of Justice in The Hague to force the state of New York and the government of the United States to discontinue the pollution of the Niagara River and the Great Lakes system.

I was encouraged to hear the government intends to pursue further protection of our water quality through environmental control technologies. I was also pleased to hear of the government's intent to strengthen the penalty provisions of environmental laws. I would have liked to have seen in the statement a greater commitment by this government to eliminate industrial and municipal waste. Perhaps the government should provide financial assistance for municipalities to upgrade treatment facilities where needed, to replace them where needed and to install new ones.

Storm water discharges, continued sewer overflows and infiltration of ground water are known sources of persistent toxic substances whose impact has been clearly documented in localized situations, such as harbours. I urge the government and the Minister of the Environment to make available to municipalities whatever money is necessary to implement a plan to eliminate these sources of persistent toxic substances, so that purer water can be provided to us all without delay.

In keeping with that and with the time of year, I find it unacceptable that our beaches continue to be posted as unfit for swimming. I urge the government to take whatever action is necessary to clean them up once and for all, not over a 10-year period, but now.

The government pledged $500 million for new technology. I urge the government to look to the future health of Ontarians, and in doing so, to earmark some of these funds for improving our water treatment and purification processes. I recognize the technology fund referred to in the throne speech was in the amount of $1 billion, but $500 million of that was committed one year ago as part of the Progressive Conservative Party's Enterprise Ontario program. I therefore restrict myself to seeking a commitment out of the new funds for the improvement of our water supply.

Housing is purported by this government to be of vital concern, particularly low-income and middle-income housing; yet there was no mention of housing initiatives in this lengthy document.

Mr. Haggerty: There were 300 units built in Niagara Falls and in St. Catharines just recently.

Mr. Partington: That is right; there were units, but not enough units. Since taking power last year, this government has tightened rent controls, put a significant tax on properties that change hands and is now threatening to legislate an end to a building owner's right to convert his unit from rental to condominium.

The government has already brought in one budget-type document in which the need for affordable housing for low-income and middle-income families could have been addressed, but it was not. There was mention in that budget of building more affordable units, but with a stroke of the same pen, the government antagonized landlords by further dictating what is an acceptable annual rent increase.

Individuals and families that had been saving towards the purchase of a home suddenly found themselves having to provide additional funds for the budget's land transfer tax. The tax is set at a lower rate for less expensive homes, but that is little comfort for a first-time home buyer who already has to face a barrage of other costs and expenses. If the government were sincere about its concern for affordable housing, provision should have been made in the throne speech for a thorough review of rent controls, the rental markets around the province, the reasons behind the push for condominium conversions and the best way to meet the rental and home ownership needs of our low- and middle-income citizens. I suspect this government has forgotten that one of the answers to housing is to stimulate home ownership. Rather than force the market to meet the stipulations of the government, why not force government stipulations to meet the needs of the market?

The now famous -- or perhaps I should say infamous -- accord that brought this government to power contained three items dealing directly with women and women's issues. They were, and I quote directly from the accord: "Introduce legislation for equal pay for work of equal value in both the public and the private sector, affirmative action and employment equity for women, minorities and the handicapped and expansion of the role and budget of the human rights commission to deal with work-place and housing discrimination; and reform of day care policy and funding to recognize child care as a basic public service and not a form of welfare."

Mr. Breaugh: This is great stuff.

Mr. Partington: I am quoting from the accord.

In the throne speech, these three items were given only passing mention. Within the context of this 36-page document, any government serious about the need for affordable, accessible, quality day care facilities would surely have devoted more than one line to this vital issue, but the only reference to day care was one line that said "new spaces will be created."

Employment equity was similarly afforded one line in the speech. These two items fared well in comparison with the matter of equal pay for work of equal value. This critical issue went unmentioned.

On average, women earn no more than two thirds of the wages of their male counterparts; yet a government that claims to be taking the people of this province into the next century, claims to have a vision and claims to work for sound reforms cannot even attend to three commitments it made to the women of this province when it was seeking their needed support to put it into office. Women may have a right to fair and equitable treatment, but they will realize that right only when the government takes responsibility for guaranteeing it to them.

I find the government's intent to introduce legislation permitting the distribution of beer and wine in independent grocery stores to be somewhat paradoxical. We have a government pledging to put this legislation before the House while at the same time, in the same speech from the throne, it states that "those who drink and drive will be vigorously prosecuted."

Further, and I again quote from the throne speech, "Building on Ontario's record in traffic safety and efforts to combat drunk driving, funds will be provided to expand the Ontario Provincial Police reduce impaired driving everywhere program." How can a government that claims to be firmly committed to stopping the carnage on our roads even suggest moving towards corner and convenience store distribution of wine and beer?

Our party recently published the findings of our task force on wine and beer in convenience and corner stores. We toured the province, received submissions from groups and individuals and had public input on this matter. It was an overwhelming majority of Ontarians who told us to oppose any such move by this government. What these people want is not the establishment of a distribution system through corner and convenience stores but an expansion of the existing distribution system.

We listened and we reported. But if the throne speech is any indicator, and I have to believe it is, the government either did not receive a copy of our report or chose to ignore it. I suspect it is the latter.

This province is leading our sister provinces on the road to economic recovery. While we still have serious unemployment problems, they were being addressed two and three years ago. Similarly, our housing problems were being addressed two and three years ago. Our export markets have been broadened by the effort three and four years ago by members such as the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), who opened the door to our twin province in China and sought active trade partnerships beyond our sister provinces.

Affirmative action was started under the Tories and, at the behest of the New Democratic Party, was supposedly to have been a priority with the current government.

6 p.m.

I could go on ad infinitum about the problems that were up and running when this government came to power, but that is not the issue today. The issue today is how the government intends to lead this province further along the road to recovery, how it intends to make so many aspects of this province truly world class.

The leader of the third party said this speech could have been written by Bill Davis. I suggest it was, but at the right time, at a time when the ideas contained in it were truly new ideas. For the citizens of this great province, I sincerely hope the upcoming budget has more substance than this 36-page document.

Mr. McClellan: I am really fascinated at the --

Mr. Speaker: I understand these are comments.

Mr. McClellan: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Comments or questions.

Mr. McClellan: This is part of the new standing orders.

I am really fascinated at the difference of opinion that is being expressed by successive Conservative speakers during this throne speech debate on the subject of rent control. I do not know whether this means that the speakers are laying the groundwork for a fundamental change in policy on the part of the Conservative Party wherein they will come out in opposition to rent controls, or whether they are floating a number of trial balloons.

However, I would like to ask the member for Brock to elaborate a little bit on the very interesting and provocative remarks he had to make. He is not the first Conservative speaker during this throne speech debate to raise questions about whether rent controls should be eliminated. As a matter of fact, I have forgotten who it was, but one of the speakers --

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory).

Mr. McClellan: The member for Mississauga East raised similar trial balloons in his speech the other day. I also heard the member for Brock -- at least I think I heard the member for Brock -- argue that a freeze on condominium conversions was somehow undesirable. Of course, this would put him in terrible conflict with the Conservative Housing critic, but it would not put him in conflict with the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), who also supports condominium conversions in his own riding.

Perhaps as the second question, the member will clarify whether he is in favour of condominium conversions or opposed to them and will tell us whether he is speaking for the Conservative Party or whether he is just winging it.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the comments of the member for Brock. He sounded critical of the Ministry of the Environment for not doing anything. The member for St. Catharines has done more in 10 months than the former government did in the past 42 years. It did very little in that area in the past 42 years.

He talks about additional expenditure in the Niagara region for pollution abatement programs. I am concerned about that too. Specifically, I ask the member what areas he is concerned about in the Niagara region. Is it Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Niagara Falls or St. Catharines? I understand there has been heavy expenditure through regional government in the St. Catharines area on pollution abatement programs, particularly on sanitary sewers; so I have to give the past government credit in that area.

I am concerned about his position on rent controls. I interpreted his comments to mean he is no longer supporting rent controls. I believe the Tory speech from the throne a year ago had indicated that rent controls would not apply at six per cent but at four per cent. What is his position on that?

Mr. Philip: The member took credit for affirmative action on behalf of the Conservative Party; yet in the House only a couple of days ago the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) announced that she had to start a new research project to create a data base on which to find out exactly who was being discriminated against in the public service. With all the affirmative action programs of the previous Conservative government, one must ask how it could do anything when it did not have the information on which to act. It did not even know which minority groups -- women, ethnic, coloured or disabled -- were being discriminated against in its own civil service. How does he explain that?

The member talks about the need for home support services. Integrated homemaker programs were not just in this throne speech, but in the 1981 throne speech and in successive throne speeches, including that under the member for Muskoka. There has been a whole series of speeches, but no action. On any given day, there are 50 people in active treatment beds at the Etobicoke General Hospital alone who need that kind of support. I am glad he has come to a new conversion, but perhaps he should have looked at this in deciding which party he wanted to run for when he decided to run in the last election.

Mr. Gillies: I congratulate my colleague the member for Brock for an excellent speech. He raised a number of serious issues that are of concern to this party, and I will address two of them.

One is my colleague's comments about the question of pay equity. It must be a tremendous embarrassment to my friends in the New Democratic Party that through an accord with the Liberals, they have put in power a government that expends more rhetoric on the question of women's issues than perhaps on any other single issue, yet when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) introduced his pay equity bill with great fanfare, it was the most parsimonious chicanery I can recall in this House. It contained the narrowest definition of the public sector: only some 29,000 women in the public service will be helped by it.

The Progressive Conservative Party has announced that it will be moving amendments to the government's pay equity bill to extend it to the broad public service, bringing in some 200,000 women who are not even considered in the Liberal bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Gillies: My friends get the press releases, and they should read them. I announced this two weeks ago.

On the subject of rent controls, the member for Brock has raised some questions about rent controls that rumble through his mind as an independent and free-thinking member of our caucus. Unlike the New Democratic Party, there is all kinds of scope in the Progressive Conservative Party to think for oneself. Our members do and they express their views. Lest there be any misapprehension on the part of any members of the House, the Progressive Conservative Party, which introduced rent controls in this province in the first place, will support them as long as they are of benefit to the tenants of this province.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I commend the member for taking advantage of this opportunity to discuss matters of concern. I appreciate the support of the suggestions he has made about the endeavours of the Ministry of the Environment to solve the many problems that have accumulated over a long period.

I am pleased he recognizes that the main problem lies on the other side of the border rather than on our side. He knows that this minister has given orders to the ministry to address all the problems contained in the report of the Niagara River Toxics Committee and that we are moving in that direction. The continued effluent going in is from the American side. I share his concern about the beaches in our area. He will be pleased with the announcement of grants from the Ministry of the Environment, involving the city of St. Catharines, the city of Thorold and the regional municipality of Niagara as well as Brock University, to pinpoint the precise sources of the pollution so we may put forth the necessary funds to solve the problem. He is on the right track in that regard, and I appreciate his support.

6:10 p.m.

Mr. Partington: I am happy to respond to the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for St. Catharines. I am concerned about all areas of the province, not just Erie, Port Colborne, Niagara-on-the-Lake or St. Catharines. As I indicated, the government has to redouble its efforts and commit whatever resources are required to clear up the site-specific pollution areas that we know about, the industrial plants and the municipal pollution that have always been major polluters of our environment. We have to recognize that. We continue to put in money to clear up the situation, because sewage is getting into the water system and putting an extra strain on our treatment facilities.

Mr. Breaugh: Get it on the record; he is avoiding rent review.

Mr. Partington: I will be getting to rent review. Actually, I could spend an hour on that later on if the member would like it.

Since I have been in this Legislature, I have been hearing that we have had pollution for 42 years. Anybody who understands pollution recognizes that it is an evolutionary process, and with our continued technology and growing population, we have to solve this problem as it goes on. Most members will realize that as late as 1969 and 1970, most books on the subject of international waters do not even mention pollution as a topic. The member should know that.

Rent controls were introduced as a solution to a housing crisis, and in their current form, they have not worked. They have failed to do two things. First, tenants must be treated fairly, but also the owners of property, be they municipal owners or private entrepreneurs, should be given the money to keep up the necessary repairs to the buildings and make a reasonable return on their investment over a period of time.

Mr. South: It is with great pleasure that I rise today before the assembly in support of the speech from the throne.

The year 1985 marked a time of significant change in Ontario. Since coming to office, our government has set a hectic legislative pace. We have taken significant steps to implement policies that will ensure the availability of affordable housing, justice for women, improved rights for workers, equality of funding for the separate school system, greater accountability and freedom of information.

We have begun to address the challenge of a society that is steadily changing, and will continue to do so, by further providing excellence and relevance in education, affordable and accessible health care and social services for all, in the light of an ageing society and changing technology. In the past 10 months, more than 98 initiatives have been proposed by our government. These represent a fresh injection of new ideas, creative solutions to old problems, and most important, a new and dynamic leadership for Ontario.

With the delivery of the speech from the throne, our government recognized the needs and attributes of eastern Ontario. This is of particular interest to me as I have the privilege of representing the eastern Ontario riding of Frontenac-Addington.

For too long, eastern Ontario has been overlooked despite its enormous potential as a world-class tourism locale. Our government recognizes eastern Ontario's potential. In Frontenac-Addington alone, we have the St. Lawrence River and Rideau Canal systems, which are historic routes of trade and recreation; they are primary navigational links with the United States. Bon Echo Provincial Park is one of our many beautiful parks; it has irreplaceable Indian pictographs painted at the base of Mazinaw's sheer cliff face and has exceptional routes for canoeing. The Land O' Lakes region, which is primarily cottage country, is unspoiled and is perfect for family camping.

One aspect of tourism that is often overlooked is the world-renowned cheddar cheese we make; ask the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling).

Hon. Mr. Curling: Good cheese.

Mr. South: It will be a challenge for our government to create new promotion and marketing campaigns to make people aware of what eastern Ontario has to offer. It is essential that we recognize the great job potential, the nonpolluting nature of the industry and the fact that we have such a beautiful natural setting in eastern Ontario. Our government intends to encourage private sector investment in this industry. A review of existing financial assistance programs is needed. These programs have not been reviewed for several years, and there is a need to take a fresh look at them to determine how well they meet current, changing market needs.

Tourism dollar potential in eastern Ontario is among the highest in our province. The Liberal government plans to utilize these resources in an affirmative manner. It is important to note that there has never been a tourism strategy in place in the past specifically geared to eastern and northern Ontario. Never before has there been consultation with industry and community representatives. Consultations will be held across the province to develop new, creative and innovative tourism development and promotion ideas. For the first time, Ontario will have developed an overall tourism strategy with considerable local input and not one dictated from Bay and Bloor streets.

Realizing eastern Ontario's potential for tourism, we must also seek to protect an important part of that potential: the environment. With the speech from the throne comes a renewed commitment to environmental protection. The preservation and restoration of the environment is of particular concern to us in the Kingston area. Our environmental heritage is important. Our health, economy and quality of life depend upon an unspoiled and sustainable environment. Ontario faces threats to its environmental security. Toxic chemicals, acid rain and hazardous waste pose serious problems. It is our duty to protect our inherited resource and to work to meet the environmental challenges that face us. Only if we all share the responsibility for the quality of our environment can we preserve it for generations.

Let me tell members something about the St. Lawrence River, which is so much a part of our past and present heritage. It was the St. Lawrence River that formed the route to the interior and attracted the early explorers and fur traders. It has formed the very backbone of the cultural, social and economic development not only of this province but also of this country.

Mr. Philip: But it is wet.

Mr. South: It is wet and beautiful.

Water is not a sometimes thing. We have the same water today that was here a thousand years ago or a million years ago.

Mrs. Grier: No. We do not. We are much worse off. I wish we did.

Mr. South: We do. Members had the same water in their orange juice this morning as slaked Caesar's sweating legions or Cleopatra in her bath.

Mrs. Grier: They never heard of chlorinated organics.

Mr. South: Have the members ever read Ecclesiastes? He says, "All the rivers flow into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." That is the cycle. We have not changed the amount of water in the world; we have just changed its place from time to time. The battle for the waterhole is very important to us.

6:20 p.m.

I will admit the opposition party directly opposite did a lot of good things. It gave us a good highway system. It did a lot with regard to the environment.

Mr. Gillies: At last some honesty in the Liberal Party.

Mr. South: Wait for the shoe to drop.

The Conservatives did a lot for the environment. Many years ago, I worked for the Ontario Water Resources Commission. I do not think there were more than a dozen sewage treatment plants in Ontario then. The previous Tory government brought in a system of subsidies and grants that encouraged municipalities to build sewage treatment plants. It did a lot of good things, but then it got lazy. For one thing, there were nine Ministers of the Environment in 10 years. They could not stand the heat. They would not do anything positive. They ran out of new ideas. Like ancient Rome, they collapsed.

I would like to comment on some of the other bad things the previous government did, but maybe I should not.

Interjections.

Mr. South: I should give them another lick?

Mr. Warner: What about jobs in the liquor board?

Mr. South: Appointments to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario were cabinet appointments. That was bad. The previous government should not have done that; it was not very democratic. It is a lot like a wagon wheel going through mud. The more mud it goes through, the more mud it picks up. That is what happened to the previous government.

Interjections.

Miss Stephenson: If I had as much on me as you have on you --

Mr. South: The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) and her government did a lot of good things.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Frontenac-Addington has the floor.

Mr. South: The official opposition criticizes this government's throne speech because it contains too many of the previous government's ideas. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. Taking good ideas from one's opposition is smart. For the most part, that is all they were: ideas, possibilities or thoughts. The previous government was long on promises and short on delivery. We now have a government that is going to be long on delivery, even if we take the official opposition's good ideas.

Miss Stephenson: You are long on words and short on everything else.

Mr. South: The member should not be talking about shortness.

The opposition should judge us by our actions and not by the limitations, as it calls them, of fresh, innovative thought. After all, when a government has been in power for 42 years, it is pretty difficult to find something that has not been thought about, ruminated over and conjectured about, but the previous government never had the guts to do a lot of those things. I am proud to be part of a government that has both acted and reacted to vital signals from the public.

The Liberal government has shown determination through its spills bill. Do members remember that? For seven years the previous government talked and ruminated about it.

Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. South: The sky would fall down, Chicken Little. As the member will attest, it has not.

Miss Stephenson: No, but the turkeys have.

Mr. South: One of the members of the Progressive Conservative Party told us today that the sky is still blue up there. I remember his words.

In attempting to resolve some of the major areas of environmental concern, we as citizens must move ahead. The foundation has been laid. The Liberal government must continue to build upon this foundation. New incentives for tourism and renewed protection for the environment go hand in hand and must be pursued. The government must remain vigilant in both its environmental and tourism policies. We, the Liberal government, will meet that challenge.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to be here to hear the remarks of the member for Frontenac-Addington. I was pleased to hear him mention the fact that tourism is very important to eastern Ontario. He could not have timed that speech much better, because tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock we are meeting with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation in Bancroft to discuss that very problem.

I will brief members on what is taking place there. An abandoned railway line runs from Marmora to Lake St. Peter. Over the years, the Conservative government had said it would take over that abandoned railway line for a recreation trail. However, it was not going to take it over until such time as all the abandoned railway lines came up for grabs in southern Ontario. Therefore, it did not act on it because some of those lines have not been officially closed yet.

However, on December 6, 1985, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) stated in writing that he was not interested in those abandoned railway lines. The people from that area are disturbed. We have already had several meetings. I attended one at Bancroft; I attended another one in Marmora. We are finally meeting with the minister tomorrow. A committee from Hastings county council will be there. I hope to be there to discuss this very important issue.

That corridor handles a lot of snowmobile traffic in the wintertime. People travel from the south up north to Bancroft. They stay in the hotels and spend tourist dollars there. In the summertime, recreation vehicles travel that abandoned railway line. It is a plus, and I am concerned about it. I hope the member will give the Minister of Tourism and Recreation his remarks.

Miss Stephenson: I am delighted to respond briefly and charitably to the input of the member for Frontenac-Addington. It is without any doubt the nicest remark I have heard today. He suggested that the previous government had done many good things, and the previous government did do many good things. It also contemplated many good things that it would have been delighted to fulfil had we not been in the midst of the most severe recession since 1929 and had we not been attempting to deal with the very problems of rapid change, which had begun in the middle of the 1960s.

However, I do want the member to recognize that there is real concern about the water of Ontario and of Canada. To suggest that we have exactly the same water today that we had at the time of Cleopatra -- who, I remind him, bathed not with water but with oil and milk -- is totally erroneous. It is not just the content of the water that is different. We have not maintained on this planet the amount of water that we had in the days of Cleopatra. In fact, there has been much less concern for environmental problems in many parts of the world, particularly in the equatorial areas, and the cutting down of rain forests has significantly reduced the total supply of planetary water.

That is one of the things I hope we as citizens of this country might impress upon our international neighbours, because it is important for all of us to ensure that the water supply is not reduced any more. Look at our neighbours to the south. They are already looking enviously at us, because they have reduced their water supply very significantly. I hope the member, who is interested in water, will learn a little bit more about it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member wish to reply at a later time?

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, May 12, the throne speech debate will wind up. As members will realize, the time is to be shared by the three parties and there will be a vote.

On Tuesday, May 13, following routine proceedings at 2 p.m., the House will adjourn until 4 p.m. for the presentation of the budget.

On Wednesday, May 14, the official opposition's response to the budget is scheduled.

On Thursday, May 15, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for private members' public business as previously ordered. In the afternoon, there will be the New Democratic Party's response to the budget, followed by general debate on the budget.

I will be making a later announcement if there are any additions to this order of business.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.