The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Administrator of the Province signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Honourable W. G. C. Howland, Administrator of the Province of Ontario, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1981, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, March 25, 1980.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, sending someone to prison is costly. Keeping him in idleness is disservice to the offender and to the community. On the other hand, if an inmate can be involved in productive employment while serving his sentence, both he and his community will benefit.

The speech from the throne made specific reference to a program of self-sufficiency in the Ministry of Correctional Services. I would like to advise members on the status and intent of this program. As was reported a few months ago, the Ministry of Correctional Services launched an aggressive cost-paring campaign in response to rising inflation, higher suppliers’ costs, wage increases and the introduction of new programs. By late fall we had completely eliminated a $3.5 million potential cost overrun. In fact, members will be pleased to know the ministry should come in at least $1 million under budget for the fiscal year ending this month.

Further cuts in operating costs will be extremely difficult to achieve without imperilling the security and safety of our correctional institutions. At a cost of $50 a day per inmate, our institutional operating costs are higher than many leading hotel rates. That, I suppose, is the price we must all pay to keep criminals secure from the community. Nevertheless, as we face the challenge of keeping a lid on spending increases in the years ahead, we recognize the time has come to place more of the correctional cost burden on the inmates and less on the taxpayers of Ontario.

With this in mind, we are initiating a five-year program to make positive use of inmate labour so that correctional institutions can be more self-sufficient in meeting their own needs.

First, we plan to cut our food bill significantly by having inmates grow more of their own requirements. The ministry serves 6.3 million meals a year, which is more than many large hotel chains in Canada. The total cost of feeding inmates is about $5 million annually. Starting this year, we will be converting as much land as possible at our institutions to the cultivation of root crops and vegetables.

Every institution will participate in this program, including the smaller jails, where vegetable gardens will be created or expanded. Many of the larger institutions will also be raising livestock. Inmate labour will be used to clear and plough the land; to plant, tend and harvest vegetables, and to raise livestock. In five years we hope inmates will be farming approximately 2,200 acres. I am confident we will become totally self-sufficient in the production of essential root crops and vegetables.

Second, under our self-sufficiency program, we will expand the cannery operation at the Burtch Correctional Centre. Already we are canning tomato and apple juice. Other vegetables will be added to meet the ministry’s needs, and surplus production will be sold to institutions operated by other ministries.

Third, we will manufacture our own farm implements at the plant being established at the Guelph Correctional Centre.

Fourth, the ministry will strive to become more self-sufficient in the manufacture of inmate clothing, including the production of shirts, pants, underwear and the like.

Fifth, inmates will be put to work in woodcutting projects. Wood not used for fuel will be sold for use in public parks. Wood will be cut by hand.

Sixth, we plan to expand our various industrial programs by developing small cottage-type industries at the longer-term institutions. Currently, inmates make a fairly wide range of products, such as mattresses, barbecue grills, picnic benches and auto parts. We plan to put more and more inmates into productive work to teach them trade skills and to generate new revenues. In this way, inmates, not taxpayers, will contribute to offsetting future correctional cost increases.

Seventh, we will continue to make correctional institutions even more energy-efficient. Since 1976, this ministry has reduced its energy costs by some $1.25 million. We plan to do more. For example, the Guelph Correctional Centre and the Ontario Correctional Institute are being converted to solar heating units for the providing of hot water.

In summary, the productive use of the inmates’ time in prison, and the development of their employment skills combined with cost savings, are at the core of our correctional self-sufficiency program. Mr. Speaker, I shall be reporting to you in due time on the success of these initiatives.

ADVISORY AGENCIES

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to table later today, the second report of the agencies’ review committee and the implementing order in council. The agencies review committee was established in March 1978 and, as part of its mandate, was requested to analyse current review mechanisms for new and existing agencies and to recommend to cabinet additional reforms where necessary.

I know one of the areas of interest to members of this Legislature is the sunset concept, which can best be defined as an automatic termination of an agency on a fixed date unless the decision is made to re-establish it. I wish to advise the House that as a result of our deliberations, and with the approval of cabinet, all advisory agencies are to be “sunsetted.”

I am tabling a copy of the order in council which provides for the sunsetting of all existing advisory agencies on a staggered basis, commencing in March 1982. There will be a review, prior to the termination date, by the minister responsible for each advisory agency. The minister’s recommendations will be reviewed by management board and cabinet, and a decision to terminate or retain the agency will be made. These decisions and all relevant documents relating to these decisions will be made public.

Also in future, when an advisory agency is established, a sunset provision is to be incorporated into the legislation or order in council. In addition, unless cabinet decides otherwise, a sunset clause will be applied to all other new agencies when they are established.

I would like to turn now to some of the other measures that will be introduced. The government recognizes that we must go beyond merely the review of agencies; accordingly, the report also deals with their establishment and administration. Such initiatives as conflict-of-interest guidelines, term appointments for members and guidelines for agency legislation are outlined in the report. These new measures, coupled with existing policies, demonstrate the government’s resolve to ensure that agencies are used in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

2:10 p.m.

Over the next 12 months, the agencies’ review committee will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the processes and procedures I have just announced and will develop guidelines to enable ministers to undertake the required sunset reviews of advisory agencies.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the special contribution to this report made by the former chairman, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman), and the other members of the committee.

GREAT LAKES-SEAWAY TASK FORCE

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, in the speech from the throne this government indicated its intention to take a greater interest in the water transportation systems serving our province and to review the potential of water transport on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway systems.

Today I wish to announce to the House the steps my ministry will undertake to focus attention on the importance of the Great Lakes-Seaway systems to the overall economic wellbeing of our province.

We are all aware Ontario is the host province for a great number of the facilities that comprise the St. Lawrence Seaway transportation system. We have five major ports, 369 other dockage facilities and the eight-lock Welland Canal, all within our provincial boundaries.

While historically the provincial position on issues relating to these facilities has been that the marine mode comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the sheer economic importance of this system to Ontario industry and the balance of our overall transport system compels us now to take a stronger stand on Great Lakes-Seaway policy.

We take this stand with good reason because much of Ontario’s industrial base is dependent on the automotive industry, which in turn depends to a high degree upon the steel producers of the province and without the marine transportation facilities serving our province the steel industry would not exist in anything like the scale that we see today.

We can now see where economic and energy conservation pressures will lead to an increased use of intermodal transport within the province and necessitate a greater need for co-operation between federal and provincial governments towards good transportation policies.

The Great Lakes are a part of our provincial heritage and the Seaway system is an integral part of our provincial economy. Therefore, we as a government must be prepared to take the appropriate actions to ensure Ontario receives its fair share of the federal subsidies and support provided to marine facilities.

With these considerations in mind, I am establishing a task force to undertake a review of the Great Lakes-Seaway transportation systems with special emphasis on the facilities within Ontario to help develop a provincial perspective with regard to this important facet of our overall movement of people and goods.

I am pleased to announce today that Mr. Ralph Misener, senior, the retired chief executive officer of Misener Transportation Limited, has accepted my invitation to act as chairman of the Ontario Great Lakes-Seaway task force.

Mr. Misener is an individual with not only many years of experience in the marine transportation field but the reputation of being able to successfully complete programs placed before him while achieving the appreciation of those he works with. I am sure Ralph Misener will represent us well in this task of reviewing and reporting on the state of Ontario’s marine transportation industry.

We plan to have the chairman conduct meetings in various communities to seek the advice of local officials from the towns and cities along the waterway. Mr. Misener will also invite organizations such as the Great Lakes Waterway Development Association and the Dominion Marine Association, along with the unions representing the labour force on the waterway, to submit briefs outlining concerns and comments that will assist the task force in fulfilling its mandate.

I am asking that during the next few months the task force examine ‘the economic components of the Great Lakes-Seaway system including the ports, the carriers, the locks and canals, the shipbuilding and ship outfitting industries and the marine supply industry so we can analyse and publicize the importance of marine transportation to the economy of Ontario.

They will also examine the related shipping requirements of various industries served by the Great Lakes-Seaway systems and document current policies under which this marine mode operates in Canada and the United States.

In addition, the task force will identify environmental concerns related to transportation on the waterways, and prepare policy recommendations and options for the province, all aimed at improving the efficiency of the system as one of the transport modes within the total provincial transportation scheme.

They will also undertake liaison with both the United States Great Lakes Basin Commission and the Great Lakes Commission so we can assess the feasibility of similar interjurisdictional panels on this side of the border.

I am asking the task force to report back to me by the end of this year’s shipping season and I fully expect their report will provide the province with the information we require to assist us in negotiations with Ottawa for the encouragement and development of a more efficient and productive marine facility along Ontario’s section of the St. Lawrence Seaway system.

Finally, I will be reporting further on who, in addition to Mr. Misener, will make up the task force.

‘I don’t have to tell the members of this House that I expect Mr. Misener’s full report, together with the findings of the provincial rail policy task force, will provide this province with a greater understanding of the future of intermodal transportation within Ontario and provide the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) with data which will be useful in attracting manufacturers to the industrial heartland of our province.

HYDROGEN ENERGY TASK FORCE

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am pleased to inform the honourable members of the progress being made in the formation of the Ontario hydrogen energy task force. As honourable members are aware, on February 25 I announced the establishment of the task force under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr. Arthur C. Johnson of York University.

Today I wish to inform the House that Dr. Alex Lawson --

Mr. Sargent: A good Tory, I suspect.

Hon. Ms. Welch: We never ask that question here. Actually, with the law of averages, there are so many people in Ontario who have that particular loyalty it’s not hard to find them.

Today I wish to inform the House that Dr. Alex Lawson of the Ontario Research Foundation has accepted the post of executive vice-chairman of the task force, and five other members have been appointed. They are Dr. Donald Dewees of the University of Toronto; Mr. John Bates of Maclean-Hunter Limited; Dr. Vello Soots of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications; Dr. Brian Taylor of the National Research Council, and Mr. A. C. Barnstaple of Ontario Hydro.

It is anticipated that additional members will be appointed shortly, representing the industrial sector. As well, Dr. David Scott, chairman of the mechanical engineering faculty at the University of Toronto, will be engaged as a senior adviser to the task force.

Over the next year the Ontario hydrogen energy task force will examine existing hydrogen production and utilization technology. It will also review research, development and demonstration requirements, and suggest possible hydrogen development strategies for our province. Both in Canada and around the world, there is considerable interest in hydrogen and extensive research and development is now underway.

In Canada, the federal government is coordinating research on hydrogen through the National Research Council, and supporting the development of hydrogen production equipment through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Internationally, Canada is co-operating with the International Energy Agency.

In 1975 Ontario Hydro carried out an assessment of the production and utilization of hydrogen and in 1978 the Ministry of Transportation and Communications conducted a study of its potential as a transportation fuel. The latter study was funded by the Ministry of Energy.

Both studies concluded that any major government action was not warranted at that time. However, it is clear that the world and domestic energy situations have been changing rapidly, and that we need now to review opportunities for a greater role for hydrogen in the energy future of our province.

While hydrogen itself can be used directly as a fuel, it is also the chemical basis of most of our common fuels. It is the presence of hydrogen in hydrocarbons, such as gasoline and other petroleum products, which gives them much of their value as energy sources.

As the honourable members are aware, hydrogen is not a new source of energy. Rather, it is much like electricity, in that it must be produced from another energy source. In the case of Ontario, it would seem that potentially the best method of producing hydrogen would be through the electrolysis of water; that is, by using electricity.

2:20 p.m.

The hydrogen task force will be studying not only the utilization of hydrogen as a fuel on its own, but also its use within the existing industrial and transportation infrastructure. For instance, as the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) would of course know, hydrogen could be used to upgrade residual or heavy oils, which are not usable in most applications at present because of their low hydrogen content. Similarly, hydrogen could be used to improve greatly the efficiency of production of fuel alcohol from biomass.

As well as these energy applications, the task force will examine the potential for greater use of hydrogen in other industrial fields, such as the processing of metal ores.

A key focus of the task force will, of course, be the cost of production.

While the final terms of reference will be determined by the task force itself, I would like to outline its primary responsibilities: the assessment of the state of technology and economics concerning the production and safety of hydrogen energy; the identification of ways in which hydrogen could be used, and the optimum timing of its use in each application; liaison with other groups working on the potential for hydrogen energy and, finally, the identification of components of possible hydrogen strategies oriented towards Ontario needs.

The Ontario hydrogen energy task force will be pleased to hear the views of the academic, industrial and commercial sectors of the province with the goal of obtaining a broad spectrum of viewpoints and experience.

I look forward to keeping the honourable members informed of the progress of this particular task force in the coming months.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Is he prepared to give the House a policy statement on mortgage interest rates? I remind him of the policy that we presume is operative since he made it in a statement before the 1975 election, which I would quote:

“What we propose is to extend tax relief to present and prospective home owners through a new tax credit which would offset three quarters of the mortgage interest costs which are above 10.25 per cent. Such tax relief would be allowed to a maximum $500 annually and would apply only to principal residences.” That was the Premier’s statement of September 11, 1975.

Is that still a policy? If not what is the policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member, better than some across the House, will recall, that was at a period when: (a) we were concerned about new home construction --

Mr. T. P. Reid: And you are not now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. Listen, those people opposite should be somewhat embarrassed. Some of them spent weeks defeating a government that was going to partially resolve this problem through mortgage interest deductibility and then the member comes in here and asks that question. In fact, I’m going to be very intrigued over the next couple of weeks to see how their federal friends answer the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I recall, the question dealt specifically with a policy, whether or not it was still operational.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Speaker, you are partly right. As I recall the discussions back some five years ago we made it dear that we felt then, as we feel now, the whole question of mortgage interest deductibility or the question of mortgage interest rates was an issue that had to be resolved on a national basis.

This led to the discussions by our Minister of Housing and by the Treasurer of this province with some of the federal ministers responsible. I made it abundantly clear in a speech I made to the Toronto Rotary Club, which the acting leader of the Liberal Party --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say acting leader. I could be provoked into saying that some of us, quite generally, wish he were still the leader of the party; but I wouldn’t be provoked into saying that.

I made it quite clear then that this government was, as it is now, concerned about the level of interest rates as they impact upon mortgage holders and upon the potential of new house construction and the mortgage interest rates. I think it’s fair to state, Mr. Speaker -- and I want to be fair to the new government of Canada -- that the minister directly responsible, Mr. Cosgrove, has indicated he hopes to have fairly soon some policy relative to this issue.

It was with this intent in mind that the meeting was held last week. We are anticipating further discussions and I will keep this House fully informed. I think it is an important issue and one that has to be dealt with in some fashion -- one can play politics with it, I don’t argue that -- but it has to be done on a national basis.

Mr. Nixon: The policy I quoted was put forward by the Premier seven days before the election of 1975, an election which the Premier won. He is still there and I am still here. Would he indicate that he is something more than concerned? Would he also agree that if anybody has played politics on this important issue it is the honourable gentleman who just made the statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was not perhaps part of the question, but the acting leader of the Liberal Party did make reference to it. I am a very modest person --

Mr. Breithaupt: With a great deal to be modest about.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know. The member is quoting Winston Churchill, who would be a good example for the member for Kitchener. He can learn a lot from him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Clement Attlee is a good example for you too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Even in his own way he has had more success than the Liberal Party has had in this province for many generations. I would just say to the acting leader of the Liberal Party I am modest, I really don’t take credit for winning the 1975 election. I sometimes think the honourable member opposite lost the 1975 election, and I say that very kindly.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just remind the honourable member that shortly thereafter -- and I want to be fair once again to the government of Canada -- programs were introduced to assist people on lower incomes. With respect to the purchasing of new housing accommodation, provisions were made within our own mortgage corporation. I am referring specifically to the Assisted Home Ownership Program, which came shortly after the 1975 discussion. I can recall debating this issue at some length, and we determined that interest rates shortly thereafter, with respect to the average mortgage holder, had not reached the proportions we felt existed in 1975.

It was AHOP -- at least I think it was; I sometimes get the names of these programs confused -- that did in fact make it possible for a number of people to acquire ownership. This is where I think we have one of the significant problems. All of mortgage interest is a problem, but I think the leader of the New Democratic Party -- once again, I am being very fair today -- has identified the AHOP area as one of those where I think --

Mr. Peterson: You’re giving us a penetrating insight into the obvious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for London Centre --

Mr. Speaker: No, don’t say it to him; just ignore him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But, Mr. Speaker, he makes himself so vulnerable. He interjects, and the answer to what he interjects is so obvious.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He can’t see too well now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He can’t see as well as he used to, my colleague tells me.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I understand that in trying to recreate your youth you were out jogging this morning as well.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. I heard that. Mr. Speaker, I would say it never became a policy of the government, and I think the leader of the Liberal Party knows it --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) wants to know whether or not the Premier can stay on track. I suggest to the honourable member that the Premier is provoked by the out-of-order interjections from all sides of the House. So in a good many instances the members who complain most vociferously are in a dilemma of their own making.

Do you have any further response to the question, or do you even remember what it was?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always on track, but I think I have said all I have to say for the moment.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in the same area, I have a supplementary for the Premier: In view of the total disaster facing farmers and small businessmen in Ontario, would the Premier advise the House, when a family farmer in Quebec applying for a mortgage or a loan gets the first $15,000 at 2.5 per cent, the next $135,000 at eight per cent, and loans above that, up to $450,000, at 1.5 per cent above prime, why can’t we have that in Ontario? Why can’t our farmers and small businessmen be treated in the same way as Quebec treats its people?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think one would get into a very complicated discussion as to just how a government in this province vis-à-vis the province of Quebec is to treat various sectors of our society, and I don’t want in any way to minimize the Quebec programs in any manner whatsoever. I think our responsibility in this House is to allocate the resources, that are not that plentiful, as equitably as we can among the various segments of our society that need some assistance. I think the answer is really as simple as that.

Mr. Peterson: Through what kinds of programs and how much money is the government prepared to put aside, through what funds, to take to its federal colleagues, so they may mutually attempt to solve this situation of crisis proportions, particularly with the Assisted Home Ownership Program and with other people who are going to have to renew their mortgages this year? What specifically is the government offering? What is it prepared to do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad that at least the member for London Centre acknowledges there is a modest responsibility on the government of Canada to help resolve this problem. I think the member for London Centre, as the financial critic, the economic expert in the Liberal Party, would understand that whatever this province might undertake in conjunction with the government of Canada would, of course, be financed out of taxpayers’ dollars in one form or another. I haven’t found any other source of funding as yet, so I think the answer to that part of the question is very simple.

I think it is also important for the member for London Centre to recognize that while the new government has had a relatively short period of time to sort out its priorities, some of the members have really had a modest amount of experience and were partially responsible for the creation of the economic situation that has led to the high interest rates in this country. It has a greater obligation than any government that has ever come into power to resolve this matter or attempt to resolve it, and very shortly. I think if the member for London Centre were totally honest about it he would recognize that as an obligation on their part.

We have had our discussions; we will continue to have them. I mentioned the problem to the Minister of Finance myself. We don’t know yet exactly what the government of Canada may be proposing. We’ve made it quite clear we are prepared to co-operate. We know we’re prepared to co-operate with them; we have to know what it is they intend to propose.

USE OF HERBICIDES

Mr. Nixon: I want to put a question to the Minister of the Environment about his policy on the disposition of 2,4,5-T. Would he not now agree, in view of the information that has come forward in the public debate associated with this matter, that the concept of spraying 2,4,5-T on northern Ontario is going to be completely inadmissible and impossible? Surely he should bring forward a program that is going to maintain it in storage, under inspection, and with heavy fines against anyone who breaks or interferes with the proper inspection process?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t agree with the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker. On the second part, I think the more logical approach would be to destroy the material, and if I could get a little co-operation we would have those facilities in this province to deal with not only 2,4,5-T but with PCBs -- you name it -- the many liquid wastes we must destroy and not kid ourselves they are safe to store.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Is there no alternative to the policy the minister has brought forward that the 2,4,5-T materials can be controlled or disposed of only by simply spraying them into the environment? Surely the minister must not feel that his argument given on the CBC this morning that it’s like an extra can of material in your kitchen that you’re never going to use and is going to be spilled, is not sufficient for those who are concerned about the environment and the people who are living in it under those circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can assure the member I am concerned about the environment; I think that’s well known.

The point is that as much as I wish we could be sure that a material in a very concentrated form would stay exactly where we believe it should stay, the truth of the mailer is we would unfortunately likely find some of that material, with unscrupulous owners, going into the lakes or into streams in heavy concentrations. Then the member would say to me, “Why didn’t you stop it?”

It’s like a lot of other things. We would like to stop a lot of things before they occur, be it a fire in a home or a lot of illustrations I could give, but we can’t. There are just too many prices. If I could get the co-operation of the members opposite, and if I’d had their full support, we would be much farther along the road for facilities to destroy these.

I can only repeat, repeat and repeat that what we want are those facilities and, God willing, we’ll have them in the not-too-distant future. I think we are being not only responsible but also reasonable in the approach of dealing with the problem we’re faced with today.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the minister why he thinks he can use northern Ontario as a giant laboratory to spray this material that’s supposedly unsafe for southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Absolutely never did I say that, Mr. Speaker. I said it would be under very strict and controlled conditions. There is absolutely no reference any place, any time or in any medium where I talked in terms of using it in northern Ontario and not in southern Ontario. I said we’d do it under very strict, very controlled conditions. One of them, for instance, is that it won’t be adjacent to a right of way, a ditch, where it could get into our environment.

I have tried to suggest to the members opposite, and I suggest again today, that we on this side of the House treat northern and southern Ontario, environmentally, as one and the same.

Mr. Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to ask the minister why he finds it convenient to blame the opposition for not being able to deal with this matter. We had no part in the decision to produce these chemicals in the first place; now he’s trying to blame us for not disposing of them.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I must say in reply, Mr. Speaker, that I don’t recall when I issued a permit to have a new product put on the market. I suspect that my friend and I and the other members of this House are equally anxious to enjoy the benefits of our industrialized society. That means using many products on our market that are very beneficial, not only to our health but also to our quality of life. We’re there together in wanting those benefits.

If my friend will be just a little fair about it, he will agree that he and I both know that the responsibility rests with all of us. I have not tried to suggest to my friend anything contrary to that point of view. As I’ve said a thousand times, what we need are these treatment facilities. I need the co-operation of the members opposite in doing so, not just always standing some place and saying “Some place else.” That’s the subtlety of this point. Many of the members opposite agree with the objectives of our ministry, but when they get to the fine point they always say, “Do it somewhere else.”

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: The minister stated in his press release, lifting the ban for this season, that he did not know how to dispose of this particular product and that there are no facilities. I can’t understand why he is saying, “If you would let me put in place the facilities, I could dispose of it.” If he had facilities --

Mr. Speaker: I take it that you want to make a statement?

Ms. Bryden: -- and if he had a proper environmental assessment, he could perhaps get some, but first he must produce those facilities; he must produce the method. Has he got a method?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Agreed.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Premier again about the runaway interest rates and the effect on people like farmers and home owners who are urgently hit by rising interest rates -- clearly more urgently than the Liberals in Ottawa are prepared to act.

We recognize that this is more than a provincial problem, but since the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) yesterday, and now the Premier, have expressed concern, would the Premier share with the House what action the government is prepared to take now to respond to the urgent needs of farmers and home owners hit by rising interest rates -- people who cannot afford to wait until the Liberals begin to take action?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to minimize this situation at all, because I am quite aware of the impact of increased rates for mortgages, loans or what have you on small businesses, farmers, home owners or, quite frankly, even on larger businesses, where it has a modest impact as well which then reflects itself in terms of consumer pricing. There is no one who escapes the problem of higher interest rates.

2:40 p.m.

I want to make it clear to the leader of the New Democratic Party, and I don’t want to minimize it, that with respect to mortgage interest rates there is a period of time during which this can be assessed which, in fairness, I believe the government of Canada is in the process of doing.

There are thousands of mortgages which do not become due within the next 30 days or 60 days or even six months. There are a number of mortgages that are in place for five years, 10 years, some for 15 years, or even 20 years.

What we are trying to do as a government is to deal with it responsibly, with the very clear understanding that we can’t affect the prime rate. No provincial government can alter the prime rate; that is a matter for the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada. It is something about which we can make a point of view known, about which we can make speeches, but ultimately the prime rate, which dictates so much of what else happens, is determined by the government of Canada; and very appropriately, this is part of their responsibility.

I could become a little partisan and refer back to headlines that I saw created by the new Prime Minister of Canada during the election campaign about how interest rates were going to come down, but I won’t do that.

I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we are giving this matter very serious consideration. I don’t pretend to have any instant answers or ad hoc solutions to a problem of this magnitude. We have made it clear to the government of Canada, and I reiterate it, that we are prepared to co-operate with them, particularly in the area of mortgage interest, because this does have a very wide impact.

I am not sure that we can deal with interest rates generally across the board, for that is far more complex, but I would hope the government of Canada, at least, can come up with a program -- which we are prepared to assist; I will make that clear -- in terms of mortgage interest, particularly for those people who purchased with low down payments, have really minimum equity, have the short-term mortgage and who are faced with substantially increased monthly payments. This is something for which, as a government, or governments, we have to find an answer.

Mr. Cassidy: Recognizing that there are some 12,000 mortgages coming due in the province every month over the course of this coming year and that farmers face the cost of borrowing for spring planting, which they have to decide on right now, and since there is clearly going to be the need for some kind of relief, would the Premier undertake to establish a task force so the relevant departments within his government here in the province could report back to the Legislature for our benefit and the public’s benefit and outline the extent of the problem, look at some of the solutions and allow this Legislature to examine what can be done to protect people hit by rising interest rates and, where we lack jurisdiction, the kinds of programs we should be pressing on the government of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure that I am prepared to say there would be a task force. I am quite prepared to share with the members of this House any information we obtain, and we are in the process of doing this related to, for instance, the number of mortgages and the kind of impact it may have.

One can argue with some degree of equity, and I think we have to look at equity in all of this, that a person who is faced with a renewal after a 30-year term mortgage, where the equity probably now is very substantial, maybe isn’t facing the same degree of problem -- and I emphasize “degree” -- as a person who has come to the end of a five-year mortgage, which was initially at a fairly high interest rate and where their monthly payments under a new interest rate could be more than they could assimilate.

There are many complexities in this in terms of the kind of mortgage situations that people face. There are people who have borrowed money from private lenders; don’t just zero in on the lending institutions or the banks, became there are a number of people who have their life savings invested in mortgages. One has to be very careful not to develop a policy where those people who are dependent on mortgage interest as their sole source of income perhaps will be prejudiced in terms of the inflationary pressures they feel in their own cost of living.

This is where, once again, it is very difficult for government to come to grips with the problem, particularly when you get into the private mortgage field. It is not so difficult, in my view, when we are dealing with a program like the Assisted Home Ownership Program; there it is fairly clear. I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that, as we get our information, we are more than prepared to share it. It is a problem which, in my view, is national. It is a problem that is continent-wide at this moment, and it is going to take all of our creative efforts to see what we can do to assist those who have very legitimate needs.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact that the government has, in my opinion, a very serious moral responsibility, in that in 1975 it gave out about $100 million to first-time home owners and a number of those mortgages arc coming up for renewal this year, and given the fact there is a distinct possibility interest rates will decline towards the end of the year, does the Premier not feel some emergency action is warranted for those people who are being forced to renew their mortgages this week, this month and next month? Surely this has to be approached on an emergency basis. Would the Premier look at it in that way, and does he have plans to act on this emergency facing many people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really think I have answered that question, Mr. Speaker. I made it quite clear that with respect to AHOP in particular, where as a government we joined with the government of Canada in making it possible for people to achieve home ownership on lower incomes or with lower down payments -- which I guess is really a better way of describing it -- we have made this view known to the government of Canada.

We recognize that we have to move, although I think there are very few mortgages under AHOP which will come due in the next three, four or five months, and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) can correct me if I am wrong. It is still several months for that to happen; so we do have at least some time in that area to sort this thing out.

BELL CANADA RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the announcement by Bell Canada on February 19 that it is applying to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for increases in telephone rates which will be a minimum of 23 per cent for residential subscribers in Ontario and which will take $200 million in additional revenues from Ontario subscribers in one full year, what plans does the government of Ontario have to vigorously oppose that rate application by Bell Canada and what preparation has the government undertaken in order to carry out a fight against the outrageous application by Bell Canada?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly everything the honourable member has mentioned. We are preparing an intervention that we will be presenting to the CRTC on behalf of the people of Ontario in opposition to the very substantial rate increase that has been asked for by Bell Canada.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister prepared here in this Legislature to condemn that outrageous application by Bell which would yield the company an increase in revenue that equals its profits last year? Would he be prepared to condemn Bell’s application in view of the fact that its profits went up by 30 per cent in 1978 and by 26 per cent in 1979, and can he assure the House that this time Ontario will not sit on its thumbs in its intervention before the CRTC, but that Ontario will call in expert witnesses and will do everything possible to make sure people in this province will not have to pay those increases?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can assure the member my ministry, or this government, will not be sitting on its thumbs, and it never has.

Unlike the honourable leader of the third party, I do not go around without any thought condemning everything anyone else suggests. This application by Bell Canada for a rate increase has been presented to the CRTC. My officials have obtained copies of a tremendous amount of information, many pounds of paper, which is part of the application and which we are assessing.

We will be there at the CRTC hearings representing the people of Ontario and making sure the evidence is brought out and that a larger than necessary rate increase is not granted.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that in the past when the government of Ontario has taken this route a number of municipalities which were also intending to oppose sent observers and found that Ontario’s intervention was really one of observation as well? Under these circumstances, is he going to indicate to the municipalities that they need not interfere, and that he takes the full responsibility for all of these municipalities which are opposed to the large increase?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t attempt to tell the municipalities what they should do. They can make up their own minds quite adequately as to whether they wish to appear or not. I would point out --

Mr. Cassidy: Are you angry? Are you mad?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m not mad. Only dogs and NDPers get mad.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the tremendous increase in Bell’s profits referred to by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and with the people in this province paying far more for telephone service than are their cousins in the western provinces -- for instance, $7.50, for a private residential service in Ottawa, compared with $5.50 in Winnipeg; and that’s typical of the difference -- why doesn’t the minister admit that his protection of the telephone users in this province has been a failure, and why doesn’t his government establish a public advocacy agency and authorize it to adequately protect the citizens of this province in all rate hearings?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing further to add, but we will certainly be appearing at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearings as we have done in the past. We will be vigorously putting forward Ontario’s position on this matter, in every way possible, along with many others who will no doubt be appearing, including the province of Quebec. We will do everything within our power to put before the CRTC the position of the people of Ontario.

FANSHAWE COLLEGE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I was ready yesterday to answer to a question previously asked, as you recall, and there was little time.

The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) requested additional information from the ministry pertaining to the details of the settlement between the board of governors of Fanshawe College and Dr. James A. Colvin. A letter written to me by the chairman of the board was received in the ministry after the end of the last session, and I would like to quote that letter now in order to have all of the facts before the members of the Legislature.

The letter from the current president of the board of governors states, and I quote:

“1. None of Dr. Colvin’s legal fees were paid by Fanshawe College.

“2. On July 11, 1978, the board of governors gave notice to Dr. Colvin that his employment would terminate on August 30, 1979, with a one-year paid leave of absence until August 30, 1980, at his normal salary of $56,180 plus normal employee fringe benefits. That leave continues to apply, notwithstanding the settlement of the litigation. This is not an allowance for sabbatical leave but it may be what the questioner was inquiring.

“3. The total cost of benefits to Dr. Colvin include those in the original notice to Dr. Colvin, as described above, plus the $70,000 cash settlement, as well as his 1977 Buick LeSabre and his life insurance payment for an additional 15 months which, we understand, will cost approximately $620. These costs were borne entirely by Fanshawe College.”

FAMILY LAW ORDERS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General, although I would also appreciate a comment by the Attorney General on the activities of his colleague.

Could the minister explain why he has directed the police forces of this province not to enforce family law orders, particularly for exclusive possession or nonmolestation, where these orders are, for the most part, issued for the protection and safety of the wife against breaches of the peace by the husband?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I am clear about the directions the member for St. George is referring to. Obviously we have asked the police in matters dealing with family disputes to exercise great caution in involving themselves. I wonder if perhaps the member can provide me with specifics of any such instructions, if they come to her attention, and I will attempt to assist her.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I know it isn’t my function to answer questions, but could I draw to the attention of either the Solicitor General or the Attorney General the letter from him to Miss Marilynne Glick, dated January 9, 1980, in which he says:

“I wish to acknowledge your letter of November 10 regarding police policy in the enforcement of civil family law orders as well as training programs and guidelines for domestic disputes. The enforcement of civil family law orders in cases of exclusive possession, custody, access, et cetera, is not a police responsibility in that it involves civil process. The level of the court which issues the orders does not make any difference in these cases” -- and so it goes. “As with other civil processes, such orders are enforceable by the sheriff.”

Does the Attorney General-cum-Solicitor General not realize that as a result of that type of statement the courts are no longer incorporating in their orders the police function for the protection of wives?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the member for St. George is perhaps advertently or inadvertently confusing two distinct matters. The police function basically is to enforce the criminal law of this country and not to enforce orders that are a matter of a civil dispute. I know that fact is known to the member for St. George. If a situation develops where there is likely to be a breach of the peace or assault, it may of course become a police matter.

Mrs. Campbell: Only if it is a criminal act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, it will become a police matter. I am sure the member for St. George would not suggest that the police forces of this province would become involved in the enforcement of basically a civil process because, as far as I am concerned, that would be undermining in a very significant way the role and the credibility of the police. Certainly I stand by those instructions or the details of the letter that the member kindly provided me.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In response to questions asked by my colleague from St. George, is there not room for confusion in the directive given in this letter of January 9, 1980? Agreeing with the premise of the Attorney General that, generally speaking, when orders are given it is not the police function to see that the processes are carried out, they get somebody else to do that, would the Attorney General not agree that when there is a breach of such an order there is potentially a breach of the criminal law -- if nothing else, contempt of court or whatever -- and that in those circumstances those orders will have very little effect if they can be breached at random and if people are under the impression that when there is such a breach the police will not intervene?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is quite right, Mr. Speaker. The police should not intervene at that stage. If an order of a civil court is breached, as the member for Ottawa East fully appreciates, there are remedies available within the civil process, and the police should not be involved at that stage; it would be quite wrong to do so. A court can commit to jail, for example, for a breach or contempt of its order. Until that happens, it’s not the role of the police to enforce these matters that are of civil jurisdiction. I’m really astonished that the member would suggest otherwise.

3 p.m.

BLUE CROSS STRIKE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that a whole year has elapsed since the Blue Cross union was certified and today it is facing a decertification application, and in view of the fact that the weakness of Ontario labour laws has enabled the Ontario Hospital Association, which runs Blue Cross, to stall bargaining for an entire year by refusing the union’s legitimate request for compulsory dues checkoff, which is essential to the survival of any union --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Ms. Bryden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister condone the efforts of the Ontario Hospital Association to break this union by refusing its employees a basic democratic right which should be a mandatory part of the law of this province and which three other provinces have?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I don’t propose to get into the business of condoning one party or the other in any collective bargaining process, and neither does the member really expect me to. I would say, however, that I did have the opportunity of meeting with the bargaining committee for Blue Cross about two weeks ago.

As a result of that, my mediation staff made contact with both parties but, as the member has mentioned quite properly, there is an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board now with regard to a decertification matter, and there was a reluctance at this time to resume negotiations. However, we’re continuing to pursue that aspect.

With regard to the other question of basically union security, that matter, as I’ve said before, remains a matter that’s under consideration by this government.

Ms. Bryden: Was the minister aware, when he met with the bargaining committee, that about 97 per cent of the employees in this union are women and that they are seeking, through the collective bargaining process, to achieve the equality of opportunity which the minister denies them under Bill 3, which he is opposing? Is he not prepared to give them the opportunity to better their conditions through collective bargaining by making the compulsory checkoff mandatory?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I mentioned, I did meet with the members of that bargaining committee. I was very impressed with them; they are a very sincere and very able group of people. There is no doubt that I share the enthusiasm the member has about the quality of the people who are involved in that bargaining matter.

I rather resent the fact that the member says I am stopping Bill 3. I have made it very clear that there is no one, and no government, more committed to the rights of women in this country and in this province. History supports that. This government has always been in the forefront of any activity in this country with regard to women’s rights and will continue to be.

NIAGARA REGIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEM

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. As a member of a government that prides itself on being great in the field of financial management, could the Minister of Culture and Recreation explain to the House how his ministry allowed the Niagara regional library system to go into debt by some $700,000 -- I believe it’s now closer to $800,000 -- and how it allowed that regional system to borrow money without authorization in the light of the fact that officials of his ministry are supposed to be monitoring the activity of all the regional library systems in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as the member for St. Catharines knows, because he and I have discussed this problem at some length, the Niagara regional library board, like all other regional library boards across the province, is managed and run by its own board. The boards are appointed by the libraries in the region, and they run and control the operations. We do not attempt to control their daily financial operations at all, even though we finance, almost entirely, the operation of the regional library services.

I would simply like to answer the questions as to why we did not participate in the management of this and why we did not stop the overexpenditure -- and there is no doubt there was a very substantial overexpenditure; there was very bad management. Surely the honourable member would not expect the ministry to be able to know that this was going on when their own board didn’t know. Their own board did not know that they were going into debt deeper and deeper all the time.

They did not report to us until this year. We have now met with them. We are going to try to work with them to get them out of their indebtedness and to restore the service.

Mr. Bradley: In the light of the fact that the Niagara regional library system is a complete economic disaster and that some of the services the system has provided are services that are still desired by some of the area libraries, has the minister come up with some formula whereby the central library in the system, the St. Catharines library -- would be able to carry on certain of the essential services and still be funded by the Ministry of Culture and Recreation? Is there any way that he has found of being able to do this and get rid of the Niagara regional library system completely?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Certainly the whole question of how to carry on operations in the Niagara regional library services over the next two years was a matter of discussion with me and with the present library board which, as the honourable member knows, is largely made up of new members who are trying to put their house back into order.

As they noted in their brief to me, which I happen to have in front of me: “The board is unanimous in its decision to resolve all current financial commitments over the course of the next two years. The board would like to state that ideally it would like to be able to continue library services in the Niagara region while at the same time reducing its indebtedness.” Here’s the key: “Realistically, however, the board recognizes this is not presently financially possible.”

So it’s the board’s decision that the first priority is to pay the debts, to get out of debt and then, it’s hoped to gradually restore the services.

TUITION FEES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I would like to know how she could make the following statements in her recent riding report, and I quote:

“In Ontario I believe we have, and will continue to strive to provide through a publicly supported educational system at all levels, equal educational opportunity for all.” And: “Accessibility to higher education is, of course, one of the primary social goals of this government.”

How could she make those statements in view of the fact that a recent University of Western Ontario study, conducted by the students, shows that 49.3 per cent of the Western undergraduates now come from wealthy homes with parental incomes of $30,000 or more and that students from lower- and middle-income households now make up barely 50 per cent of Western’s student body, compared with 64 per cent in 1976? We have gone backwards in accessibility; how can the minister say it’s a government policy?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member that there are 14 other universities in Ontario and that, as a matter of fact, almost 30 per cent of the student body in universities in this province is receiving assistance under the Ontario Student Assistance Program. The vast majority of those students, in fact, come from families where the total family income is less than $20,000 a year. It would appear to me that there is opportunity for those students with potential financial difficulties to attend universities within this province. We intend to maintain that commitment.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: In view of the evidence from Western and other universities across the province that it is getting harder and harder for students from families with modest incomes to get into university, to stay there and to complete their course, why will the minister not agree to a freeze on tuition fees, at least until an adequate accessibility study can be carried out to establish whether, as we fear, it is getting harder for students to get into university? Why not find out the facts first rather than penalizing people on modest incomes by fee increases of as much as 17 per cent this year?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the rationale for the argument presented by the honourable leader of the third party is somewhat invalid. An accessibility examination is being done at the present time, and there will be a report in April of a specific study which has been carried out. As well, there is a stratification study which is beginning throughout the entire program of student assistance from coast to coast in Canada. This year I think it is appropriate to attempt to maintain the proportion of contribution provided by students to the cost of university education, which has been reasonable over the past couple of decades.

Unfortunately, the costs of providing university education have escalated much more rapidly than have tuition fees. In fact, the student proportion dropped from about 20 per cent in 1970 to somewhat less than 15 per cent in 1979.

There are a very large number of students in this province for whom the tuition fee is not a matter of concern when seriously considering post-secondary education. The tuition fee is really a relatively small factor in the decision-making process. There are many other factors involved, and we are attempting to delineate those factors and to find ways in which they can be modified for the benefit of those students who would achieve benefit from a university education for themselves and for our society as a whole.

Mr. Sweeney: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Following a question raised in this Legislature last December with the minister, have the minister’s officials done any analysis of the accessibility study done at Carleton University -- which is the point I raised with the minister last December -- which would indicate that the family incomes of undergraduate students at that university were increasing at an even more dramatic rate than those at Western? Have her officials been able to verify the accuracy of that information?

Following what the minister just said, has she in any way decided what else can be done to assist these students if her information is correct, that tuition is not the most important factor?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I just suggested to the members of this House that there were many other factors. We have not been able to verify, beyond what is contained in that document, the veracity of the Carleton study. The Carleton study, however, looks somewhat similar to the study that was carried out by certain of the students at the University of Western Ontario.

We will be looking at a study which is a longitudinal study of a number of graduates of grade 12 in 1973 -- the Anisef study -- which will be available to us in April. It will refine, much more clearly, many of the aspects involved in the decision-making process related to post-secondary education.

I believe that family attitude and the apparent societal value of post-secondary education are important factors, as are many others. We are attempting through expanded and improved guidance within the public school system, both elementary and secondary, to provide better information for students at an earlier stage, in order to assist them in making the appropriate choices for themselves.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Is the minister aware that the hearings by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation were in two phases; that phase one has been completed and a permit to dump treated effluent into the Niagara River has been given to this company; and that only the untiring resistance of citizens from Operation Clean on the US and Canadian sides -- people like myself and people who registered as interested parties -- had some impact on that permit and took away the monitoring from the company itself and gave it to the government agency?

Is the minister now aware that the town of Porter has refused to give this company a permit to install the pipeline? Is he now willing to intercede on behalf of the people of Ontario to see if we can stop that poison from being added to the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the question was, was I aware? The member had a pretty good question up until the last sentence, and then he used the word “poison.” I think that’s an overstatement. I am aware, and I’m not prepared to change my position at this time.

Mr. Kerrio: Phase one having been done with, I would ask him now if he is aware of the fact that new hearings are going to take place and that although he has not yet entered as a party of interest he now has a chance because applications will be considered.

I quote: “Persons who did not file or who were not granted party status in phase one may attain such status by filing in writing with Edwin L. Vopelak, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, on or before April 11, 1980, stating precise grounds for opposition, support or interest in this project” -- putting chemicals in the landfill site at Porter, New York.

Would the minister now enter as a party of interest with the state of New York and find out for himself what’s happening in that land disposal site? They have even invited us to take samples, which the minister has not done as yet. Would he do that?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think I can say it’s rather doubtful, if everything the member suggests necessarily follows in sequence. If I remember correctly, during our estimates the member said to me he really didn’t care who went to those hearings. I think that’s correct. We were talking about whether the provincial government or the federal government should go. We offered the facilities of our lab to do the testing, and that we’ve done.

Now that the member has such a strong commitment from his federal counterpart that they will be there, and the member and I agree that it is in international water and therefore would logically be under the jurisdiction of both the federal government and/or the International Joint Commission -- that is a creature of that government, I remind the member, and we deal through the federal government in an agreement between them and us -- and since the member has such a strong commitment, not only from the leader of the Liberal Party but indeed from the member with whom he shares responsibility for that area, it seems to me he should be totally and completely satisfied.

Mr. Kerrio: No, I’m not.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member had better speak to his friends in Ottawa and his fellow member.

SCHOOL BOARD FUNDING

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: Since the funding to school boards by her ministry is again this year not adequate to meet the increased costs, does the minister not agree that the rather spectacular settlement achieved between the Toronto elementary teachers and the board -- in which the salary increases were clearly less than those obtained between the Metro school boards in their negotiations, and largely motivated in order that the teachers can provide adequate special education, for instance, English-as-a-second-language classes, and smaller class sizes -- clearly shows the benefits of pulling out of Metro negotiations and that local negotiations are much more successful when both the trustees and the teachers understand the problems? In this case, teachers, being closely identified with the classroom problems, are willing to make what are significant financial sacrifices in order to protect the quality of education in their own classrooms.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, not necessarily, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grande: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Now that the Toronto teachers and the Toronto trustees have shown to the minister and to the province their commitment to the quality of educational services, what would her commitment be for next year in terms of increasing funds so that the employees of the Toronto Board of Education do not have the sole responsibility and burden for the quality of education? What is the minister’s commitment?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think there are examples in many areas of this province, some of them very far distant from the city of Toronto, wherein both the board and the teachers have shown their commitment to the maintenance of quality education.

3:20 p.m.

BOARD OF OPHTHALMIC DISPENSERS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. This goes back to 1973. The minister may recall that at that time I, as one member of this House, and the Globe and Mail, which has taken credit for having initiated this, were talking about Imperial Optical and how the majority of the members on the Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers were associated with the firm which controlled a major part, maybe 90 per cent, of that market. His predecessor, Hon. Mr. Potter, and subsequently the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), corrected that situation. In fact, Mr. Potter was considered to be a disaster as Minister of Health, while this minister is considered to be a whiz kid.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question here some place?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member has about 30 seconds.

Mr. Roy: The Premier sets a bad example, doesn’t he? I just get going and he interjects.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t said a word.

Mr. Speaker: The member has 15 seconds.

Mr. Roy: The question of the minister is why is what was a conflict in 1973, which was corrected, is not a conflict today, and why is he tolerating that intolerable situation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the board itself will be responding in a rather forceful letter to the Globe and Mail to certain articles recently written. I can assure the member that the present makeup of the board, which is larger than the board was when I found it three years ago, is less connected in any way to the particular firm to which he makes reference than the previous board and the board before it.

Mr. Roy: The minister is saying there is no conflict then.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I’m saying is that the suggestion the board is in some way connected to, or under the domination, or more so, of a particular corporate entity is false.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit unfair practices in the marketing of farm products in Ontario. These unfair practices include the arrangement of price advantages in the form of rebates, discounts or allowances between some sellers of a farm product and some buyers of a farm product to the exclusion of other buyers and sellers of the same product.

The effect of these practices is to work hardship upon the buyers and sellers who are excluded from these arrangements and eventually to reduce the level of competition in the market for the farm product. Provision is made in the bill for orders for compliance, assurances of voluntary compliance and enforcement of orders and assurances.

LABOUR RELATIONS ADMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: According to the explanatory note, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council can order a 60-day suspension on a strike or lockout and order a return to work where the strike or lockout constitutes an immediate and serious danger to life, health and safety, or seriously disrupts the economy of the province or any area of the province.

The bill provides that the Minister of Labour must appoint a conciliation officer where an order suspending a strike or lockout has been made and may subsequently appoint a conciliation board where the efforts of the conciliation officer to effect a collective agreement are unsuccessful. If conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, the strike or lockout may be resumed without a further strike vote. An order made under the bill would be enforceable as an order of the Supreme Court.

CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH OF WALLACEBURG ACT

Mr. Watson moved first reading of Bill Pr2, An Act to revive the Christian Reformed Church of Wallaceburg.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Mr. Bradley moved first reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to.

MILANI LATHING LIMITED ACT

Mr. Di Santo moved first reading of Bill Pr5, An Act to revive Milani Lathing Limited.

Motion agreed to.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to require the Workmen’s Compensation Board to establish at least one sheltered workshop for handicapped persons in Ontario. The board is also authorized to provide assistance to persons or associations who wish to establish sheltered workshops.

TOWNSHIPS OF CUMBERLAND AND GLOUCESTER ACT

Mr. Belanger moved first reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Township of Cumberland and the Township of Gloucester.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 1 to 6 and question 9 standing on the Notice Paper; and I wish to table responses to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 25.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of 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. Cassidy: I want to begin, as is traditional, Mr. Speaker, by complimenting you on the way you continue to grace the speakership of this assembly, which is with dignity, with decorum and with ability. I am proud and I have been proud for the last several years that the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature is a New Democrat. I hope the government and the people of this province realize that a party that can run this House the way Jack Stokes runs this House can run Ontario equally well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have embarrassed him.

Mr. Cassidy: The Speaker is overcome by my comments.

We are entering a new decade in which the people of Ontario are looking for answers. We have had two federal elections in the last nine months and it is not surprising that electors in Ontario want action and not politics from their leaders in this House.

With interest rates breaking all records, with health care and education and social services still threatened by this government’s insensitive cutbacks, and with trade and unemployment figures underlining how much needs to be done to rebuild our economy and the need to develop an industrial strategy to meet the challenges of the 1980s, the people of Ontario want us in this Legislature to get on with the job.

I don’t conceal my misgivings as to whether the Conservative Party is up to the challenges we now face. The habit of this government has been to react to the problems of the day rather than to plan and provide leadership. None the less, the last federal election, which was unproductive in terms of determining what future course it will take in this country, should serve us as a warning. To rush into elections is an easy answer and so is it an easy answer to lament our problems. It is a lot tougher to devise answers to those problems and to put those answers in place. That is what we are elected to do here in the Legislature of Ontario.

Ontario’s position within Confederation is changing but I think most people in our province see the new decade, as we do within the NDP, as a decade of opportunity rather than a decade of despair. The question we should be putting is not how far will we fall in the 1980s, but how far can we go. We think the time is right to build a stronger Canada and to build a secure, economic future for people here in this province.

In the past year, I have travelled a lot over this province and I have talked with a lot of people, finding out in a personal and a very real way the kind of concerns they want answered in 1980. In Windsor, where unemployment has now reached a level of one worker in every five, the auto workers who were bearing the brunt ask when will we in Canada start getting our fair share of the auto industry and of the auto parts industry we were promised back in 1964. If giant corporations that are hit by technological change can get assistance from the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and from the federal ministries too in order to help them overcome that technological change, then shouldn’t workers who are affected by technological change also get transitional assistance benefits?

During the federal campaign, I went to the small communities of northern Ontario like Red Lake, like Manitouwadge, like Fort Frances and like Geraldton. Up there, among other things, the frustration over radio and television service was just about beyond belief. That simply underlines the sense of neglect and exploitation that northerners have had for generations. For the 1980s, northerners are looking for a commitment to develop secondary industry. They want to see a network of social services established since the area is still deprived and they want to be treated as partners in Ontario’s future and not just as pawns.

Two weeks ago, I spent a morning in Ottawa with parents in my own riding of Ottawa Centre who were desperately fighting to maintain the full-day bilingual kindergarten which exists in Ottawa separate schools and which is the foundation for the most successful and widespread program of bilingual education of any school system in Canada. Those parents are not just simply facing mindless Tory cutbacks; they are also confronting a state of mind in the government which will not acknowledge the importance of a program which is taking more than 5,000 kids, kids from all sorts of backgrounds and income levels, and successfully turning them into bilingual citizens of a country which we believe should stay united.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how impressed I was to spend a half an hour with grade three and four students in that program, all anglophones by origin, none of whom had known any French five years before, who were carrying out eagerly, all of them, a lesson on the city of Montreal entirely in French and almost indistinguishable from kids of French origin of the same age. That’s the kind of achievement that’s possible but that this government is taking away.

Those parents are fighting a government which doesn’t understand as well how important those full-day kindergartens have become for francophone communities in Ottawa and other parts of the province which are fighting assimilation.

Mr. Sterling: The other boards do without them.

Mr. Cassidy: The other boards are also losing the full-day kindergarten for the same reason, equally insensitive.

Cet hiver, j’ai visité l’école de la Huronie à Penetanguishene. Cette école a été organisée par la communauté franco-ontarienne à la suite du refus du gouvernement conservateur de reconnaître effectivement le droit des francophones de recevoir une éducation secondaire dans leur langue maternelle. Penetang est un exemple du genre de problème humain qu’un gouvernement insensible peut créer pour les minorités.

This one’s for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Qui nella Metropolitana di Toronto ho incontrato molte persone delle comunitá etniche che sono inquieti per gli anni ottanta. 30 percento degli operai de la costruzione sono disoccupati. Molte famiglie si trovano in pericolo di perdere la propria casa per gli alti rati di interesse sulle ipoteche e da pertutto, nelle nostre città vi é una terribile inquietitudine a causa deli urto delle tasse sulla proprietá.

Mr. Speaker, I think of the number of times this past year that I have been in picket lines with working people who have had to strike, sometimes for months at a time, or fight their way through every level of the courts in order to win their rights to union recognition and union security which, in theory, is theirs under the Labour Relations Act.

I think with bitterness of the situation faced by women in this province whose hopes of achieving the real breakthrough to economic equality with men in the work force was shattered when the government decided to use its pocket veto to block Bill 3. The bill of the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) would have ensured women the right to equal pay for work of equal value; we supported it 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker, but this government said no.

I mention these examples because there is a risk in this decade that people will become disillusioned with politics, because the politicians just don’t seem able to respond to the opportunities opening up in the 1980s.

Those kids in Ottawa, that school in Penetanguishene, those families in Windsor or in the west end of Toronto, those women fighting for their rights on cold winter days and nights on picket lines like those at Radio Shack and Blue Cross, to us they don’t just represent problems, they represent opportunities for action to ensure social and economic justice.

I just don’t think that we can afford the philosophy, too often expressed by this government, that says “close down the hatches and hope the problems blow over.” Let’s see this Legislature lead and liberate the tremendous energies and talents with which we are blessed in Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

It’s in that spirit that I want to comment on this year’s throne speech and on three specific areas where we believe strong, positive action is required, and urgently required, from this Legislature -- the areas of interest rates, of health and jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the sentiments expressed in the throne speech which say that the government would place greater emphasis on energy efficiency, Last July, and again in the energy debate last fall, I suggested a number of positive steps which Ontario should take if we wanted to start using energy more efficiently. I am glad that the government has begun to respond, at least with rhetoric to those constructive suggestions that we have been making for some time now.

3:40 p.m.

The plan to expand the Ontario Energy Corporation could be a fruitful contribution to developing the alternative sources of energy we are going to need in our future, but that plan has to be handled with both conviction and vigour, and that’s conviction and vigour we have yet to see from the government.

The government has finally recognized the need for a fund to deal with adjustments to the forthcoming tariff cuts. The proposal to expand the Ontario Research Foundation could prove to be positive. The proposals for new air ambulance services in the north respond to a very clear need, even if we have real questions about the means that are proposed to be used.

While we remain concerned about both the funding and the implementation, we welcome the indication that the legislation to make special education programs mandatory, which the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) and our entire caucus have been fighting for years, will finally come forward. That dates back to Stephen Lewis. Finally, there is an indication that we will at least get the legislation. We welcome that.

I say to the Premier that the proposed debate on the constitution is also long overdue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the timing is going to be very good.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, we will see. It was promised in last year’s throne speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was indicated then that the referendum would be earlier.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s true. I would suggest, since the Premier is in the House, that he agree in advance to the acceptance of the NDP’s proposal for the formation of a legislative committee on the constitution as we intend to resubmit that proposal when we come to the debate. I am waiting for an assurance right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: On the specific issues, the people of Ontario and, in particular, home owners, tenants, small businessmen and farmers are all feeling threatened because of the failure of governments to control spiralling interest rates. There is no need to belabour the point that we have totally lost control of interest rates in this province. I notice that even the Premier in recent speeches has been bold enough to take on the monetarist dogma that still seems to guide the Bank of Canada. The situation is growing so critical so fast that it cries out for urgent action and not for words. There are at least 2,500 AHOP home owners whose mortgages are coming due this year. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) says that 70 per cent of them face real problems. Typically, mortgages that were costing families about $307 a month when they bought AHOP homes will increase to about $550 a month when they start paying this year’s high interest rates. That’s far more than their wages have risen.

This month I visited Viv Woolford in Mississauga, the man behind proposition 89. He’s just an ordinary Ontario citizen, but he’s one of thousands who are going to lose their life savings and their homes if our government fails them. There are about 140,000 Ontario home owners who have to renew mortgages in 1980 and many are facing increases of $200 a month or more on top of all the other increases in living costs. People who budgeted carefully when they bought their homes or their farms or started their businesses will no longer be able to afford them. They are looking to this government and to the parliament of Ontario for leadership.

Not only that, but the high interest rates are casting a shadow that threatens to shut down the housing industry in Ontario, to force even more construction firms into bankruptcy and to add even further to the unemployment in the industry. It’s because the situation is so serious that last week I proposed immediate action by the government.

First, there should be a contingency fund to help the AHOP home owners who are losing their homes because they can’t possibly afford the cost of their renegotiated mortgages. That’s needed right now.

Second, farmers are just preparing for spring seeding and, if they cut back their planting because of the shortage of credit, they will suffer financially and Ontario will be short of their food. Ontario should take action now, as proposed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, so farmers who are borrowing for this year’s planting can receive the necessary credit assistance.

Third, we have a month before the provincial budget is due. I want to propose that the government establish a task force with representation from the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to report back to this Legislature within that time, with the options available to the province to ease the burden of increasing interest rates on home owners, on farmers and on owners of small businesses. We need the facts on how many people in each of these critical areas are going to be affected, how many are threatened and how assistance can be delivered to them most effectively and most quickly. We need an evaluation of the proposals now being made from many quarters.

We need to look at many of the options that are now before us, such as the moratorium on mortgage rates which has been proposed by my colleague, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) or how to convince the federal government to freeze interest rates on the Farm Credit Corporation’s loans. Options such as the proposal that was made last week by the Canadian Organization for Small Business for a tax credit for small businesses to cushion the increases in business rates or a mortgage-assistance plan for the 140,000 home owners with mortgages coming due this year. We need to look at an immediate program to get the construction industry moving again and to meet some of our needs for affordable housing through home rehabilitation and energy conservation.

There are no easy, or quick, or instant answers to the interest-rate problem, Mr. Speaker. In fact, that interest-rate problem is very closely linked to the way our economy is structured and to the inability of present governments to develop an independent industrial strategy and an independent economic policy. But we should not fall into the trap of leaving the solutions to the federal government and taking no action through the Legislature of Ontario.

I’ve said there are some things that Ontario should do in the short run, but the crisis in interest rates should also lead us to re-examine housing programs that this province has been neglecting for too long. For example, if a few years ago the Conservative government believed that the Ontario Mortgage Corporation should provide mortgages at below market rates, and at that time mortgage interest rates were running around 10 per cent, then surely the need for OMC mortgages at protected rates make an awful lot more sense now that mortgages are running at close to 16 per cent.

It’s not good enough for the government to renew existing OMC mortgages at below the market rate. We have to provide mortgage money for people who’ve been driven out of the housing market by the increase in interest charges. I continue to believe that people on modest incomes should have the right to buy a home and should not be condemned perpetually to being tenants in this province.

Our party has always believed that housing is a social right and that it’s a public duty, though government, to make that right, the right to decent and affordable housing, a reality. We think that the Ontario Housing Corporation should be a major tool to achieve that goal and we fundamentally disagree with the way the government has been abdicating its responsibility, the way it’s been dismantling OHC and putting in its place a rent-supplement program that guarantees profits to developers but will leave the people of Ontario owning nothing, a few years hence, but a multimillion-dollar pile of cancelled cheques. Given the difficulties that families are having in getting housing, it’s time for Ontario to move now to make the co-operative and nonprofit sector a major force in providing affordable housing for people on modest incomes.

The benefits in social housing are long term, but this could also be a major means to offset the slump in housing construction with its attendant unemployment. I remind the Premier that this year the housing industry is facing one of the worst years in its history, one of the worst years in 40 years of house construction in the province. Surely we could be using co-ops and nonprofit housing as a means of getting the construction workers back on the job and getting affordable housing into the hands of the people of Ontario.

The 1980s provide us with difficult problems in the field of housing and shelter, but Ontario expects us to deal with them and the New Democratic Party believes that we can deal with them.

We need greater public involvement as well in aiding small businessmen who are affected during these difficult times. We need greater public involvement in helping farmers who are now trapped by the economic policies of the federal and provincial governments and who are this year facing a drop in net farm income of an estimated 40 per cent in Ontario. It’s up to the Premier and the province to bring forward programs to help those farmers who are faced with economic ruin and are faced with losing their farms because of the drop in farm incomes and the increase in interest rates.

There will be costs, of course. But the social costs of not acting and of casting home owners and small businesses and tenants and farmers to the economic wolves are far greater than the costs of acting and of bringing relief to these critically affected groups -- and bringing that relief now.

Health care continues to be a major issue in Ontario. Our party has fought since its founding -- for 20 years now, and long before that with the CCF -- for adequate and universal health care. We’re prepared to continue that fight into the 1980s.

3:50 p.m.

Our focus on health care in the last year has, in fact, brought some results. It may even be a result of minority government. It took the largest petition in Ontario’s history to move the Tories into action, but there has been some easing in the government’s hard line on hospital budgets. The promise of chronic home-care programs in this year’s budget was one that was long overdue.

We don’t think the battle is done however. We will continue to resist any action of the government to close health-care facilities before other alternatives are available. We consider the large-scale opting out by doctors to be a time bomb which threatens universal health care. In our opinion that time bomb has got to be done away with; that problem has got to be overcome.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) seems to take some perverse pleasure in the fact that while 18 per cent of Ontario’s doctors have opted out of OHIP, only eight per cent of the bills that are submitted are on an opted-out basis. Frankly, that’s kind of a statistical game that he is playing and it misses the point completely.

Last year 3.5 million claims were billed at over OHIP rates and “at over OHIP rates” today means at 42 per cent more than when Ontario’s so-called universal health plan pays. The figures on opting out, which the Minister of Health did so much to withhold from the Legislature last year, indicate, as we suspected, that far more specialists have opted out than GPs.

So whether it’s eight per cent or 18 per cent of the claims that are on an opted-out basis, when a specialist bills you for $400 on an opted-out basis that more than equals a hundred GPs’ bills on an opted-out basis for an $8 office visit. In some specialties like anaesthesia, very few doctors are still in on the plan and the proposals of the Minister of Health are nothing but proposals at this stage.

There are many communities across the entire province where two-thirds or more of the doctors in certain critical specialties are out of the OHIP plan. The consequence is that people who need care and want it at OHIP rates, or have to have it at OHIP rates, have to go from doctor to doctor, have to wait for long periods for an appointment, or have to see the doctor in a hospital clinic because they cannot afford his fees at the office.

What that amounts to, Mr. Speaker, is that we are getting a two-class system of medical care in Ontario. We don’t think that two-class medicine should exist in the province and it’s up to this government to eliminate the two-class system that is now coming in place.

We think it was irresponsible of the government to give doctors a $6,000 increase in net income on average in 1980. To raise their incomes to an average --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Net.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what it is, I say to the Premier -- to raise their income to an average net for specialists of $68,000 in 1980 and not to insist that in return for all those additional millions of dollars of tax money that is going into their pockets that Ontario’s doctors agree to end the extra billing which is the feature of opting out today. We have been fighting to defend the health-care system for the last year, but we also want to do more then just fend off the cutbacks.

It’s 11 years now since medicare came into this province. I remind the Premier that it came to this province because of the struggles of this party, because of the famous by-election in Middlesex South, because of the fact that we kept on fighting for it over the opposition of the Premier’s predecessor and his government who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the medicare plan at the time. It’s time they got back to building the rest of the health-care system, rather than tearing it down.

As far as we are concerned health care is more than just the provision of insurance and of hospital beds, it’s the provision of an environment in which the health of citizens is protected. You don’t get that when only three per cent of our health-care dollars in Ontario are spent on prevention, Mr. Speaker.

We need new initiatives in public health education, in pollution control and in providing better mental-health services and services for children. The loopholes in job safety and in occupational health have to be plugged up. If the government wants a place to start we might bring the uranium mines at Elliot Lake under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislation before we have any more deaths up there like the one that occurred this week.

We have argued strongly, Mr. Speaker, that Ontario should fund and promote community health and social service centres which would provide accessible care on around the clock basis. The experience at the Sault Ste. Marie clinic is that not only does the health care improve, the savings amount to 40 per cent of the hospital days those patients would have otherwise used.

We think it is time to start breaking up the medical monopoly and allowing paramedics and experts like nurse practitioners and midwives to be fully used to provide appropriate health care, so that we can stretch our most costly health resources in the process. We welcome the extension of the chronic home-care programs that is announced in the throne speech, and the 600 nursing-home beds that are also announced. We hope this will be a major initiative by the government as a means of providing more relevant and less costly health care.

But this is only a start. The Minister of Health himself knows there are serious shortcomings in nursing-home care in Ontario and that many of these shortcomings arise from the conflict between making money in the nursing-home business and providing the service and dignity that our old people deserve. I have to ask this House why it is we single out old people in nursing homes and say that people should be able to make a profit out of their illness and terminal years, when every other major portion of the health-care system is carried out through the public sector.

There is a real danger that the government will use the institutionalization of health-care services as a slogan to justify cutbacks that are really designed only to save money, while passing costs on to local municipalities. We support the development of community-based health care, but we think the chief aim should be to help people live in better health, not to pinch pennies.

The way we look at it, health is not a problem for the 1980s; it is a challenge and an opportunity. Let me issue one further challenge to the government in this regard.

The Premier must be aware, from the polls released earlier this month, that there is now very substantial support in Ontario for the extension of dental care. When one considers that 60 per cent of the children in northern Ontario do not have regular dental care and that many kids in the south also suffer that kind of neglect, there is a crying need for action by this government. It is a need for action which has been recognized now by most other provincial governments in Canada, and that includes both Quebec and Saskatchewan.

One has to ask why this province has lagged so far behind, when the need is so obvious and the means of action are so evident. It is time, we believe, that Ontario extended our medicare plan and trained the dentists and the dental aides we are going to need, so that every child in this province will get the dental care he or she needs, without regard to where the children live or to how much money their parents have to pay.

Monsieur l’Orateur, le fanion de notre politique sur la santé est “Sante, Pas Maladie” et ceci résume ce que nous voulons pour les années quatre-vingt. Nous voulons nous défaire de la peur de la maladie, la peur de la perte de revenu, la peur du coût élevé des services de santé. Nous voulons que nos enfants apprennent à grandir en bonne santé. Nous voulons éviter tout système de classe ou tout obstacle financier dans notre système des services de santé. Ces buts peuvent être atteints en Ontario dans les années quatre-vingt. Nous croyons fermement que des services de santé de première classe peuvent être mis à la portée de tous dans le Nord et l’Est de l’Ontario et qu’il est possible de mettre à exécution les recommandations du Rapport Dubois et d’autres études sur la nécessité d’étendre les services de santé pour la population franco-ontarienne. Nous nous sommes engagés à obtenir un programme de services de santé complet, universel, et mis à la portée de tous: riches et pauvres, hommes et femmes, et ce programme est l’une des plus grandes priorités du Nouveau Parti Démocratique.

We want to get rid of the fear of illness and the fear of medical bills in Ontario. We want our kids to learn how to live in health. We want to avoid any class system in the area of health care, because universal health care remains one of the highest priorities for New Democrats in Ontario.

Two of my kids are in their teens now, and they are beginning to ask what future they are going to have in Ontario. They share the anxiety that is crossing this province because of the uncertainty of jobs in the future.

Interjections.

4 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier is making two assumptions: One is that he will be in power when my kids grow up. The other is that his patronage system will still be in force at that time.

My kids share an anxiety with hundreds of thousands of kids across this province. I want to say the confidence that people have put in the government in the past to create jobs isn’t working out these days. Today, we have more than 300,000 people unemployed in Ontario and the level of unemployment has stayed at that level for nearly five years. Yet at the same time, last year in this country we had a trade deficit at an unprecedented level of $17 billion.

The deficit was $1 billion in electrical products; it was $5 billion in machinery; it was $3 billion -- a record -- in the automobile industry. In January of this year, if the Premier hasn’t heard it yet, our deficit on automobile trade was the worst of any January since the automobile pact came into force back in 1965, which underlines just how serious the crisis is in the automobile industry and how desperately we need tough, strong action by this government and by every government in Canada to get our fair share in the auto industry.

Overall, Canada has lost 350,000 jobs because of our trade deficit in manufacturing and something like half of that deficit, of that loss of jobs, has to be here in Ontario, where half of Canada’s manufacturing industry is located. Many of those jobs would have been here in Ontario if we had been running an independent, full employment economy. The challenge we face is to develop policies that will lead to that full-employment economy and that will provide the job security people are now seeking.

The opportunity we are facing in the 1980s is for us in Ontario to take our skills, our education, our experience and to use those talents to strengthen our industrial base in partnership with the resurgent economies of western Canada and of eastern Canada, but much remains to be done.

Last month in Alberta the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) admitted, “In the past we have done far less than other nations to ensure that resource development resulted in the maximum possible contribution to our total industrial strength and diversification of our economy.” It was a revealing speech, Mr. Speaker.

The minister went on to admit that in the mining boom of the 1950s, much of which was in this province, Canadian firms bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mining equipment, which helped to create the industrial strength of the mining machinery industry in Sweden, in Germany, and in the United States.

But even though Ontario blew it 25 years ago and has still not changed its policy -- witness the statement by the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Auld, yesterday in tolerating another 10 years of exemptions under section 113 of the Mining Act for Inco and for Falconbridge -- and continues to blow it today, the Minister of Industry and Tourism was out in Alberta to urge that province to develop a deliberate strategy to ensure the major energy projects support industry throughout Canada, rather than buying all of their equipment abroad.

These are brave words, of course. I happen to agree with them, but the words are not matched by Ontario’s actions or Ontario’s deeds. In fact, the economic nationalism in this year’s speech from the throne is a thin veneer to disguise a very clear industrial strategy which the government has developed over the course of the past year.

The Premier might consider agreeing to re-establish the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, on which my friend, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), was such an active member about seven years ago, because those recommendations are as valid today as they were at that time, and they have never been acted on during the course of that seven years.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism is hanging his head in shame. He’s ashamed of the fact he stood up for Canada for once in his life.

The strategy the government is espousing now -- and the Minister of Industry and Tourism is its chief proponent -- is to encourage continentalism through multinational corporations, to continue to put the greatest emphasis on getting foreign investment rather than building our own industries, to focus on export markets rather than build a strong domestic base for industry, and to provide incentive grants for corporations with the minimum of conditions.

The new gospel according to Grossman is to be global product mandating, a plan to increase exports of manufactured goods from foreign owned subsidiaries already located in Canada. In theory, the subsidiary will concentrate on a limited range of products and ship them around the world while the parent company imports into Canada those products that are not made here.

It’s a nice theory, but I’m reminded of the story of the mice who knew that their problems would be solved if only they could bell the cat. Their problem was how any one could bell the cat without being eaten up.

If I could give an example, the Winchester Western plant in Cobourg, the shotgun plant which is shutting down this month, illustrates the hazards in global product mandating. The shotgun which it was mandated to produce on a world-product basis suddenly got dropped from the parent company’s marketing plans. In one stroke, 300 Canadian jobs were lost and all we’re doing now is warehousing the rifles and the other parts of the parent company’s line that are being imported from the United States.

The fact is that this idea of global product mandating has been extensively tried in production here in Ontario in the context of the Canada-US auto agreement, in the context of the free-trade agreement in farm machinery and in the context of our defence-sharing agreements with the United States. Every time we’ve tried this route we find ourselves becoming more and more dependent on foreign owners.

The real effect of global mandating is to make our economy more dependent, rather than less, on the US economy. If the Minister of Industry and Tourism and the Premier want a continental economic strategy they should come out and say so directly, rather than beating around the bush and pretending that we can lie down with the multinationals.

An hon. member: We thought that was the party of Sir John A. Macdonald.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s not any more.

Mr. Martel: It’s worse now than it was in 1971, for God’s sake.

Mr. S. Smith: Why does the NDP continue to support it?

Mr. Martel: Where did you come from? I read your statement --

Mr. Cassidy: I’ve seen the government’s booklets. I’ve seen all the bunk it puts out.

Mr. Martel: In the House you’re advocating Ford and out there you were opposed to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: It adopts a veneer of nationalism while it continues to sell out our economy.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: When one considers that nearly 60 per cent of our trade with the United States is between branches of the same firm; when one considers the findings of the Gray report that close to half of our corporations are foreign subsidiaries here in Canada --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just watch what Herb does about it.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m watching what the Premier is doing about it.

When one considers that half the subsidiaries in this province have got definite restraints on their exports imposed by their parent company, it’s clear that the government proposals will simply increase our dependence on foreign ownership and limit our ability to build for the future.

And when one considers the other planks from the government’s industrial strategy: those trade missions to every corner of the earth, the glossy booklets to attract foreign investment, the gifts to industry which carry conditions but have no teeth, it seems to us that the government has taken the easy way and is not bargaining toughly for Ontario’s interests.

The government seems anxious to act without offending the multinational corporations which dominate the economy of this province. If Ontario is just going to ask the multinationals for favours, then our chance of making it in the 1980s is very slim. The real challenge is to focus on the structural problems of our economy and to turn our trade deficit around for good.

The member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) will recall that was one of the findings of the select committee on cultural and economic nationalism of which he was a member a few years ago. We should be focusing on key industries where there are substantial trade deficits, and we should be moving to replace those imports with Canadian-made goods, because the single, biggest new market for our goods and our industry is right here in Canada. We need to go far beyond any request for global mandating. We’ve got to be prepared to use government procurement, to use trade policy, to use an independent interest rate policy, to use public ownership and joint ventures and tax benefits that will link to specified performance goals in order to promote Canadian manufacturing.

Mr. Martel: What’s your answer to ODC? You said in ODC we should buy --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East will control himself.

Mr. Cassidy: He had a brief fling with nationalism; then he forgot all about it.

Mr. Martel: You signed that report, Sidney.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: The government stands for abdication in this regard.

We’ve got to start expecting more from the multinationals that are already here in Ontario. We need a planned program to achieve a trade balance which favours Canada from every multinational functioning here in this province. We need commitments to carry out research and development, to train skilled manpower in Canada, and commitments to buy parts and components from Canadian suppliers.

4:10 p.m.

The people of Ontario want our government to achieve these goals and the NDP believes that these techniques and conditions are the building blocks for economic security in Ontario.

I can give a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. This past year has seen record profits in the pulp and paper industry across this province. It has also been witness to an incredible eagerness by the government to hand out money to the industry. They gave $7 million to Spruce Falls in Kapuskasing, $16 million to Eddy in Espanola, $10 million to Domtar for three of its plants, 21 million bucks to Ontario Paper in Thorold, and $15 million to Abitibi despite the indication that at one of the plants that was going to be re-equipped in Iroquois Falls the investment would actually eliminate 250 jobs rather than create them.

Given that the industry was going to re-equip anyway because they are working at capacity right now, we should surely have expected something more for our money than what the government is now getting. If private capital was going in, it would demand equity.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the government keeps on saying that government has got to be run as a business. I say to you, if private capital was going in to the pulp and paper industry it would demand equity; why should the people of Ontario expect any less?

Mr. Foulds: Just a little return on investment for the taxpayer, Larry.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, and --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Only the Liberals don’t want anything for the pulp and paper industry.

Mr. Cassidy: -- not only that, we should be looking for guarantees to develop new technology in the pollution control field We should be looking for assurances that subcontracts for machinery being installed would be awarded to Canadian firms to create jobs for Canadians, and we should be looking for iron-clad guarantees that the taxpayer’s money will be used to achieve the purposes of modernization, of pollution controls and of job creation.

I have to say it is not enough to see whether a machinery supplier is producing that kind of machinery here in this province. If we put the public funds out, then why not use that as seed money to encourage the development of production of new kinds of machinery in Ontario. We should have started doing that a long time ago.

Those are the kinds of performance goals we should be looking for if tax benefits or grants are given to private industry. When you use the taxpayer’s money, it has got to be used to build opportunities in the province.

During this past year, a number of my colleagues and I were in Capreol and also in Atikokan witnessing what happens as a result of the Conservative government’s hands-off approach to jobs with respect to the iron ore industry. Steeprock and Caland Mines up in Atikokan have just about shut up shop, and there is now no new industry to speak of in sight to fill the gap that their departure leaves in a one-industry town.

Ms. Gigantes: Capreol nuclear waste.

Mr. Cassidy: Capreol nuclear waste, the member for Carleton East says. That is the kind of thing the southerners offer when it is a Tory government in office. Capreol has suffered too with the closing of Moose Mountain Mine by National Steel. There is a headline in Northern Life this week, Mr. Speaker, which says $2 million would have saved Capreol Mine and 250 jobs.

In both cases, much of the human cost of dislocation could have been avoided by a government which was committed to developing our iron-ore industry. The government of Ontario stood by idly while Canadian-owned steel companies bought mines in the United States. The government of this province did nothing at all to protect the single industry on which many Ontario towns are based. They just about disbanded that cabinet committee on single-industry towns. In fact, they did disband it.

Mr. Martel: They sunsetted it.

Mr. Cassidy: They sunsetted it and the sun is now setting in Atikokan and Capreol and Marmora and --

Mr. Laughren: And on Larry Grossman.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. The fact is today more than half of the iron-ore feed used in Ontario is imported, and one of the minerals which could have been a cornerstone of our northern development strategy is now a dormant opportunity.

The challenge in the 1980s is to learn from what happened in iron ore and to make sure that we plan from the outset in one-industry towns to make sure they have other opportunities on which to build. We have to develop an integrated production and refining and manufacturing strategy which will use our own resources and will allow us to plan the future of the mining industry in the best interests of Ontario’s communities, in the best interests of northern Ontario, in the best interests of working people in the province.

I don’t hide the fact that we are critical of the Conservative government, and no one would expect anything less. I think the Premier knows we are not offering any blank cheques in this forthcoming session. We are critical because the government responds in an ad hoc way to problems that require planning and leadership. We are critical because we disagree with the fashionable theory the Tories espouse of trying to shut down government in the hope that will mean the private sector will suddenly act in the public interest.

An hon. member: Why?

Mr. Cassidy: It doesn’t work. If you want an example, look at Margaret Thatcher in England. She is a Tory too.

Mr. Martel: Nineteen per cent inflation over there. She’s doing well. Nineteen per cent inflation since she came in. Double digit now, 19 per cent, up from nine.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, there is an essential difference between our party and this government. It is this: We should not -- we would not -- be afraid of using the instrument of government to achieve the goals which are important to us all as Canadians. That includes protecting home owners and other people who are affected by the massive increases in interest rates. It includes taking the next step in the evolution of the health-care system which would not exist now if it weren’t for public involvement, and it includes shaping a health-care system that is responsive to the needs of patients.

We should not be afraid to use the power of government to stand up to the multinationals and to defend Ontario’s interest in building our industrial economy and creating jobs for the 1980s. I think the people of Ontario are asking themselves why it is that our unemployment rate continues to be so high and why do we continue to have 300,000 people out of work. Why can’t this government, using their old techniques, respond?

That is why we face opportunities in the 1980s. If we are prepared to use government in that way, the benefits are enormous. With a strong industry and less unemployment the harsh cutbacks in health and other social services can be replaced with important new programs.

As we eliminate our trade deficits and our tremendous reliance on imported manufactured goods, we can increasingly create jobs and as well overcome the restrictions now imposed by our deficits on trade and balance of payments. That means in turn we can afford an independent interest-rate policy which will protect our home owners, which will protect our farmers, which will protect our tenants and which will protect our small businessmen in this province.

There are challenges ahead of us in this new decade. I think the people of Ontario want us in this Legislature to respond to those challenges and to start building on the opportunities of the 1980s. That is the only responsible approach to be taken as we go into this new session and that is the approach we will be taking within the New Democratic Party and within the NDP caucus here in this House.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: Are you going to support the Tories this time?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You just wait until I finish.

Mr. Foulds: Why didn’t you run in the federal by-election the last time?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Will you give the member for Prince Edward-Lennox an opportunity to start before you heckle him?

4:20 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I might even explain to those here that I really didn’t come prepared to speak this afternoon. It was only during the question period that our whip came to me and said, “Would you, Jim, follow Michael Cassidy in the debate on the throne speech?”

I hesitated for a moment. I read what the Leader of the Opposition had to say as reported in the newspaper this morning; I listened to the leader of the third party just now, and I quickly concluded that one didn’t have to say anything, so I am here now to make my contribution to the debate on the speech from the throne.

Could I just say something for a moment, Mr. Speaker, before I get into the throne speech itself?

Mr. Acting Speaker: I’ll do my best to make it possible.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I would like to remind the members that this year my predecessor was destroyed in a fire. I think we all knew Norris Whitney very well. He was an institution in this Legislature. He had served 20 years as the member for Prince Edward-Lennox and I think he was not only a tradition here, but a legend in Prince Edward county. I would hope the members of this House would join me in supporting a proposal that I have made to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) that a new bridge joining the island of Prince Edward to the mainland at Belleville be named after our former colleague and my predecessor, Norris Whitney.

I think you all know that Prince Edward county is a veritable jewel nestled in Lake Ontario. I said before that if a member was the biblical sort he would understand that God Almighty first planted the garden and I want members to know it was Prince Edward and it extends somewhat into Lennox and Addington as well. I add that for political purposes, as members can appreciate.

Mr. Bradley: Then there was a plague visited on the riding.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, there was a period, just before my predecessor was elected, when a Liberal was elected for about a year. But anyway that took care of itself and things really haven’t been too bad since.

I sense a certain gloom when I listen to members of the opposition. As a matter of fact, I ran out during the question period to get a little extract from something I had read not long ago. It was an editorial, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read it. I am quoting now:

“It is a gloomy moment in history. Not in the lifetime of any man who reads his paper has there been so much grave and deep apprehension; never has the future seemed so dark and incalculable. In France, the political cauldron seethes and bubbles with uncertainty. England and the British Empire is being sorely tried and exhausted in a social and economic struggle with turmoil at home and uprising of her teaming millions in her far-flung empire. The United States is beset with racial, industrial and commercial chaos, drifting we know not where. Russia hangs like a storm cloud on the horizon of Europe, dark, menacing and foreboding.

“It is a solemn moment and no man can feel indifference, which happily no man pretends to feel in the issue of the events. Of our own troubles, no man can see the end.” Now that sounds pretty gloomy. It was an editorial from Harper’s magazine on October 10, 1847. I read that and I thought of the gloom and I thought that pessimism is a scarecrow that fear erects in the cornfield, the cornfield of the future, to frighten away timid souls so that the feast may be the richer for the few who are not afraid. After listening to the remarks of the opposition, and I understand that its role is to criticize, which it sometimes does well and sometimes doesn’t do so well --

Mr. Foulds: The same can be said of you.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s right. We are all human. I am the first to confess to that, but the member’s party is conditioned to criticize. It has been in opposition so long that it’s difficult to be constructive.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what we are -- constructive.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t demean yourself.

Mr. Foulds: Tell us how you brought Hydro under control.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Sure. I will come to that. I think it takes more than criticism. It’s simple -- and members opposite have heard it before -- to sit there, to look at whatever happens and to criticize negatively whatever initiatives are taken by government in order to make better the society in which we live. In listening to the member of the third party a few moments ago, we have heard the same thing before time and time again. We have heard about the health-care program. Tell me one jurisdiction that has a health-care program better than we have in Ontario.

Mr. Philip: Saskatchewan.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I don’t think so. If the member searches his conscience, he won’t think so either.

Mr. Philip: Even Quebec is better than we are.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I don’t think so.

Mr. Philip: Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes. You have visited those countries and so have I. We have seen those social systems and we have experienced the economies of those countries.

Mr. Mackenzie: They seem to be doing pretty well these days.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They have problems we have never experienced. That’s the trouble with the party opposite. It keeps downgrading. It keeps criticizing itself.

Mr. Philip: Why then do you sign the reports advocating what they are doing?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s just in a spirit of good fellowship and co-operation, especially when the member is the chairman. That’s the only reason I do that. It’s that ecumenical spirit. I feel I should join in collectively, not that I don’t disagree with much of what is said and most of what he says.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are being dishonest.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am not being dishonest. It’s a consensus. It’s committee and decision by consensus. I co-operate in that respect. Members opposite might look at that too and co-operate instead of trying to bulldoze.

Mr. Kerrio: We are co-operating with you.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you. I was wondering what was bothering me.

Interjections.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: While we are talking about the economy -- and we have heard the criticism of the economy, both by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party -- I don’t think we can extract ourselves from the total Canadian scene or the total world scene. I grant there have been things happening in Canada that are not good. I think we all have to face up to that. You have to look at where we stand in terms of standard of living in the world. Over the past decade we fell from third place to about 11th place. There’s no doubt about that.

4:30 p.m.

I just want members to know that I’ve now received my briefing notes for this speech; I’ll show them to members after.

Mr. Foulds: You’re better on your feet.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s good government efficiency.

Members have made some fair comments in terms of what has happened in the economy. We do have problems when we fall from third place in the world to 11th place -- when Ontario, as a jurisdiction, fell from second place, next to the United States, to 10th place. I think we have to look at ourselves. We have to say; “What’s gone wrong? What are we doing wrong? What do we have to do?”

I’m afraid we’ve lost a lot of our initiative and our enterprise and our productivity. I don’t think governments help stimulate enterprise and the free spirit that built this province and this country.

Mr. Makarchuk: Or the railways or the canals or the airlines?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When this government starts to look at deregulation and it starts looking more and more to creating a climate that will assist business, rather than regulate business, I think it’s looking in the right direction. The answer is not to put everything under a government’s thumb. If the members think government control is going to make industry more productive they’re deluding themselves.

Mr. Philip: There’s a difference between regulation and control.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s right. And when you discover it, I’m sure you’ll speak on it.

So I think we are looking more to the free elements in our society. We’ve heard from the opposition -- and rightfully so -- that we need more research and development. More money has to be poured into that. We have to become more productive. That’s a way of becoming more productive. There are certain industries in this country in which we take the lead. I think we have to maintain that lead. There are certain industries that, because of the devalued Canadian dollar, give us the edge. The pulp and paper industry is one.

At a time when the members are demanding the pulp and paper industry clean up its pollution, we should tell them to modernize as well and become more productive and compete with the southern United States and with other countries that are now into the marketplace in a big way. That takes some government leadership; it takes government assistance. This government is doing that, and I don’t see how one can criticize a government for doing that. One can’t be talking in terms of a pristine, crystal-clear environment and accomplishing that by tough controls without ensuring that industry survives.

A good example of that is Reed Paper. Members of all political parties joined in a committee to go to Dryden. The initial reaction from some parties, even before the committee studied the matter, was baffling to say the least. The Liberal Party was talking about government takeover; it was mandating cleanup within a specified time frame, in advance of even investigating the problem.

It’s one thing to make noises about the environment. We all believe in a good, clean, safe and enjoyable environment. We want our surroundings to be more pleasant and that’s good. No one has a monopoly on that; no particular party has a monopoly on that. If you are in opposition it’s simple to make demand on industry, but it’s a little different when you have to meld the environmental protection with the functioning of our industrial complex.

Those members of the opposition parties who attended at Dryden met with the ordinary people -- the people who have to get up in the morning, pack a lunch and go off to work.

Mr. Philip: And breathe the air.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, they breathe the air and drink the water of the north; they watch television, brush their teeth, read the newspaper, go to bed and hopefully sleep and get up the next day and do the same thing. Sure they do that, that’s their livelihood. The members opposite were quick to take that away before they even investigated. What I’m saying is that one has to be practical.

Interjections.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t laugh. Look at the statements from the NDP. “Close them down” was the cry; “government takeover,” They should look at themselves because they can’t get by hoodwinking the public forever. They can’t perpetrate falsities. I’m not becoming unparliamentary; I wouldn’t even be coming close.

Mr. Mackenzie: We just consider where it comes from.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I hope the member does. Knowing where it comes from I hope he takes heart because some of those fellows are nice. They are nice guys. Most of them are nice guys. Probably all of them are well-intentioned -- sometimes misdirected and often misguided but, nevertheless, well-intentioned.

The Liberal members are the same; they are good fellows. They wouldn’t be here if they weren’t interested in their fellow man. We are our brother’s keeper. We all know that and we do what we can to help one another.

It’s interesting, when one gets into the political forum, how the individual characteristics are sometimes submerged into a collective image. That, in my mind, maybe is a discipline that doesn’t exude the right spirit. So while I say that individually they are great guys, collectively they could be chaotic if they were at the helm of government.

It’s one thing to criticize but it’s another thing to have positive, firm programs. Not just theory on some policy, but positive programs. I don’t think they have. Those of the Liberal Party who are not so anxious for an election now realize that the public generally aren’t so enamoured with politics or politicians; that’s as kindly as I can put it.

People have very little interest in us here -- all of us. We are often an annoyance, a nuisance and maybe I’m being kind when I leave it at that. They don’t want elections. What are the issues? I think most members realize that you really have to have an issue that the people feel strongly about and can respond to.

Mr. Bradley: Like rent control in 1977.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I don’t think that was such a big issue; in some places it was.

Mr. Bradley: Why did your leader cause an election then?

4:40 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am responding to the member now. I am not going to ignore him. I respond to everything and everyone. I don’t think it was a big issue. The opposition parties were pushing rent control.

These things tend to snowball, so we had rent control. I don’t think that’s going to solve our economic problems or our housing problems. It protects a certain element in society. In so far as it protects the renter, from the renter’s point of view that’s a good thing. But these are Band-Aid measures. One has to be fair in insulating people from inflation. I think it is a very selective process when one takes one commodity and controls its price.

I am answering the member in regard to rent control. As members know, when government says it is going to phase out something, one hopes to live that long. Some of us went through rent control many years ago during and following the Second World War and remember the games that were played in regard to rent control.

Mr. Philip: How many high-rises does the member have in his riding?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I don’t have too many high-rises. It wasn’t an issue in my riding.

Mr. Nixon: You developed most of them in Scarborough and probably own half of them.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When I came to Toronto and looked up at these high buildings, I got sunburn on the roof of my mouth. Our high-rises may be three or four storeys high.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t give us that “kid from the sticks” business. You were a millionaire QC before you ever saw the cabinet.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I never hid behind the barn. I am just being frank.

In any event, I hope I have responded to the question on rent control. I am afraid we are not getting the housing we should be getting. We are not getting it because of a lot of the bureaucracy and controls we have. As a matter of fact, I am amazed at times that we ever get anything done, when one looks at the myriad processes one has to go though in order to accomplish anything. It is the obstructionism, the barrier that is put in the way of people who are enterprising and who want to accomplish that bothers me.

Mr. Breaugh: It’s the stupidity of the government in power that is the problem.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Be careful on government. We have a lot of good people in our government, as the member knows. When we talk about bureaucrats we have some good bureaucrats, and then we have others.

I am not going to prolong the frustrations. Just look at any endeavour one wants to undertake today and one will wonder how things happen. They don’t just happen, one has to make them happen. Believe me, that is the most difficult thing to do. That’s the government regulation that private business is talking about.

When they talk about small business, some members over there are thinking of large organizations with hundreds of employees. I am talking about the little man with the corner store or the dry goods shop, the service station and so on. I am talking of many thousands of little businessmen who wouldn’t survive a day if they didn’t have their families working with them. They don’t want more government; they want the government off their backs.

That is the escape this government has been planning and that I hope it is doing something about. I sympathize with those businessmen. I think we have to do something constructive and positive. The most positive way we can help him is in the area of taxation. We’ve got to enable him to make enough money to carry on his business, to have enough capital to expand when he has to expand. We have to extricate him from the regulations.

Mr. Makarchuk: Just try lower interest rates. That will work a hell of a lot better.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You talk about interest rates. Interest rates are a symptom of our economy. They just reflect inflation. The member knows that. You’re not going to lend $10,000, which will buy a car today, and get it back in five years when it will only buy a lawnmower, and expect only three per cent return on your money. You know that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It might facilitate matters if the honourable member would talk to me.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hadn’t observed your presence. There was a ghost in your chair that looked like John MacBeth, not Lady Macbeth. I want to apologize, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly direct all my remarks to you. I would hope that the members opposite would do likewise.

I was talking a little about the plight of the small businessman. It’s not only the small businessman who gets caught in a real squeeze when economic times are tight. There’s the farmer, and the opposition members have referred to the farmer. He’s a small businessman as a rule; some are big businessmen. There’s the home owner. There’s the ordinary consumer, the person who cannot pay cash for everything, who has to buy some things on credit. One of the biggest things he buys on credit is his house. I sympathize with those persons who at this period in history have to renew their mortgages.

It’s not easy to face horrendous double-digit interest payments. What do they do? How do they manage? Some are going to have to sell their homes. What happens if there isn’t a market, if too many of these homes are on the market? What can one do about that?

Mr. Makarchuk: It has happened. Don’t talk about the future, it’s here now.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I can see that concern. But how does one respond to someone salvaging an asset when someone else might not even have an asset, where one has to transfer that financial burden to the population in general? The answers don’t come simply. What it means is that we all have to take, and are taking, a cut in our standard of living.

Interest rates are part and parcel of our economic problems. I’m afraid very high interest rates are going to stay for awhile, I would think for a number of years. The problem is to stay even, and that’s a struggle. And if there’s a struggle there, look at what will happen, and is happening, in terms of salaries and wage negotiations. People want to stay even, and it’s going to take a lot of patience and co-operation and understanding and education to adjust.

Mr. Philip: Did Leonard Braithwaite write your speech?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: As I explained, I don’t have a written speech, unlike the member’s leader. But maybe I will consult Leonard Braithwaite.

Mr. Bradley: What do you think of your new coalition partners over there?

4:50 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I’m going to plead the provisions of the Canada Evidence Act.

But I should be addressing Mr. Speaker, as he rightly pointed out, and not responding to remarks from across the floor. I want to apologize again for answering those outbursts.

What I was saying was we are in a time of economic conflict. We have many forces and factions competing for a limited amount of spending power, and the trouble to stay even is there. It’s a question of who shares in the economic pie and to what degree they share in that economic pie. Those are the struggles and the conflicts and those are the sources of the problems. That’s where understanding and patience are so necessary.

That’s why I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I’m sure if anyone here understands this you do, that it’s not the time for political instability. From a personal point of view, I’m not pleading that we don’t have an election this year, but I think the people of this province want political stability and need political stability. If I could give any advice to the Leader of the Opposition, he must be patient himself in his search for power because I think the people are going to stay with a government that has given good, sound administration for so many years.

Mr. Bradley: Like the purchase of land in Pickering.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Sure, there are errors. I could go back and name one after the other, action after action that has been taken by governments that personally I would not agree with. I could go back to regional government. I could go back to the evolution of our assessment in this province from the municipality to the counties to the province. I could go back to some of the other areas. I could mention some areas that the member for St. Catharines may be interested in, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be mindful of these natural phenomena. At the same time, we have to treat these very carefully.

We have a number of areas where, in retrospect, I think even this government would have done differently -- the Pickering airport, the location of the proposed Pickering airport by the federal government: the concept of the townsite; the further land acquisitions in the Spencerville area of eastern Ontario. There are many things that have been done, in my mind, that were in error. They were done by the government I support. But I feel no less loyal to my government because as an individual I feel those were wrong. Maybe I’m wrong.

Mr. Bradley: Then how can they claim to be such great managers if they made all those mistakes?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The number of mistakes that have been made over 31 years have not been of such moment that they have affected in any appreciable way the healthy economy of this province. The people of this province have enjoyed a prosperity unknown in any place else in Canada or hardly any other jurisdiction in the world. That’s why. We all make mistakes because we’re all human. Hindsight is 20-20. Everyone has great vision when it comes to hindsight. I think we have to admit to our mistakes.

I’ve had some interest for some time, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in matters of energy. I’ve felt that Ontario should take some real initiative in this field. I’ve often wondered how bad things have to get before we show leadership in certain directions. I am not confining this to Ontario, I am talking about it on a national scale.

I think energy is a very serious matter today. I look at Ontario and we say that we import 80 per cent of our energy. When I see how much energy we import from the United States and I look at the posture of some people in terms of exporting Alberta energy to the United States and I look at all of the conflicts, I just wonder who has a handle on this.

Some years ago the problem was trying to develop a truly national energy policy. When I say national, Mr. Speaker, I differentiate between a policy that is federal in its making and federal in its imposition. A truly national energy policy has to be a co-operative effort by all of the provinces of this great Confederation of ours. We have to have a consensus and a direction and a goal.

We may have that now, I am not sure. I feel somewhat uneasy that we still don’t know where we are going. If we do, it is not very widely broadcast.

We look at the resources of this great land of ours, and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this yesterday. He boasted of the great abundance of natural resources, the wealth of the people, the education of the people and he called for leadership.

I think he is on the right track in terms of being able to assess the potential, but we need national direction. That is not to say we should not, at a provincial level, be more aggressive in terms of what we do here.

I understand that we can make methanol from coal and from gas. I know that and maybe that is the way to make methanol. Maybe we shouldn’t be thinking about exporting natural gas, but making methanol. Maybe we should be exporting natural gas temporarily to generate more revenues so we can invest more in this great country and ensure our energy security for the future. There are different arguments there, but what I am saying is that is no reason why we shouldn’t take these initiatives here. I think the government now sees that.

It may be more modest; our undertakings may deal with wood as a source of supply and not natural gas or coal, but there are many thousands of square miles of forest in this beautiful province. Mr. Speaker, you, more than anyone else, appreciate that. The number of times that you have flown over the north and through the north have acquainted you with the vastness and our tremendous reserves. You can see there are many forest products. Burnt over forest or blighted forest could be used as a source of raw material. I am not saying this is a panacea, but if we want to know whether it works or not, we will have to try it.

Let’s develop a plant; let’s see if it works. Let’s not just spend our money on further studies, I remember a number of years ago a task force looked into this area of methanol. It was made up of representatives from the oil industry, from the educational institutions, the automotive industry and government. It took about three years, if I am not mistaken, to come up with a report.

5 p.m.

The message I have is that there comes a time when one has to try these things. There comes a time when one has to be bold. If we make another mistake, then we make a mistake and we stand up and admit we made a mistake and it cost us some money, but at least we tried. It is important that we get some of these things under way.

We have talked about wind energy, God knows there is a lot of it around the province these days. But the windmill that was to save so much oil that we demonstrated on Toronto Island, I would like to have put that in your backyard, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to see how that would function in the natural environment, under the conditions you experience in that geography and that climate, whether it is practical, how much oil it would save. Let’s try these things.

Watts from waste. We hear about watts from waste. I have heard about it since I was elected in 1911 or shortly thereafter. We can report ad nauseam. We can investigate and we can study. I say, at the risk of making a mistake, let’s do something. There is nothing new about watts from waste. There is nothing new about generating hot water and using district heating. Look at some of the facilities in downtown Toronto that have been there for years and years in terms of the steam heat that has been used in the downtown core.

In the Ruhr valley the old coal mines are being restored and the electrical generating stations are now being used to produce hot water for district heating. They are spending up to $1 million a mile for transmission pipe and we are still debating the feasibility of it.

The technology is there and the resources are here. We can do it if we are not afraid to make a mistake. If we make a mistake, then we should be man enough to stand up and say, “I made a mistake,” but I think we have to get on and do some of these things.

We need district heating. We should be using the discharged water. I know some progress is being made at Bruce.

Mr. Haggerty: Miles away from the generating plant or the steam plant itself.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I know the thoughts are there. What I am saying is we have to get into trying some of these things, whether it is some methanol, whether it is district heating, whether it is the burning of garbage in the generation of electricity or other forms of energy we can use. We have to do those things. We have to try them. We have to try them now and we need some tires to kick. That is what I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker.

Another matter that concerns me is the question of our electrical generating capacity. I think it is clear now that we have tremendous capacity in Ontario, more than we ever envisaged. We looked back for 50 years and said that the average annual increase in consumption of electrical power was seven per cent a year. We just assumed that would go on for ever and, of course, things don’t work out that way. There were some errors made. But if we have that capacity I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we should be utilizing that capacity.

I wouldn’t equivocate a moment in terms of exports of electricity. I know we are going to study the electrification of our railways. I would urge that study not take too long. There is nothing new about electrification of railways.

If you want to ask the experts, they’ll tell you it would be cheaper to go to coal -- I know that -- and if you ask the vested interests, it’ll take a long time to accomplish anything. I have experienced that. Often the greatest obstacle to reform is those vested interests. But we have to be bold and we have to take the initiative -- rather than talk about policy now, let’s talk about programs and implementation of those programs.

We talk about the price of oil. Nobody likes to see the price of oil go up, but there is no point in an endless debate on how many cents a gallon are going to be imposed by one level of government or another. We know it’s going to take a lot of capital to develop the resources of this country, and that capital is going to be raised to the sale price of oil.

What I have been advocating, and what I am certain of, is that we have to have a contained system. The money raised through the sale of our oil -- and I am talking now on a national scale because this is one country -- must go back into that system to develop further reserves, to develop our technology. Whether that development is in the tar sands or some now in situ method of recovery of synthetic oils or upgrading of heavy oils, that money has to stay in that system. If there is any money -- and we hear so much about the heritage fund of Alberta -- then it should be in Canada. Let’s borrow it; if we have to borrow, let’s borrow internally. We shouldn’t have to go to the foreign markets. But I think we are going to need all of that money. I am not advocating a grab of Alberta’s resources. I think it’s important that Alberta understand that.

Often there is envy, and there is dislike and sometimes disdain for the person that is so much better off than we are, and maybe Uncle Sam is a good example of that. But now we have that concern about the western people and the vast wealth they are generating that we read about. There is now more of a feeling of isolation and victimization by the people from the western provinces. We should do everything we can to avoid that. We should ensure, first of all, that we have a secure supply of energy and we are going to need all of the capital that comes out of that industry to develop the security of supply that Canadians need so much.

5:10 p.m.

I want to mention something that has concerned me for some time. It relates to the ongoing inequity between urban and rural hydro rates. I think this is a problem that must be addressed. The argument is given that because of the vast distances between farm houses, the sparse consuming public in the rural areas, the costs are so much higher that we have to preserve that differential. At the same time, we have the argument before tribunals -- the Ontario Energy Board has been one -- that we should be looking at marginal cost prices. What did it cost to produce that last kilowatt of electricity?

In the rural areas of eastern Ontario, which were the earliest places to be settled, we have had rural electricity for a long time. It was supplied by falling water. Don’t blame us for the high cost of the nuclear plants around this province. Don’t pass on to us the additional burden of servicing that debt without passing on to us the benefits. Our costs have increased in terms of servicing Hydro debts. That has to be borne by all of us, and the gap is getting wider and wider in the rural areas.

The municipalities buy bulk power through their commissions, and their commissions have a union. The big industrial consumers negotiate directly and have their economic clout. But the little rural customer who sits out all alone on his farm or his residential property in the countryside deals directly with Ontario Hydro. Where is his clout? Where is his negotiating strength? How does he argue? He just gets his bill and pays it dutifully as he has done year after year, and I suppose he counts his blessings.

This area of concern must be faced. I think it is going to be a growing concern. It is fraught with inequity. We must take hold, give direction and address that particular problem. I think that’s important. I want to give other members a chance to speak. I mentioned something about energy, and I mentioned something about the direction and the leadership we should be giving from here in that field. I think Ontario could stand a stronger image. We should project and we should develop a stronger Ministry of Energy, not a weaker Ministry of Energy.

Mr. Haggerty: Hydro has got the monopoly on it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am not talking about Ontario Hydro now. I am suggesting that the Ministry of Energy should be strengthened. The member might think about that.

Mr. Bradley: Do you want more government and bigger government?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Not bigger government. In a matter as important as energy, I can point to the United States, to the new Department of energy there a few years ago and the taking in from all of the other departments matters that related to energy and putting them under one department -- they dissolved ERDA. I think they gave that some direction, purpose and clout. I am sure that an ex-Minister or two of Energy that might be here today might agree with me that we have to give more purpose to the Ministry of Energy. I’ll develop that some other time, Mr. Speaker. I don’t want to dwell on it too long this afternoon because I know other members are anxious to speak. I feel very strongly that you can’t have an operation where different ministries control different aspects of it, so that you don’t do a proper job.

We’ve been very good at developing jargon. If we could only do as good a job in doing something constructive as we do in developing technical jargon, maybe we would really accomplish something. There’s an acronym for everything, Mr. Speaker, as you know. You can hardly go to a meeting where there isn’t a dozen experts with dozens of acronyms and flipcharts making a presentation. I sometimes wonder whether people know how to speak plainly any more. Maybe it’s time people did. I’ve often threatened to do something about it.

When I was a boy, a person might be an old fellow and poor, and you’d call him a poor, old man. Now, you call him an economically disadvantaged senior citizen. I think we should develop a new association, an Association for the Abolishment of Acronyms. We could call it AAA.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say to you that, if you have studied the speech from the throne, you will see the water front has been covered pretty thoroughly.

Mr. Van Horne: It’s a whitewash.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And it will all wash. It’s going to be pretty hard to knock it too much.

Mr. Bradley: Or to implement it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We’ll hear platitudes from across the floor about their alternatives and how they’re going to lead Ontario out of the wilderness. But I tell them to be careful, because the people aren’t looking for an election now. Remember, the municipal elections are coming up in the fall and there are other reasons.

I started off on this tone. I’m saying just to be careful. I like those fellows. Individually they’re great guys, and I like to see them around, but collectively they’re chaotic. Just play it real cool. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your kind attention.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour, both to speak to the throne speech and to listen to the words of wisdom of some other members who take the opportunity to speak to the throne speech.

5:20 p.m.

In deference to the member who just spoke, I would submit that he should provide the example for the rest of his caucus and encourage some of them -- some of them whom I have not heard speak in the three years that I’ve been here -- to follow his example and say what they think, as he has said what he thinks. Mind you, they may not be around very long when the Premier finds out what they think, but it is an interesting observation by members opposite and, for that matter, members of the third party too, who from time to time have expressed the view that it is better not to say anything in this House. I say this in a rather sad frame of mind that some members will not stand and speak their minds in this House.

Some of them choose to be considered as being good constituent men or women; some of them take the attitude that they can’t run the risk of speaking out loud in here for fear of their constituents perhaps finding out what they know and think about an issue.

Mr. Bradley: You’re not talking about the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Van Horne: No, indeed. If anything can be said about him it would be the opposite, that at times he doesn’t know when to stop speaking.

Certainly it is a sad commentary. If members present would reflect on this for a moment, they would be able to name six, eight, 10 or a dozen members who have really said nothing in this House in this session or in previous sessions of this Legislature and that’s too bad.

I would like to submit that it is important for all members to reflect on what is in the throne speech, to present contradiction, criticism, new or corollary thoughts to the throne speech, if we have them, and to reflect some of the views of our constituents who are interested enough to read what is in the throne speech; to follow, through the media, what is being said in the throne speech, because the throne speech is supposed to provide for the citizens of Ontario and, for that matter, for the members of this Legislature who represent those citizens, the blueprint or design for the government’s course of action.

The government’s stated course this year, as described by the Lieutenant Governor, “offers sound fiscal management and compassionate public policy.” That’s pretty good stuff on the surface, but really what is meant by “sound fiscal management and compassionate public policy”? It sounds to me like the gospel according to Hugh Segal. I’m just wondering how many members of the government party really believe that this throne speech does, in fact, present “sound fiscal management and compassionate public policy.”

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, if you think it through and then read through the 90 items, that you would have to agree there are some things there that you simply could not agree with. Or perhaps some members are naive enough to buy all of the vague generality that is in that theme.

The government goes on to identify some 90 projects covering every ministry -- 90 projects which will be given high priority this year. Some of these 90 projects are already under way.

In fairness, there are some which I take considerable pride in being associated with in some way. Let me refer specifically to two mentions of my own community in the throne speech. There was a mention that the Energy from Waste program at London’s Victoria Westminister Hospital site is going to be carried on. Certainly that is an excellent plan; there is simply no question about it.

The reference to our community being the air ambulance centre for southwestern Ontario is also something that all London members -- all three of us -- should reflect on very proudly; it’s a forward step. However, as we look at the throne speech, we have to admit we will have to wait for some of the others in that group of 90 to come before us, as legislation is presented and as the budget is presented.

Third, I would submit that beyond that some of those 90 projects will never come to pass. I am saying only time will tell. I submit that kind of scepticism is not solely mine; it is reflected in what some of the editorial pages have said in the last week or so. Let me quote from one of them: “Listeners may have difficulty applauding until once the session is well under way. Then they can measure the promises against the performance.”

That is the sort of thing that makes me a little more sure I am right when I say that in future the government would be well advised to summarize, at the beginning of the throne speech, what was in the preceding year’s throne speech. It should give us some indication as to whether or not projects that were listed a year ago are going to be carried on; or, if they were withdrawn, why. There are glaring examples we would be able to pick out without doing very much homework. Let me give just one example.

Let’s go back to the throne speech that was made when I first came into this Legislature in 1978. This statement was made:

“This paradox can only be resolved by a training program especially geared to satisfying the manpower needs of industry. Development of such a program will be given the highest priority during the year. The new training scheme will emphasize employer-centred training and will provide the required level of skills in the shortest possible time.” That was in 1978.

What happened in 1979? This statement: “In answer to this need, my government will implement a comprehensive business and industrial training program involving our secondary schools, colleges, organized labour and the business community.”

What happens in 1980? “For this purpose, an amount of over $5 million from the Employment Development Fund has been earmarked for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to boost the employer-sponsored training program.”

Three different years, three different statements; $5 million-plus thrown in. And by the way, the money that is thrown in was announced some two or three weeks prior to the throne speech -- on February 6, as a matter of fact: “The Minister of Colleges and Universities said Tuesday, ‘The money will be allocated for skills training.’” That announcement was made in February, yet the throne speech comes along and tells us about it in March, and it tells us about it for the third time.

Just as an interesting little aside, most of us thought, from last year’s throne speech, that the initiative and thrust of manpower training -- the apprenticeship program, skills training and the rest, whatever one wants to call it; it all comes under the same heading -- was going to be under the aegis of the Minister of Labour. He got a new title, Minister of Labour and Manpower; yet we get this announcement from the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

What this reflects is that the government still hasn’t got a handle on the whole process of the industrial skill job-training program, or the apprenticeship program. It has simply booted the topic around year after year.

I go back to the proposition that when we have a throne speech it would be prudent for the government to summarize the events of the past year and reflect on those events -- their successes and failures.

5:30 p.m.

The member for Prince Edward-Lennox, who spoke just before me, indicated that it’s not all wrong to make a mistake. If one makes a mistake, one should at least be big enough to admit one has made a mistake and go back at the problem again. He was big enough to admit that, but apparently the government isn’t big enough to admit that it has really blown the apprenticeship program here in Ontario.

Mr. Roy: They don’t make mistakes; they are just flexible.

Mr. Van Horne: Perhaps that flexibility will be reflected in the attitude of the government in the future if it follows this very honest and prudent suggestion.

Beyond that, I think it would give us an idea of the reasons for the frustration that is evident. The preceding speaker indicated that the opposition, while individually good guys, collectively has not done the job here in Ontario. I can’t agree with him. I would say we have been overindulgent to a degree in the last couple of years in going along with and trying to prod the government into action on many occasions. He’s not really being accurate when he says that collectively we have not done the job as an opposition. We’ve been overindulgent to a fault in that we’ve propped up the Conservative government here in Ontario too long.

The throne speech has many problems, but the problems indicated by my leader yesterday are really problems of omission as much as commission. Certainly there were specifics in the government’s speech he was able to attack, but he was also very able to attack some of the areas of concern that were not addressed in the throne speech. What he said essentially was that Ontario’s needs, as we go into the 1980s, are very severe because the Conservative government of the 1960s and 1970s reneged. It fumbled the ball. It didn’t take hold of the opportunities it had in the 1960s and 1970s. It developed a handout mentality. That’s reflected in the dealings of any number of ministries.

One could take a look at the Ministry of Industry and Tourism as a good example of that handout mentality, rather than addressing itself as a government to developing industrial strategy, as my party has done. I think if the members opposite were to be honest with themselves and with us, if they took the time to read our paper on developing an industrial strategy for Ontario, they would have to admit it’s a darned sight better than anything they’ve been able to come up with in the last decade or two.

That’s the sort of thing my leader was addressing himself to yesterday, to some of the errors of commission as much as the errors of omission in the presentation of the government. What we’re saying is that the government has fumbled the ball. It has fumbled the ball with health services. Let me give an example or two.

How many years ago was it that the government was proudly announcing additions to small hospitals across this province? How many years after that was it that one of the former Ministers of Health had the unpleasant job of going around and telling some of these same hospitals that they were going to have to close their doors?

Aside from the obvious -- and the obvious is the lack of planning -- can one imagine how devastating that was for those small communities? I think I know whereof I speak. I was born in Goderich. My father grew up in Clinton. Both of those communities, along with many others across this province, were hammered with that proposition: “We let you build and now we’re going to close you.” There was a perfect example, in my view, of lack of planning and fumbling the ball, and the government fumbled it. It fumbled the ball in the educational system.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Not everybody would agree with that.

Mr. Van Horne: I would ask the minister then, if he doesn’t agree, what do government surveys say about our school system? Are they coming up with as good a product as 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Are the parents happy with the standards our schools don’t have now? If the government is polling everything else, maybe it should poll that one, or try that one on for size, because I would submit that many parents are something less than thrilled with what they perceive to be a declining standard in our school system at both the elementary and secondary levels.

I would submit that beyond that in certain areas of the environment the government has fallen short of the mark. In energy, it has fallen short of the mark. In its relationships with municipalities, it has fallen short of the mark. Just witness the disaster of regional government. One doesn’t have to look at that too long to realize how badly the government has handled things. In a sense, it had the Midas touch and it has turned it into the touch of a blacksmith.

With these fumbles, the government has left Ontario in a minority government situation. It was able to do that all by itself. If it were that good, it would have kept up a majority government for another decade. The citizens of Ontario have said, “Look, the Tories don’t deserve a majority.” We’re saying it even a little stronger than that. We’re saying this government doesn’t deserve to be the government any longer. That’s what we’re saying.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Say it with conviction. Say it with enthusiasm.

Mr. Van Horne: The member for Kingston and the Islands has made a little aside. I can’t help but point out to him that these thoughts are not necessarily all my own. I don’t profess to have all the wisdom of the ages as some of the folks over there do. This government is perceived to be, and has been perceived to have been over the last couple of years, a do-nothing government. There it is. The government has blown it. It had the chance in the 1960s and 1970s and it blew it.

If members opposite don’t buy that and, obviously, some of them don’t, I think we could argue that the government has lost the will to govern. Really, what it has done is it has chosen to govern by polls -- government by Goldfarb.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I want to know whether the member supports an election.

Mr. Van Horne: I support it. As a matter of fact, I got a good deal on lawn sign stakes. My garage is half full. I bought some that were left over by the Conservative member who ran in London West.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for London North has the floor.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Van Horne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to refrain from suggesting to the member for London South (Mr. Walker) -- there is not much point in keeping it secret any longer -- that I have put in an offer on a home in London South and very likely will be seeking the nomination in that riding next time. I look forward to the activity that will stem from that.

I recall that the honourable member represented London North at one point in time. Perhaps over the supper hour he would like to refresh our memories as to what really did happen in London North.

Interjections.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be a good idea to review the history over the supper hour.

Mr. Van Horne: Yes, I think it would be.

The comment about government by Goldfarb is one that is made not just by me, not just by members in this House, but by practically every newspaper and media person in the province. Here are some of the comments; for example: “From a purely political point of view it was obviously to the government’s advantage to keep secret its publicly funded knowledge of prevailing sentiment on that controversial issue ... ” the issue being teachers’ strikes.

Another column reads: “The manner in which the government of Ontario finally released the findings of 22 public opinion polls conducted at the cost of nearly half a million taxpayer dollars speaks grimly about political leadership in Ontario.”

I said it five minutes ago and I will say it again: This government has lost the will to govern. It has blown the opportunities it had in the 1970s. I could go on and on. I have a whole file, but I won’t bore members with the details, because I am sure they have seen the articles themselves.

Just as an interesting aside again, the former Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) made reference to the ministry perhaps being a little stronger. One has to wonder at times, when one loses the will to govern why does the tail wag the dog? Why does Ontario Hydro wag the government of Ontario? They are using the same tools over there, and in many respects they probably have a stronger operation. But does one think they didn’t use polls? Let me read a line or two from a speech made by Robert Taylor to the 70th annual meeting of the Ontario Municipal Electric Association last March. He says in part:

“I believe the people of this province get the best electrical service of any eight and a half million people in the world. They get this service at a cost that is lower than most other places on this continent. This is the real measure of the accomplishment of Hydro in Ontario. Our public surveys suggest that our customers know it.”

The government’s own agencies are polling and they are telling it what to do. The people who have been the government have lost the will to govern. They don’t deserve to govern any longer.

I made reference to the attitude that one can get to where one wants to go by handing things away, like the Ministry of Industry and Tourism does periodically. On the other hand, this government’s mode of operation would seem to be to give it when you have it and cut back when you are short -- no reflection at all of planning.

I don’t like to make reference to my Liberal colleagues outside of the province, but I will. One of them got some ink the other day by suggesting that votes in Nova Scotia are bought. What he said about the legend in that province seems to reflect what happens in a way with the Tories here in Ontario. He suggested that if it moves buy it a drink and if it doesn’t move pave it. It would seem we could say almost the same thing here, except that this government doesn’t buy it a drink or pave it; it puts it on a committee and gives it $100 per diem.

Interjection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Van Horne: He is out of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel rather badly about that. I feel badly because I don’t think there is much that can be done to bring him back into order.

We have an infinite number of examples of this giving-away or handout mentality, which is basically an approach to government without planning. They did it to education in the 1970s. For example, very little thought was given to declining enrolment until it was a fact. They built schools willy-nilly with no thought that the buildings being put up might have some alternative use if the school were no longer filled with kids. They are just addressing themselves to that problem now in this throne speech. It is a pretty sad commentary to make. They should have been addressing themselves to that thought 10 years ago.

Provincial funding for school boards was promised at 60 per cent plus. It is now down to 50 per cent plus. Land banking has cost our province hundreds of millions of dollars. It was promoted in the 1970s, but it is now coming to a halt, at least in some areas. I don’t fault the government for that. I don’t fault it for stopping the Seaton project right now. But what I fault it for is not having any idea of an alternative. What happens down the road? If they do know about plans or alternatives, they sure don’t make them public. They don’t let us know and they don’t let the constituents know.

If I wanted to be critical in another area, I could go to our Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton). In spite of his offer to come and run against me -- and I would delight in that; I think it would be a good exercise for him, for he would learn a little bit about politics in southwestern Ontario -- he is to be commended for engineering what I perceive to be a fairly good design or blueprint for providing services, particularly for the children of our province. I say that in all sincerity.

The problem is, in spite of coming up with a system, he is unable to provide the bucks. He has had some financial problems, and I would submit that again the minister falls short of the mark. He comes up with a good design but then he can’t fund it. This is the sort of hand-to-mouth, seat-of-the-pants kind of approach the government has taken over the years.

Let me give a few good examples, some of which the minister may not be aware. The ministry puts pucks before pianos. It is giving $2 million for minor hockey at the same time that we read the Royal Hamilton College of Music is likely going to have to close its doors this year. There is no possible way the college can be continued beyond June 30. They have already cut their programs to the bone. In spite of that, the ministry gives $2 million to amateur hockey. It sticks its nose into amateur hockey when it should really keep it out.

By the way, it is not just the Royal Hamilton College of Music that is involved. Let’s talk for a moment with the member for London South about what is happening to the Western Ontario Conservatory of Music, because it is in the same box as the Hamilton college.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think the member should check it out. It has been resolved.

Mr. Van Horne: Okay. If it is resolved there, is it going to be resolved in Hamilton too? Is the Ministry of Culture and Recreation going to give some assistance from its coffers to these people? As they are giving out money for hockey pucks, what about the other side of it, the pianos? What about the program at the college in Hamilton? The ministry’s priorities are backwards.

The ministry spends $8.4 million on outside lawyers in two years and yet it cuts back in other areas. Chronic care, for example, is something the ministry has not addressed properly. Sure, 600 additional chronic-care beds are being added this year, but is that really addressing the problems of seniors? It is not.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You are on record now as preferring the violence of the piano over the nonviolence of hockey.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister can talk about violence and nonviolence. I would submit to him that I coached hockey at all levels under Junior A and I have a full knowledge of the process. The government is not going to get the results it thinks it is going to get by giving $2 million to this exercise. It is going to end up with another bureaucracy that’s going to get lost in the wilderness. It’s not going to solve the problems of violence in hockey. I can guarantee it. The government is just blowing the money and it shouldn’t have done it.

For my concluding comments I’d like to reflect for just a moment or two on things that I feel the government should have been addressing itself to. In my view it should have been addressing itself to an industrial strategy. It should have been addressing itself more thoroughly to the problems of northern Ontario, to the problems of the youth, to women in the work place, to the disintegration of our health-care system and to the rights of management. The government made some obtuse comment in the throne speech about some possible changes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don’t forget motherhood and apple pie before you finish.

Mr. Van Horne: Those are about the only things the government left out. Let’s get away from motherhood and apple pie. What has the government done to help senior citizens? In the Gains program, is the government working in concert with the federal program and the GIS? I’d guarantee it isn’t.

Mr. Roy: Flora MacDonald says her loss was due to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Norton: She didn’t lose. She bucked the trend.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, we don’t want to get into the private life of the minister and of the federal member. I think we should get back to a few concluding comments.

On occasion, when the government has addressed itself to a problem, it finds out that we have beaten it to the punch, and I am sure that’s got to be a little bit disconcerting. We have addressed ourselves, as I indicated earlier to the need for an industrial strategy here in Ontario. It’s pretty hard for the government to steal that one from us, but it has been trying to steal our thunder on the methanol fuel program. I am sure the Minister of Energy would agree that we have beaten the government to the punch on that. On those very few occasions when the government does address itself to a problem, when it gets there and opens the door, it finds that we are already inside the room. We have already beaten the government to the punch.

So there we are, faced with a government that has no blueprint and no long-range plan. It flies by the seat of its pants. It has a handout mentality. It has lost the will to govern. For these reasons we cannot, and should not, let this group continue to govern our province. The only way they will carry on is through the support of the third party. Surely that group of honourable members, who profess to be a party of principle, will find it within their hearts to find that principle they seem to have lost over the last few days and stand with us when we vote and bring this government down.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments remaining before six o’clock, as one of the several topics I want to deal with in the course of my comments in the throne speech debate, I thought I might convey to the government House leader (Mr. Wells) a message for his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) about a matter that has been of significant concern to me over the years in the riding which I represent, Riverdale. That is, in the process of electrification of the GO system, I may ask the government House leader to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications to install a station at the corner of de Grassi Street and Queen Street East in the riding of Riverdale.

My colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has apologized to me for a release he issued dealing with the GO system without making any mention of the need for that station at de Grassi Street and Queen Street East.

Mr. Breaugh: I am born again. I have seen the light.

Mr. Renwick: For those members who do not know the area, if they will simply drive east on Queen Street until they come to the railway overpass at de Grassi Street, they will see the area up to the left. I do wish my friend and colleague the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) were here because, while the GO station would be in Riverdale, across the street to the west and across the street to the south is the riding of St. David. So, the station would serve two ridings and it would add a dimension to the GO system which is now lacking.

I have put the case on many occasions. The ministry indeed did a study and found that it was economic to put a station in at de Grassi Street but I guess, because it was economic to do so, they chose not to do it and would rather have had an uneconomic report. In which case, I am quite certain the government would have installed the station at that area.

The traffic to and fro, out of Riverdale into places of work, and vice versa, from places of work into Riverdale, is immense. I am quite certain that with an electrified system, and without any undue interruption of the service, and indeed to facilitate the service, such a station would add immensely to the GO system as well as allowing the occasional person to come and savour the delights of Riverdale. That, of course, in itself, would be an immense attraction to many of the people, and I am quite certain my colleagues in the House would be amongst the first to take that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps as it is now 6 o’clock, I could resume at eight before a much larger audience I am sure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would remind the House that the dinner break is two hours and if any of the members wish to view that intersection they certainly may.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.