Hansard Transcripts 1982-Mar-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1982, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, March 15, 1982.

HUNGARIAN LIBERTY DAY

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the distinct honour of being in the presence of approximately 500 Hungarians and friends of the Hungarians from Windsor and Essex county who were gathered in Mindszenty Hall in Windsor to commemorate the 134th anniversary of a historical event, historical not only to Canadians but also to the free world.

It was 134 years ago that a revolutionary wave of freedom swept over the European continent. On March 15, 1848, Hungarian patriots rose enthusiastically to demand constitutional liberties for their nation. As a result of this bloodless yet successful revolution, Hungary was granted a democratic constitution by King Ferdinand V, King of Hungary and Emperor of Austria.

This happy event filled the whole country with the bright hope of a better future. Unfortunately reactionary forces, committed to destroying all that had been achieved by a long struggle and many sacrifices, regained power in Vienna. The Hungarian people sprang to arms in defence of their newly gained liberties.

After brilliant successes won in heroic battles against the oppressor and under the leadership of Louis Kossuth, a national and world apostle of freedom, the bravery of the Magyar Honved was finally suppressed by the overwhelming numbers of soldiers of the Russian czar. Fearful of eventual repercussions of a Hungarian victory among the enslaved nations of its empire, Russia sent vast armies into Hungary to crush freedom at its very roots.

More than a century has elapsed since then and many things have changed, but the date March 15 has remained a national day for the Magyars, the day of Hungary's freedom and independence. Today, March 15 has acquired for the Hungarian people a new and sad meaning. Once again, despite all efforts to preserve her freedom and her noble traditions, Hungary continues to be enslaved by the new czars of red Russia. However, where there is life, there is hope. Throughout the free world, Hungarians are looking forward to the day when once again they may be a free and independent nation.

CURLING VICTORY

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rise today to express my congratulations, as well as those of my colleagues, those of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who is stuck in Hudson trying to get out, and those of my colleagues on the other side of the House. Naturally, since the minister is stuck, I have the opportunity of presenting this point of privilege and of congratulating the Canadian curling championship team of Thunder Bay.

The victory by Al Hackner, Rick Lang, Bob Nichol and Bruce Kennedy at Brandon yesterday is one that brings honour to all citizens of this province. We in northern Ontario will take special pride in this victory as the team is one of our own. The riding includes the arena where the team is trained, so I feel a personal sense of pride in this victory.

I am sure all members of this House will wish to join me in extending our best wishes to Mr. Hackner and his team as they go to the Silver Broom contest in Germany later this month. They are all great northerners. On behalf of the Minister of Northern Affairs and myself, I wish them the very best on their trip abroad.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as a native of Thunder Bay may I add my congratulations to the Hackner rink and my wishes for their success when the Brier is held next year in the home of my good friend from Sudbury.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, has anyone informed the government the break week is next week and not this week?

Mr. Speaker: I think the government House leader (Mr. Wells) made that announcement.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In November, the minister sent a telex to the chairman of the National Energy Board, expressing a vague environmental concern about the General Public Utilities cable. Despite the NEB's invitation to his ministry to intervene in the proceedings, his officials were conspicuously absent. I want to ask the minister why his officials did not appear before the NEB and who was speaking for the environmental concerns of the people of this province.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that I sent a telex at the time to the National Energy Board, exploring with them the extent to which they would be prepared to apply the environmental legislation or the principles embodied therein in Ontario, and there was a response. Over a period of time, we had an exchange which ultimately led to the response that they would invite us if we chose to appear, but my recollection is that they were not willing at that point to make any specific commitment as to the extent they would apply the principles of Ontario legislation.

I think the honourable member is aware that the reason for that exchange of correspondence related to the three independent legal opinions that had been obtained indicating that, as a result of the document primacy, the Ontario legislation did not apply in this instance. The Ministry of Energy was the lead ministry appearing before the National Energy Board. I believe it is indicated in their submission that I made the decision that Ontario's concerns with respect to the environment would be dealt with by my ministry and would be applied through the process of approval which is required prior to any undertaking such as this proceeding. The member may also be aware that approval is required under section 23 of the Ontario Energy Corporation Act. At the appropriate time, Ontario will fully explore, reflect and apply any further environmental restrictions that may be indicated.

Mr. Peterson: The fact is that the minister was invited to intervene and he chose not to intervene. The only submissions from Ontario were from his counterpart in the Ministry of Energy, through a Ms. Marie Rounding, counsel for the ministry, who said, "The province submits that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the NEB to attach a condition to the export licence with respect to air emissions."

My question to the minister is, who is speaking for environmental interest here in Ontario? The minister is not, nor is the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect, I think I already answered that. I indicated my ministry is speaking on behalf of the government of this province. There is no reluctance at all.

I think the Leader of the Opposition has to understand the legal complications of that particular situation. I also suggest that the member look at, I believe it was the formal submission from the Ministry of Energy which indicated Ontario's intention to exercise its responsibility with respect to emissions.

I do not know who the member's ghost writer is, but I acknowledge that the member has now become an environmental writer in this province. I have also read the member's comments on his grand --

Mr. Peterson: I can do a lot better than the minister, I can tell him that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member has not seen my work.

Mr. Peterson: No one has; that is the whole point of my question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member sees me every day across the House, unless he happens to be absent, and I do not think he has been absent so far.

Mr. Peterson: But the whole point is, where are they?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have indicated, as has this government, that on the question of environmental protection as it relates to air emissions, Ontario Hydro at this stage, whether or not the undertaking is approved, is bound by a regulation imposed by this government which will require Ontario Hydro to reduce emissions from present levels by 50 per cent by 1990. That is something with which they must comply regardless of whether there are exports.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The regulation does not stipulate the specific technology to be applied -- it establishes targets -- although the member says it should. That indicates his lack of understanding of --

Mr. Speaker: I suggest the minister address himself to the main question, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the Leader of the Opposition would stop interjecting supplementaries, I would not have to address myself to them.

If Ontario Hydro gets over the three hurdles, which it must do to proceed -- the first one is NEB approval and the second is federal cabinet approval -- ultimately it will require the approval of this province. I can assure the member and everybody in this province that when the matter comes before us for consideration, whatever steps are necessary will be taken, including a complete review of the existing regulation, to ensure -- now listen carefully -- that the export is a clean export.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister correctly, I hear him saying that when the project gets to the stage of approval by Ontario, if any environmental restrictions are seen to be necessary the minister will see they are imposed. How is he going to determine what additional environmental restrictions or protections are needed? Is he going to submit this project to a full environmental assessment so we publicly know what the problems are, as was promised by his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member ought to get some legal advice -- that is not a threat to sue the member, I want to assure him. The point I am trying to make is that, as I understand it, given the doctrine of primacy, if we were to apply our legislation the consequences of that would not be valid and legally binding. But I can assure the member that this government will take into consideration all environmental impacts in arriving at the appropriate kinds of controls that should be applied if Ontario Hydro gets the approvals to proceed.

Mr. Peterson: What the minister is qualifying himself for is a Jimmy Auld talk-alike contest. It appears to me the minister is equivocating on a promise made by the former minister. I refer to Hansard of April 22, 1980, when the former minister was asked about an environmental assessment hearing for the GPU cable, and he said very clearly, "The answer to the latter part of the question is yes."

I want to ask the minister very clearly what his commitment is. Is the minister committing himself here and now to having an environmental assessment hearing on that cable or not, as the third part of the hurdle or whatever he wants to call it? Is he committing himself now to having that hearing?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sure it is not difficult for the Leader of the Opposition who, in his difficulty in understanding this, is becoming more like a Stuart Smith. He is going to get that award if he keeps this up.

I know for a fact that my predecessor in this ministry, at the time he said that -- although, as I subsequently reiterated, in good faith he meant what he said -- did not have the benefit of the legal advice that subsequently has been made available from three separate and independent sources. I think that has substantially changed the way in which we can proceed. I can assure the member that export, if it proceeds, will be a clean export. He certainly has my word on that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am sure all these interjections and observations are important. However, it makes it extremely difficult for me to hear the answers and, I am sure, for other members as well. I ask the co-operation of the House in keeping the number of interjections and observations a bit more quiet.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Treasurer whether he is aware of the very long lineups of people who are seeking work in this province at present. I want to give him some examples. Ninety people applied to Gordon Jewellers at the Fairview Mall in Toronto for a sales position; 50 people applied to Lipton's dress shop for a sales clerk position; 126 people applied for two committee clerk positions here in the Legislature; Loomis messenger service had 200 applications for four positions; Julius Schmid of Canada, production packager, 25 persons applied in four hours; Dicom courier service, driver, 30 applications in four hours; Johnson Controls, inside sales, 10 applicants in four hours.

The Treasurer surely must be aware of these kinds of facts out on the street today in Ontario. When is he going to bring in a new budget to create some jobs in this province?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the first question was, "Was I aware?" Yes, I am, and I am as concerned as the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, I am not prepared to give him a date for the budget at present.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Treasurer aware that there are only 13,000 reported job vacancies in this province and that there are 373,000 people unemployed at this time? That is a ratio of one job for every 27 unemployed. If he excludes Metro Toronto, outside of Metro Toronto it is one job for every 47 people who are unemployed. Is he aware of that? Is that the kind of job-creation record he can be proud of? What is he going to do in terms of job creation for this year and right now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition likes to refer to our job creation record and make fun of it.

Mr. Peterson: There are 7,000 fewer people working right now, which does not help.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not arguing that. I simply point out that on a relative basis this province has done exceptionally well and, at the same time, it has had a very high growth in the labour force. We also have some very serious problems. We on this side have not tried to pretend that we do not. The member delightfully tries to imply, when we say there are forces other than our own at work, that we are always just blaming Ottawa.

In fact, he knows, and I can document it, how Messrs. Pilkey and Broadbent, a few other Liberals and a few Conservatives have all called upon Mr. MacEachen and said: "Please understand, Mr. MacEachen, facts have changed dramatically since you brought out your budget. Please bring out a new one."

I am hoping he will bring in a new budget. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition would be wise to let me wait to make sure he is or is not going to do that, so I can make my policies to fit his budget.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as the Treasurer and other members of the cabinet have seen fit to float stories about the expense side of the budget -- that is, how they are going to raise money in the coming budget ahead of time through Ontario health insurance plan premiums and other mechanisms -- will the Treasurer not take us into his confidence enough to let us know in this House how many specific jobs he plans to put into place in the coming year through mechanisms in his budget, which he will bring down some time in April?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, I would like to refute the implication or the statement in the member's question that I have been saying which taxes I am going to change. I have not been.

Mr. Foulds: You have not denied any of the stories.

Mr. Breithaupt: Everything except pipe tobacco.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Listen, my friend, every year you know what happens. It is the press's job to assess what changes I will make.

Mr. Cooke: How many jobs are you going to create?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked by the member for Port Arthur.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is, that has not been leaked because I have not taken decisions in that particular area yet.

Secondly, I think it is one of the easiest things in the world for the member as a politician or me as a politician to send out numbers and then wait a year to have them challenged or proven wrong. I have not played that way with the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, and I am not going to play that way now. We are going to do our best in this province to create jobs by creating the confidence in government.

Mr. Peterson: The fact is that the Treasurer is not creating jobs. The fact is that we are losing jobs. The fact is that, according to the Ontario Manpower Commission, there is going to be a growth of between 80,000 and 112,000 new entrants into the labour force this year. There are fewer people working now than there were a year ago.

What is the Treasurer going to do to create jobs? Surely that is the problem. Whatever he does, he must not call Ed Broadbent a Liberal. What is he going to do to create jobs right here now in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: One of the things this government called upon our federal friends to do with us, and we were backed in this by the United Automobile Workers --

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Listen for a change. The member asked me what am I going to do. I am not blaming them; I am asking them. There is a big difference.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We would ask that they recognize, as Stelco did today, that 20 per cent of its output of steel is used by the auto manufacturing industry. Last year the heads of most of Ontario's unions came into the office of the Premier (Mr. Davis) to discuss unemployment as it was then. One after another, chemical workers, rubber manufacturers, steel workers and auto manufacturers, all said, "Improve the sales of cars and you will improve all the jobs around here."

One of the facts we have to get through the heads of our friends in Ottawa is that the automobile industry matters, that it is not simply a passing phase, that it is not simply something in Ontario. Right now, they believe that. Stelco points out in its ads that 20 per cent of its steel goes to the manufacture of cars; therefore, buy Canadian. What we are trying to do to get that done is to require up to 85 per cent Canadian content in vehicles made or sold in Canada so the jobs will be here, and no one single matter will create more jobs than that.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been made aware of the incredible situation at one of the offices of the Ministry of the Attorney General at old city hall where, since January 1980, women working there who have become pregnant have experienced a 52 per cent rate of miscarriages?

In particular, is the minister aware that in room 109 of old city hall there have been 100 per cent miscarriages -- four out of four pregnancies -- in 1981? All of these women have used video display terminals extensively or have been exposed to them extensively and none of the women involved has had, either previously or since their removal from that work place, a history of difficulty with pregnancies. What steps will his ministry take to ensure safety in that particular work place?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that is the first I have heard of that circumstance. I will certainly look into it immediately and report back in the House as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister, first of all, make himself aware of the situation and will he ensure that an independent investigation of the problem will take place in view of the in-house nature of the employer and the indications that his ministry's industrial health and safety branch have conveyed to the union involved, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, that they would not prosecute one of "our own people," at the Attorney General's office?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Again, I am not aware of anything the honourable member is bringing to my attention but, as I said earlier, I will look into it and get back to him immediately with a response.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, given the findings of at least one ophthalmologist dealing with a recent case, which was described in the Globe and Mail only a few days ago, of a person who resigned from the Globe and Mail because of the danger it was posing for her eyesight and findings which, according to this ophthalmologist, linked her work on the video display terminal to her cornea problems, namely, keratitis, will the minister have an investigation into the safety of video display terminals to determine whether regulations may be necessary for protecting VDT operators?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I understand several investigations have been made over the past number of months in respect to the video display terminals, but I will certainly reopen it and look into the circumstances again, absolutely.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to redirect to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), if possible. Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was hoping Mr. Speaker would not remember his ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I do indeed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In that case, I will ask the Minister of Labour whether he will perhaps confirm from the Attorney General if it is true that his ministry knew for some time about this incredible cluster of incomplete pregnancies -- 52 per cent -- and yet his administrator, Mr. Avery, turned down the union's proposal for a $450 preliminary survey by the occupational health clinic in Hamilton to determine whether there was just cause to look into the health and safety situation there.

Will he ask the Attorney General how many deaths it takes to warrant the expenditure of $450 to see whether there are large problems in that area?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly confer at the earliest opportunity with the Attorney General.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances, I will ask the Attorney General a new question on the same subject.

Is the Attorney General aware that the problems in that particular office in the old city hall at the Attorney General's ministry have reached such a point that the union felt it necessary to formally ask Mr. Jim McNair of the health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour to take action to investigate the complaints, to issue orders and to prosecute the supervisor?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time this issue has come to my attention and therefore I do not have any information as to whether or not any complaint has been made to the ministry. If any complaint has been made, it has not been brought to my attention. I certainly will pursue the matter with the Minister of Labour and advise the House accordingly.

Mr. Foulds: Has the Attorney General not been made aware by the general manager of his ministry, a Mr. Carter, I believe, that the union and that office had discussed a ventilation problem for some three years? It took them three years to try to get it solved and it was only after the union began to apply pressure about the VDTs that the ventilation problem in the coffee room was finally solved last Friday. Is the Attorney General not aware of that? Do people not bring these things to his attention?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was not aware of it.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that this serious problem with VDTs was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Government Services by this party more than six months ago, and if the minister is aware, what has he done about it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the issue.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Avery, the supervisor, refuses to discuss health and safety problems with the union, as he has indicated, and if the ministry refuses to establish voluntary health and safety committees, what happens to the much-vaunted internal responsibility system if there is not a committee?

If the workers are to continue to be used as guinea pigs until they start to die, as is the case here -- the former Minister of Labour shakes his head, but in the Ministry of Labour's own manual it states that some workers may experience discomfort or adverse health effects following exposure to agents at or below the established levels -- will the minister insist, because there are no committees and there is a refusal to discuss, that all chemicals used in this province have to be pre-market tested before they are put in the work place?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know Mr. Avery and he is a very responsible and, I think, sensitive administrator. I doubt very much that he would refuse to discuss health and safety matters with the union. But, again, in view of the allegations that have been made, we will be pursuing this matter.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary. The Minister of Labour has the answer to a previously asked question.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise to correct the record, if I might. When I was asking a supplementary to the deputy leader's question to the Attorney General, I mentioned the word "deaths." I meant to say "miscarriages" or "incomplete pregnancies." There was one stillbirth. I did not want to mislead the House in terms of talking about deaths.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I understood what you meant and did not call you on it.

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK PLACE

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question asked on Friday, March 12. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) asked about a human rights complaint which has been filed against the Block Drug Company.

At the outset, let me say that I cannot comment on the facts of the case, which is before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. However, I would like to point out that, based on the experience of other jurisdictions, the commission has over the past nine months been introducing a process which is designed to assist in the expeditious handling of complaints.

Under this procedure, when a complaint has been received, the complainant is asked to fill out a questionnaire designed to ascertain the details of the complaint. At the same time, the respondent is sent a copy of the complaint together with a questionnaire designed to allow him to outline his side of the story. Then a fact-finding conference is arranged where the parties sit down with the human rights officer to ascertain in detail the facts giving rise to the complaint and to determine the position of the parties with a view to providing an opportunity for the parties to settle the case.

In the case to which the member referred, the complaint was filed at the end of February and a fact-finding conference had been scheduled for this month. However, it has been rescheduled for April 1 at the request of the complainant. I am therefore unable to explain the suggestion that the case cannot be dealt with in less than a year. From what I have said, I am sure the member will agree that the commission lost no time in acting upon this troubling complaint and I am satisfied that it is being dealt with as quickly as possible.

I would just add one note, if I may. Because of a quick meeting that has been arranged with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy -- the House will be pleased that such a meeting has been arranged -- I am going to have to leave the House at this time and will not be available for further questions. I will be in my place tomorrow at the same time.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the minister has explained to us why it takes a long time to go through the human rights commission. I understand there are procedures that have to be gone through, although it may also be due to shortage of staff to carry out all the procedures quickly. In the meantime, will the minister not intervene personally to obtain voluntary compliance from the Block Drug Company to remove the requirement that women punch time clocks when they go to the washroom facilities when the men are not required to do so? Will he intervene with the company and see if they will undertake to remove that discrimination against women?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps an examination of Hansard for Friday will prove otherwise, but I felt I had given assurance on Friday of that action.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I have read with interest the recent announcement of Ontario's $9-million commitment to a company called VentureTrans Manufacturing Inc., which will manufacture rapid transit vehicles. How can the minister justify the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to involve himself in the manufacture of what many would regard as questionable technology when 950 people are out of work at Hawker Siddeley in Thunder Bay, an area that manufactures the same kind of technology?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem whatsoever in substantiating that investment in the development and production of the technology that the Urban Transportation Development Corp. has developed so well over the past five years and is now proceeding to implement on a number of contracts. We went into this matter very thoroughly, as will be recalled, in the last session of the Legislature when this matter was discussed very fully.

UTDC and its board of directors and senior management looked at a number of proposals for manufacturing the vehicles. The decision was made that the car bodies should be manufactured and the vehicles should be assembled at the transportation development centre in Kingston. A joint venture contract was entered into between UTDC and TIW and the construction of that manufacturing facility is now under way in Kingston.

Mr. Cunningham: The original mandate of this crown corporation was to act as a catalyst for private sector transit development corporations and it never envisaged that the government would get into manufacturing. Can the minister confirm now that they are testing rotary motor vehicles at the test track in Kingston? If so, what distinguishes that technology from that of Hawker Siddeley in Thunder Bay and Bombardier in Quebec, save that they are successful in the open market system?

Hon. Mr. Snow: A great many things separate the technology that UTDC has developed from the products that the other companies have developed. Let us look at Hawker Siddeley and the technology it has developed. I do not know what particular technology the member is speaking of -- probably the double-decker GO cars which were developed by Hawker Siddeley in conjunction with this government. The only contracts Hawker Siddeley has had for those cars are the two contracts it has had with this government. That car would never have been developed if it had not been engineered and developed in conjunction with GO Transit.

2:40 p.m.

We can then look at the contract Hawker Siddeley had for the 190 streetcars. Hawker Siddeley constructed those streetcars for the Toronto Transit Commission by using technology developed by this government through UTDC. When one speaks about Bombardier, it is a very good company. They developed the new light, rapid, comfortable train. They have had their problems with that. As the member knows, although it was supposed to go into service several months ago, it is still going through testing and is still not in service. Other companies also go through a testing process with their equipment.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us when he will be bringing before the House the amounts of money that the government, through its agency UTDC, will be putting into the joint venture that the government is undertaking with TIW?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what the member is referring to. UTDC has a contract with the Vancouver Urban Transit Authority for the implementation of a system in Vancouver. They have a contract with the TTC for facilities in the borough of Scarborough. They are on the verge of finalizing the contract in the city of Detroit. The funds that will be earned by UTDC and by Metro Canada in the implementation of those contracts will go to pay the expenses of constructing the facility and the vehicles at Kingston.

RENT CONTROL

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in his capacity as the supervisor of the rent review program. Can the minister inform the House what position he takes on the recent phenomenon of certain rent review commissioners allowing the cost of new financing of buildings to be passed through to tenants when the purpose of that financing is to transfer equity out of the building?

Specifically, is he concerned about the situation of a 210-unit apartment building on Bathurst Street where the owner admitted he placed a $600,000 second mortgage solely for the purpose of financing another business venture, or one of 33 units at 534 Birchmount Road in which a $350,000 mortgage was placed on a building originally purchased for $200,000? What position does he take on those kinds of decisions where that kind of cost is passed on to tenants?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should look into what the real situation is with respect to the buildings he referred to. Regarding the Bathurst Street building, the decision from the Residential Tenancy Commission has not yet been made. The Birchmount Road building is under appeal. In the Markham Road one, it was not appealed by the tenants; the landlord appealed it.

The fact of the matter is the commission and the commissioner who is hearing the case do indeed look into the nature of the financing to make sure it is carefully scrutinized and is reasonable. If it is to be passed through and the amount would be excessive, they can use their discretion to vary the amount and spread it out over a period of time. I would think the member would know that and would know it is a difficult task for the commissioners. They endeavour to fulfil their jobs very faithfully.

Mr. Philip: Since it is under appeal and the decision was made to pass through those costs, can the minister explain how a commissioner of rent review could violate his own rent review guideline RR2, passed October 22, 1979, which states, "Rent should not be increased because of financing costs incurred by mortgaging the residential complex to obtain funds for use elsewhere"? Surely that is fairly clear. How can his rent review officers possibly interpret it any differently? How did we end up with those kinds of decisions where tenants have to appeal a decision that is clearly in violation of the rent review guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member has spoken quite appropriately. It is indeed a guideline policy of the commission that any financing arrangements must be used either to improve the property or to purchase a property. If they are used for other purposes, then the commission by its own guidelines does not pass that through, and he knows that.

If he is talking about financing that took place before the rent review act came into law on January 1, 1976, then that is true. The commissioners cannot and would not look into financing arrangements prior to that time. But that is nothing new and that has not changed.

Mr. Mancini: In order that this matter may be clarified, so the minister knows exactly what his rent review officers are doing and in order that the general public feels protected, why does the minister not just issue a memorandum to all the rent review officers informing them they cannot pass through these types of costs and that they should not be putting these types of costs on to the renters? Furthermore, why does the minister not tell them he will not tolerate such decisions by rent review officers?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if the member will put in writing the complaint he is talking about, I shall be glad to look into it. But if he is wrong, he should stand up in this House and apologize to what I feel is a very able group of commissioners.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: We are not talking about specific instances here that we are able to find and bring to the minister's attention. We want all renters in Ontario to be protected by a general policy guideline. We do not want specific instances brought to the minister's attention; we want fair rules for all.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If I may reply, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: No, no, Mr. Minister, I do not think so.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it demands a response; it really does. I have already said such a guideline is in place. If it is not being followed, I challenge him to tell me where it is not, and if he is wrong he is to apologize.

The Deputy Speaker: A new question from the member for Carleton in the rotation.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order: I understood the Speaker to rise from his chair and say "No, no," when the minister stood up to respond to that question. Is Mr. Speaker running this House or is the minister running this House?

Mr. Philip: On the point of order: If the honourable critic for the Liberal Party did not give the minister specific examples, I did.

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware that in late January or early February I contacted his office about a so-called secret study that was being carried out in the Ottawa-Carleton region with respect to a toxic waste transfer station. He will recall at that time, after promising me to look through the ministry, which he did, it was not an involvement of the provincial ministry at all. In fact, we could not point a finger at who was carrying out this study.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Mitchell: I feel I must elaborate, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, because --

Interjections.

Mr. Mitchell: Shout all you like, but I am going to get it done. The fact of the matter was -- and I can out-yell them --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are asking for a question. I think the member for Carleton has elaborated sufficiently.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, at your request, here are two questions to the Minister of the Environment. Has he received the text of the report the federal works department promised in two press releases it issued? Will he have a further examination to see whether or not there is any way his ministry or the Environmental Assessment Board will carry out a review of this proposed site, to which the cities of Nepean and Kanata are both opposed?

Mr. Bradley: Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Would you not prefer that it be both?

Mr. Epp: You have the answer right there. Why don't you read it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I have not, actually. This is an entirely different matter.

2:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on with the answer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the member will allow me the peace of the House for a few moments, I will respond.

The site in the Ottawa area is being sought by the federal government for a transfer station on federal property. I have been advised by the legal staff of my ministry that we do not have jurisdiction within the province.

That is supported by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal at the present time in the Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. case in which we sought to assert jurisdiction over Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. through the courts and have been denied that jurisdiction. That case may well be going to the Supreme Court of Canada to sort out once and for all whether or not we do have such jurisdiction. But as long as that case stands, my advice is that we do not have jurisdiction in this instance either.

With respect to receiving a copy of the report, to date I myself have not received a copy of such a report. There was to be a meeting towards the end of last week between staff of my ministry at the regional level and some representatives of the federal government to brief my staff on the nature of the project they were undertaking and the purpose of it. I cannot say with certainty that no report or copy was presented to them at that meeting. If it was, I have not yet been advised of it and I certainly have not seen it.

In brief, the answer is that I believe we do not have jurisdiction, although there are now some indications the federal government may be willing to share some information with us. The only way in which we could exercise any jurisdiction, as I understand it, is if we were invited by the federal government or if they expressed a desire to have their project subjected to our Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Mitchell: In both releases issued by the federal Department of Public Works they stated that the reported background information on the project will be made available to all interested members of the public with consultation. In talking to the staff of the ministry I am led to believe the minister has had to ask the federal government for that report. First, I would like to confirm if that is true. Second, since the offer is implicit in the comments they made, I would hope the ministry would reply affirmatively that they will carry out whatever portion of that participation is available to them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is my understanding that we have been advised that copies of the report are available upon request and we have requested it. I just had a note passed to me that we have now received a copy in the ministry. I am not sure whether it arrived today or on Friday.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if the minister expects us to think his ministry or himself has a certain amount of credibility, how does he justify in this case showing concern for the question from the member for Carleton? I can understand the member's concern about the location of this transfer station without proper consultation. How does that jibe with the minister's approach where he was prepared to establish a disposal site in Haldimand-Norfolk without consultation, discussion or a public hearing? What kind of hypocritical and cynical politics is he trying to play on this? Why does he not admit he only shows concern when he has no jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sure the legislation which was passed through this House must have been passed on one of the two or three days a week when the honourable member was not present.

Mr. Roy: Show some credibility.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It must have been on one of those days when he was appearing in provincial court, criminal division, in Ottawa --

The Deputy Speaker: Replying to the question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- rather than discharging his responsibilities in this Legislature.

Mr. Roy: At least I practise law. I earn a living --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would take the member on in court any day.

Mr. Roy: They would kick you out of provincial court.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Are you going to reply to the question now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: In the instance with respect to South Cayuga cited by the member, we had put in place a procedure that provided for public hearings and for a full and complete investigation of the environmental safety of the proposed site. That legislation was passed by this Legislature. If the member has any doubts about that, he ought to consult with some of the people in South Cayuga because my impression, in speaking with the honourable member who represents that riding, is that he feels it worked very well. In fact, the site, for very sound reasons, was rejected.

Mr. Roy: That was because of public pressure.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It had nothing to do with public pressure; it had to do with a very thorough investigation of the site, which revealed there were some geological inadequacies in the site. That was why the site was rejected. But we do have a very good process in place, contrary to the situation that appears in Ottawa.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the minister give warmer answers to members from this party than to those in his own party. I would like to ask him if he will recognize the frustration of people in the Ottawa area in dealing singlehandedly with the federal Liberal government. Under the circumstances will the minister go to Ottawa, meet with citizens in Kanata and Nepean, find out what the concerns are, since he has not found those already, and make representations with them to the federal government because of the concern the people in the Ottawa area have over the location of this toxic waste dump?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the first step in any procedure is to await the opportunity to be fully brought up to date by the staff in the region who have been involved in the consultation and discussions with the federal government as recently as the end of last week and who have also been dealing with the concerns and inquiries of the citizens of that area.

I realize that the member's approach may at times be more of a grandstanding approach than mine. I tend to want to know first precisely what the situation is before I jump in with all fours and assume to assert jurisdiction where I have none as a representative of this government.

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. We all welcome her back from Bahrain on this the ides of March and wish her the very best of health.

There has been a strong rumour circulating in education circles that the Minister of Education has plans to make drastic cuts or to completely eliminate the funding for noncredit courses in the continuing-education program of secondary schools. Will the minister assure the House this afternoon that her ministry has no plans for making cuts in those specific grants and that we can expect the same level of funding in the upcoming school year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance as it seems to me it must be the responsibility of the minister to ensure that the funds which are delivered for continuing education are serving the purpose of providing continuing education.

The definition of continuing education is a matter with which we have been concerned for the past year and a half, as the honourable member knows. It is a matter which has had a great deal of public input and a matter which we are seriously considering now.

I cannot suggest to the honourable member in all honesty that we are considering making no changes at all. I do not know precisely what we will be doing, but we certainly are considering it.

Mr. Bradley: Is the minister aware that by denying the same level of funding that has existed in the past to these programs she would be interfering to a certain extent with some excellent programs that have been available to the multicultural groups in this province? I know the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) would be interested in this -- in providing funds, for instance, for their dance and choral groups and their bands. This has been funnelled through the continuing education grant.

In view of the fact that her government is very concerned about promoting multiculturalism in this province, will the minister assure the House that there will be adequate funding so these programs which enrich us culturally will be able to continue?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is no doubt about the fact that the Ministry of Education has taken the lead role in this country in terms of cultural enrichment and the maintenance of heritage. In fact, the point I was trying to make earlier clearly indicates the kind of direction we must consider.

As the ministry responsible for education, I believe we do have the responsibility to ensure that the funds which are delivered by the ministry are used for educative purposes. I have already had preliminary discussions with my colleague the Minister of Culture and Citizenship about routes we might follow to ensure that programs which are not educational in character but which have been provided by school boards through some kind of illusory mechanism may continue in support of the heritage of the groups that make up the richness of our heritage in Canada.

3 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: During discussion of the bill on special education there was a good deal of discussion --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Bradley: Yes. If my memory serves me correctly, the minister indicated to the House that money would not be taken from other areas of education and placed in special education, but that new money would be provided for special education. However, during discussion of the bill on special education there was a good deal of talk about the possibility of the ministry's taking money from other areas in education to apply to special education. In the light of the answer the minister has given this afternoon, can she assure the House that this has not been the case?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is most assuredly not the case. The funding for special education was clearly defined by the ministry and by government when the bill was introduced. It has not been changed. It has been enhanced a little bit, but the funds have not come from any source other than the additional funds that were made available by government.

HOME HEATING COSTS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As a minister who has frequently professed concern about a great many things, is he concerned about the recent dramatic and unreasonable increases in residential gas rates which have been approved by the Ontario Energy Board? Does he know that the annual home heating bill in the area served by Consumers' Gas, based on the new rates, will go from last year's cost of $657 to $870 this year, an increase of 32 per cent? Indeed, because of the cold winter we have had, the cost will be more than $900 this year, which means a 37 per cent increase over last year.

Will the minister therefore petition the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as he has the power to do under section 33 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, to roll back or put a stay on the February increase for at least two months to stop this unreasonable price hike?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to introduce amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act, but I wonder whether the member might redirect that question to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in redirecting that question to the Minister of Energy. This is a question of consumer prices. If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is not interested in answering it, as may well be the case, I wish to put a supplementary to him. Perhaps he can answer both at the same time.

If the minister is concerned about consumers, I ask him to note that Consumers' Gas -- and this is true of the gas companies generally -- has been permitted markups of 65 per cent above the wholesale gas cost and federal taxes, which, of course, were all passed through to the consumers, and that this new markup is four times the amount ever previously awarded. Also, the minister may not be aware that Consumers' Gas operating income last year went up by almost 19 per cent, to $107 million, and that the new markups will give them an additional $77 million.

Recognizing the serious economic situation in which so many people and companies find themselves, does the minister think it is fair that the distributing monopolies are guaranteed these escalating profits by his government agency? Why should they not have to tighten their belts just like everyone else is having to do?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to ask the member to repeat his question, but I am a little hesitant to do so. I will advise the Minister of Energy of the nature and content of the member's question. I am sure he will be pleased to respond.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Revenue about property tax assessment in the city of Toronto. The minister is no doubt aware that some homes in Toronto have received increases in their assessments exceeding 300 per cent. Will the minister have the candour to confirm that provincial assessors have deviated from the usual administrative procedures in reassessing renovated homes in the city of Toronto? In other cities, the assessors used the assessment manual in connection with renovation, employing the criterion of historical value.

Does the minister deny he is using the reassessments on renovated homes to introduce market-value-based assessment by the back door?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I deny that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruprecht: The evidence mounts daily that the reassessments were done in a slipshod manner, incompletely and inadequately. Now the minister has tried to terrorize the citizens of Toronto, especially the home owners, by unleashing a regiment of more than 110 assessors from all over this province.

Why does the minister not sit down with a city of Toronto representative and work out a plan that is acceptable and not create chaos and total confusion in this city as far as the home owners are concerned? Why is he not putting the money where his mouth is instead of placing in jeopardy the homes of those who own homes in this city?

The citizens out there, and I want to make this quite clear, understand only one thing. When their property taxes increase, they blame the minister and they blame the politicians. We on this side are not responsible, the minister is responsible and he should give us an answer as to why he is introducing this kind of plan which nobody understands.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We have always known that many of the members opposite are not responsible, but we have institutions for situations like that. In actual fact, of course, it is a matter of perception.

I know the honourable member who generated the question perhaps does not understand what is going on but if he wants to have a course in assessment, whether vis-à-vis Toronto or elsewhere, I will be very happy to set up a briefing for him and provide him with some insight into the program, which has been successfully implemented in 349 municipalities across the province.

I will also entertain for him a presentation that would show him that what has just happened in the city of Toronto also happened to something like 135,000 properties right across the province. I will be happy, and I make this offer very public, to set up a program to educate the questioner at his convenience.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he would consider a moratorium on these reassessments at least until such time as he does two or three simple things: first, get some guidelines which are actually used during the course of these reassessments so that people get some reasonable notice about a reassessment process; second, get out some public information programs to explain to them that there is an appeal process and to make that somewhat simpler.

Finally, why does not the minister respond in a more positive way to requests from municipalities like Metropolitan Toronto when the municipality itself feels the reassessment program is unfair and wrong?

Why does the minister not do those simple things?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the honourable member really has not followed in the press and other media, in the way of paid ads and inserts with the assessment notices, the kind of communications program that has been undertaken by this ministry not only this year but also in the past. Again, this is nothing new.

I think the appeal process is very clear. It is not even a matter of any different form that comes in the assessment envelope. Again, we are always looking for and taking advice and guidance from those within the field to make the communications program better, to make the assessment notice better, and we hope something will come forward with that.

As far as the member's misconception of what has been coming forth from Metropolitan Toronto is concerned, I would suggest that he should look properly at the record. He would see that Metropolitan Toronto per se is in support of the program we are doing and has made a request for a section 86 impact study. I think his references have been to the city of Toronto and not to Metropolitan Toronto.

3:10 p.m.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the standing orders, I am dissatisfied with the answer of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We will debate this tomorrow night at 10:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would direct the member for Welland-Thorold to notify the table in the proper manner.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

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

Motion agreed to.

JAPANESE CANADIAN CULTURAL CENTRE OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Cousens, seconded by Ms. Fish, moved first reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton, seconded by Mr. Samis, moved first reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

BEER IN THE BALL PARK ACT

Mr. Samis, seconded by Mr. Di Santo, moved first reading of Bill 22, An Act respecting the Sale of Beer at the Canadian National Exhibition Stadium.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide relief for the long-suffering Blue Jays fans who patronize CNE stadium. May I say I resisted pressure from my cosmopolitan friends to include cerveza in the bill -- excuse me, vino, not cerveza.

PUBLIC ADVOCATE ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, first reading of Bill 23, An Act to provide for a Public Advocate in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a public advocate in Ontario. The function of the public advocate is to represent the public interest in Ontario at rate hearings before tribunals and commissions on such matters as natural gas, telephone and electricity rates.

The public advocate is also provided with the authority to intervene in hearings at which environmental matters of a broad general interest are considered.

The public advocate would be a servant of this assembly, and levies may be made against corporations that make application for a rate increase for the purpose of paying the expenses incurred by the public advocate in carrying out his functions and duties.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

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

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

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

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand before you, my Premier, my colleagues on this side and members opposite to move the adoption of the speech from the throne.

As I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), to wish him well and to wish him longevity as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Rae on his election as leader of the New Democrats.

3:20 p.m.

I am proud to speak on behalf of this document, which recognizes the needs of our province and the realities we face in a country whose national leadership is questionable. It is also a document that rededicates this government to its commitments to the people of Ontario.

A year ago, this government, with a renewed mandate, dedicated itself to work for a stronger Ontario, to work for a stronger manufacturing base, to work for responsible development of our resources, to work for healthier communities and to work for more opportunities for our people to better themselves.

We dedicated ourselves to achieving a stronger Ontario through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. We dedicated ourselves to work with communities, with industry, with labour, with groups and with individuals to ensure social and economic freedom in our province.

By Christmas 1981, more than 50 of the original 76 development initiatives outlined in BILD had been reviewed, discussed and approved. We had begun the work of redevelopment for the 1980s, but, as this work was beginning to take effect, new challenges were rising up, challenges that have caused all of us, whether in government, in business or in the home, to reconsider short-term priorities.

Although our country has weathered the storm raised by the constitution debate, we are now facing a crisis of greater proportion which strikes at the very heart of Canadian federalism. Our nation's economy is being twisted and wrung by ill-conceived and poorly administered federal programs. The potential of our people -- our entrepreneurs, our farmers, our young people looking for their first home -- is being crushed beneath the weight of bloated interest rates and insensitive national economic planning.

Members on this side of the Legislature have already spoken about interest rates. I had the pleasure of participating in the debate on interest rates which took place in the Legislature last fall. My views were clear then, and they are clear now. It is my belief that interest rates in Canada can be reduced. It is my belief we are strong enough to follow an independent course rather than playing the part of the monkey dancing to the American barrel organ.

My views are strengthened by the daily visits, letters and telephone conversations I have with my constituents in the riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere. Their stories tell the tale of misguided federal economic planning. Their lives bear the burden of the economic mistakes of others.

Members opposite -- and we hear them chirping now -- may say it is easy to blame Ottawa. I say to them that members on this side of the Legislature are just as fast to praise Ottawa when it deserves it as they are to criticize it when it is wrong; and on the issue of interest rates the federal government is wrong.

Members opposite have called for Ontario to take action against high interest rates. They call on the province to provide support for home owners, businessmen and farmers so they can achieve their goals and help to make our communities work again. That kind of action would be easier in a situation where we had ample revenues, but such is not the case in Ontario at this time.

It is not the case because this province stands under a threat, as do the other provinces of our nation; it is a threat that contradicts 30 years of harmonious co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces, a threat that strikes at the spirit of agreements signed by this province with prime ministers Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson. The threat we are faced with is a drastic reduction in established programs financing from Ottawa.

The federal government claims its cost-sharing agreements with the provinces are only increasing the national deficit. It has even produced statistics to back up this claim. But, as the farmer said as he looked over his bill from the general store, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."

The Economic Council of Canada says federal revenues are down because of federal tax policies and not because of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. Indeed, as was pointed out in the 1981 Ontario budget paper Renegotiation of Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements: An Ontario Perspective, increases in federal-provincial transfers fell short of federal spending growth over the period 1971-72 to 1976-77.

During the period since the established programs financing began in 1976, we have seen a 51 per cent growth in federal transfers, compared with a 55 per cent growth in overall federal spending. Yet despite proof that federal-provincial cost-sharing is not a drain on Ottawa's resources, Finance Minister MacEachen is determined to reduce established programs financing. MacEachen's cuts are equivalent to the operating budgets of four outstanding Ontario universities: Ottawa, Carleton, Queen's and Western Ontario. These institutions have a combined enrolment of 59,000 students.

In health care, Mr. MacEachen's cuts are equally offensive. For example, two thirds of these cuts would close down the 10 hospitals operating in the Ottawa area; 3,400 beds would be wiped out with the scratch of a pen, and that is the effect of only two thirds of MacEachen's cuts.

This is the threat that this government, and other administrations in provincial legislatures across Canada, are facing.

As a family man, I have a genuine concern, as do others in this House, with the future that my children will have to face. I would rather spend my time here working for their benefit than attacking the policies of another jurisdiction. But no matter how one views the situation, Ottawa's policies are hampering the initiative and confidence of men and women across our province.

Calls from my constituency continually inform me of the tragedy resulting from high interest rates and the restrictive effects of Ottawa's economic policies: men, women and young people without jobs; families pitched from their homes because of hikes in mortgage rates; businessmen and retailers struggling just to stay afloat.

This government wants to take action, but we cannot always act alone. In many fields we need the co-operation of the federal government, but their response is to propose reductions in essential programs.

If that sounds modestly bitter, it is because I know that this government and this House are being prevented from achieving the potential that is well within Ontario's ability. We have the programs, we have the will and we have the initiative.

In the throne speech, we have shown what we will do in this present period of uncertainty. We will work to the best of our ability to combat high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment. But more can be done. Through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, we are working to strengthen our framework of industries, communities, power generation and distribution, social welfare and education.

As the Lieutenant Governor stated in the speech, we shall continue to pursue a pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-Canadian economic policy. But to do so we need real negotiations with Ottawa on established programs financing; we need real discussion on interest rates; we need co-operation, not meetings that are little more than media events for federal ministers to deliver ultimatums from prepared texts.

What we need is for Confederation to work, not to become a battleground between warring governments and skirmishing superegos.

I am proud that this throne speech has demonstrated that the government of Ontario is willing to do its part and is willing to remind Ottawa of its failure to do the same.

Moving into more specific areas of the throne speech, I am particularly honoured that legislation is planned to require mandatory car restraints for children under five years of age.

On October 15, 1981, I introduced a resolution in this House that the government take steps to amend the Highway Traffic Act so that protection under the act will be extended to children under the age of five years or weighing less than 50 pounds. We had an excellent debate in which members of each party spoke in support of that resolution.

I do not understand the actions of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) last week to file a duplicate bill on the Order Paper when the legislation is well on its way. I can only presume that it is some sort of personal publicity stunt.

Ms. Bryden: There is no duplicate. There is no legislation over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Robinson: Since last fall, a lot of ground has been covered. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has worked diligently to identify optimal methods of implementing this important legislation.

Since the seminar which I chaired for all members of the Ontario Legislature prior to the introduction of the resolution last October, I have continued to promote public awareness and motivation on this important issue through public seminars and through the news media. All of these efforts have been met with favourable public reaction, I am pleased to report.

The need for legislation is very real. There are many sobering facts to consider. Doctors will tell you that the single greatest threat to a child's health is a ride in the family car. In the past five years more than 5,000 youngsters have been injured and 52 have died in traffic accidents in Ontario. Forty-five of these deaths involved children two years of age or younger. In 1980, 1,697 children under five years of age were injured and 18 died in automobile collisions. Today, for every child who dies from an infectious disease in North America, 50 die as passengers in car accidents.

Worse, the most dangerous place for a child in an automobile is in the arms of its parent. Even if a parent is securely belted, in a 25-mile-per-hour accident, any infant or child will be torn from the parent's arms by the force of the collision. By virtue of the particular physique of young children, they are launched as projectiles which travel head first.

3:30 p.m.

Considering the laws of physics, the unrestrained parent in this same scenario of a 25-mile-per-hour collision becomes a 4,000-pound mass, crushing the child against the dashboard and through the windshield. The force with which the child hits the dashboard is equivalent to dropping that child from the third storey of a building.

Unfortunately, voluntary guidelines in this area are not effective enough. A public education program such as the one now under way can do a great deal to motivate parents to accept and use child and infant restraint devices, but it does not result in a significant behavioural change in the society as a whole.

Recent studies at McMaster University show that only 14 per cent of children under the age of five are now being properly restrained when in vehicles. The study also indicates that for children in this age group, birth to five years, the frequency and consistency of the use of the device decline markedly as the child gets older.

Unrestrained children have caused accidents by interfering with the driver or the vehicle controls. A significant number of fatalities or medical and dental injuries also occur in noncrash situations involving swerves or sudden stops. Children fall out of stationary or moving vehicles through doors or windows that they or someone else have opened. All of these incidents can be prevented through the proper use of child restraint devices.

Infants and young children are not yet of an age to be allowed to make the decision as to whether or not they should use these devices. We, as parents, override the decision of our infants and young children daily on many matters affecting their safety. I feel strongly this is both a parental and a legislative responsibility which extends to the issue of auto travel. There is an overwhelming amount of health and safety evidence that shows restraints are essential.

A small number of foreign jurisdictions have adopted child restraint legislation with varying degrees of success. Ontario is now in the enviable position of strength to further expand its leadership role in this forum by developing and effectively implementing legislation to safeguard the lives of our infants and young children. While legislation of this concept has been approved in principle in this House, equitable and effective implementation of this concept demands and has been receiving extremely detailed study.

Considering the issue of supply and demand, by adopting the phasing-in approach defined by age group, marketplace availability of child restraint devices can be assured. There are at present some 600,000 children under the age of five in Ontario. The cost of a child restraint device is about the same as a tire -- and people have no difficulty in buying tires or two tanks of gasoline -- or, dealing with the child himself, about the equivalent price of a pair of shoes.

Budgetary constraints and considerations of all families with young children must also be respected, particularly in those families with more than one child under the age of five. Outstanding initiative has been demonstrated as rental programs have been established by community service groups across Ontario. Those groups include the Jaycees and the Jaycettes, among others. Also, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has actively involved the participation of enforcement agencies in developing legislation that can be effectively implemented.

The experiences and varying degrees of success in other jurisdictions place Ontario in a strong leadership position to introduce legislation that will measure up to the current state of the art and availability of child restraint devices. This Legislature will be able to take great satisfaction in the swift passage of the proposed amendments to the Highway Traffic Act to prevent suffering related to this preventable injury and death, so that we may effectively protect our young children, who are our most valuable resource.

Since coming to Queen's Park a year ago, I have also studied with interest developments in public transit. In the last decade this government has provided strong leadership in the evolution of advanced public transit technology. We should consider ourselves in this province to be very fortunate that the government had the foresight to recognize the importance of our public transit needs. This government's commitment to public transit, which was reiterated in the speech from the throne, goes at least as far back as November 1972 when the Premier (Mr. Davis) presented An Urban Transportation Policy for Ontario.

That policy centred on the idea of what urban life should be and what the characteristics of an ideal city would be. First it said, "the city should be a place that is rich in the variety of employment, housing and leisure opportunities it provides. Second, the city should be a place of safety, health and comfort. Third, the city should be a place in which it is possible to move quickly and with safety and convenience from one location to the other." It continued by stating, "Without easy circulation of traffic, it would be difficult for the wide spectrum of people that makes up a city to enjoy the fullness and variety we seek."

It was realized then that our cities soon could be facing the same problems that our southern neighbours were experiencing. Overcrowding, congestion and stress were seen as factors contributing to the decay of the downtown cores of many cities on this continent. In those days, rush-hour traffic jams and air and noise pollution were the major reasons for encouraging mass public transit.

Expressways were not a solution. They disrupted neighbourhoods, and their construction within city boundaries had become prohibitively expensive. By November 1972 construction on the Spadina Expressway had been stopped, and this action was soon paralleled in other cities around the world. But by that time, subway construction had also become extremely expensive, costing as much as $25 million to $30 million per mile -- and that was 10 years ago. Today subways will cost anywhere from $80 million to $100 million per mile, compared to the $25-million to $30-million range that Ontario's new transportation technology can offer.

That technology has required years to develop, much of it in the face of shortsighted political criticism that has not borne the test of time. Two years ago the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) told members of this House that our technology was not yet developed and that the competition in the marketplace was greater than our ability to meet it. It is that lack of faith in the ability of Ontario enterprise that has provided the real obstacles to progress. But this government and its Premier had the faith and foresight to create what is now the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Even in the days before the last Middle East war drove up oil prices, the government of Ontario saw the value of innovative transportation technology. Much of Ontario's future industrial and economic development will have to be in the area of high technology. Technological advances and the resulting economic benefits are essential to the wellbeing of our people, and UTDC's contribution in this field can be significant.

The ability of UTDC to provide not just for the needs of Ontario cities but for those of other provinces and nations as well is a tribute to those who created it and made it work. The list of UTDC successes is also the best response to those who sought to deride the work and impact of UTDC. Last year UTDC had sales exceeding $57 million and net earnings of more than $2.5 million. In addition, last November UTDC Ltd. made its first royalty payment to the government of Ontario in the amount of $450,000. I am confident that this situation will continue to improve in the coming years.

UTDC's main stake in our future is undeniably the intermediate capacity transit system, called ICTS. I am proud to point out that the world's first public transit ICTS line will run for almost its entire length through my great riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere. The line is scheduled -- and the schedule is being maintained -- to open late in 1984. I hope that those who have doubted the ability of UTDC to perfect and market the ICTS idea will use that occasion, if not sooner, to admit their error.

The throne speech reconfirmed this government's intention to build on the continuing success of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. As ICTS transportation technology is used in Ontario and Canada, it will become easier to pursue initiatives in Europe, Asia and South America.

There can be a bright future for ICTS in many parts of the world. As many members of this House already know, ICTS has been accepted in Detroit, Scarborough and Vancouver. ICTS was also judged in December 1980 by the Los Angeles Downtown People Mover Authority to be first in technical performance, in financial content and in its adherence to minority business requirements. Although the ICTS proposal received all the necessary approval, the project fell victim to federal transit funding cutbacks imposed by the Reagan administration.

3:40 p.m.

The prospects in Detroit are even more optimistic. Last June the Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority chose the ICTS proposal for its downtown circulation system. The Detroit project, which is also partially funded by the US federal government, has already received funding in the 1981 fiscal year, and the US Congress has passed a bill for $110 million in US funds to cover the construction of the system.

I have already mentioned that Scarborough will have its own ICTS line operating in just over two years' time. My colleagues will recall that originally this seven-kilometre line from the Kennedy subway station to just beyond the Scarborough Town Centre in the first phase was to be used as a light rail transit vehicle operating on a CN right of way. At that time, we raised two concerns about the LRT proposal. The community was first concerned about the high cost of grade separation where the LRT crossed major arterial roads, and there were four of them. The second concern was with the visual and noise impact effect of LRT vehicles when they would have to pass along the backyards of the Treverton Park community.

In order to deal with these problems, I urged consideration of the ICTS as a substitute for LRT. Anyone who has seen the ICTS vehicle in operation cannot fail to be impressed by its silent operation and low visual impact due in part to its fairly small size. The silent operation of the vehicle is truly amazing. In the ICTS vehicle, the axles swivel when taking a curve and steel-against-steel rubbing is virtually eliminated. Welded rails and rubber inserts in the wheels also contribute to the silent running of the vehicle. In fact, the wheel profiles themselves when designed were determined by testing with a decibel meter.

Having been out to Kingston on a number of occasions, I can vouch for the quiet running of the ICTS vehicle. Last year I took a delegation from Scarborough-Ellesmere of some 30 community leaders to examine ICTS firsthand when it was being considered for our community. I think the low noise and unobtrusiveness of the vehicles were factors that certainly contributed to the community's decision to welcome the system.

In both the intermediate capacity transit system and the related advanced light rail system, each vehicle on the line is controlled by a computer. Under each vehicle, a pair of antennae constantly provides information on the vehicle's speed and position to cables strung beside the rails. This information is instantly transmitted to the three central computers that operate the system.

Each computer is programmed differently. In order for a train to obey a command -- instructions from the computer -- it must take those instructions from two of the computers dealing with the same command. If two of the three do not agree, the vehicle will come to a stop. Should one computer conflict with the others the car's emergency systems will come on and take over and the risk of any sort of collision is eliminated. The system provides quite a remarkable degree of control. Trains can run as little as seconds apart if the need exists. In a matter of minutes, additional cars can be added and brought in to couple on to trains already in service -- an ability which I am sure will be greatly appreciated in rush hours.

Without a doubt the Urban Transportation Development Corp. has an innovative product which is capable of competing in international markets on its own merit. The potential for sales is enormous. It is estimated that the domestic and export potential for ALRT/ICTS is over $20 billion over the next 20 years. Potential markets exist in Texas and California. Even though there are American corporations active in the transit field, UTDC has already won out in Detroit and Los Angeles, and there is good reason to be optimistic in spite of reduced spending on transportation by the American administration.

ICTS is also very likely a competitor for major systems that will be required within the next five years in the Arabian Gulf states, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Taipei, Manila and in one or more cities in Indonesia. As many as two cities in each of Mexico and Venezuela will also shortly require major public transit systems.

UTDC has already bid for a public transit system to be built in Caracas, Venezuela. Though technologically the UTDC product was superior to that of the international competition, the financing package was not competitive. Concessionary financing is showing itself to be more and more a factor in international bids for major projects.

As Canadians, we recently saw our Prime Minister travel to Mexico. A major aim of that visit was to lobby for the sale of Candu nuclear reactors to Mexico. But while he was down there, we kept on hearing that France had offered a superior financing proposal. Very little was said about either reactor. There was no indication from the Mexican government about which it thought was better. Unfortunately, as was the case with nuclear reactors, France was also a strong competitor with the UTDC in the field of transportation systems. Unless our federal government is seriously willing to develop competitive financial arrangements with the UTDC, our prospects for major international sales will be greatly diminished. Japan and the United Kingdom have already licensed designs for UTDC with the condition that at least 20 per cent of the contracts be supplied in Canada. I hope that it will not be the case that UTDC technology reaches overseas markets solely through sales by countries building UTDC technology under licence.

I said earlier that ICTS technology was UTDC's main stake in the future. UTDC is involved in many other activities, many of them through its wholly owned subsidiary of UTDC Research and Development. This organization was formed a year ago to take over the research and development of ground transportation components and systems and for the generation of technological advances in related fields. A major program currently under way is the articulated light rail vehicle, or ALRV. Simply put, it is a stretched-out streetcar which bends in the middle. The ALRV prototype has advanced to the assembly stage and it is hoped that it will undergo testing on the light rail track test facility at Kingston by June of this year.

A major feature of the articulated vehicle program has been to rely on the experience and design gained from the Canadian light rail vehicle program. The interchangeable spare parts and technology serve to reduce both the costs and the risks. To those members who have now only taken an interest in UTDC, I would point out that the Canadian light rail vehicle is Toronto's new streetcar.

The throne speech mentioned that in the long term Ontario would have to change to an economy based primarily on renewable and essentially inexhaustible energy sources, particularly hydrogen. Ontario's BILD program is backing research into alternative transportation fuels. UTDC is also involved with six of them. During 1980, UTDC conducted a preliminary study into the use of hydrogen as an alternate fuel. It recommended to the Ministry of Energy that research be conducted into the use of hydrogen for public rail and transit operations. Last year UTDC signed a contract to look into the technical and economic feasibility of using hydrogen as a fuel in the future of urban transit. Just as Ontario showed foresight in developing ICTS almost a decade ago, Ontario is now getting ready to deal with the future by looking into alternative fuels.

On Monday of last week I was in Kingston for the ground-breaking ceremony for the new VentureTrans Manufacturing Inc. building. The weather was cold and the ground was hard, but in any event it was a ground-breaking ceremony in every sense of the phrase. VentureTrans Manufacturing Inc. is 50 per cent owned by UTDC and, as its name suggests, it will be responsible for the manufacture of the new vehicle technology and will be creating many skilled jobs in the Kingston area.

The Urban Transportation Development Corp. has demonstrated that it is clearly on the track leading into the future. I believe most members, including those on the other side of this chamber, will agree with me that UTDC's work has shown that once again Canadians can be world leaders in a highly technological field if only given the chance.

The throne speech also announced that the government of Ontario will step in to reduce the hardship and inconvenience that hundreds of commuters will face when the federal government withdraws Via Rail services north and east of Toronto on September 7. The federal government is doing this on the pretext that the lines involved are commuter lines and not intercity lines and therefore should be looked after by the province.

While this is the case for some of the affected towns, it is by no means true for all the communities that face the loss of Via Rail service. GO rail and bus service is capable of taking up only certain portions of the routes which are soon to be lost. The situation has not been helped by the federal government's intention to charge GO Transit a substantial fee for the use of tracks which are now under the same federal jurisdiction and which the same federal government is abandoning.

I am sure members of this House will be interested to know that in the area of GO Transit, although we are using CN and in some minor cases CP Rail rights of way, we are paying a profit percentage to Canadian National for the use of its trackage. How it is that one level of government is paying pure profit to another absolutely escapes me. Nevertheless, GO Transit will provide rail service as far north as Bradford, with GO bus service continuing north to Barrie. As announced, this will only be an interim measure. I can only hope that between now and September 7 the federal government will reconsider either its decision to close the lines in question or the amounts that it is ready to charge the province for the use of tracks and maintenance.

3:50 p.m.

I would like to continue in the field of transportation for a few more moments. I am pleased that the wellbeing of the auto industry is one of the priorities of this government, as cited in the speech from the throne. The motor vehicle industry in Ontario is now at a critical point and crucial decisions must be taken by all major parties involved in this industry. The appropriate course of action must include arrangements to ensure that foreign manufacturers cannot continue to sell cars and trucks in Canada without becoming involved through investments or parts purchasing in this country. In the short term, the number of imported cars brought into Canada must be restricted in order to allow our industry sufficient time to innovate and become more competitive again.

The $25-million auto parts technology centre to be built in St. Catharines will be a first step to better its competitive performance by upgrading its technological capacity to improve products and production lines. The new centre will act as a focal point for bringing together the interests of parts suppliers, automobile companies, universities, research organizations and the government to ensure the long-term competitiveness of the auto parts industry. The centre will promote and stimulate technological development in the industry and it will serve as a focus for the dissemination of information on international markets and the future trends and developments in auto parts.

We can see that the pace of technological change is accelerating the heralding of major changes in traditional methods of communication, production and education. For example, within a generation we may be able to communicate with fellow stamp collectors or chess players in New Zealand by way of the home computer. By the year 2000 it is projected that computers will be found in one out of every three North American homes. Computers already link banks, stores and government offices. They monitor home energy use, do family taxes and remind their owners of upcoming appointments. Their potential is virtually unlimited.

High-technology industries are growing almost three times faster than low-technology industries. Employment in high-technology firms is expanding nearly nine times faster than employment in low-technology companies. Microelectronics, biotechnology and robotics not only have their own potential manufacturing markets, but also promise productivity improvements in existing industries. Ontario plans to strengthen its research and development efforts and to apply the results to successful commercial ventures, aware that increased research expenditures mean long-term jobs and exports. The sum of $300 million has been earmarked for BILD's technology component. Funding is critical because new high-technology enterprises tend to be high risk ventures requiring long-term sustained financing before they become viable.

Also in the area of high technology, I think the Premier demonstrated remarkable foresight in 1965 when he was Minister of Education and introduced the Department of Education Act giving effect to his concept of community colleges of applied arts and technology. The graduates of these colleges have served Ontario well in providing the labour force needed for our growing high-technology industries. There are at present more than 76,000 students in Ontario's 22 community colleges. Nearly 17,000 of these students are in programs concerned with high technology, such as civil and electrical engineering, electronics, instrumentation, mechanical design, quality control, materials testing and control systems, to name only a few of the available courses.

The benefits of our high-technology industry in the next few years will affect every aspect of our business, industry and leisure time. Every home with a telephone and a television will have the potential to gain access to many predicted benefits of this rapidly developing industry. Ontario is at present the leader in Canada in its commitment to the development and integration of high-technology and related industries into our economic fabric.

There is little doubt that times are changing. Ontario, with a strong industrial base and favourable business climate, is well equipped to keep pace. We are rich in the creativity, skills and business acumen needed to capitalize on the existing new markets now opening up.

However, home owners in this country today have their backs to the wall for a wide variety of reasons. One area which deeply concerns me relates to the health of thousands of people in Canada who have homes equipped now with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Taking this problem back to its well-intentioned beginnings, we discovered, to no one's surprise, that the major culprit in all of this was the federal government. Fifteen months after they announced a temporary ban on UFFI, we have seen nothing but the most careless and offhand response to help those families who must try to live with the effects of formaldehyde gas on a daily basis.

The great Ottawa assistance plan is a complete insult to those people who have had to pay thousands of dollars to remove the foam from their homes. But more than this, there are the human costs to consider. What price is Ottawa willing to pay to compensate these people? Five thousand dollars. What about the home owners who are ineligible for this assistance? They receive nothing. What about the diminished value of those houses? No one wants to buy them.

In the past months there has been a deafening silence on the question of legal and moral responsibility for the approval and promotion of UFFI under the Canadian home insulation program. The evidence indicates that long before the approval was given, the experts recognized the instability of the insulation, and this was compounded by onsite installation conditions that could not be properly regulated. It is amazing to think that despite these uncertainties, approval was given. It makes me wonder when this sort of carelessness is going to happen again.

Where do we go from here? Clearly Ottawa must do more than it is doing now. Despite attempts to point the finger at everyone else, no one has been fooled. The present assistance plan is inadequate for most home owners. Better compensation is needed if UFFI home owners are to achieve the peace of mind and body they so well deserve and are being denied.

In the critical area of housing, our government stands on its record of providing affordable accommodation for every household in this province. But let us not lose sight of the principal cause of today's housing crisis. If the federal government continues to support the Bank of Canada's policy on interest rates, no amount of assistance, subsidy or support from any government will stem the tide of contraction now being experienced in the housing industry.

The need for leadership cannot be more eloquently expressed than by the figures describing the housing industry's present state. At the end of 1981, only 100,000 housing units were under construction across Canada, compared to 200,000 only four years ago. Housing completions today are down by almost one third from only two years ago. Of particular concern to the construction trades, housing starts have dropped from 225,000 last spring to fewer than 140,000 today, a decline of almost 40 per cent.

These figures describe quite starkly the grim picture that exists for most housing suppliers in this province and indeed this country. They are also a telling indictment of the federal government's interest-rate policy and the subsequent pressures that policy has put on mortgage rates right across this land. Perhaps no quantity of statistics can aptly describe the heartbreak and misery of home owners and potential home buyers in Ontario. Here the hardship is both more subtle and potentially more destructive to the fabric of our society.

Ontario has an obligation to help those areas of the industry where we can be of assistance. Of course, we cannot do the job of Ottawa. The major problem affecting the housing market today is the Bank of Canada's interest-rate policy. This is and will remain solely under the domain of the federal government.

As I stand here today asking my colleagues to join with me in moving the speech from the throne towards the goals it has set out for ourselves and our province, as I watch in disappointment as Ottawa continually fails to provide the necessary economic leadership, I realize our government is forced to act. The housing measures announced in the throne speech indicate our willingness. We will undertake "a wide range of initiatives ... to increase the stock of rental housing, particularly in the area in and around Metropolitan Toronto."

4 p.m.

The government's record on innovative and effective housing programs is already the cause for envy right across Canada. For example, the $12-million Ontario neighbourhood improvement program was announced in February 1981, following the unilateral cancellation by the federal government of a similar project, the community services contribution program.

The Ontario rental construction loan program subsidized the construction of more than 16,500 rental units in this province last year. At a cost of more than $100 million and creating almost 58,000 person-years of construction employment, the ORCL program brings into sharp focus the commitment of this government to provide affordable rental accommodation in this province.

The $300-million budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, a full 16 per cent increase over last year's, is a clear message to Ottawa that this government will simply not let housing accommodation soar beyond the reach of ordinary citizens.

An area of great concern to me, to the government and indeed to all Ontarians, whether they live in the city or in the country, is the strength and viability of our agricultural community. We all can take a great deal of pride in the co-operative and responsible dialogue which has been ongoing between the Ontario government and the farmers of this province for many years.

The federal government's high-interest-rate policy coupled with the rapidly rising costs of running a modern farm operation have gravely threatened the income security of our farmers and the viability of their operations. With federal aid programs all but strangled in red tape and funding shortages, Ontario has acted quickly and decisively with some $130 million in emergency payments, much of which has gone to the hardest-hit beef and hog producers.

Our farmers have needed help; they have received it and will continue to do so. With the expansion of the farm adjustment assistance program loan guarantees, payment deferrals and interest-rate reductions will be available to even more of our farmers in the coming months.

In my view, the importance of consumer awareness cannot be overstated in our efforts to replace the $600 million in fruit and vegetables we import annually. The successful Foodland Ontario program will continue to make substantial gains by helping our consumers to identify easily home-grown produce in the supermarkets.

The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development's $20-million fruit and vegetable storage and processing program, by encouraging growers and processors to expand their operations, will also do much to extend the marketing season for Ontario perishable foods and reduce our import bill. In fact, a recent report prepared by the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association says almost all of the processed vegetables and as much as 30 per cent of the fresh vegetables can be replaced by domestically grown produce.

The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in its first year of operation has allocated some $10 million to various agricultural projects. A sound investment of $1.75 million has been made through the purchase of high-technology equipment for our six agricultural colleges, to educate the farmers of tomorrow in new methods and techniques.

Our young farmers are learning how they can simplify and streamline finance management on the farm by using computers for accounting, record keeping, budgeting and marketing information. They are learning about new laboratory techniques and advanced farm machinery design. In short, they are learning how to harness high technology to increase their productivity and efficiency.

I could go on at some length in that area, emphasizing this government's strong and enduring commitment to the wellbeing of our agricultural community.

We in Ontario are extremely fortunate to have an abundant supply of nutritious food, in comparison to many other parts of the world, and it is available to us at extremely reasonable prices. We must not take this fact for granted, and we must continue -- and I know we will -- with our strong tradition of consultation and co-operation with our farming community, so we may respond in difficult times such as these with support and assistance where and when it is necessary.

I am very honoured to be part of this government, which worked so hard during the constitutional talks to negotiate a constitutional package for all Canadians. On November 5 -- we all remember it well; it was a historic date -- after 54 years of trying to achieve agreement on patriation and an amending formula, we finally made a breakthrough. What is perhaps most significant is that despite our regional differences and the inflexible positions on various issues, we reached agreement in the spirit of true and genuine co-operation and compromise.

The Canada Bill has now passed third reading in the British Parliament, where you and I, Mr. Speaker, have had some experience with the proceedings. It contains provisions for patriation and an amending formula to ensure that all changes in the constitution are made in Canada, and for a charter of rights and freedoms. This charter will guarantee fundamental freedoms, which include freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of the press and freedom of peaceful assembly. It could not be much more peaceful than it is today.

It guarantees democratic rights, which comprise the right to vote and the right to stand for political office, and mobility rights, which enshrine the rights of every Canadian to move freely from one province to another, to establish a residence and to seek a job elsewhere, anywhere in this country.

It guarantees legal rights, which include among them the right to life, liberty and security and the right to equality before the law, and nondiscrimination rights, which protect citizens from discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or marital, mental or physical disability.

I am pleased that a consensus was reached last November with respect to section 28, which guarantees the rights and freedoms in the charter equally to men and women. I am also pleased that section 34, which guarantees the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of our native people, was included in the constitutional package.

This fine charter, along with the Ontario Human Rights Code, will guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms deserved by the people of this province. I am convinced it will result in a more open and humane community.

Our Canada Bill also includes the entrenchment of the principle of equalization. The redistribution of wealth among the richer and poorer provinces is essential if all Canadians are to continue to be provided with a reasonable level of public services.

The protection of provincial jurisdiction over natural resources is also entrenched in the constitutional package, thus guaranteeing provinces far more control over their own resources.

We have before us a constitutional package of which we can be proud. After 114 years, Canada has achieved nationhood. I am deeply disappointed, as I think all of this House is, that Quebec is not part of that historic agreement. But I am convinced the people of Quebec will be treated fairly, particularly as our Premier has promised to continue to work towards bringing Quebec into the constitutional consensus. He is equally committed to the full participation at the next constitutional conference of our aboriginal people in the definition and entrenchment of their rights within our constitution.

Like my colleagues here and Canadians across this nation, I look forward to the day in the very near future when we can celebrate with joy and pride the patriation of the Canadian constitution.

Just last week, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) announced that hospital funding would be increased by 12 per cent to a record $3.2 billion. Our financial support of hospitals alone represents the highest single budgetary expenditure we have.

Despite the fact that economic conditions are difficult, the people of Ontario demand a good health care system. In fact, there are never-ending demands on our health care system, and it is up to government, the hospitals, the doctors and the patients to take the best, most flexible approaches that can be found to utilize our existing resources.

There is room for improvement and innovation. In my riding, Scarborough General Hospital is undergoing major renovations to the emergency and ambulatory care departments. These facilities will be expanded and updated by early 1983. The Ministry of Health is contributing to both the capital and operating costs of this project under a unique deferred-payment funding project.

A CAT scanner has just recently been approved there, and the ministry has paid some of the operating costs for the 1981-82 fiscal year. CAT scanners are not cheap to operate or to purchase, and as medical equipment becomes more sophisticated the price tag gets higher. In the long run, the only sensible way to contain costs, and to improve people's health, is to spread the message of health education to everyone.

People are not succumbing so much from communicable diseases as they are from stress- induced diseases of the heart and the other major killer, cancer. Many people contribute to their lack of wellbeing by the nature of their lifestyle. In doing so, they are adding to the demand for and the cost of health care.

4:10 p.m.

The initiatives outlined in the throne speech give concrete evidence of the directions we will be taking in cancer detection and treatment, health promotion aimed at our youngsters and the vital life-support skills for both the general public and especially our ambulance personnel.

I am convinced the reason our health care system is successful is that the people working for it are dedicated to giving their best and coming up with new ideas and suggestions. This government has always been willing to listen and to respond whenever possible. We will continue to support our health care system in the bad times as well as in the good times. Rumours of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.

During the year that I have sat in this House as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere I have spoken out on many issues of concern to my constituents -- issues that I believe in strongly, such as the seatbelt legislation for young people and the need to pursue the Urban Transportation Development Corp. venture.

One source of enormous gratification for me since becoming a member of this House is knowing that our Progressive Conservative government is interested in the opinions and beliefs of its back-benchers and takes them to heart. Everyone in the class of 1981 who joined this Legislature on our side of the House has the opportunity for full, viable participation in this House and within our caucus.

The government of this province is responsible for the needs of its citizens and the views of their elected representatives in this House. The speech from the throne reflects the government's willingness to adjust to today's circumstances and limitations without ever losing sight of our abilities and potentials.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am proud to move the adoption of the speech from the throne. It offers wise and realistic direction in these uncertain and challenging times.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I stood to address this assembly for the first time one afternoon last May as the newly elected member for Nipissing. I was both proud and humble to participate in my first debate in this chamber. At that time it was my pleasant duty to join my colleagues on both sides of the House in replying to the speech from the throne.

I am no less proud and no less humble today than I was last May to have the opportunity again to address this assembly. I consider it an honour and a privilege to have been charged with the responsibility of seconding the motion presented by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

As we sat in this chamber last Tuesday for the opening of the Second Session of the 32nd Parliament of the province of Ontario and listened to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor read the speech from the throne, some of us reflected on what we were doing at this time a year ago. Few need to be reminded that we were in the final week or so of a winter election campaign, a campaign that culminated in our government being re-elected by the people of Ontario with a majority mandate.

Since the major plank in our election platform was the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, our return to majority status in this House proved, I believe, that the people of Ontario recognize the need for this BILD industrial strategy for the province. Not only did they recognize the need, but also they were willing to give us a strong mandate so that this strategy could be implemented; and I believe we have implemented it.

Already $760 million has been committed for projects over the next five years. In this fiscal year alone, $145 million has gone towards BILD initiatives. In the fiscal year ahead, $180 million has been allocated for what I believe are innovative and much-needed projects that will encourage long-term economic development in all regions of this great province.

As a representative from northern Ontario, I am acutely aware of the need for initiatives to boost northern local economy. Consequently, I have been most gratified, as have the people I represent, to witness the launching of BILD projects in the north generally and in Nipissing in particular.

Before I talk about some of the exciting projects that are being undertaken in the north, I would like to take a few minutes to mention some of the things that have been accomplished in Nipissing in the past 12 months as a result of this government's progressive programs and policies.

It has been highly satisfying to me, a new member, to see projects which were badly needed in the communities I represent get under way through funding from the various ministries, especially when I have worked closely with the ministries concerned and local councils and groups in the riding to facilitate matters.

We would all agree that Wintario is an excellent way of providing hundreds of communities throughout Ontario with cultural and recreational facilities and opportunities that otherwise might not be there. The community spirit that is fostered through local fund-raising drives to match Wintario contributions for community projects is positive proof of the "we-all-win" philosophy behind our provincial lottery.

Wintario capital grants approved in the past year undoubtedly will enrich the lives of the people of North Bay, for example, by enabling an addition to be constructed at the city's YMCA complex, renovations to be undertaken at Memorial Gardens, improvements to be carried out at the Doublerinks Arenas, as well as general upgrading of North Bay's parks and recreational facilities.

The needs of the chronically ill in my area have been of great concern to me since I was elected. The Ontario Ministry of Health's recent decision to have a chronic care program in operation in Nipissing this year is a very positive step towards meeting those needs.

At the same time, I am seeking to secure an increase in the number of nursing home beds in Nipissing so that the hospitals in the West Nipissing and North Bay areas will be able to free up spaces for more active treatment beds, thereby further improving the high standard of health care services already enjoyed by Nipissing residents.

As the proportion of senior citizens in our population increases, the needs of the elderly will become more and more a priority. In keeping with our government's commitment to expand, renovate and, where necessary, replace homes for the aged, the Cassellholme Home for the Aged in North Bay received funding from the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services to meet 50 per cent of the cost of a badly needed upgrading project. This is just one of many such projects that have been made possible across the province as a result of the $40 million which the ministry earmarked for this program last March.

As well, the Ministry of Community and Social Services contributed to the cost of producing the Nipissing District Children's Services Directory. This bilingual guide, prepared by the Nipissing Children's Services Advisory Committee, is intended to assist both families seeking services and service providers looking for the appropriate agency or program for their clients. Planning for and co-ordinating effective children's services at the local level is a primary objective of our government, and the publication of this directory is a very practical and essential step towards meeting this goal in Nipissing.

While my efforts on behalf of the people of Nipissing have yielded tangible results such as these, I have experienced equal satisfaction from my responsibilities here at Queen's Park. Admittedly, I approached my duties in the past session as chairman of the standing committee on resources development with some trepidation. We had a challenging task before us.

The proposed amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code were the most extensive and comprehensive in its 19-year history. They were also some of the most controversial, as we were to discover during the committee's public hearings. In all, close to 200 submissions were received. Without doubt this public input, combined with a measure of constructive criticism from within, resulted in some fairly substantial changes being made to the original bill.

Chairing the committee this past fall was a valuable education for a relatively inexperienced rookie from the north. Above all, it reinforced my inherent faith in the parliamentary system of government. Here we had an all-party committee of the Legislature whose members, in a responsive and responsible manner, were able to strike a workable compromise on perhaps the most far-reaching piece of legislation ever to be introduced in this province.

The fact that the revised Bill 7 went on to receive unanimous consent in this chamber is testimony, I believe, to the fine spirit of co-operation which is possible when all those in this House put aside their partisanship to work together for the common good.

It was immensely satisfying for me to hear in the throne speech that the Ontario Human Rights Code will be proclaimed in June, marking the 20th anniversary of Ontario's original human rights code. I am sure all of us here today would agree that the creation of the revised code was a remarkable achievement and one of which we should all be justifiably proud.

4:20 p.m.

The throne speech before this House is the embodiment of our government's confidence and pride in the Ontario of tomorrow. The strategy which we have chosen to follow will continue to solidify Ontario's place among the truly great societies on earth -- a land in which to live, work, raise a family and productively contribute to the affluence we now enjoy.

Yet I am disturbed. I feel that one cannot help but sense in this country a change of mood. I am reminded of the comments of a young constituent of mine who recently said he could not help but think our nation is wasting a raw potential of which most other countries on earth can only dream.

I am profoundly distressed by comments such as these, and I feel a strong desire briefly to mention one factor which I believe is a contributing influence. I draw the members' attention to the federal government's budget of November 12. No subject concerns the citizens of Ontario more than the shape and direction our economy will take in the months and years to come. But consider for a moment the theme. The theme for Minister of Finance Allan MacEachen's budget is "restraint, equity and renewal." Let us investigate how he has set about accomplishing this.

For the 1981-82 fiscal year, Ottawa plans to raise approximately $54 billion in revenue. That is indeed a huge sum of money, but it will not come close to matching the $68 billion they plan on spending. It is a sobering thought that the federal deficit now exceeds $13 billion, more than a quarter of Ottawa's entire revenues, and $555 for every man, woman and child they govern. That is the restraint part.

Equity: On budget night, Mr. MacEachen committed the government "to maintaining a fundamental sense of fairness in our society. As evidence of that dedication, a major overhaul of the personal tax system is to be proposed." Equity? A major overhaul? I question whether the following policies are fair to the individuals of this country whose hard work and resourcefulness have created the prosperity that abounds around us and is disappearing.

At a time when Ottawa has abandoned any semblance of an anti-inflation policy, the budget disallows the deduction of interest on money borrowed to purchase registered retirement savings plans, one of the few savings programs that insulated individuals from inflation. Moreover, a limit now will be placed on the amount of a retiring allowance that can be reinvested tax-free in an RRSP.

At a time when workers will be squeezed even tighter by this budget, the government now dictates that all job termination payments are fully taxable. Is it not ironic that the federal government fired 13,000 Via Rail workers on November 15, when three days earlier it had announced that severance pay had become taxable? For those who have lost their jobs, that is the federal equity, and I believe it is an insult added to a very insensitive injury.

At a time when farmers need help and need it now, the federal budget promises assistance to as few as 250 of them. Anyone in this country who thinks there are only 250 farmers in trouble simply is not listening.

Finally, at a time when bankruptcies by small business are accelerating, the budget has devised a tax of 12.5 per cent levied on dividends distributed by small business corporations. The Ontario Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) alluded in this House to the federal budget changes in the depreciation of new capital expenditures, further discouraging small business development.

This is not equity; this is not striking at the rich for the attainment of economic equality. We witness in the federal budget a contrived thievery of the rights and the dignity of the middle class of this province. Let me say without equivocation that it is this very class whose determination and ingenuity will contribute in large measure to the future of our economy and its progress. That budget has stifled investment and penalized those who would invest in job-creating new ventures.

Perhaps we should stop bothering ourselves looking to the federal government for economic leadership. Perhaps the opposition comments I have heard in the last few days are correct; maybe we should forget about them altogether. Surely that is the message which the budget most ably communicates.

Gratuitous restraint programs, unjust equity policies and a directionless development strategy -- it is these that symbolize federal budgetary initiatives. I might be willing to leave it at that were I not a Progressive Conservative and were I not proud of it.

We in Ontario who are concerned about government's management responsibility recognize the need for social justice and economic direction. We take that commitment seriously. By confining myself to the context of the federal budget's themes of restraint, equity and renewal, let me briefly contrast Ottawa's directionless navigation with a government that keeps its promises.

Between 1975 and 1981, the number of civil servants working for the Ontario government has declined by almost 5,000 people, a reduction of almost six per cent. The fact is that the government takes less each year out of the provincial economy to finance its operation.

In 1977, the province's deficit as a percentage of the gross provincial product was 2.2 per cent; in 1981, it was 0.8 per cent. In 1977, total spending as a percentage of gross provincial product was 16.7 per cent; in 1981, it was 15.5 per cent. The government has attempted to bridge the equity gap in this province.

Mr. Stokes: How are things in Sturgeon Falls?

Mr. Harris: Sturgeon Falls is doing very well.

Many of the fiscal programs announced in the last session were designed to stimulate sectors and regions in Ontario which bear an extraordinary burden because of weakening international economic circumstances. I could talk about the grant to the Sturgeon Falls pulp and paper operation. We could divert to that. I could get to that later on.

Mr. Kolyn: Don't let him break your train of thought.

Mr. Harris: Thank you. For example, the cash rebate program on automobiles to assist an industry that employs one out of every six workers in this province was an attempt to assist with equity. I was in this House when that was roundly booed by the opposition. It was one of the most successful short-term interventions in the past year made by any government to assist an ailing industry. There was also $37 million spent on emergency beef programs last summer and the $20 million cow-calf assistance program announced last fall.

Finally, let me say a couple of words about Ontario's strategy for economic renewal. As a member of the government party, I say with pride that this province possesses one of the most innovative economic strategies of any jurisdiction in North America. Of course, I refer to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development initiative which formed the backbone of our election platform last March.

Mr. Breaugh: Put a chuckle in after that.

Mr. Harris: My friend laughed at it during the election campaign, and he can laugh at it now. Based on the results of that day, I proudly claim the people of this province recognize the sincere commitment to reindustrialization this government has made.

The Ontario government has pledged $614 million in BILD support. The private sector and municipal governments have co-operated in the BILD strategy with a further $275 million, and yet Ottawa has contributed less than $32 million to BILD projects.

When the government of Ontario shows so much courage and conviction in restraining inflation-causing government spending that the Quebec Minister of Finance acknowledges our commendable record of fiscal responsibility with the words, "But then they" -- that is, Ontario -- "started cutting back three or four years ago"; when the history of Ontario's Progressive Conservative government points to universal health and education subsidies, support for small business and farmers; when this government stands on a platform of ambitious, exciting development projects aimed at economic renewal, then would we not be entitled to reveal Ottawa's budget for the farce that it is?

4:30 p.m.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: I am sure he will hear of it. I assert that we must stand together today both to approve the timely measures introduced in Tuesday's throne speech and once again to issue a collective plea to Ottawa. This government, the province and its people cannot carry the whole load. We need a break from Ottawa's harsh budget and we must work together to bring about the necessary changes.

Turning more specifically to the needs and the ambition of northern Ontario, now --

Mr. Stokes: That's what I was waiting for.

Mr. Harris: That is why the member is here. I am proud to point out to this House that our government is engaged in a long and costly struggle to provide the north with economic prosperity and stability, with job security and with the social and personal amenities that southern Ontarians have taken for granted. Our government is committed to providing assistance until the economic and social gap between the north and south has been closed -- in other words, to create equity between those two different regions.

Northern Ontario's unique geographic, economic and social situation is recognized in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program and in the priorities that have been established by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Affairs. These priorities include those responding to local initiatives to improve the economy of northern Ontario and the quality of life in its communities and regions by encouraging mining exploration and development; assisting the forest industry; improving air, road and rail transportation systems, and by helping to provide for the special health and fire protection needs of isolated communities. Helping communities in the north attain social and economic development and self-sufficiency is a major priority of this government.

Mr. Stokes: I think that was said about four years ago.

Mr. Harris: It might have been last year when I was speaking.

Mr. Kolyn: I did not think the member had been here that long.

Mr. Harris: Through the northern community services and development program, for example, assistance is provided to promote industrial development, such as the civic centre project at Hornepayne, and to provide municipal infrastructures, such as water and sewage systems.

Canadians, and northerners in particular, have been referred to as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Perhaps it is time to recognize and capitalize on what we do best. The north has been richly endowed with resource wealth, particularly in mineral wealth in the Sudbury basin and giant forest stands in the northwest. These riches provide direct employment for more than one in 10 working northerners. Last year the Ontario government provided $150 million to provincial pulp and paper companies. This is money that is being invested in mill modernization, pollution abatement, energy generation or conservation.

Mr. Stokes: Tell the people in Kenora that; they are laying people off there.

Mr. Harris: MacMillan Bloedel in Sturgeon Falls received one of these grants.

Mr. Stokes: How many did they lay off?

Mr. Harris: I have to tell you that the people of Sturgeon Falls are very appreciative of the assistance that was provided.

Mr. Foulds: How many new permanent jobs?

Mr. Harris: How many permanent jobs? Four hundred permanent jobs were saved in that community.

Mr. Speaker: Just never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, if that party is saying it would like to let all the existing jobs go and just create new ones, I am not sure where that leads us --

Mr. Speaker: Just continue with your speech, please.

Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is money that will keep our pulp and paper companies competitive on an international basis while ensuring job stability.

I was pleased with our government's BILD announcement last month to share the cost of a $10-million federal-provincial employment support program to assist workers affected by the current slowdown in the lumber and forestry industry.

Mr. Foulds: Why are you knocking the feds if it is a joint program?

Mr. Harris: The feds seem to get along well with those in northern Ontario. Under this new program, companies in the forest industry will be offered funds for equipment and out-of-pocket costs to propose special projects in forestry improvement. The projects will include silvicultural activities, nursery development, forest-access-road construction, fire-hazard reduction and forest protection.

Mr. Stokes: Are the feds going to help there?

Mr. Harris: Yes, they were finally convinced to come in and help. I mentioned that. In addition to the employment opportunities, this program will provide many benefits to our northern communities. Similarly, the special employment initiatives mentioned in the throne speech to upgrade and accelerate the construction of resource access roads will certainly create hundreds of new jobs in the north.

I am particularly pleased about two things. One, I am particularly pleased with this one small example -- it is a ray of light -- of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to assist in northern Ontario. Two, I am also pleased that this is a short-term measure to save jobs. These jobs are productive. These projects are ones that will assist the forestry industries when demand for their products returns.

Highlighted for the year will be the construction of the 40-mile extension to the Vermilion River road, which will provide access to timber stands or crown land north of Sioux Lookout. This road will also provide opportunities for forest regeneration and cutover land formerly accessible only by water. Last year work was completed on the Manitou road between Fort Frances and Dryden, an important social and economic link for that region.

Mr. Foulds: Have you been over it?

Mr. Harris: I had a look at it last summer.

Mr. Foulds: Did you fly over it?

Mr. Harris: Yes, I did. Another important industry in the north is mining, which employs some 40,000 workers. For the last fiscal year, the total value of mineral production in this province was $4.68 billion. Over the next five years, BILD is providing incentives to make certain this key industry remains competitive and profitable. In northeastern Ontario our government is involved in the largest gold mine ever to open in North America. I am referring to the Detour Lake mine under development 90 miles northeast of Cochrane. Once this mine opens in 1983, it may very well turn out to be the largest gold reserve in this country.

Given the importance of our mining sector, I am particularly pleased that our government has committed itself to co-operating with the federal government in developing a program for industrial mineral development. Our government's commitment to the resource sector can also be seen in the recent BILD announcement to establish a $19-million resource machinery development centre in Sudbury. I am sorry some of my colleagues across the way from Sudbury are not here today to hear this. In Ontario we have a strong mining industry and a strong pulp and paper and forest products industry. Yet we have never before maximized the potential to supply this sector with Canadian-made technology and equipment.

The import penetration in the resource machinery sector is now about 75 per cent of the total Canadian market. In 1979 the national deficit on resource machinery equipment stood at more than $1.4 billion. This centre will be a first step in attempting to reverse this situation. The new centre will ensure that our national resource sector continues to provide strong support for northern economic growth. This centre is particularly important to my area of the province. Its research and development initiatives and foreign market assistance will assist many small manufacturing companies that have started up in the past several years in the North Bay area.

Through government initiative and private initiative, our northern communities are experiencing rapid growth and transformation. Contrary to the negative comments often made by the honourable members from the opposition benches, many of our northern communities are in a very healthy position. Sault Ste. Marie, one of my northern neighbours, is experiencing remarkable growth. It has a stable economic base with sound prospects for the future.

At a recent meeting, I was pleased to receive details from my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) about that area's economy. The healthy Algoma steel industry is largely responsible for stimulating growth in the region and Algoma's record is impressive. In each of the past two decades Algoma has increased raw steel production by approximately one million tons.

Algoma Steel has announced it will spend about $1.2 billion over the next five years on various expansions and modernizations of its facilities. About 880 full-time jobs are expected to be created and an average of 1,000 full-time construction jobs will be created for each of the five construction years.

In the longer term it has been estimated by Algoma that by 1990 new employment may increase by an additional 1,120 jobs for a total of 2,000 new jobs by the end of the decade.

Looking at Algoma's record, we should feel proud of our steel industry and proud of the initiative taken by the private sector to encourage economic growth.

Economic development in the north has also been encouraged by the Northern Ontario Development Corp. The services provided by NODC are aimed at direct job creation and generation of additional employment in supply and service industries. Through a variety of loan programs, economic development in the north is planned, directed and encouraged to produce a beneficial impact on all regions of northern Ontario. In 1980-81 alone, 119 NODC loans amounting to approximately $17.2 million were approved.

To promote industry and tourism in my riding, last November our government announced the West Nipissing area was chosen as a pilot project for the community development corporation program in northern Ontario. Under the BILD program, the West Nipissing Municipal Association is eligible to receive up to $100,000 a year for a three-year period to assist local entrepreneurs through provision of counselling, technical expertise and feasibility studies to establish and expand local business enterprises. This is another example of a BILD initiative assisting small businesses and enterprises to help themselves. That is the way we like to do it in the north.

As I stated earlier, our government's goal is to reduce the inequities between the northern and southern parts of the province. Closing the gap requires not only economic development, but also efficient transportation and communication links between the north and the south, thus reducing the physical distance which exists between the two regions.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: It might have taken some time, but it took me a while to get down to Queen's Park.

Currently, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission provides a rail, air and ferry transportation network linking northern communities with each other as well as with communities in southern Ontario. These services have gone a long way in closing the physical gap between northern and southern Ontario.

Ontario is a province of great beauty. Whether we live in the north or the south, tourism represents not only an important source of revenue, but it affords us the opportunity to understand the serenity and majesty of our heritage. Tourism represents the second largest industry in Ontario. Approximately half a million people are employed in the hospitality sector. As foreign travel becomes increasingly costly, more and more Ontarians, North Americans and overseas tourists are discovering our province.

The vigour and importance of this industry has been recognized with the creation of the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Despite the economic trends that have affected other sectors of our economy, tourism is booming. In order to ensure the continued growth of this sector, the government will be allocating additional funds to the tourism marketing program.

The success of the tourism marketing program is due in part to the wide range of services that are available to Ontario tourist operators. Consultants in the ministry offices provide advice and information, in-house training, market data and analysis and distribute promotional material to ensure that people are aware of the attractions available. Many of our tourists themselves are Ontarians, and in 1980 they spent seven out of 10 tourist dollars right here in their home province.

In the northern parts of the province we have spectacular natural attractions and we have a need for specialized support. The Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association works with the ministry to ensure the right approaches and incentives are made in order to maximize the resources we have available in the north. Certainly in the mid and far northern parts of the province we have unique natural attractions such as Algonquin and Killarney parks, Brent Crater in Mattawa, the Agawa Canyon and many other sights. There are also a surprising number of museums and historic attractions that draw visitors.

I am very pleased the new ministry has been created. While tourism is a vital business, it also involves an equally important element of fun, recreation and communication. Visitors to Ontario come to see our sights and in the process get to know us a little better. In the decades ahead tourism will become even more important. Higher energy costs, smaller families and more disposable income will combine to increase tourist activity in the province. Not only will there be more tourists, but recreational activity will become an increasingly important outlet in our urbanized society.

One of our biggest claims to fame has been our abundant lakes and river systems. I know all Ontarians are concerned about the present and future effects of acid rain on our fisheries and in cottage country. Ontario Hydro and this government have renewed their commitment to reduce acid gas emissions so that all of us can continue to enjoy our lakes and rivers in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I know I have spoken today at some length about the federal high-interest-rate policy in the recent federal budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: But I firmly believe these things need to be emphasized because of the severe impact they have on Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: What?

Mr. Harris: I was referring to the federal high interest rate in their recent budget. The honourable member missed that in the other exchange.

In the absence of federal economic leadership, it appears Ontario must largely go it alone. This is the environment that has been set for us and it is important the people of Ontario understand that. The federal government talked about restraints, but I see no sign of restraint in its own spending. The only major cutback was in provincial transfers, which shifted more of the burden to the provinces in areas of social services. That type of restraint does nothing to help the taxpayers across Canada. I would find those cuts more acceptable if similar restraint were shown in spending on their own federal programs.

I am very pleased with the provincial funding levels announced in the throne speech for education and health spending for 1982. They give a clear indication the Ontario government does not plan to reduce services. In fact, if it has to, it will make up the difference in the federal cutbacks. I am very pleased to note that the government will also pick up the slack in Via commuter cutbacks -- my colleague went into some detail with that today -- with increased funding for GO Transit.

The throne speech gives a clear message to Ontarians that in spite of a lack of direction from the government of Canada, the Ontario government is prepared to do everything it can within its means to see that jobs are preserved and that new jobs are created in the province.

Mr. Grande: Powers to do what? You have no power to create jobs. You are powerless.

Mr. Harris: You might learn something here. Just a minute.

The federal preoccupation with fighting inflation at the expense of jobs, at the horrible expense of failing businesses and of failing farmers, and with keeping the fight against inflation on the backs of Ontario working people, cannot be tolerated. The potential for short-term and long-term damage demands a rethinking of the federal budget. In the meantime, we all agree Ontario must do what it can to restore confidence and provide the jobs our Ontario workers need and deserve.

To conclude, it is an honour for me to rise before this Legislature and second the motion to adopt the speech from the throne. Its provisions reaffirm our commitment to the development of our full potential in our tourism, small business, agricultural, manufacturing, export and high-technology sectors.

We have all, I am sure, had occasion over the past two months to talk with our constituents. I can tell the House from my experience, and I am sure that of the other members is the same, that they are concerned about their jobs and about the future of their small-business enterprises.

This throne speech comes at a very difficult and challenging time in our history. I submit it warrants the full attention and consideration of all sides in this House.

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

The House adjourned at 4:52 p.m.