Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-06 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the first order of business calls for statements by the ministry. It is time the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) made a statement to stop the witchhunt depicted this morning in the Toronto Sun. The nursing profession in my lifetime has had a high image, but it is being destroyed by this disgusting spectacle going on today. The Attorney General should call the whole deal off.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling I would like to share with all members.

Following the discussion yesterday respecting the question of one member accusing another member of lying or making a statement which is untrue and the reference that was made to the incident of last Tuesday, April 3, during the speech of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), I have carefully examined the Hansard report of that incident.

The whole first portion of the member for Sudbury East's speech was with reference to a letter signed by Gerry M. Lougheed Jr., president of the Sudbury Progressive Conservative Association. The statement the member for Sudbury East referred to as being untrue was a statement contained in that letter, not made by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). Therefore, it was not a case of one member accusing another member of an untruth.

I have also carefully read the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) yesterday and the reply of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). It appears clear to me that when the minister used the phrase "rather than treating this as a committee matter, the honourable member has used it for the purpose of questioning the integrity of Dr. Wolfson, both in the House and with the media," he was in fact imputing an improper motive to another member.

Furthermore, in the phrase used by the member for Rainy River in his reply, "I believe some of the statements he has made are blatantly untrue," I suggest the use of the word "blatantly" makes it clear that the member was accusing the minister of a deliberate falsehood.

I must therefore ask both the minister and the member for Rainy River to withdraw the two statements I have cited.

However, having said that, and having carefully read the relevant incident in Hansard and standing order 19(d)10, which states that it is out of order if a member charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood, it appears to me that the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has raised a very valid point.

While there is no doubt that one member may not say to another member, "You are a liar" or "That is a lie," if he simply says, "That is untrue," it seems to me after due consideration that in the latter case it depends entirely on the context. If it is said in such a way as to imply that the member has committed a deliberate falsehood, then it is, of course, out of order. But I can conceive of occasions when one member may be referring to information which he has received and another member says, "That is untrue." He may be simply disagreeing with the statement without intending to imply that the other member is uttering a deliberate falsehood. When this expression is used, it is, in my opinion, a matter of judgement by the Speaker as to the context in which the allegation is made.

Unfortunately, the member for Rainy River is not here, but I would ask the Minister of Labour to consider what I have said, and perhaps he would wish to withdraw his statement.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in rising to withdraw it if you feel such is required. Certainly I had no intention to malign the honourable member in my remarks. In fact, I read the statement very carefully on several occasions, and it was revised numerous times before we came to a final draft, simply because I wanted to be extremely careful that we did not malign anyone. So I have no hesitation whatsoever in withdrawing my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY JUSTICE WEEK

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind all members that next week, from April 8 to 14, many communities throughout Ontario will be recognizing Community Justice Week with its special focus on the theme, "Justice for Victims: Let's Care and Share."

In this province we are beginning to witness a growing concern for the special plight of crime victims. The Community Justice Week message reflects this underlying concern. The victim justice movement reminds us all that victims have needs, rights and feelings that must seek expression and must be served.

Those who perpetrate crimes have traditionally had their rights clearly articulated and secured. Offenders can find an abundance of safeguards for their rights at every stage of the justice process. They have been ascribed a central role in our criminal justice system, and rightly so.

Justice week this year will emphasize the rights and needs of victims. Too often we have heard of victims and their families being overlooked or neglected at the time of crisis. The victim justice movement is seeking to rectify this situation.

Victims need information about the justice system and about the disposition of their cases. They may need guidance on how to use the justice system, and they may need support and understanding in coping with the after-effects of crime.

Community Justice Week 1984 is an opportunity for educational outreach at the community level in support of the victim justice movement. As a stimulus for building this new awareness and support, the Justice secretariat has encouraged community participation in local initiatives such as public forums, seminars or workshops, displays at schools, malls and libraries and other educational events. The secretariat has also developed promotional posters and brochures and will be providing province-wide media support to assist community efforts.

All citizens in this province have a role to play in the pursuit of justice. During Community Justice Week we celebrate the work of professionals and volunteers alike who are helping to promote public understanding of justice rights and services and of the need to make justice for all a co-operative, shared responsibility.

10:10 a.m.

CULTURAL AWARDS

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, this week the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists saluted members of the television and radio profession. I am sure my colleagues will be pleased to note that Dinah Christie, one of the stars of the performing arts Bicentennial Showcase, won a Nellie for best variety performer of the year.

Last week two other major cultural events of note took place: World Theatre Day celebrations and the fifth annual Canadian Black Music Awards.

The Canadian Black Music Awards has grown in size and prestige over the past five years. At the awards many talented artists were honoured, both established and emerging. Of special significance, I believe, was the honour bestowed upon singer-songwriter Dan Hill, one of Canada's internationally acclaimed artists. Dan Hill was named to the award's Hall of Fame, along with Geraldine Hunt and Jo Jo Bennett.

On Tuesday, March 27, I had the distinct privilege of introducing the Honourable Pauline McGibbon at World Theatre Day Celebrations. Dr. McGibbon presented the award established in her name by the government of Ontario in 1981.

This award, administered by the Ontario Arts Council, acknowledges the contribution of a designer, a director and a production technician in a three-year cyclical format. This being a fourth year, the cycle began again and a designer was honoured. The recipient of this year's Pauline McGibbon Award was Debra Hanson. This award consists of $5,000 from the province and a medal from the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

There were two other awards presented during this event, the Vic Polley Award and the Silver Ticket Award. All three recipients were women. It is apparent to me that women are being recognized for the increasing part they have come to play in the theatrical profession.

Art reflects life and the Canadian Black Music Awards, World Theatre Day Celebrations and the ACTRA Awards mirror the emerging self-confidence of Canadian artists. I am sure all honourable members will join me in congratulating the recipients of these awards and all those involved in making the events such successes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier about unemployment in this province. He has no doubt been briefed on the appalling statistics that have been revealed this morning about Ontario's performance with respect to unemployment. He will also recall that in the throne speech not long ago there was a proud claim that Ontario led the recovery in 1983.

However, the statistics revealed this morning by Statistics Canada show that Ontario is now leading the Canadian decline in terms of unemployment. Unemployment in Ontario rose by 14,000 to 434,000 from February to March but fell by 10,000 in the other nine provinces. Ontario's poor performance pulled the national average down.

My question to the Premier is this: Why will he not introduce immediately programs to arrest this very disturbing decline in our economic performance in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the figures and analyses them carefully, no province has had the rate of recovery of this province. While we are concerned with respect to the unemployment statistics, it is also fair to state that several thousand more people were employed in March 1984 than in March 1983.

Mr. Laughren: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is true.

If we look at the statistics, we see some encouraging signs with respect to the area of youth unemployment. While we are concerned, the fact is that Ontario has led the recovery. Obviously there are still problems the government will be addressing, but there are some problems the private sector has to address as well in its own way.

The honourable member can use all the hyperbole he wishes. He can trot out all the White Swan and Scott tissues statistics as he did yesterday. The reality is that this province is making progress in economic terms, not necessarily because of the government, although I think we have played some small part in it.

Mr. Peterson: The performance with respect to unemployment and youth unemployment is dismal. Youth unemployment figures have gone from 163,000 to 183,000, which is a jump of fully 1.7 per cent in the rate. Those are the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier will recall his famous speech when he raised great expectations at, I believe, the Empire Club not long ago. He said, "Indeed, we must ask ourselves what we are going to do about one of the most insidious hoops through which society forces young people to jump -- no jobs for the inexperienced and no jobs in which to gain that experience."

My question is a simple one. What is the Premier going to do about that insidious hoop?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition asked exactly the same questions a week or 10 days ago, if my memory serves me correctly, and in almost exactly the same terms. I am delighted to know that he was so impressed by my speech to the Empire Club. He is not always that complimentary about the speeches I make, but I certainly have mentally made note of the fact that he thought this was tremendous.

My recollection is that I said to the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion that the government would be addressing this problem. We have been addressing it with programs that we think are relevant and logical, and we will be dealing with this more extensively when the budget of this province is introduced.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, in November, in the government's prebudget paper, the Premier assured Ontario that the recovery was well under way. He talked about jobs being regained, stronger consumer spending, increases in machinery and equipment spending and strong housing starts.

Once again, our unemployment rate has surpassed 10 per cent. For youth, the rate is between 15 and 19 per cent and is rapidly approaching 20 per cent. Even more important, forecasters are now talking about weak consumer spending, falling disposable income, a fall in investment spending, plummeting housing starts and the threat of increased interest rates.

There is a fear out there, an insecurity in terms of jobs, and the Premier cannot afford to stall the budget any longer. Why is this House back with no business on the order paper? Why is the budget not brought in so we can see whether it is going to add to that insecurity or start dealing with the insecurity that is out there in the public?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the programs which we think have been helpful to the recovery are obviously still in place. The budget will be coming in the relatively near future. I have not analysed the figures perhaps as carefully as the honourable member, but my recollection is that the seasonally adjusted rate has not exceeded 10 per cent; it is 9.4 per cent.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier has a good memory for things that he thinks serve his interests, but he has no understanding of the real figures in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: He just selectively quotes stuff if he thinks it is going to serve his purpose, when he does not have any understanding. I just never cease to be amazed how he --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Let us look at the real figures. In Sudbury, unemployment is up by 3,000 over last month; in London, it is up by more than 3,000 over last month; in Hamilton, it is up by more than 4,000 over last month; in Thunder Bay, it is up 1,000; and in Windsor, it is up by more than 5,000. Those are real figures.

Why wait for the artificial date of a budget, the timing of which has nothing to do with addressing the real problems? Given the fact that his Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has responded in this House on other occasions, under intense pressure from the opposition, with increasing funding, as he did on the Ontario career action program some time ago, why can the Premier not respond now to reverse this horrible change in direction that is going on in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will predict with all the accuracy I can muster that when the budget is introduced, the same member who is urging massive expenditures will be berating the Treasurer of this province on the size of the deficit.

He says I am selective. He says things in different parts of this province on single issues that are totally different from place to place. He comes to us and urges more spending, and then he goes out and preaches to the Young Presidents' Organization or his other select group that we are spending too much. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier really is silly. If he wants to stand up in this House and tell us what they are doing rather than these vague insinuations, let him go ahead and do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: He is talking out of two sides of his mouth. He is a master.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Let me address the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer will recall many discussions on the issue of unemployment, and youth unemployment specifically, in this province. He will recall that, from our vantage point, we have attempted to address this problem in very specific and concrete ways with programs which we think would go a long way towards solving these problems. I want to refresh his memory about some of his responses to our entreaties at those times.

10:20 a.m.

On October 27, for example, he said, "I have indicated several times that a good part of the exercise will commence with our fall economic statement leading up to our spring budget that will be focused on that need" -- that is, youth unemployment. Still we had no action. He went on to say, "First, let us understand that the employment picture in Ontario is improving significantly and dramatically." He was clearly under the impression that things were getting better, not worse.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: On December 9, he said:

"Youth unemployment is still too high at 14.7 per cent, but it is not twice the level. In addition, we have had some employment growth in jobs for young people in the last 12 months." In fact, the rate is up, and any trend that looked a little bit optimistic in the past has now been reversed.

Given the changes that are going on internationally as well as in this country, it is difficult to look ahead with a great deal of optimism with respect to employment prospects for young people. Will the Treasurer now introduce specific programs to address this problem rather than waiting for a month or two or whenever his budget is coming down?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity once in a while to read some of the remarks made around the province by the Leader of the Opposition. I see in one of his speeches some time last year --

Mr. Bradley: What is the minister going to do? He is the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is the answer to the question. My friend has not heard it; how does he know?

Hon. Mr. Davis: When did he become the leader of the party?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Treasurer please address himself to the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition himself has pointed out on occasion that there are "no traditional quick fixes to address what is really a structural, long-term economic dilemma." I want to associate myself with those remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, I suggest the Leader of the Opposition associate himself with the very same remarks he made.

When we talk about structural, long-term economic dilemmas, we have to keep in mind that a budget brought in next week as opposed to three or four weeks from today is not going to change the dynamics of a structural, long-term economic dilemma. To those who believe in quick fixes, there would be some sense to saying, "We will just bring in a budget tomorrow afternoon and that will solve all the problems." However, even the Leader of the Opposition knows that is not the case, and even he knows the prudent thing for a government to do is to take its time in developing its budget policies because the economic problems that are reflected in the figures we are talking about this morning are long-term structural problems, to use the member's own words.

Prudent governments will not knee-jerk to political needs but will take time to develop proper long-term economic policy. By the way, that is what will be in the budget, not the kind of short-term, very expensive political quick fixes the member has been advocating for the last few months.

Mr. Peterson: I wish the Treasurer would read all my speeches and he would be a little more enlightened than he is at the moment. I remind him that he and his administration have been around for 40 years and that the long-term structural problem is the problem of the government being around too long, if he wants to know the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: There are very specific things that can be done in the short term, in the medium term and in the long term. The Treasurer does not have a fix on any one of them, let alone an understanding of the problem.

Let me put this in very specific and human terms. A young man named Vincent Benjamin came to me with 268 letters of rejection. He is a college graduate, a bright and able young man. He was on unemployment insurance and this week he is moving on to welfare because he has no prospects.

What is the Treasurer going to do for him and thousands of others like him, particularly when the Premier in his famous speech is concerned about the cynicism that this kind of phenomenon creates in our society?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, if we are going to talk about the long-term structural problems and we want to talk about structural performance, as the member invites us to, let us look at what has happened over the past year.

In all of Canada, one of the great measures of structural strength is the number of full-time jobs that have been recovered from the depths of the recession to today. What we find is that while all the rest of Canada has recovered only 20 per cent of the full-time jobs lost during the recession, in Ontario 75 per cent of all of the full-time jobs lost have been recovered.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Members can talk about those figures, and they are important. In measuring the structural strength of our economy, that measure of recovery of full-time jobs, which reflects 75 per cent in Ontario and 20 per cent in all of the rest of Canada, is perhaps one of the most important and significant measures of the long-term economic strength in this province, which, I might say, did not accidentally arrive here over the past 40 years. It arrived because we had a government that did not go for silly, quick fixes such as the member advocates on a regular basis. It built a strong and diversified economy here which has allowed that recovery to occur.

That is what we are going to continue to do in spite of the member's invitation to spend, as he has advocated we do, $100 million to create 14,000 jobs when last year we spent $100 million to create 100,000 jobs.

Finally, might I recommend, so the member will know how to handle his --

Mr. Peterson: Do you want me to lie on my back and be trampled over?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition should not do that. It could be dangerous to his health.

In regard to the question he raised about a particular constituent, has he suggested to his constituent that he go to a youth employment counselling centre, of which there are 30, or is he opposed to those?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to leave that on the record and say that the youth employment counselling centres are something the Leader of the Opposition has said he supports. He went down to the Youth Employment Service, one of the best ones in the province, and embarrassed himself when they said they did not like his programs. They are laughing today at the suggestion that this person whom he cares about should go to a youth employment counselling centre. Which way is the Leader of the Opposition going today?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question of the Treasurer. I believe he will be aware that a considerable amount of money has been put into Sudbury in the last couple of years for short-term, make-work projects. Is he aware of the figures, according to the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, showing that in the first 10 months of 1984 8,800 people are going to be exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits?

This is one of the reasons we anticipate welfare costs in Sudbury will be in the neighbourhood of $11 million in 1984. Since the federal government is playing games with its job creation money, could the Treasurer tell us what plans he has for the regional municipality of Sudbury to ease some of that problem of 8,800 people going off UIC benefits for 1984?

Further, what plans does he have for long-term job creation projects in the Sudbury area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in response to that very important question, might I say my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) invited me to Sudbury several months ago to meet with a variety of people from the area. We met with municipal leaders, the chamber of commerce and the unions. In my view, it was a very constructive meeting at which many suggestions were put forward. The member's question reflects many of those suggestions in terms of the kinds of programs that might be initiated in that area.

I wish I had the letter here, but as recently as yesterday I received a hand-written letter from the member for Sudbury urging us to consider those kinds of special programs for the area. As we come up towards the budget, I can assure the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) that if there is an opportunity to help out some communities in a fiscally responsible way, then we will take into account the very excellent meeting that was arranged for us in Sudbury and the views of my colleague the member for Sudbury.

10:30 a.m.

I thank the member for his question. It will help continue to build up the strength behind the very sensible and responsible views put forward to us by the regional chairman, the chamber of commerce and the unions. I thank the member and, of course, I thank my colleague the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer and his colleague the Premier have used a variety of excuses to ignore the problem, either not understanding or not doing anything. "Wait for the recovery," they say.

I do not know whether the Treasurer is aware of the decline in housing starts, the rise in interest rates of autos and other things that are very disturbing signs in regard to whether the recovery is real and how strong it is going to be. Those are realities, some of which are reflected in the figures of today. If we look ahead, it is our view we need a number of responses.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question to the Treasurer is with respect to the Premier's response that the

private sector has to help. Denison Mines got an interest-free $280-million loan from Ontario Hydro, and we are now paying at least double or triple the world price to the company for uranium. The world price is around $17, and who knows what they are getting; $50 or $60 a pound from Hydro. Of course, the Premier knows this, but they are very close friends. He probably negotiated the whole thing. He is very aware of the situation.

Does the Treasurer think it is fair that Denison, which is getting those kinds of advantages from a crown agency, would hire no students this summer? Is the private sector doing its share? Is the government using its influence with people who are working on government contracts to make sure they are doing their fair share to reduce youth unemployment? Where is the great response the Premier talks about in the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member may choose to attack the private sector during this recovery; he may think that is sensible. As is always the case, everyone in our society has to take some responsibility and, as I have said in many of my speeches, show some courage during this recovery phase. In doing that, the member should be a little more accurate.

Every economic forecaster who has been in to see us in a budget consultation process of about 52 meetings has suggested housing starts in Ontario still appear to be leading Canada. It appears we will have the best increase in years. The auto industry is running at its all-time high right now. The member's colleagues from Windsor could have told him that. So the two sectors he mentions in particular are performing at least as strongly as even we predicted in December, if not more strongly. Let us not suggest there is a big slowdown or the recovery has been stopped.

Mr. Peterson: I am not suggesting that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member did suggest that. In his question, he said quite directly there had been a slowdown in housing starts and a slowdown in the auto industry. Both those statements, with respect, are factually incorrect. All those involved in both of those industries reported to us as recently as last week that those figures are solid. The recovery is there. They are not concerned. We will lead Canada in both of those areas; the auto sector particularly strongly. That is the reality within which the member wants to attack the private sector.

I have discussed these questions and put to the private sector our need to have it undertake more and more of the summer jobs situation. The reality is many companies are saying to us and to their workers and their shareholders that their job now in large measure is to deal with a situation where they can build up enough resources to reinvest in the economy. Americans have reinvested more quickly than we have.

Their job now is to try to clean up the balance sheet and run as lean and tight an operation as they can, so they have some profits put away to reinvest in the new plant and equipment we need to undertake a structural long-term economic transformation. That is what it is all about.

That is not a totally adequate answer but it does indicate we cannot stand up and frivolously say: "Now that you are trying to get through the recovery and you are trying to reinvest, just spin out hundreds of millions of dollars. It is so easy, and it will solve our problem." I have to say it will not.

The other thing I have to say is that if we pretend by taking our young people and getting them jobs filing pieces of paper we are solving what I consider to be a long-term training and educational problem, we are fooling ourselves. The kinds of jobs we want to get for our young people are jobs that are needed, where they will learn something and where they will get some supervision and some training. That is precisely what we are going to do.

REBATES FROM ILLEGAL RENTS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we will come back to that issue in a moment, but first I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question about illegal rents and the Rent Recovery Service.

Since the minister has been busy investigating the Rent Recovery Service after I raised the concern back in December, I wonder if the minister would share the results of his investigation with this House. Specifically, can he tell us whether his investigator discovered that the owner of the Rent Recovery Service, who collects illegal rents on behalf of tenants and charges 50 per cent of the illegal rent rebate as a fee, boasts that he has undertaken 300 cases of illegal rents, has recovered $300,000 in illegal rents and has charged a fee of approximately $150,000 to tenants?

Has the minister discovered this in the course of his investigation, and what has he discovered?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as of the last memorandum I had on this, dated April 2, the investigation was still under way, so I am not yet able to report to the member or to this House on the matter at this time.

Mr. McClellan: Speed does not appear to be one of the minister's characteristics, since his royal commission is proceeding at about the same pace as this ministerial investigation.

Has the minister's investigator given him any interim reports? Has his investigator bothered to ask the Residential Tenancy Commission to confirm what it told us, that the proprietor of the Rent Recovery Service has undertaken 194 rent rebate applications before the commission?

Further, has he advised the minister that the proprietor of this service is in the habit of doing what amounts to plea bargaining? In other words, he settles out of court with landlords, obtains a partial rebate of illegal rents charged and charges a fee accordingly, thereby completely subverting the process. As the minister will be aware, there will then be no record that the illegal rent has been charged and the landlord will be quite free to continue to charge illegal rents to some victim in the future.

Is the minister aware of this practice, and how does he feel about private enterprise administration of justice in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I really cannot add to the remark I have already made, namely, that the investigation is still under way, but I do find it intriguing that the member has chosen to comment on the speed or lack of speed of various matters that go on in this ministry. I recall vividly that last year I was accused of moving quickly in a heavy-handed way, and now I am accused of not moving quickly enough in some branches of it.

I have to say very frankly and very personally that I resent the implications in the member's preliminary remarks with respect to the Thom commission, for reasons he well understands.

Mr. McClellan: I am sorry the minister is so resentful, but he promised the report for early January and here we are in early April, a year and a half after the commission was appointed to look at the urgent matter of illegal rents and the establishment of a rent registry.

Will the minister give us a commitment now to end the free enterprise administration of justice in this province? Will he give us a commitment to enforce the rent review legislation, which is currently a farce? Eighty to 85 per cent of the high-rises that the Rent Recovery Service investigates, according to the proprietor, are charging illegal rents.

Will he give us a commitment to set up an active rent registry that monitors rents, investigates complaints on behalf of tenants and undertakes prosecutions to obtain rebates of illegal rents in order to end, perhaps, the free enterprise administration of justice in this province? Will he give us that commitment here today?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What did you say, Mr. Premier? Do you want to answer this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. McClellan: Do you want to buy shares in the company?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is a great profit-maker.

Mr. McClellan: Great small business.

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have indicated very clearly that the Rent Recovery Service the member referred to is being reviewed by the business practices division. I think the member is totally out of order when he makes inappropriate comments with respect to the commission and with respect to the activities of the inquiry into the Residential Tenancies Act.

I think it is difficult enough today to attract capable, talented people to do things for government, to draw them from the private sector. I think the approach the member is taking does a disservice to him, to the people of this province and to this Legislature by making these kinds of ridiculous accusations.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer, if I can get his attention for a minute. The Treasurer will recall responding on Monday to our concerns about the treatment of workers and plant closures. He will understand it is not just the lack of new jobs being created that concerns us, but the tremendous number of jobs we are losing in Ontario.

He will recall telling us: "So long as this sort of thing is occurring, so long as the unions are at the table and able to discuss some of these options with the companies, it would seem to me that we do have a circumstance where an equitable arrangement can be worked out without the kind of government intervention that, one way or another in the longer term, causes some dislocation and ultimately some hardship on those who are going to be caught by that sort of arrangement when perhaps they do not want to be."

The minister may be aware that Allen Industries in Hamilton has now flatly refused to sit down with the union to negotiate a shutdown or closure agreement. When the companies do refuse and when there are 230 concerned workers, is the minister now prepared to say there should be some government intervention to see what can be done about those jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that really is a question that should properly be directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

Mr. Mackenzie: It was the Treasurer who responded to it and it was his remarks I referred to. I am just wondering what he thinks we should be doing. All right, I will take it to the Minister of Labour then.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the Treasurer redirect it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon Mr. Nickerson of the United Auto Workers met with Mr. Vic Pathe, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, and Mr. Bob Joyce, our consultant for plant closures.

Following that meeting, a telex was sent to the head offices of Allen Industries asking them to come in and meet with us at their earliest opportunity. I assure the member we are taking this matter quite seriously and that we reacted to the concerns before they were raised in this House.

Mr. Mackenzie: I find it interesting that the last time the minister reacted, when the closure first started, the company flatly refused to meet with the union in his office -- a meeting I was at. I do not know what the minister is going to do the second time around.

The minister is aware that Inco, Allen Industries and probably very shortly Inglis -- a long list of plants -- are facing closure or moves and their workers are asking for assistance. He must also be aware that there is a growing sense of insecurity about employment in our community. This government is adding to that insecurity by refusing to deal with the questions we have been raising. I refer to the questions of proper justification or guidelines as to where the responsibility exists to the workers when a company is able to better its condition through the rationalization process.

Is the minister not prepared to take a look at specific legislation that will start dealing with this growing problem of plant closures?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I can only repeat what I have said before in this Legislature. If I thought we could save one job by having disclosure legislation I would have brought it in a long time ago.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is going to have ongoing meetings with Allen Industries. His ministry people have also met regarding the closing of Bridge and Tank in Hamilton, which has been in existence for almost 120 years. I believe that meeting occurred more than a month ago and to date it has had absolutely no impact on saving that operation.

What is the point of the minister having meetings, as he did with Consolidated Bathurst, as he will with Allen Industries, as he has had with Bridge and Tank, if all he is going to do is privately and publicly justify the moves that are being made by a number of these companies?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member is not suggesting that the government force a company that is losing money, such as Bridge and Tank, to stay in business. I am sure that is not what she is suggesting.

Ms. Copps: The minister is justifying the closure.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We are not justifying closures. There are various reasons for these meetings. The primary reason is to ensure the rights of the workers are protected in each and every closure. We explore every possibility and work very closely with my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) to see if there is any possibility of assistance of whatever nature that would keep a company open.

We have been successful. In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, Abitibi-Price was set to close but a purchaser was found. That followed an extensive study funded by the Ministry of Industry and Trade. As a result, it now looks very favourable that Abitibi, instead of closing and 500 jobs going down the tube, will not only remain open but money will be pumped into it to upgrade the facilities and protect the jobs of those workers in the months and years ahead.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Treasurer, to whom this was directed in the first place, if he is willing to take this. I would like to put it in the context of the unemployment statistics today and his action as Treasurer to try to meet the needs. Is this possible?

Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer redirected the original question to the Minister of Labour saying it was more properly asked of him, and we have recognized the problem has to do with the Minister of Labour.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: All right, I will deal with the Minister of Labour. Is he not willing to deal with the Treasurer now in terms of some action to be taken about plant closures?

I want to draw to the minister's attention that the SKF plant closed two and a half years ago and that the statistics on unemployment we see today include some of those members; 36 per cent of those men are still without jobs. Many of them are not included in any statistics because they are not eligible for welfare, although eight per cent of them are now on welfare.

What kind of job creation programs is the minister talking about bringing in through the Treasurer which will help the older workers of this province who have paid their dues and are being left behind?

The reality is that people who have been unemployed for two and a half years are losing all hope, they are losing their homes, their health is deteriorating, as the studies are showing, and nothing is being done for them. What specific projects is the minister recommending in this budget to help the older workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, let me go back for a moment to the Canada-Ontario employment development program. I am not going to quote again the figures that show the short-term job creation and the calibre of the projects and so on. What I want to do is refer to the fact that this government was prepared to continue that COED program.

This Treasurer and his predecessor were prepared to put extra funds into the COED program but the federal government refused to co-operate. That program was working beautifully. It was a safety net for people on welfare, those who had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.

This government and the Treasurer were prepared to provide matching funds but the federal government refused to continue with the program. They wanted to go with programs of their own, programs they would get the profile for. It alarms and disturbs me that this type of attitude comes into provincial-federal matters.

WASTES FROM SUNCOR

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who I note no longer carries as much weight in his portfolio as he once did.

10:50 a.m.

I want to indicate some concern with respect to the operations carried on by Suncor, our oil company in Ontario. As the minister knows, they have made an application to the Environmental Assessment Board to spread their oily wastes on land around the outside of their site, which is close to the Chippewa Indian band at Sarnia. A great deal of concern has been expressed by local residents.

In the ministry's submissions to the board, should it not require that Suncor be made to continue to carry its oily wastes to the Tricil plant for treatment? I note the minister has lauded that plant for its advanced state of technology. Should the minister not ensure that our oil company in Ontario sets the example for all other industries in the province?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the honourable member has referred to the fine facility in Sarnia that is available for the disposition of certain contaminated wastes such as those that may be generated by oil companies. Of course, he is referring to Tricil.

With respect to Suncor specifically, I assure the member my staff would under no circumstances allow any certificate of approval for the spreading of oily wastes if they are even modestly contaminated and suggest in any way any kind of environmental concern. I want to give the member that assurance now. I will provide him with the detailed report of exactly what the oily wastes contain before anything is allowed to proceed.

I agree that Suncor should show an example. I am pleased to say that up to this point -- and I suggest it will be so in the future as well -- it has been showing an example.

Mr. Elston: One of the examples that should be set by our oil company is there should be prior consultation with the people living in the surrounding areas where oily wastes might be spread.

As the local representative and also as Minister of the Environment, can the minister ensure that, before anything further takes place with respect to this application, there will be representation by people such as Allison Plain and the Indian band councillor, Wilson Plain, so they will have ample opportunity to study the program, even though they had to show up on rather short notice?

Since we are looking at mediation, perhaps there should have been prior consultation. Will the minister undertake to ensure public consultation between our oil company and the citizens surrounding that site?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am prepared to give the member that undertaking. I will see to it that the neighbours who would be most directly affected by the proposal -- and it is a proposal at this stage -- are fully consulted and assured there will be no contamination or environmental damage. I will undertake to give that commitment.

CHEQUE-CASHING CENTRES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding one of the parasites on the poor that has sprung up over the last few years in Ontario -- National Money Mart.

The minister corresponded with the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) in January about the Money Mart operations, which cash cheques early for people who basically go there only for that service. They pay for that service because they cannot afford to last any longer without food for their kids and that kind of thing.

The minister said in his letter there is nothing illegal about the process. He also said, "However, any amount deducted from the cheque of a disadvantaged individual may be considered excessive by an enlightened society." Are we living in an enlightened society in Ontario? Will the minister bring in legislation that will make it illegal to charge fees for the cashing of provincial government cheques?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last question first, in a last shall be first approach, I do believe we are living in an enlightened society led by this government.

Second, that is an issue we have explored in some depth. For example, the member will be interested in the most recent response I received from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

I will quote from his letter. "Income maintenance officers have been assisting these identified clients, who are few in number, in establishing themselves with traditional banking institutions.

"Secondly, inquiries from Money Mart for assistance in identifying family benefit or general welfare assistance clearances are not responded to either by the province or by the municipalities.

"Thirdly, the ministry is also considering a direct bank deposit or monthly entitlement cheque system as an enhancement to our computer program.

"In addition, I may say that I have had correspondence and personal discussions with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) to explore the possibility of a pilot project with the Province of Ontario Savings Office in this area. He is still considering that matter, and we spoke as recently as two weeks ago about it."

So it is an area we are looking into in great depth.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am very pleased to hear that. Those are two of the directions I was going to suggest. We have a great model for direct deposit in Peel right now, the only one in the province. It works very well, and I would suggest we can move on that very quickly.

Also, has the minister spoken to his counterpart the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay)? I know the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has a great interest in human rights questions because of the Human Rights Code. Does the minister realize that many of the people who go to cash these cheques in a supposedly hassle-free situation have to be thumbprinted? Does he realize that is taking place in order to cash those cheques?

Does he also realize at the moment there is discrimination by Money Mart between those on social assistance who cash cheques and the working poor who cash cheques? There is no legislation in the province at the moment to stop that kind of discrimination. Will he also look into the possibility in the interim of stopping both of those practices by Money Mart?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Minister of Labour is here, and I am sure he took note of the member's comments.

MINOR HOCKEY

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

It has come to my attention that hockey teams belonging to the All-Ontario Hockey League AAA classification are the only teams that will be given travel assistance from Wintario to go to Ontario championship games. There will be no travel assistance to Ontario Minor Hockey Association teams. This means that no hockey teams winning Ontario championships in my riding or any other riding will get financial assistance. Does the minister think this is fair?

Mr. Bradley: No, it is not fair.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: And it is not rehearsed either, Mr. Speaker.

First, I think we should keep our perspective here. There are 74 different sports governing bodies in the province all getting financial assistance from my ministry. Hockey is only one of them. In order to delegate some of the administrative responsibilities and to cut down on administration for my ministry, the whole matter of financing travel, accommodation and meals for championship events is the responsibility of the sports governing body, in this case of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association.

As to the question of invitational events as distinct from championship events, those matters are the responsibility of one or other of our 18 field offices. I know they are in contact with the leagues. The regulations were somewhat changed, effective April 1, 1984. It may be that the hockey team or league in question has not quite understood the new regulations.

I want to say one thing. I would be very surprised -- in fact, I would not tolerate it -- to find a situation where small towns in this province could never get help to go on to championship or invitational events and that these things would be accessible only for the bigger places. Anyway, I will look into this and see just what the problems are. If the honourable member has any further questions, we will be very pleased to look into them.

Mr. Pollock: The information that came to me was that minor hockey associations did not get any funding, so they really cannot divide it up. Only AAA associations got funding.

Mr. Stokes: You cannot distribute what you ain't got.

Mr. Pollock: That is for sure.

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The minor hockey leagues -- in fact, all the leagues -- are still getting funding; there is no question about that. As I say, I will look into this particular question. If the honourable member has any further questions to raise on it, I will be very pleased to meet with him.

INSPECTIONS FOR AIR EMISSIONS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that a greyish-green powder has been contaminating Parkdale and Dovercourt ridings for four days, starting April 2, 1984?

In spite of numerous calls from residents, it took his ministry inspectors more than two days to respond. I would like to send this bag of powder to him so he can examine the contents. I have more and there is much more where this came from. Would a page take this over to the minister?

Can the minister ensure that these inspections will be done much more speedily, especially in view of the fact that there have been many dangerous chemical emissions?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has done it once again. The material he is about to hand over to me is known as bentonite, and it is a very innocuous type of clay material; it is nontoxic, noncombustible and not dangerous. It is used in the foundry and waterwell industries. There is no danger associated with this material whatsoever.

I think the member should make that very clear to the people to whom he has been talking in the Junction triangle area. The dust is admittedly an aggravation. The dust resulted from spills which occurred when this material was being unloaded. We have already taken steps to make sure the company in question handles this material in bags from this point on so the dust does not occur. I want the member, if he will take the time to do this, to advise the residents of the area that it is not a dangerous substance.

Mr. McClellan: It is very pleasant.

Mr. Cassidy: Have a bowlful, Andy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am simply sending over the material so the minister can see that it was spread over a wide area. It was found on the streets and, as I said, we have more.

The point here is that the inspections are not being carried out with the quickness and speed that is so necessary. Because of these inadequate inspections, I wonder whether the minister would agree to consider our recommendations that his ministry's 24-hour telephone answering service, which is now in force, be expanded to a 24-hour central inspection service, perhaps in co-operation with trained city fire officials, to better monitor and inspect air emissions and chemical spills on short notice specifically for the Junction triangle area and the chemical companies found therein. Will he consider implementing a systematic, 24-hour rooftop monitoring program for effective measurement of air emissions?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: If I can take the last question first, Speaker, we do have a very effective air monitoring system in place very close to the Junction triangle, as the member knows.

It is incumbent upon me to apologize for the delay in the inspection with respect to this specific material, but it happened as a result of a very human problem, in that two of our inspectors were off sick at the time the call was made. That delay is highly unusual and in all probability would not happen again, but I will take the member's suggestions under review and see whether it is practicable to implement some improvements in the response time.

I did not like the delay any more than the member did, but when one has two staff members who were sick at the time the call came in, it resulted in the delays I am indicating to the House this morning.

AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I wonder whether the minister is aware that a small community, only 160 miles from Toronto and Ottawa and situated on a major highway in an area that has been used as a right of way by Ontario Hydro for two major electric distribution lines since 1971, has been denied electric power by Hydro, despite 25 years of efforts of the residents to obtain electrification.

Why is it that Sabine township remains probably the only community in southern and eastern Ontario that wants and needs electrification and cannot get it?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of the honourable member's question. If he could provide me with the details, I would be glad to follow up on his inquiry.

Mr. Wildman: Since the minister is unaware of this, I hope he will check with Hydro and determine why it refuses to come up with the $150,000 it says it would cost to run a line for the 100 year-round residents of this community, who are only seven kilometres from the nearest hydro line, when Hydro is still willing to spend billions of dollars on generating plants such as Darlington, which the province does not need. And why is it that, on top of this, Hydro is blocking efforts by the community to buy power from a local resident with a hydraulic generating system?

What is it going to take to get Ontario Hydro and the ministry to bring this community into the 20th century?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I can only reiterate that if the member wishes to provide me with more details on the situation he is referring to, I will be glad to try to find him some answers.

I remind him, though, that the economics of electrical distribution sometimes do not justify the extension of transmission lines or local lines to communities where the potential consumption of electrical energy would not offset the cost of that extension of lines.

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. My understanding is that the Minister of Labour met this morning with members of Local 1059 of the Labourers' International Union from London, Ontario, and surrounding areas. I was assuming he would have something to report, given the discussions we have had in this House.

Will he please bring us up to date on what he is going to do about those discussions and how he is going to rectify that serious injustice?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to do so. I had an excellent meeting with the executive of the Labourers' council in London, led by Mr. Jim MacKinnon. They are very fine people; they came in in a very reasonable manner, and we had an excellent exchange. We listened very intently to the problems they described to us and to their suggestions for a resolution.

We are planning, first of all, to study the judge's decision very carefully; we tried to obtain it in time for our meeting this morning, but it will not be available for about two weeks. We are also scheduling meetings just as soon as possible with the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. I promised the gentlemen from London that once we had had an opportunity for those deliberations, we would be back to them accordingly.

Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind, because that is not in my nature, but the minister has been dilly-dallying so long on this matter. He is scheduling more meetings. He has had meetings. This is not a new problem; he has been aware of it for some time.

If the minister does not know the judge's opinion, I do, even though it was given only orally. The judge said he did not think the union officials acted improperly; there was nothing else they could do in the situation.

The deficiency clearly is the legislation, and even the OFL recognizes there is a problem with it, although there may be different approaches to a solution. The minister has had meetings with Mr. Pilkey about it. We have brought it up in this House. Meanwhile, right under the minister's nose he has the spectre of an admittedly illegal election and a trusteeship because of the deficiency in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the minister knows enough now to act after this year or so of discussion. Why will he not move immediately to prevent this kind of trusteeship, the seizing of a company when there is clearly an illegality, and refer it to the Ontario Labour Relations Board as should be done?

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The honourable member hit the subject matter right on the head when he said there are different approaches to it. That is exactly the reason we want to consult with the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario.

I want to be very careful that we do not intrude into the administration of the unions; they have their own constitutions. This is why I feel it is a sensitive issue and one in which we feel it is appropriate to discuss any possible legislative changes only with persons who are responsible for the administration of the trade union movement in this province. I think that is the responsible thing to do.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. I have here a special issue of Ontario Business News, dated April 1984, which writes up the five winners of the 1984 Province of Ontario Industrial Achievement Awards sponsored by the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

This glossy brochure says the award winners "were selected by an adjudication panel consisting of senior ministry officials and distinguished executives from the private sector." Further, it states, "The success of these companies, in different ways, symbolizes what every Ontario company can strive for -- and achieve."

Is the Deputy Premier aware that only one of the five companies singled out for this prize even pretends to have an affirmative action program?

When asked about that program, the director of personnel for the company, which is Waferboard Corp. of Timmins, said the affirmative action program has no targets, no timetables, no labour-management committee and no specific objectives, just "agreement" with the ministry's guidelines. It employs 16 women and 665 workers all told, so it would appear there is room for women to move into some of the jobs there.

Will the minister urge the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) to include in the criteria for judging the excellence of firms the adoption of an affirmative action program in firms where women appear to be under-represented?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that much more work has to be done in the private sector with respect to affirmative action. I agree with that. We have a long way to go in working with major employers in this province and, indeed, all employers.

As an employer, we are committed to the principle of affirmative action ourselves; I am referring to the government. The whole concept of equality of access and advancement in the work place is fair and just and, we hope, will be embraced by more and more employers in this province.

We are working with them to show them not only the justice of the concept but also the benefits that can flow from it both for the employees and for the employer.

PETITION

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to you, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, petitions, not only from my constituency but also from the riding of Peterborough.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 141, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to continue its consideration of sessional paper 117 of 1983, the white paper respecting loan and trust companies, in order to finalize its report.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB INC. ACT

Mr. Treleaven moved, on behalf of Mr. Runciman, seconded by Mr. Barlow, first reading of Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Brockville Rowing Club Inc.

Motion agreed to.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, first reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, this is a reintroduction of a bill I introduced last year, which received second reading but which died on the order paper.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, first reading of Bill 31, An Act to establish Midwifery as a Self-Governing Health Profession.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to establish midwifery as an independent self- governing health profession along the lines of medicine and nursing.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I always like to join in on the debate on the speech from the throne. I like to do it on a Friday morning when we get rid of the riff-raff and are down to the hard-core parliamentarians in here.

I always like to throw in a little bit at the beginning of my comments about the procedures that are used around here. As members may know, I have an ongoing interest in the standing committee on procedural affairs and its operation and the rules of the Legislature, and I sometimes put forward the impression, I think fairly accurately, that the rules in this House are rules on some days and not on others. They are extremely flexible.

Mr. Nixon: You have the definitive answer to the bell-ringing problem.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, we do have an answer designed by the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), who put together one of the most extraordinary rules proposals I have ever witnessed in my life to resolve the problem of the government being able to call a vote so this House would not be in the same position as our unfortunate brothers and sisters in Manitoba, who found themselves not being able to get a piece of legislation called for a vote because the opposition refused to vote on it.

Mr. Nixon: I understand they chickened out on that one.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Breaugh: The honourable member had better stick around and see who has chickened out, because I think there will be a resolution to that problem. Eventually, whether or not this rule designed by the member for Wilson Heights is the one accepted, there will be a resolution of that problem here.

All of us have to come to grips at some point with a problem that has been discussed around here a great deal, although not a great deal has been done about it, and that is the fact that ordinary members, such as those on the government side, have a vested interest in seeing how the procedures of the House are structured and are used, and from their point of view there is an efficiency factor that they very much want.

I do not deny for a moment that governments have a need to see that their parliaments run in an efficient manner; there is nothing wrong with that. My argument has always been, and will continue to be for quite a while yet before we get the kind of rules I would want put in place, that ordinary members from all sides have a job to do here in the assembly, ordinary members from all sides have some needs which are not being met by the current practices of this Legislature, and we ought to make some rule changes and some changes in the practices and procedures of the House to make the job of an ordinary member a job that is fulfilling and allows the abilities and experiences of ordinary members to play a role in forming the activities of this parliament.

We have looked at other jurisdictions at some length and we have seen how other parliaments make the attempt to go at that problem. Many of us are a little bit envious, quite frankly, that in the American congressional system a great deal of work can be done and that almost all their legislation, for example, is initiated by ordinary members of Congress.

We work in a parliamentary system, so there are some distinctions that must be made, but I think it is not an impossible task for us to set out to make the role of an ordinary member an important one.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, our federal Parliament has attempted to do this, and on the procedural affairs committee we have looked with great interest at its activities. They seem to have succeeded in a relatively short time in addressing themselves to that problem and in winning not total success but at least some measure of success in convincing the federal Parliament those kinds of rule changes are necessary and that in the long run the people of Canada, and it would be the people of Ontario in our case, would have a better, more efficient Legislature.

There are two other little things I wanted to touch on about the rules. I know we have gone on many times about an electronic Hansard and I know hard and fast political positions have probably been taken on the matter, but I want to stick it in again. I think it is worth while to note that we are now among the last of the Legislatures in Canada not to have an electronic Hansard of some sort.

We went through a period when there were big arguments about the mechanics of it all, the technology, and I think that has been resolved. In Saskatchewan they have a rather efficient electronic Hansard at a rather modest price as those things go. I think all members, as we sit here during question period, are bothered by the obnoxious and old-fashioned technology that is used in this Legislature.

All members are aware that when we go back home, people ask us: "Why can I sit in my living room and watch my local council conduct its proceedings on cable, why can I watch TVOntario and see the proceedings of the federal Parliament, but I cannot find any electronic record of the proceedings of the Legislature of Ontario?" There is no rational reason for denying the implementation of an electronic Hansard in this Legislature.

Mr. Treleaven: Too expensive.

Mr. Breaugh: I heard someone say, "Too expensive," and I am going to address myself to that in a moment.

There are extremely valid reasons for saying we live in an age in which people get their information from a television set; more and more that is the practice. There is a legitimate reason for saying a municipal council should open up its chambers to the local cable company and let people follow the proceedings as the members establish priorities in a budget, as they debate the policies in their municipality, as they go through the planning process and all those other things. It is legitimate to say that people have a right to access to this kind of procedure in their own homes.

We have accepted in this House that we have an obligation to inform people in our constituencies about the proceedings here and we do this in a variety of ways. But it is beyond me why we cannot go that extra step. We are not asking whether the television cameras can come in here; they are in here every day. We are not talking about a lack of technology, because we know other jurisdictions have already done it. We are not talking about a great expense either, because I dare say the cost of implementing an electronic Hansard in this House could be absorbed in the advertising budget of any ministry and we would not even be able to find it, it is so small.

It is not peanuts we are talking about, it is a substantial investment; but the obligation is to provide the people of Ontario with information about the proceedings of this House. Not through one of the ministries and, quite frankly, not even through the opposition members; they should be able to see for themselves what is happening here. If we want to talk a little bit about the decorum of the joint, so to speak, one of the things that might actually improve the process around here is to let people see how this joint operates.

I would be interested in hearing from members, after they have been televised for a week or so, the comments of people back home about things like our lovely little question period and what that is all about. When I go home to Oshawa, I am asked consistently by people who have watched a little bit of the federal question period, exactly what that is all about. They ask: "What is all this hooting and hollering and ranting and heckling and raving? Why do people not just ask a question and people on the government side just give an answer?"

It would have a long-term effect to explain to people how parliaments work, whether the process is a valid one or not and whether their local member is serving a useful function in that parliament. It is not that an electronic Hansard will display all the work a member does, but the time is long overdue when this House establishes an electronic Hansard.

I want to point out that as ordinary members we have taken it to committees of this Legislature. As ordinary members, we have presented resolutions in here to do just that. It is in the Speaker's hands and has been there for some time. I am going to implore him to get it off the shelves, to review the technology available, to review the costing, which is about one quarter of the original estimate, I would point out to him, and to implement it. It is that important.

There are a couple of other little areas around rules I want to touch on. One is, this House is absolutely abysmal in terms of conflict of interest rules for the members. I find it passing strange that last year we set out a new Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for municipal politicians in Ontario but it is a challenge to try to find where it lays out the rules about a conflict of interest for members of this Legislature. One can find occasions where, if the member chooses, the member may rise -- I think under standing order 22 or something -- and say, "I do not want to vote on this because I have a conflict." But the rules about conflict are not spelled out anywhere one can find.

I raised this matter in the fall session and it is on the plate of the standing committee on procedural affairs. I simply point out to the members that in other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, they have taken the time and effort to lay down a practice which is acceptable to all the members, where the conflict of interest provisions are clear and where members can understand, as a municipal councillor in Ontario can understand when a conflict occurs, how to handle that conflict and how the House makes itself aware of when a conflict of interest occurs among the members.

Mr. Nixon: What would teachers and farmers do? There would not be anything left for us.

Mr. Breaugh: Maybe they could teach and farm, those would be useful occupations for them.

I want to end my remarks on the rules with a little bit about research, because one of the things we have tried to do in a number of ways is to see that ordinary members have access to a research capacity which is useful. We tried to do that through the library service. We have tried to do that through the caucuses and we have begun the process of trying to see that individual members get that. I believe we are on the way to getting something that is useful for ordinary members.

Mr. Nixon: But you spent all your money. What did you do with the money we already gave you?

Mr. Breaugh: We did not go to Russia, or drink champagne and eat caviar from over there getting ready to do that.

Mr. Nixon: Are you implying I went on public funds? The NDP distributed its money in lump-sum payments.

Mr. Breaugh: No, wrong as always.

Mr. Nixon: How about justifying that? It was the silliest thing I ever heard.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is wrong, as always.

Mr. Riddell: Tell us how you did do it.

Mr. Breaugh: I will tell the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) later. We did not raise interest rates for farmers and I know he will be disappointed in that, but we did handle it.

11:30 a.m.

We have a research capacity. The next logical step is to try to provide for occasions when that research can be used. We are somewhat limited in that capacity. We have traditional means during question period, during estimates and a little bit more now through committee work that studies special interest topics. We have not gone as far as the Parliament at Westminster and its use of select committees. We have certainly not begun to go as far as the congressional system does. The federal Parliament has begun to explore avenues whereby this new research capacity can be useful to Parliament and that will be the next logical step.

I want to talk about local issues for a while. Traditionally members use the throne speech debate as an occasion to bring up things that are important to them and the people in their ridings. I will relate an incident to show how governments work these days.

Last year about this time I had a call from a gentleman who runs a little clinic for children who have been sexually abused. I spent an evening at the clinic-like structure where they talk about their problems and experiences. It struck me as a problem that was just beginning to come out of the closet. I had stumbled upon some individuals who were of great assistance to people who had suffered some kind of sexual abuse. They had, in a very simple way, begun to help these people.

I wrote to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and said this was a good idea and maybe he ought to fund a pilot project. He wrote back and I was quite pleased to see they were aware of that pilot project and had approved $40,000 to run it for a year. I went on my merry way saying, "Is that not a good thing?" Here is a project useful to people in my community. Here is a government that has given some funding to at least get it on the rails and see whether it will work on a slightly larger and more permanent scale.

I was unhappy to discover about three weeks ago, however, that this project, which was approved by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and initiated by a proposal from the Family and Children's Services of the Durham Region, has yet to begin. It is more than a year after the project was approved by the ministry. There have been funding problems. The ministry could not figure out how to hand out the cheques. A partial payment of about $10,000 has gone out, but the remaining payments have not yet been made. Neither have the local agencies been able to find the staff to realign the organization. For a variety of reasons, the project has not yet happened.

Maybe that is a sad, almost a searing, criticism of how governments work these days. A year after a project is approved, it has yet to start. The problems remain, the people want to help, and the idea is there. It could have gone ahead more than a year ago, but it has not happened. Someone did not give it enough priority. Someone did not find the staff people. Someone did not allocate the budget. Somebody here forgot to send out a cheque. For whichever of those reasons, the thing has not yet happened and that stinks. If in this day and age we cannot devise a system of government which responds to people's needs a little faster than that, we are in the middle of a sick process. That is one of our problems.

I want to talk about a couple of other things. About a year ago there was another local project I became interested in. A group of us got together and decided Oshawa should have a help centre for unemployed people. As members may know, our unemployment rate for the past year or so has consistently run well over 10 per cent. My constituency office and several other social agencies around town know that when people become unemployed they are introduced, maybe for the first time in their lives, to the massive bureaucracies floating around here.

They get exposed to the concepts of filling out forms and meeting criteria, making appeals and hearing their needs denied. They are very often left in a maze of bureaucracy. It is very difficult to try to work themselves out of this maze on their own. Many unemployed people in my area, and I suspect across the province, have a heck of a time trying to sort it out. They do not understand the bureaucracies at work. They do not understand why there are sometimes three levels of government lousing up their lives.

They do not understand why they cannot get work. Some of them have worked for a long time. They know they are good workers. They are confident in their ability to perform. It is sad that more and more of them are people of good education, good background, with specialized skills training. More and more of them, about 20 per cent province-wide and probably a little higher in our area, are young people who have done what society told them to do. They went to school, performed well, got high school diplomas. Some have more than that; they graduated from community colleges or have university degrees.

They are confused as to why there are no jobs for them. They are confused as to why they continually have to knock on doors and fill out résumés and application forms. They are consistently told not only, "You are not going to get this job," but also, "There is no use in even applying."

We thought a centre where people could talk to others who had been unemployed, who had a little expertise in filling out forms and dealing with bureaucracies, would help them out. Many programs that were designed to help the unemployed are unknown to the population. For example, not many of them know they can get some assistance with Ontario health insurance plan coverage, even though they are aware that is an extremely important thing to have and they should make sure they fill out the forms on time.

We have a group of about four paid staff people and three or four others who come in to help. I believe the help centre has done its job and done it well. The original funding came out of the Canada-Ontario employment development program from the federal and provincial governments. That funding has begun to run out. I believe it expires at the end of this month. We have tried to raise money locally, from union locals, for example, but it is tough sledding in union locals in Oshawa these days.

Aside from the one big local that is going great guns again, at least temporarily -- and there is a wariness about how long that is going to last -- many of our other locals have lost a lot of members. Many of them are locals for plants that do not exist any more. They have their own problems to deal with, so they are not in a financial position to assist. They have funding problems.

I always find it strange that simple ideas never seem to gain acceptance. I do not know why that is. If we had hired an executive director for the help centre, eight bureaucrats to sit around and push paper and 29 counsellors who would see one person a day, this government might say, "Boy, that is a big deal going on down there in Oshawa." If we had a high overhead, rented a big office building and set everybody up with their own telephones, if we ran on the model of the Revenue building, which is just across the road from my office, this government would probably say, "That is great stuff."

Because it is a simple operation, because it employs relatively few people, because it is in a very modest situation and because it actually works, it will probably not get much help from this government. That is a shame, because I know the people who work there and I know the people who use the unemployed help centre in Oshawa. It is invaluable. It is true it does simple things and is not a big deal, but it is also true the damned thing helps a lot of people in my riding every day. I want that one to survive.

There was another hot idea that sprang up locally in the last few years. Members may recall the ministry gave the Residential Tenancy Commission a branch office in Oshawa, which was a good idea. I supported that wholeheartedly. Through the Social Planning Council of Oshawa-Whitby, we also came up with an idea for a tenants' hot line, which performs a not dissimilar function to the help centre.

It tries to explain to tenants in Oshawa, Durham and surrounding areas about the Residential Tenancies Act. It tries to explain the rulings of the commission, which ain't easy. It tries to point out to them they have some legal rights regarding landlord-tenant legislation but in other areas they have none. That is not easy either.

This is another idea that may have a big flaw in it from this government's point of view. It is too simple, too clear, too concise. It ain't fancy. It ain't part of the bicentennial celebrations. For a lot of reasons, this government tends to frown on this kind of operation. On the other hand, I am a proponent of little ideas, using ordinary people to help other people. The tenants' hot line may be well down the chute as well.

We have had a couple of others. One is called Project Auberge. We hope it will be established by the fall. It is a centre for battered wives and their children. It too has been begging the municipal, federal and provincial governments for funding. It is on pretty shaky grounds.

11:40 a.m.

We also have a little place called Destiny Manor, which is a halfway house for women who have had problems with alcoholism. It deals with various ministries and I have participated in attempting to get some contacts there. Again, the simplicity of the concept of a centre established, by and large, by women for women with a particular problem, an idea that works, is perhaps hampered because it is not done on a grandiose scale. It is a simple concept, one that works well. It supplies a need in my community that was not being met by anybody else.

What angers me is that these three or four little projects are relatively small in financial terms and demands on the government for money. They work and they are in the private sector, so to speak. One would think this government would be enamoured by that. It likes to cut the ribbon. When it opens it up, it likes to announce that one or more of its ministries are participating, but it also has a tendency to leave these simple concepts to die on the vine. I think that is a shame.

One of the things I would have liked to have seen in the speech from the throne would have been that this government intends to identify in every community in Ontario ideas like that which work and provide a useful service to that community and intends to move in and support them financially, not for six or nine months, but until the problem is resolved. Maybe there is some truth -- and I have heard some discussion about this -- that all of these ideas overlap a little bit and they ought to get together and form one centre which provides all of these services under the same roof. That is true.

To carry my concept a bit further, I look at my school boards. I think they do a good job, but I see two huge bureaucracies with two very nice education centres across the road from each other. It seems money is no object. We need good schools and education centres, but I see people trying to provide service to a community where the government is nonexistent.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) was asked a question the other day and he did not really know anything about it. Maybe that is understandable because he is new to his ministerial responsibilities, but I am anxious that when these things happen in my community, this government understands the needs of the community and that we do not always have to spend $20 million to resolve a problem. Often it can be done for much less. When local people have taken the initiative to go after those kinds of problems, when they have banded together to provide that kind of service to a community, I believe this government ought to go after those folks and say, "You have a good idea and one that works. We are here to help you, not put you out of business."

I want to close this little section of my remarks by addressing them a little more specifically to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development because it is not a bad comparison with what I have just been talking about.

A few years ago the people in Oshawa said, "We do not have a residential care facility for kids." A lot of local people banded together, raised about $500,000 and put up a place called Durham House on Simcoe Street North. The ministry moved in and said, "We do not like the way you are providing that care. Cut out the residential section and run it on a day care basis," which they did.

It is interesting that the area director for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, a fellow named Alan Vallillee, commissioned T. A. Croil and Associates to do a report. A woman named Dorothy Easton was one of the people who wrote that report which closed Durham House. I now find that both of those people, Vallillee, who is on leave from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and Mrs. Easton, are now employed by Kinark Child and Family Services. Kinark is providing, I am told in press releases and in conversations with them, three new group homes in Oshawa.

The ministry moves in, squashes the local projects and says, "We do not need that kind of program." Then it spends some time generating the need. Now we do need that project and we bring someone from the private sector, Kinark, in to meet that need. I think that is wrong. Quite frankly, I would prefer that the government keeps its hot little hands out of my community if that is the attitude. Why does the government not come into a place like Oshawa, identify programs that are working and support them? It does that to a degree, but it is also true that the hand of a large government is very strongly felt in Oshawa, and we do not like it. We would love it if it was a supportive hand, but for the most part we find it is destructive, not supportive.

Mr. Stokes: The government does not believe in local initiative.

Mr. Breaugh: Just to offer a kind of financial comparison, since somebody threw in the financial thing, in the middle of the last election the then Treasurer came to Oshawa and put $1 million into a roll-on, roll-off project at the Oshawa harbour. We liked that. We like to see ministers roll in and try to buy Oshawa away from the NDP. That is okay by me. They are welcome in Oshawa with their cheque books in their hot little hands on any day.

The irony is that in the middle of the election the then Treasurer came to Oshawa with $1 million in hand for the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. Less than a year later the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) made sure that roll-on, roll-off thing died on the vine. The government might just as well have taken the $1 million and stood at the corner of King and Simcoe Streets in Oshawa and given $20 to everybody who walked by there. It would have been a more profitable thing to do.

They might better have gone to the harbour and paved the storage area; that would have been a useful thing to do. They might better have put some proper lighting facilities down there; that would have been a useful thing to do. They might better have put some proper storage facilities down there; that would have been a useful thing to do. But the government blew away $1 million and it does not feel bad about it. In fact, I keep hearing the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) say it is a good idea.

Let me move on to a couple of other things that have bothered me and rankled with me a bit of late. In the standing committee on procedural affairs in our review of agencies, we came across the thing called the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. Members may recall this was born with a lot of flags and a lot of ministry staff sitting around just prior to the last provincial election.

We finally got around to reviewing the IDEA Corp. A couple of very bright people, Jan Macdonald, who is chairman of the board, and Brian St. John, who is president, came in with flow charts. This is what has happened to the IDEA Corp. since its inception.

Mr. Stokes: Is he the guy who makes over $100,000 a year?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, $104,000 a year.

They came in with their flow charts. They had the answers; they looked good and they talked good. They were talking about confusing stuff, such as high technology, new ideas, getting it into the market, having entry to the market and all of that. Then we got down to the point where we said: "Let us look at some examples here. Tell us about the relationship between the IDEA Corp. and one of the people with whom you are entering into a joint venture." They said, "We cannot do that."

We said: "We are a legislative committee. We are here to try to get some understanding of how you function. We would like to know how much you pay people. We would like to know how your program is developing. We would like to know what kind of product lines you are getting on stream. We would like to know how you intend to market that, where you intend to market that, what your projections for the foreseeable future are," all the legitimate questions that are asked every day before legislative committees.

They said: "We are sorry, we can't. This is a joint venture. All the government of Ontario does is put up the money." After that point, we are supposed to shut up. Members of the Legislature are not supposed to be audacious enough to ask people involved in a joint venture what they are doing. We are not supposed to do that.

There is a little problem there we are going to have to resolve, as this government gets more involved in joint ventures, which is clearly a pattern. I want to say as politely as I can, but as firmly as I can, one cannot come before a legislative committee using government money to run a joint venture and say: "This is none of your business. What we pay our people, what we do, what we are developing, how much we intend to make from this project are of no concern to you. All we want the Legislature of Ontario to do is give us money, shut up and sit in a corner."

That is not going to fly. The procedural affairs committee is looking at this problem. I put on the record now that we must find the means whereby we establish the ground rules. When people use public money to go to work in the private sector on a joint venture basis, answers must be given. I accepted once that this was a unique situation and I did not pursue it in a ruthless manner before the procedural affairs committee because we do not do things ruthlessly there. But I think it is time to get tough about it in the House.

I want to close this section by making a comment about two other agencies, one federal and one provincial, that have rankled with me of late. It came to my attention that Petro-Canada, an agency I happened to support some time ago, has adopted a practice of saying it will not sell gasoline to independent dealers. I wrote a letter to my friend Jean Chrétien and told him I did not think too much of a publicly funded gas company saying it will not sell to independent dealers unless they, in effect, become dealers for Petro-Canada.

I also want to say the province's money in Suncor seems to have made little difference because it uses exactly the same criterion. I think there is an obligation, when public money is used in the private sector, to see that those companies function in a slightly different way from the robber barons.

11:50 a.m.

In one instance, a fellow by the name of Wally Hawkins runs a small independent gas dealership called Tally-Ho Rona Petroleum Ltd. in Oshawa. The only large corporation that would serve him was Imperial Oil Ltd. Because Imperial is not noted for its benevolence, I wondered exactly why it was servicing him when no one else would. The next day I perhaps discovered the reason. Imperial had just been convicted for not providing gasoline to a little dealer in Waverley, Ontario. Perhaps that explains its benevolence.

I have a number of other matters I would like to get on the record, but I am running out of voice. I am going to close with two things that have been of concern to me. One is the whole field of amateur sport. It has received a bit of attention lately. I want to take a slightly different tack on it.

I believe we have in Ontario and in Canada young people who are world-class athletes. Some of them are that now. Some are four or five years away from it. To show I have a little conflict of interest here, my daughter is one of them. She trains with young people from across Canada, many of whom sadly enough have to go to American universities to continue their training. They have to go there for two or three straightforward reasons.

One is facilities. We still lack a number of those facilities here in Canada for a lot of events. I noticed that Gaetan Boucher was here the other day with the Premier (Mr. Davis). Suddenly, we are going to go from no outdoor rinks for speedskaters to three. Perhaps that says something about how governments operate in Canada.

Many lack a facility in which to train. Even when we build a facility, there can be problems. We have a good one at York University, for example. It is a training facility for a harsh climate. They did a nice job of putting in a track and designing the facilities. They just forgot to put heat in the building.

That poses a minor problem for people who are sprinters and who cannot go through a training season in cold weather with a long succession of pulled muscles. Whoever put it together forgot that a training facility has to be heated in Canada in the winter because it gets cold. One would think they could have picked that up a little quicker than they did, but they missed it.

There is a problem with coaching. There are many people I know who spend long hours coaching young people in Canada for peanuts or for nothing, unlike the Americans or people on the continent of Europe or in other countries around the world where they believe athletics and physical fitness are important. They give it priority, they spend money and they have a consistent and regular training program.

Things like sports medicine are not a bright new experimental project announced by the ministry, but are part of their daily training routine. The finest medical facilities they have are available to their athletes.

We do card athletes, which is a little practice that tries to keep them in Canada. I do not know how we expect people to get to a world-class level and then card them. How do they ever get there? How do they improve from being provincial or Canadian champions to being world champions if the kids are expected to do it all on their own?

It seems to me that is an extremely shortsighted program. What we ought to be trying to do now is to identify good athletes at an early age, support them with training facilities, medical facilities and coaching, and find the mechanism to keep those kids in Canada. You can go through the United States and at every major university you will find a track star who is a Canadian. The people we are proudest of are people like Milt Ottey, who comes back to Canada and represents Canada but goes to school in Texas. Why can those people not go to school here? We know what the problems are; we just have not done anything about them.

Let me speak for a couple of minutes about the auto industry because I am from Oshawa and it would not be fair for me to talk without talking about my favourite sport. Everybody is an expert on the auto industry. It has been studied to death. It is currently in a revival period. I listened to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) today say that production is up and the auto industry is back on its feet.

I wish that were true, but it is not and we know it. We know the auto industry is cyclical in nature. It is going great guns now, but the fundamental problems for parts manufacturers are still there and getting worse every day. The fundamental problems in marketing are still there, exist every day and are getting worse. The fundamental problems of Canadian content are still there and getting worse. The short-term quick fixes such as quotas are not working any more.

As a matter of fact, I saw an interesting article the other day which was done for the Japanese auto manufacturers. It said they should all be very grateful about Canadian and American quotas on Japanese cars because they made them exclusive products. The quotas allowed them to raise their price and hold it. The demand system had done a lot for them. All the publicity about the Japanese automobile industry had done a lot for their sales. They were kind of grateful about quotas.

I thought we had a handle on this a year ago. I thought we had a joint task force report endorsed by the union people, the parts people and the major manufacturers and supported by this government. I thought surely we had come to grips with the long-term problems in the auto industry.

That report is deader than a doornail. That is a shame because one or two years from now, or whenever the next downturn happens in the auto industry, they will all be crying that we have done nothing. It will be true. But the sad part is that this will not have been because we did not know what to do but simply because we lacked the political will to do anything.

I want to touch on a couple of things before I close. We have been exposed to a great deal of hoopla -- that is the polite word -- about our nonexistent bicentennial. As someone who has studied history for a while, I always get upset when somebody changes history around for political purposes. I guess it is at the point where one can hardly complain about the bicentennial celebrations this year. I am not sure what we are celebrating except that it is a celebration and I have never been one to turn down a party in my life. So I am happy to participate in a tree-planting next week and probably a picnic in the summer.

I know this is no longer an occasion to celebrate the arrival of the Loyalists in Canada. That was put forth as the reason at the beginning of this, but that is long gone. It is now a celebration of everybody coming here whenever they did, which is okay by me too. Most of all I will be celebrating these events because I understand the process a little better than I did when I first arrived here.

We are in phase one of the next election period. This is the part where everybody trots around with the cheques. This is the part where everybody gets a little button, a banner, a book, a flag or whatever it is. This government understands very clearly the process of getting elected in Ontario and is at work at it.

Mr. Stokes: If you want a party, have it. If you want a job, forget it.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, we are having a party this year. It will be going on and on. The best way to make people forget they are unemployed and do not have much of a chance to get work is to invite them to a party. So a part of this is that Her Majesty the Queen is coming over. Of course, we will all become monarchists for a short period of time and celebrate that event. Then Pope John Paul II is coming over and we will all become Catholics for a time and we will all celebrate that.

All these wonderful events will be done in a fit and proper way to convince the people of Ontario there really is no problem here. Unemployment is beside the point. The real purpose in life this year is to help celebrate something; the government will tell people what later on. We will have a good time and we will get something for nothing.

The bottom line of that for me is going to be that we should all try to have a good time. There is no question about that. We should all celebrate whatever it is we are celebrating, but we should not forget there are basic structural problems in our economy, that there is a lot of pain in Oshawa these days. There are people who are poor, and it is not nice to be poor. There are people out of work. They are tired and frustrated and they do not have in the foreseeable future a chance to recover, and they should have.

Phase two in this pre-election period will probably happen sometime this fall. I anticipate we will open up some more tech centres. It seems to me that is trendy enough to continue for a while. I do not know what the technology will be about, but I am sure there will be more tech centres around.

I hope the government produces something a little more substantial than the existing tech centres. They are nice, they are interesting to look at and they put out very good annual reports -- flashy, glossy and all that. They provide good jobs for some Tories here and there. That is all nice stuff. I do not object to any of that, but I would like the tech centres to serve a function in our industrial sector. They do not do that.

12 noon

I would imagine, too, that sometime this fall the Premier will don his Argo jacket, dance with the Sunshine Girls down at the lake and announce that the Bill Davis memorial domed stadium is going to happen. He probably will not announce how much it is going to cost. Again, it is ironic that in the midst of all these economic problems, in the midst of this unemployment, especially among young people where it is at an all-time high, the Premier's personal goal in life is to be able to light his pipe down by the lake without the wind blowing it out. Maybe we will frustrate him, because we will probably pass a bylaw against smoking inside the domed stadium; it will probably drive him right out of politics.

I know we are in an pre-election period. I anticipate this session of the Legislature will be a short, quiet snort, because the real agenda of the speech from the throne may not have been quite explicit in the one read by the Lieutenant Governor; the real agenda for this session of the Legislature is to get ready for the next provincial election. The government will be heading away from controversial items like people who are out of work and people who are poor, and will be heading right into the midst of the mire of celebration that will occur during this year.

That is a sad comment on our political process, but I believe it to be true, and that is why I will not support this speech from the throne and I will support the amendments that have been put forward by my leader.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I listened diligently to the remarks from the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) about not supporting the speech from the throne, and I will refer to the aspect of the support from the third party in a minute.

In preparing ourselves for this session and for the year ahead, we have debated a great number of issues, as we are all aware. Some of our discussions have been constructive and thought-provoking; others clearly were controversial and divisive.

To this I say, so much the better. Where better to participate in a spirited exchange of ideas than in the Legislature? The more heated our debates, the more I am reminded we live in a nation that has served as a beacon of democracy, freedom and prosperity to those trapped in rigid, less tolerant and less prosperous societies.

Therefore, in rising to speak on the speech from the throne debate today I would like first to express my own personal delight in participating in this democratic process.

Second, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the members of the opposition for the very essential part they play in our great political tradition. I will refer to some of their proposals with the same critical scrutiny as they apply to my government's proposals.

In regard to the concluding remarks of the member for Oshawa, I would like to congratulate the third party for the public recognition and support they stated in a communiqué issued on March 20, 1984, a few minutes after we left this chamber. It says: "We in the New Democratic Party agree enthusiastically and wholeheartedly with 50 per cent of this throne speech, namely, the aims, the goals and ideals so glowingly expressed throughout its pages."

When the NDP members publicly agree with 50 per cent of our proposals, we understand the political implications. When they agree with 50 per cent of these proposals in public, it means that privately they agree with 100 per cent. Politically they cannot say this; they have to say 50 per cent. But it means that realistically and privately it is 90 per cent, if not close to 100 per cent.

I congratulate the members of the third party at least for agreeing realistically, rationally, reasonably, moderately and publicly with one half of the contents of the speech from the throne.

The issue I wish to address today is one that is sure to bring a spirited exchange of ideas; it is the role and the place of young people in our changing society. This in no way diminishes the priorities of services and policies this government offers to our senior citizens.

I want to welcome today representatives in the gallery of the great riding of Sarnia, retirees from Sarnia north who are here today to listen to this spirited exchange of ideas.

Let me get straight to the point. It is obvious to all of us that the young stand out as the group hardest hit by the changing state of our economy. Young people today are more vulnerable to employment than are other population groups. In times when the economy is sluggish, they tend to be the last hired. They are also the least prepared to find available jobs. Many are unemployed because they are not qualified for job markets. Ironically, there are employers who are starved for skilled tradesmen and specialists today.

John Roth, a Bell-Northern Research Ltd. executive, believes the manpower mismatch persists because, as he says, "We have yet to recognize the problem for what it really is, namely, a national problem." His organization will require an extra 3,000 people by 1986. Simply expressed, it is a complex situation. On the one hand, business needs skilled workers and, on the other hand, workers need skills, particularly young workers. The future wellbeing of our society demands what I would call the union or fusion of the two.

There are legitimate causes for concern on all sides of the issue, from the young person who wants to work but lacks the skills to the employer who sees his business suffer and educators and policymakers such as ourselves who are expected to play a key role in resolving these contradictions.

The most tragic aspect of this dilemma arises when young people are deprived of what makes modern life meaningful; that is, a job. No caring society can settle for a situation where its young people are unable to fulfil themselves as well as make a contribution to society. Certainly our society cannot, nor will it.

I am well aware of the constant criticism and alternative solutions put forth by the parties opposite. I am familiar with the detailed proposals that both the Liberals and the New Democratic Party recently advocated to aid youth unemployment and to further skills training. I want to assure members opposite that the government is always receptive to positive and helpful suggestions.

Mr. Bradley: It will steal all the ideas.

Mr. Shymko: It is not stealing ideas. That is what democracy is all about. However, in this case the government believes the programs already in place and the coming changes in youth services delivery will prove to be more cost-effective, more general and universal in scope and better designed to take advantage of job opportunities in the private sector than the proposals of the opposition. The members opposite know that.

Let us have no illusions. Let us not con our citizens by saying this government and the public sector will provide the answers. This is not the reality nor the answer. The answer lies in the private sector, in our small businesses, in our manufacturing industry and outside. To tell the people we have the answer is misinformation.

12:10 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: The only industry that is booming in this province is advertising.

Mr. Shymko: I will not use any other word. The member knows that.

I would like to digress for just a minute to address some of the proposals that have been advocated by members of the opposition, and specifically the Liberal Party. Last year, 1983, will be remembered as the year the Liberals all of a sudden discovered pornography and youth unemployment. We never heard any comments from them before, but all of a sudden in 1983 the Liberals discovered youth unemployment. That it has taken them so long to do so tells us something about the acuity of their social and political senses and about their policymaking process. Perhaps I am being unfair.

Mr. Bradley: You are; absolutely. The Premier (Mr. Davis) did not discover it until 1984, and you know it.

Mr. Shymko: It hurts. Perhaps I should heed the words of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). I will quote him: "Go very gently on the negative stuff."

To their credit, in the case of youth unemployment the Liberals have taken the time to analyse the problem and to formulate in advance what they consider to be a viable solution to that problem. This must be regarded as a very positive development, and I acknowledge that; we all do. It is a change from what I have personally come to expect from those champions of negativism across the aisle.

However, I must also confess to a certain sense of disappointment with the Liberal proposals. I would have expected that having taken considerable time to formulate their policies, be it on youth unemployment or pornography, the official opposition would have come forward with something more than a pale replica or a shadow of government policy. That is all it is. While I am sure we appreciate their support, I regret that we must reject their advice.

We saw the proposal before this House last session from the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), claiming that existing government policy is inadequate and urging us to endorse the so-called Liberal alternative called A Plan for Youth. I do not agree with the claim that existing policies are inadequate. Furthermore, I have reviewed the Liberal so-called plan for youth as set out in the pamphlet entitled Let's Give Our Young People A Chance. I would submit that their grand design, if adopted, would represent a great leap backwards in our efforts to deal with this most vital issue.

No one would dispute the claim that youth unemployment is a grave social and economic problem. One need not indulge in any overheated rhetoric about "a lost generation" or "a generation without hope" to affirm a recognition of that fact.

This government recognizes those facts. This government has implemented programs designed to address the problem of youth unemployment squarely, efficiently and realistically. These programs, although they are targeted on youth, reflect this government's commitment to resolve this matter in the broader context of general employment promotion and support for the job creation potential of the private sector.

Some indication of this government's commitment to help the youth of this province deal with the unemployment problem can be had from what the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) told the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada: "Expenditures on job creation programs for youth by Ontario are about the same magnitude as the total federal commitment to youth employment programs for the entire country." The leaders of Her Majesty's loyal opposition know this. It is equal to the federal commitment for the entire nation. That is what our commitment for youth unemployment is all about.

I urge the members opposite to take a look at the example of the well-integrated programs of this province and those of the federal government, as printed by the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development. That shows the figure. They should take a look at our commitment and stop the platitudes.

The members will know that in its December 7 speech from the throne, the federal government indicated it would be expanding its youth job creation efforts. Finally, looking at Ontario, they have realized it is time to address the issue, which they had ignored to this time, as the members of the opposition have, having discovered the problem in 1983 as if it had not existed before.

Certainly we compliment that decision and that discovery, but it remains to be seen how quickly the federal government will follow through on this very important commitment.

Mr. Bradley: What you are saying is not true.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: I personally hope they will consult with the provinces of this nation on funding allocations so we can co-ordinate programs and gain the maximum benefit from these resources.

I would like to continue in the other official language of this country.

M. le Président, une coopération intergouvernementale constructive est aussi un élément essentiel si l'on veut assurer la relève économique et rétablir la confiance au sein de la population.

C'est dans cet esprit que mon gouvernement prie, une fois de plus, le premier ministre du Canada de convoquer, le plus tôt possible, une réunion des premiers ministres de toutes les provinces pour discuter de l'économie. Une pareille réunion pourrait servir à tracer la voie et à suivre une vue, une voix, une trace en vue d'un redressement économique diversifié durant le reste de la décennie.

Nous devons donner son élan au climat d'optimisme qui commence à se manifester; notre population n'en mérite pas moins. La création récente par le gouvernement fédéral de la Commission royale d'enquête sur l'union économique et les perspectives du développement du Canada est une heureuse initiative. Mais nous ne pouvons compter uniquement sur ses travaux à long terme pour favoriser une reprise économique durable.

Alors, pour conclure en francais, je voudrais dire qu'il faut accroître la coopération entre les gouvernements fédéral et provincial dès maintenant.

We have invested in solutions to this problem; we have made great investments. We have invested in programs that have proved effective. Time does not permit a full review of our youth employment programs; however, I would like to provide the members with some figures that will illustrate the level of government involvement in this area and our support for our youth employment programs.

In 1983-84 this government will support the operation of eight employment programs focused on youth. These programs will receive $121 million in public funds and will create 100,700 jobs for youth in this province. I do not mean part-time employment; I mean year-round programs that are in effect, and that is a commitment.

I would like to add that these programs are effective, they are realistic and they certainly stress the importance of the private sector in providing the answers. While these programs cannot in themselves totally eliminate the problem -- and we certainly do not have any illusions -- they have, I believe, greatly assisted the youth of Ontario to cope in a very difficult economic period.

I know the official opposition will reject this view; it is part of the political process, I imagine. Instead, they recommend that we adopt a two-year program that would cost up to $139 million a year and serve only approximately 14,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 24.

This is so-called Liberal economy at its best. The Ontario Liberal Party is apparently afflicted with the same malady that has so long plagued its federal colleagues. It is a strange disease, which leads to the delusion that it is sound policy to spend more and get less. That is what it is all about; that is all it is. If their program had been put in place this year, it would have cost the youth of Ontario, by comparison with this government's program, 86,700 job opportunities. When I say "cost," I mean lost.

12:20 p.m.

That is the difference between the 100,700 jobs our programs will create in 1983-84 and the 14,000 jobs their program would produce. Furthermore, the elimination of these 86,000 jobs would cost the taxpayers of this province $18 million more than the government would spend to create our own jobs.

They are asking the taxpayers of this province to spend about $210 on every job lost through their program. That is Liberal logic for you. This is not a job creation program; it is a job elimination program.

Mr. Bradley: What a silly speech.

Mr. Shymko: Read it again and you will see how silly it is in the public perception of your proposals.

I want to say to the members opposite we are missing the point if all we argue about is how much money we will spend and how many more programs we will be creating to aid our youth. The crucial question which should be addressed is more far-reaching than this simple debate on how many programs and how much money.

The questions that are crucial, in my opinion, are the following. Are we prepared to tackle youth unemployment and skills training in a serious and concerted way? Are we prepared to accept that the issues concerning youth are connected with other phenomena within our society? Are we prepared to view youth education and training in the universal perspective of our economic policy as well as in the context of our social development?

I believe our task as policymakers is to concentrate on clearly defining the problems and on increasing awareness of the work and creative energies that are required to bring about the necessary realignment between jobs and skills.

How can we solve the problem of unemployed and unskilled youth and ensure it will not be a problem in the decades ahead? Obviously the ultimate answer is an economy that has a significantly higher employment-generating capacity than exists at present. At the same time, one of the factors that can aid in improving our economy is training skilled persons, training them in greater numbers, training them better and training them more efficiently.

Unfortunately, planning for the future is a very risky business, as we all know. The world of the 1980s and beyond will not demonstrate the regularity of earlier decades; the only thing that can be predicted with absolute certainty is the fact that there will be ultimate uncertainty in the future. Nevertheless, we must be informed; we must make assessments about the future. From these assessments we can develop a model of the changing reality that is obviously confronting us today and will confront us in the years ahead.

One of the sure things about tomorrow's job markets is that there will be major shifts in employment patterns. There are also certain trends that we know have to be taken into account, which the members opposite dismiss totally.

Let me mention some of these trends. The first includes the changes in our industrial structures; the second is the altered pattern of trade in the increasingly competitive international marketplace. The accelerated pace of technological change, the growing domination of technology related to manufacturing and resource production by less developed countries, and competition from advanced countries are transforming the economies of Canada and Ontario. All you have to do to see that competition is to shop. Read the problems of our General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva and you will see the complexity of the issue.

The third trend we must take into account is the changing demographic pattern which is adding more young people as well as women to the labour force. It is our responsibility to recognize the legitimate needs and aspirations of this emerging labour force.

Superseding all of the above is the fact that we as a society are moving from an industrial economy to one based on information. Some members may have followed the excellent programs on TVOntario on this whole question of the future labour force and the challenges of the future. We are moving at an unprecedented pace to a total transformation of the labour force, to an economy that will be based on information, on high technology and on communications.

Consequently, the most effective force in the world today is the acquisition of knowledge in the form of information, communications skills and new technology. Those nations that place emphasis on the search for this kind of knowledge will be the leaders in the late 20th century and early 21st century. We see this happening in Japan. We do not see it happening in the developed countries, but in the developing countries that have adapted to the needs of the future.

I would like to reaffirm that in this rapidly changing new society and new economy, technical education will play a special role, as will that of retraining. If Canada and Ontario are to retain their competitive status on world markets, innovative manufactured goods will have to be produced. To produce these goods we will need skilled persons to design, operate and maintain Canada's manufacturing sector.

Universities and colleges will have to train youth to be engineers, business graduates and technologists. They will have to develop the skills essential for the development of a new technology and for the innovation and diffusion of such technology. We only have to look at the growth of business centres around the important learning centres in Boston and the Silicon Valley in the United States to realize the importance of educational institutions and the role they will play in future technological development.

Experts today seem to think increased automation will mean less work on production lines but more work in the background making sure the production lines run. In its annual report for 1981, the Public Service Commission of Canada observed that a high percentage of skilled blue-collar workers in Canada are now over 40 years of age, a very high and increasing percentage, and very few Canadians are entering blue-collar trades. While in Ottawa in 1978, I recall a statistic for that year, "Seventy-six per cent of our skilled workers in Canada are foreign born and foreign trained."

I would like to point out some of the reasons for skills shortages among our youth today. First, some analysts say the reluctance of young people to consider trades as a possible career is one factor that has influenced the gap between skills and jobs. Second, a not strong enough commitment to training on the part of our employers is a contributing factor. Third, there is a lack of flexibility in some of our training systems and in labour-management relations that affect these, and the unions will have to realize this. Fourth, there are inadequacies in our labour market information, which should be helping us to match educational output with industry's needs.

As far as education is concerned, computational and communications skills will become increasingly important in the years ahead. A complaint voiced by employers today -- one hears it on the radio and on television -- relates to the lack of communications skills of high school and university graduates. In an information-based economy the ability to communicate will be vital. So will a solid foundation in the sciences, especially physics and chemistry.

Kids are not dumb, and they realize it. One sees the trends in subjects that are already taken as options and choices in grades 12 and 13. One sees the fluctuation and the changing patterns in the universities and colleges. Subjects will have to be more integrated, which implies changing the role of teachers. The artificial barriers between education and work will have to be dismantled totally, as will the present distinctions between disciplines. Our learning institutions will have to develop greater adaptability if they are to remain relevant to the individual and to the society they serve. Retraining will have to play a bigger and bigger role.

12:30 p.m.

Alvin Toffler, in his book The Third Wave, predicts that in order to keep up with shifting market demands in the future, education will be continuous and continual, it will be a life-long process no longer bound to the traditional educational concepts we see today nor to the traditional years of schooling. We all know it is very difficult to forecast specific manpower requirements for the future. I would like to say the most essential skill which will have to be taught will be the ability to change.

Edward Wrapp stated in a Harvard Business Review article that the mark of a good future citizen will be, "a high tolerance for ambiguity." I do not mean I want to refer to the virtues and qualities of members on our side, such as the high degree of tolerance for ambiguity as we listen to the proposals from members opposite, but to prepare students for the work place of the 1990s will require not only a new blueprint for the future but also a capacity to adapt.

Our young people will have to be taught specific skills in such areas as computer literacy, as well as generic skills which will allow them to adapt to changing requirements. In terms of specific skills, I would like to stress that no educational program will be able to succeed without meaningful and substantial input from labour, and I refer to our unions, from management, or without the support of government. Closer co-operation will be necessary between the educational system and industry. Schools will have to act as information brokers between those who need information and those who have it.

Industry will have to play a vital role in the new educational process. They cannot sit back and simply watch the inconsistencies and the inadequacies. Employers and employees will have to be more open in articulating their needs. Industries could, for example, develop their production planning and skills development planning simultaneously so that a skilled work force could be developed before a new piece of equipment goes into production. They could invest in skills development the way they invest in research and development. They could communicate with governments and with educational institutions which, in turn, could supply them with skilled employees.

My government is prepared to deal with the transformation of Ontario's economy. Its top priorities include human resources and industry policies to encourage new technologies. This government's long-term policy direction in human resources includes focusing on the skills of development of our citizens, retraining existing manpower to adapt to changing technology, achieving closer ties between educational institutions and the needs of the work place.

I cannot go into all the details but I want to compliment the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) for her initiatives in this area.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) may laugh. We understand, because he recognizes that serious initiatives have been taken and he will see the results very soon.

Mr. Bradley: Totally inadequate initiatives.

Mr. Shymko: The honourable member is snickering and laughing at my statement. Just to give him some examples, Ontario's 22 community colleges have more than 700 training programs in high-technology areas today; and he laughs, he snickers.

Mr. Bradley: Tell that to the young unemployed of this province.

Mr. Shymko: The training in business and industry program and the Ontario training incentive for employers program are initiatives particularly designed to support firms to train their employees. The sum of $6 million has been provided for OTIP and $9.4 million for TIBI in the first, second and third phases.

Mr. Nixon: TIBI?

Mr. Shymko: Yes, TIBI. The member does not even know what I am talking about.

Mr. Nixon: Is the member serious?

Mr. Shymko: That is right.

Mr. Bradley: Watch how you pronounce that one.

Mr. Shymko: It is the Ontario training incentive program, OTIP -- the member knows what it is -- to integrate and match training with the industrial needs.

Let us refer to the linkage program. The members opposite are very familiar with the linkage program, which was established back in 1979 before I was honoured to be a member of this Legislature. This program attempts to synthesize educational programs to integrate them into a continuum of learning experiences.

Mr. Bradley: Jargon.

Mr. Shymko: Jargon, the member says.

It enables young people to achieve in secondary schools competencies which prepare them for further careers. It prepares them through colleges and industrial programs in place.

The Ontario career action program -- probably we will hear more snickering in a minute -- is another of the responses to youth unemployment.

Mr. Bradley: A good program.

Mr. Shymko: A year-round program, a good program. It may need more money. There is a commitment. The member has heard of commitments. Through this program, the provincial government finances co-operation between community colleges and employers to give people between the ages of 16 and 25 work experience without direct cost to the employer when no paying jobs are open. The colleges recruit the candidates. They find the employers and they supervise the training.

In 1983, 14,000 such positions were available to our young people. Instead of throwing this in the waste paper basket -- I do not know what he does with this -- the member should take a look at the description of all the programs I have listed. He should compare the federal programs with the Ontario government programs. He will see a description of our young Ontario career program for 1984, which is expected to provide 12,500 jobs for young people between the ages of 15 and 29. I refer here to year-round programs, not to summer programs or part-time jobs.

In 1983-84, government funding for operational and capital grants and Board of Industrial Leadership and Development programs to support post-secondary institutions totalled $2.5 billion, and he says it is not enough. Those members who are fearful and critical of possible changes in our educational institutions should remember we live in a globally interconnected world in which economics, educational and social phenomena are interdependent.

In today's world, education must of necessity be tied to changing economic structures. They will not admit our learning institutions must take the lead in adapting to future changes. These institutions also have to take the lead in changing traditional attitudes. The future will not only be full of this continuity and change, it will also be one of great opportunity. We are not negative. We are not pessimists. We accept these opportunities in a positive vein, with confidence and trust in our free enterprise system, in the private sector and in the policies and programs initiated by this government and wise and intelligent proposals on the part of the opposition.

Let us look back 100 years. In looking at the problems facing us today, we forget that a century ago Canada also faced and conquered the economic transformation taking place at the time. In the Canada of the 1880s, the newspapers were full of accounts of how tough the times were. The issues familiar to us today were relevant in the 1880s: national tensions, economic stress, technological apprehension. Unemployment seemed alarmingly high. Ontario industries seemingly could not compete.

The narrowly trained craftsmen in their seven-year apprenticeships were losing out to the new technologies of the day. The livelihoods of the coopers, the glass blowers, the iron moulders, the stove mounters, were threatened at the time by developments in electricity, central heating, by innovations in the printing industry, etc.

As it turned out, Ontarians of a century ago used their skills and knowledge to restructure the economy, to industrialize the province, to expand opportunities and to improve the living standard of its citizens. I think we can do well in the 1980s. We all recognize the need for changes. We must exercise the initiatives and courage to carry them out. We must devote ourselves collectively as a society to ensure that no talent goes unused and that no life is short-changed.

12:40 p.m.

In conclusion, I believe through awareness, co-operation and will, individual destinies and society's needs can be joined for the enrichment of all of us. I firmly believe we have the societal conditions and the kind of government necessary to provide a framework for achieving a satisfying existence for the individuals in our society while coming to terms with the challenges that new technology will bring us.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) for being kind enough to leave approximately 17 or 18 minutes for a few remarks this afternoon, although I would have preferred a couple of hours to speak about the many challenges confronting Ontario today after 41 years of rule by the Progressive Conservative Party.

I found it encouraging that the member on the government side spent much of his time at the beginning talking about a job program proposal from an opposition party. I think it is significant that we have not had those kinds of initiatives from the government. When the government provides programs such as the Ontario career action program, which is a good program -- in my view, it is an excellent program and it has been very helpful -- it simply does not fund them adequately and provide those opportunities that are essential for young people who are unemployed in this province.

I think it is significant that the member would spend so much of his speech talking about the proposals of the opposition at a time when his government has put forward a program of so-called action in the speech from the throne.

Mr. Shymko: The member misinterprets.

Mr. Bradley: I thought the member would probably feel I was misinterpreting, but after listening to his lengthy remarks about the opposition proposals and the opposition in general, the word "misinterpretation" is one that could be easily applied. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the fact that he did take that time out.

I would recall to him, and this is of most concern to me as a member of this Legislature, that with the bicentennial and all these other great things going on in Ontario, the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province addressed in a serious manner the problem of youth unemployment only in March 1984. In late February 1984 he made an address, I believe, to the Empire Club, where the cameras got a close-up of him showing his great concern for the young people who are unemployed in this province.

In my view, it is just not satisfactory that the Premier of a major province such as Ontario would not discover that there is a serious problem with youth unemployment, or at least admit that there is a serious problem with youth unemployment, until March 1984, when we in the opposition have been pointing out for years the problems that would arise and the problems that now exist.

In fairness to us -- and I think the member for High Park-Swansea has been fair in saying this -- we in the official opposition and, I think, those in the third party as well have not simply played a role of criticizing but have tried to provide some alternative proposals, which should be subjected to the kind of analysis and criticism the member has put forward. While I do not agree with him, I think this kind of public debate is useful in providing some answers.

Because of the limited amount of time that is available, I want to dwell simply on a few subjects. One that the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) dealt with during his remarks is a pet project of mine, and that is the electronic Hansard of this, the provincial Legislature of Ontario.

We have television cameras at present, of course, and we have had them for some time -- newsreel cameras that are up in the Speaker's gallery. I think they provide a very useful service for us. They allow the members of the press gallery who are from the visual electronic media to pan across the members of the Legislature, to look at some of the activities going on in here and to get some different angles on what is going on in the Ontario Legislature. I do not think anyone here would propose we remove those cameras.

Indeed, when we talk about putting in two additional cameras -- those we see on the east and west sides of the chamber, for instance, for the throne speech, which is a big government show, or the budget, which is another big government show -- it is very reasonable to have those in addition to the other cameras.

It is reasonable to have them for a couple of reasons. Technically speaking, they provide better shots of both the government side and the opposition side in order to see the people who are delivering the message in the House or asking questions. Also, it provides for the electronic Hansard the full televising of the entire question period and other important debates.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), for instance, might well have a question at some time or other of a minister about a regional subject that is important to the people in his part of the province. I venture to say that question would likely come somewhere near the end of the question period because the government members are usually good enough to permit the opposition, whose primary role is to ask questions, to have pre-eminence in asking them.

Let us say the member for Algoma-Manitoulin or the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) or any other member in this House who is a government member or an opposition member has a question of some regional importance. It will be been placed down on the list of questions in terms of priorities in the House because we look at province-wide issues first. It may well be the cameras will have left the gallery to go out in the scrum. Perhaps 35, 40 or 45 minutes into the question period those cameras are disassembled and taken down into the hallway.

The people of Algoma-Manitoulin, in my view, should know their member is prepared to raise an issue of importance to that area of the province, and there should be televising of that particular question.

Mr. Barlow: Never any doubt about that.

Mr. Bradley: Or Cambridge.

It may not carry in the Toronto electronic media, but it is important to the people in that part of the province. I think it is important as well that the full question and the full answer be provided to the people in the member's area so his constituents would know exactly what is going on. There are a lot of advantages to that. We have a federal House that is fully televised and we have municipal councils that are fully televised.

It is my view the people of this province have a right to that access to their legislators. It takes only two additional cameras to provide it.

Some important debates take place in this Legislature. Not all the debates are scintillating, as I am the first to admit. It would probably be unreasonable for the cameras to be rolling or at least for local stations to pick up the throne speech debate on Friday afternoon, for instance. But many important debates do take place in this House, and I think people should be able to look at them with some interest.

The Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) is here. There are a lot of people in the cultural community who might well be interested in a debate on things that affect theatres or other cultural organizations in this province. They can come to Queen's Park, but if they are in Sudbury, Ottawa or somewhere else, access is not there. If TVOntario were covering a debate of that kind, I am not going to say all the people in the province are going to be glued to their television sets, but those with that special interest are going to be here to watch that. I think it is an advantage to those of us who serve and, more important, an advantage to those we serve in this province.

I think it is reasonable that we have opposition to this. I fully expect there are going to be many members on the government side who are going to oppose it because it will give more access to the opposition. Let us face it; what a minister says is often considered to be more important than what a member of the opposition has to say, if that member is not the leader of a party, or what another member of the governing side has to say.

We see the Minister of Citizenship and Culture on television or the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) or others who have important things to say. There are many others who serve in this Legislature who do not have that same access and who would have that access through full televising of major debates in this House and of question period. I expect there will be some people on the government side who are opposed. There are probably many in the federal government who are sorry they acquiesced to having television cameras come in because they have provided opposition members with almost equal access in terms of the visual electronic media in the federal House.

12:50 p.m.

What is most disappointing is where the other opposition came from. When last year's president of the press gallery makes a presentation to the Board of Internal Economy outlining on behalf of the press gallery his reasons for not having an electronic Hansard in this House, that disturbs me considerably. I think we have a lot of very good people in the press gallery who provide an excellent service for the people of this province in describing and analysing what happens in this House.

I thought those in the news media would have defended the right to complete access to the legislators. To a certain extent, our people can evaluate our constituency contribution. We can go to the banquets and they can say, "He is a good speaker," "She is a bad speaker," or whatever happens to be the case. They can make those evaluations.

Hon. Ms. Fish: She is a good speaker. He is a bad speaker.

Mr. Bradley: I was looking at the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) when I said that, and that is what brought it to mind. I could have reversed it if I had been talking about the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps). We always have to be kind to those government ministers. We cannot be too critical because they have this awesome power over our constituencies. We have to throw the odd compliment the way of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Of course, I was referring to one of her bad days, not one of her better days when she would be an excellent speaker we would all want to listen to.

The one aspect of our job that probably cannot be successfully analysed and on which the people cannot place an evaluation is the legislative end of things, our legislative performance. Direct access for the people of Ontario would be very useful. I am hopeful we will have not only the acquiescence and agreement of the government, but a change of the official position of the press gallery on this item to provide that full access, in addition to the excellent service they provide for the people of Ontario.

I want to talk about something else in the next five minutes because we do not get a chance to talk about the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. here. The government neglected to mention the CBC in its speech from the throne. I wonder why. Related to the first subject we talked about, I want to talk about a program I consider to be a top-notch program on CBC radio, a program called Morningside. Peter Gzowski is the host of that program.

One of its aspects that I consider particularly enlightening to those of us with a special interest in politics is the Tuesday morning session with the three wise men. They have Dalton Camp of the Progressive Conservative Party, Eric Kierans, a one-time Liberal -- I do not know what he is now -- and Stephen Lewis, who makes an interesting contribution on all occasions. I like the contributions they make, although I do not always agree. They contribute to the political process because three points of view are presented by people I think most of us respect. We do not always agree, but we respect them.

Let us look at the provincial situation. I want to relate it to provincial politics. When we are talking about the Ontario report, that same program has as its participants Mr. Hugh Segal, who is so close to the Premier that he could almost be sitting on his knee, and Michele Landsberg, who in olden days we might have referred to as Mrs. Stephen Lewis, but today we do not refer to a person as Mrs. Stephen Lewis if she wishes to be known as Michele Landsberg.

Michele Landsberg is an excellent journalist and a person whose opinions are interesting to hear. Nevertheless, I think she brings a socialist view to that program. That is fine. I think the program should have that. Obviously, Hugh Segal speaks for the government. I do not see any independence in his remarks at all.

Mr. McClellan: Who speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves?

Mr. Bradley: The member for Bellwood leads into this. What is missing and what the producer of that program obviously does not understand is that we have a three-party system in the province and there is no spokesperson for the Liberal point of view on that program. I consider it to be extremely unfair that the party which received 31 per cent of the vote in the last provincial election, has 33 seats, forms the official opposition, has such a strong tradition in the province and makes such a significant contribution is excluded from participating by the producer of that program.

I think even fair-minded people on the government side and in the New Democratic Party would agree that someone such as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the former Leader of the Opposition, would be an excellent person to contribute to this program.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Nixon for leader. Is he a Liberal?

Mr. Nixon: I do not want the job. I am busy enough doing just what I am doing.

Mr. Bradley: I think he is a Liberal and I think that would be a reasonable contribution to make, as the Speaker would agree.

What I am saying is this works in favour of the government's little trick of saying, "We are the choice" or "It is the socialist hordes." They say one of the two. That is the choice they present to the people.

Mr. Nixon: Not much of a horde today.

Mr. Bradley: All two of the hordes who are here this afternoon know they are not socialist hordes at all. However, the point I make for members of this House is that a publicly funded network, the CBC, should know better than to present only two points of view on a major program which deals with an Ontario report. It is extremely unfair. It cannot be justified and yet nothing seems to be done about it. I keep getting letters from my constituents and telephone calls from people who are great fans of Morningside, who say, "How can this unfortunate and unfair practice be perpetuated indefinitely?"

I hope the president of CBC and the producer of this program read Hansard and that we have a rectification of this unfair practice at the earliest opportunity.

I could probably go on at great length on the many problems that are pointed to in the throne speech. It is really a list of items this government has neglected over the years. As it approaches an election, with its $50-million advertising budget, it will then --

Mr. Shymko: Fifty per cent is to support the NDP.

Mr. Nixon: Well, they are bought and paid for.

Mr. Shymko: Give us the other 50 per cent.

Mr. Bradley: I expect it would have 50 per cent. The government pays for 30 members when there are 22. It is similar to the situation when the public accounts committee found the Ontario Waste Management Corp. had bought 22 chairs for seven people. I pointed out to them we already have that formula established, and it is 30 chairs for 22 people at $761 a chair.

I could discuss many of these items, but I see the time of adjournment today is quickly approaching and I know the windup speakers, at least from the official opposition, will provide some enlightenment for this province.

We will probably have the usual ranting of the Premier (Mr. Davis), who will berate the opposition and gloat, as he did when he wound up the budget debate in one of the worst speeches I have ever heard from the Premier of this province, who has made some statesmanlike speeches from time to time. I thought on the last day of our sitting last time that the Premier expressed himself in a pretty unfortunate way. His words were condescending and partisan, unlike those of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your toleration. I am going to move the adjournment of the debate.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

April 6, 1984