Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: On Friday last, as members may recall, I made a ruling that found the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to be equally responsible for an infraction of the rules of the House. The Minister of Labour has withdrawn his statement. I would ask the member for Rainy River to withdraw his statement, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me, since my statement is prepared, to rise on a point of privilege at the end of question period to clarify some of these matters; but in the meantime I will withdraw the comment.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEMPORARY ABSENCE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) posed a number of questions regarding the Ontario Board of Parole and my ministry's temporary absence program. I believe these questions stem from the review of the operations of the parole board by the standing committee on procedural affairs.

I want to say to the honourable members at the outset that the temporary absence program is not replacing or superseding the role of the Ontario Board of Parole. Parole and the temporary absence program are totally separate in their functioning, although their ends are somewhat complementary.

The honourable member asked whether we are releasing inmates outright within a day. This is not correct. However, in relation to the immediate temporary absence program, judges can recommend immediate temporary absence for inmates who are gainfully employed and who are serving sentences of 90 days or less. We make community checks, employment checks, etc., and in many instances the inmate is released within 24 to 48 hours to take part in the temporary absence program, but with stringent reporting restrictions, the same as those that apply to other temporary absences.

It was also asked if it is true there are no limits to the temporary absence program. There are many limits to the temporary absence program. For example, temporary absences may be granted for periods from one to five days; from five to 15 days; for terminal release up to a maximum of 15 days; and for placement for periods over 15 days for employment, academic or medical reasons which entail the daily release and return to an institution or community resource centre.

Another question asked was, is it true there are 15-day recurring temporary absences? I can assure the member that this is not the practice in the temporary absence program. Let me assure the honourable member that the mandate of the temporary absence program does not exceed that of the board of parole. In fact, persons serving their sentences in an institution or a community resource centre who are on temporary absence may apply for and be granted parole.

Finally, the honourable member suggested that inmates should have the opportunity for an independent hearing instead of relying on the decisions of unnamed civil servants using unspecified criteria. I cannot support the view that inmates are released on temporary absences on the basis of unspecified criteria. In fact, the temporary absence procedures are extremely well established, and the criteria that are used for the selection of inmates for temporary absence are definitive.

A committee of three institutional staff members make a recommendation to the superintendent after checks with the police, judiciary, employers and our own probation and parole staff. In addition, the previous criminal record of each applicant, his or her temporary absence plans, the individual's domestic situation, previous possible use of drugs and/or alcohol, the type of offence that was committed and current behaviour in the institution are reviewed carefully. Let me assure members that all these factors are taken into consideration in detail before a decision is made.

I draw to the attention of the honourable members that the process I have just described has operated with a success rate of approximately 98 per cent for almost 16 years.

May I clarify for honourable members the mandate of the Ontario Board of Parole and the temporary absence program regulations. The Ontario Board of Parole exercises parole jurisdiction for all prisoners sentenced to provincial institutions and for any federal offenders serving a sentence in provincial institutions as a result of a transfer.

Inmates can be considered for parole upon the completion of one third of their sentence. Those serving sentences of less than six months must apply in writing for consideration. Those serving six months or more are scheduled automatically for a hearing with the board unless they choose to waive their right to a hearing.

The temporary absence program was introduced in 1969, allowing an inmate at any point in his or her sentence to request a pass to be absent from a correctional institution for medical, educational, humanitarian or rehabilitative purposes. As I noted earlier, the inmate's application is reviewed in detail, and the resulting overall success of this program is extremely positive.

This ministry's published goals and principles state that, wherever practical, correctional programs should be community-based. In this context those inmates who display motivation towards positive personal and social adjustment are most likely to be released into the community. Let me assure honourable members that inmates are released in the community not to relieve overcrowding but to meet the ministry's expressed mandate.

Public security is at all times the prime concern of my ministry. The emphasis of our programs is on applying the appropriate degree of control necessary to protect society and to provide institutional programs for those persons either clearly dangerous to the public or not sufficiently motivated for immediate return to the community. Our aim is to control the release of inmates either through careful selection for programs such as temporary absence or parole, or through rehabilitative institutional programming and subsequent release at the expiry of their sentences.

I can assure honourable members that the Ministry of Correctional Services is fully cognizant at all times both of the rehabilitation of the offender and of public safety.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I take it the chair would rule that the minister has just made a statement as opposed to answering a question previously asked.

Mr. Speaker: He did indeed, and he did it with my concurrence. Inasmuch as it was much too long to be taking up the time of question period, it was suggested he do it as a ministerial statement, and the rules provide for that, as you are probably aware.

[Later]

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order: Mr. Speaker, since you directed the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) to give his reply in statement form, I am sure you will be gracious enough to allow me one small supplementary question now.

2:10 p.m.

DEVELOPMENTAL CENTRES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, during the implementation of the Education Amendment Act, 1980, commonly referred to as Bill 82, concerns have been raised by school boards and parents regarding the special needs of severely retarded school-aged children in developmental day care centres under the Day Nurseries Act. The concerns expressed have centred primarily on the provision of services which extend beyond what might reasonably be expected as educational services.

I want to assure the members of the Legislature that over the last several months these issues have been jointly addressed by the staff of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

As a result, I am pleased to inform the members today of the following additional measures the government will be initiating to assist school boards to comply with the requirements of the Education Amendment Act, 1980, to ensure that all school-aged children have access to education, regardless of their exceptionalities.

With respect to severely retarded children now enrolled in developmental day care centres registered under the Day Nurseries Act, school boards are expected to continue planning for the enrolment and placement of these children as required under section 5 of regulation 274 and to present a plan for the approval of the Minister of Education.

However, rather than bringing all these children out of the developmental day care centres, a school board may, because of special circumstances, request the approval of the Minister of Education to appoint teachers, effective September 1, 1985, to provide an educational program within the centre.

Mr. Nixon: That is the Bradley program.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it is not. That is not what he suggested.

In such cases, with the approval of the Minister of Community and Social Services, that ministry will continue to provide services to school-aged children remaining in the centres until, as the number of children decreases, the provision of service is no longer required.

Where a board receives the approval of the Minister of Education to provide the educational program in this way, the board will be permitted to add the number of pupils so enrolled to the board's total enrolment of trainable retarded pupils and, thus, will qualify for the applicable grants for the education of trainable retarded pupils.

The board will be expected to affiliate such classes in such centres with an appropriate school within its system, under the supervision of the principal of that school and with access to the board's full resources and services.

Any new admissions of school-aged children accepted into such a centre after August 31, 1985, will be made by the parents through the school boards in full consultation with the administrator of the centre and the area office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Regional offices -- or area offices, as applicable -- of both ministries will jointly review the arrangements annually in order to facilitate the provision by the school system of the appropriate educational programs.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services will provide the Ministry of Education with an annual profile on preschool children in each developmental day care centre. Thus, the school board will be responsible for the education component in the centre's program, while the Ministry of Community and Social Services will continue to provide all other services.

I should like to assure members that nothing in this special arrangement should detract a school board from pursuing its plan of providing education for some or all of these children within the school system rather than in the centre.

School boards and local associations will be informed as soon as possible of the full details of these arrangements. In the meantime, my colleague and I are confident these steps will ensure that the mandate of the special education legislation will be met by September 1985 and, at the same time, ensure that the special needs of this group of children will be addressed in the best possible way.

ADHERENCE TO INFLATION RESTRAINT

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rise on a point of privilege at this time since statements seem to be completed.

On Thursday, April 5, 1984, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) sought to throw up a smokescreen about Dr. Wolfson's billings in order to cover up ongoing deficiencies in the way his department manages public funds.

The attached document, which I am tabling with the Clerk, outlines in some detail internal contradictions in Dr. Wolfson's statements, the ministry correspondence and the minister's efforts at self-justification in the Legislature. Those facts speak for themselves.

Today I would like to focus on some key findings of the internal and management audit branch about the ministry and its agencies' management practices, which the minister neglected to highlight in his statement.

The ministry did not seek "date-specific" billings from Dr. Wolfson until after February 1982, seven months after he started work. Dr. Wolfson claims he "acted in good faith" in the way he billed. "Until early in 1982, it was never indicated to me that I should submit my accounts in a different manner," he said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have no objection to the honourable member rising on a point of privilege, provided it is about privilege, and tabling the documents he said he was going to table. However, there is no order and no provision in the standing orders to allow a member to stand up and make a statement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a matter of privilege. The minister read a 12-page statement in this Legislature last week in which he called into doubt the way I personally as a member operate in this Legislature and in these environs, and he questioned my integrity.

You required him to withdraw some of the statements he made in that statement. If that is not a matter of privilege, I think it is time you told us what is, when a minister can take the time of this House to attack another member, who has no recourse except to sit here and take it, according to your ruling. I am not prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with matters of order and privilege on many occasions in this House. I suggest the member refer to the copies of Hansard that deal with them. I dealt with this matter on Friday last, as I said earlier. Unfortunately, the member was not in his seat, but at that time the minister did withdraw his remarks.

Earlier I had asked the member to withdraw his remarks, which he did.

With all respect, I do not think what you are doing falls within the criteria or ambit of my understanding of what constitutes privilege. As I said earlier, I allowed you to rise on a point of privilege and to make your opening statement wherein you said you were going to table certain documents. That is fine, but there is no provision allowing an individual member to rise and make a statement. As you will recall, the minister made his statement under the proper standing order of ministerial statements.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I again ask the question: Are you saying, in effect, a minister of the crown can come into this Legislature and under ministerial statements make what I consider to be an unwarranted personal attack on my integrity as a member of this House and that I have no opportunity to respond? You allowed him to go on for 12 pages and for some 20 minutes. It was very clear the minister was attacking me. You are now telling me you will allow that, but you will not allow me an opportunity to defend myself.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege, you indicated in your ruling just a moment ago that on Friday you had requested the two members to withdraw their statements. I do not believe that was entirely correct because I thought you quite properly indicated that the implication of presenting an untruth to the House had to be withdrawn. I understand now that both members have done so. But that does not mean the Minister of Labour has withdrawn his lengthy statement in which, point by point, he was personally critical of the actions taken by my colleague the member who is before you now.

My own feeling is there is no opportunity for the member to defend himself in this House. We are at the end of the throne speech debate. We do not know what items will come after that; supposedly, we will be dealing with bills. I expect he will have no recourse but to try to persuade the members of the press gallery they should pay attention to his comments outside the House. They may well do that. But surely on a matter where the minister gets up and spends considerable time in detailed criticism, which is a mild word indeed, of my colleague, and then there is no opportunity for him respond, there seems to me to be something of an injustice.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to support my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). If a member is accused of something in here, we must have an opportunity for that member to redress it or to defend his integrity.

The rules now allow for ministerial statements to be made, to which there is no response, particularly if the member has made his comments in the debate on the speech from the throne or something like that outside question period; and we cannot very well stake out our position via the avenue of questions.

I would ask that the Speaker send this matter to the standing committee on procedural affairs, but at the same time I would move that the member be now heard.

Mr. Speaker: I think that motion is out of order and I cannot accept it, with all respect.

Mr. Martel: Might I comment on that, Mr. Speaker? Standing order 19(b) says, "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in his opinion, rose first in his place; no debate is permitted on the Speaker's decision, but a motion may be made that any member who has risen 'be now heard,' or 'do now speak.'"

I suggest to you that this is what the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) was attempting to do, and I again ask you to consider the motion I presented to you.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, you did not read the whole item. Rule 19(a) and the rest of it has regard to rules of debate; it says so very clearly, and we are not at this time engaged in debate.

Mr. Nixon: Just let him make his point of order by agreement if by nothing else.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if you are not prepared to let the member speak, a decision with which I respectfully disagree, surely the member is entitled to know from you when he will be allowed to make a statement clearing his name if he feels he has been wrongfully accused of something by the minister. Surely that is a point of privilege.

Among ourselves here as members of the House, if another member has made an allegation that the member feels is untrue or is not founded in fact, or if he is making allegations with respect to motives that are quite unfair, surely at some point in the proceedings of this House the member should be permitted, on the unanimous consent of the House or however you want to do it, to stand up and make a reply that this member feels is part and parcel of the defence of his or her integrity.

I hope you will give the member for Rainy River some indication. If he is not to be heard now, when is he to be heard?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, may I make a comment on the various pieces of advice that are flowing to you at the present time?

First of all, it should be very clearly understood that the statement made by the minister was a proper ministerial statement and was not an attack on the member. As he said, it was a defence of a very loyal and respected public servant of this province, a public servant who had been criticized and who has no recourse to speak in any other manner but through the minister through whom he is responsible. That point should be made very clear.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is not the point.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the point, with great respect. We would be remiss in our duty, as the member opposite would be remiss in his duty if he were sitting on this side, if we did not speak on behalf of that public servant if we felt the facts were not correct. That is precisely what the minister did.

Mr. Speaker, we sympathize with you that the rules really do not cover this kind of occurrence. The ministerial statement was very much needed and very much in order, but we would have no objection to giving concurrence to let the member make his point at this time if you so rule.

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously, as members have recognized, there is no provision in the standing orders for the Speaker to allow this type of rebuttal.

Mr. Foulds: Unless you saw it as a point of privilege, which it legitimately is.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I would rather see it as a point of order than as a point of privilege.

Mr. Nixon: Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I shall indeed. That sounds like a familiar instruction.

However, as the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has suggested, and as I was on the point of suggesting, perhaps it is a matter for the standing committee on procedural affairs to address, to allow a member who feels he or she has been offended to have some course of action to defend himself or herself.

Obviously we have the concurrence of the House, and I am prepared to hear the member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you like me to start at the top?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you.

On Thursday, April 5, 1984, the Minister of Labour sought to throw up a smokescreen about Dr. Wolfson's billings to cover up ongoing deficiencies in the way his ministry manages public funds.

The attached document, which I am tabling with the Clerk, outlines in some detail internal contradictions between Dr. Wolfson's statements, the ministry correspondence and the minister's efforts at self-justification in the Legislature. Those facts speak for themselves.

1. The ministry did not seek "date-specific" billings from Dr. Wolfson until after February 1982, seven months after he started work. Dr. Wolfson claims he "acted in good faith" in the way he billed. He says, "Until early in 1982 it was never indicated to me that I should submit my accounts in a different manner." This is a direct reflection on the lack of monitoring in the ministry to maintain conformity with government practice.

2. "In some instances, the informality of records maintained by the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety administrative personnel...makes it somewhat difficult to establish a clear audit trail." That is also from an internal audit memo.

3. "Per diem claims for ACOHOS are not always verified with appointees and in no case do the appointees verify, by signature, the accuracy of statements submitted for payment."

4. "Dr. Wolfson's records...because of their incompleteness, could only be partially relied upon in reviewing these payments."

These are statements taken from ministry documents, not from any correspondence or anything I dreamt up.

To improve the accounting services' ability to monitor payments for all appointees, the director of the internal audit branch made a number of recommendations about signed claims. When one gets past the bureaucratic accounting language, the message is altogether clear and disturbing. The Ministry of Labour was prepared to pay bills without proper monitoring or verification. In fact, Dr. Wolfson's initial repayment only occurred after we had raised the issue with the ministry.

Thus, it appears clear that through ministry negligence and sloppy administration, the taxpayers' moneys have not been supervised carefully. As a result, if Dr. Wolfson has suffered any embarrassment, it is a result of his ministry's sloppiness.

The minister also refers to there being "another" order in council. This information contradicts the information received from his ministry. Copies of the relevant letters from his ministry are also being tabled with the Clerk. I ask the minister to table this "other" order in council, namely, OIC 794/82, which he referred to in his statement last Thursday.

The question of Dr. Wolfson's integrity is not the issue in this case. Again, I wish to emphasize that what I was pointing out was that when it came to the workers of this province, the government used an iron heel, but it seems to be flexible, and even sloppy, when it comes to enforcing the rules for its own.

If one looks at Hansard, the person who does the headlining of the topics in Hansard used the headline "Adherence to Inflation Restraint." That certainly was the point I was making.

If any apologies are owed, they should be from the minister; first, to Dr. Wolfson for failing to ensure his billings met accounting procedures; and second, to me for providing inaccurate information to me, if such it is, and for misrepresenting my specific questions to the House.

In closing, I want to make it clear to the ministers, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and this House that I will not be intimidated from discharging my responsibility as a member of the official opposition in this Legislature.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, and with the concurrence of the House, I ask all honourable members to --

Interjection.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is dirty pool.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River will resume his seat.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Now we have a rather pleasant little interlude to greet some visitors in the Speaker's gallery. I ask all members to join with me in recognizing and welcoming the three members of the Special Committee to Study the Relationship of Government and the Arts in Ontario established by the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture: Mr. Robert W. Macaulay, who is the chairman, a former member and a former cabinet minister; Mr. Peter J. Day, who is a vice-chairman, and Ms. Geraldine Sherman, a vice-chairman.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FUNDING OF THE ARTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I join you in welcoming the distinguished members of the committee. I am surprised they are not sitting on this side of the House after their condemnation of the sorry state of arts funding in this province.

In that regard, I have a question for the appropriate minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. She has no doubt had an opportunity to review the report by these three distinguished people in the gallery leering down at her. The bottom line of that report is relatively simple. What they are saying is that the minister is starving the arts and fattening her own bureaucracy.

How can the minister justify the sorry state of funding of the arts in this province when she is at the same time inflating her own information budget? It doubled last year to some $2.4 million, which is providing absolutely no productivity for artists and the arts in this province. It is accomplishing nothing.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) doubtless knows I was very pleased to announce last week grants in excess of $73 million to the Ontario Arts Council and several other of the arts and cultural institutions of my ministry, representing considerable increases to those agencies.

I was delighted to receive correspondence on April 6 from the chairman of the Ontario Arts Council regarding the proposed funding for this year, which indicated, "I sense that we have embarked upon a new era of commitment and confidence, and can assure you of the OAC's continuing co-operation with the ministry in fulfilling our shared mandate."

That is the clear commitment of this government, as documented time and again in a report that took 10 fine months of study and is now before us all.

Mr. Peterson: I have now solved my problem. I now know what the information department does in Citizenship and Culture. They write answers to questions whether they are asked or not. They are spending $1.2 million writing answers to questions that have not been asked.

I will ask my question again to see whether she can wing this one on her own. How can she justify the fattening or inflation of her own bureaucracy, with her own main office increase going from $1.2 million to $2.4 million in information services, when at the same time the arts are considered to be in such a sorry state for funding? The committee itself said the ministry can get the best value for its investment in the arts by exhibiting restraint in its own operation. How does she justify that inflation to this House?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I thought we were looking at a study that has taken, as I noted earlier, some 10 long months of very careful receiving of briefs and careful consideration of views presented by the public all across this province. It was not an analysis that was done in haste, nor was it an analysis that was pre-prepared for the reading of those who might come forward.

If the honourable member were to take the time to read the report, I would be very surprised if he reached the incredible conclusion that for 20 years the arts in this province have not been funded and funded well. The point that is made and underlined here is the strength of the arts in this province, of the expansion of facilities, of the support to the Ontario Arts Council. I was merely citing for the member the commitment this government has to the arts in this province and its willingness to expend in excess of $73 million to that end in this fiscal year.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the minister may gesticulate grandly and sweepingly about the grand performance of this government with respect to the arts --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: I would like to ask the minister whether she herself has read all the graphs in this, which show declining real dollar support of the arts over the last several years to the point where this committee has had to report that this province spends only nine per cent of the actual expenditures on the arts in this province, the others coming from other levels of government; that it is the lowest of any province in Canada, and that it is in fact 50 per cent of the average level of the other nine provinces in this country.

In the light of the survey sponsored by the committee, which discovered that 53 per cent of this province is prepared to spend up to $25 per person per annum more on the arts in taxation, will the minister not now reverse the devastating policy of the last several years and engage in an aggressive policy of arts support in this province, which the arts in this province deserve?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member who waved a copy of the report shows clearly in his question that this is a very extensive and very complex report.

I look forward, as I am sure the member does, to a very careful review of all the recommendations that are housed therein. I would note, however, that the central charge to the committee was to review the relationship between government and the arts during the past 20 years and to chart a course for the future.

The future course that has been charted in this report, as I believe the members will know readily, is not a course that will be settled simply by putting dollars to a problem. I am sure the member is aware that there are suggestions for tax change, for the consolidation of facilities and for internal reviews of the priorities of the Ontario Arts Council, among others, all of which, taken together and analysed, will assist us in guiding the future. I hope to be able to respond to the full report in some considerable detail in the very near future.

I want to come back to the point of saying that fundamental to the finding is the fact that there has been extraordinarily positive growth in the arts in this province in the last 20 years, and the challenge before us is to continue to underline this and to maintain it. I repeat again that just at the close of last week we have shown the beginning of this continued commitment in announcements made of the support that will be provided to the arts in this coming year as a minimum.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I know one thing: The present minister will never receive any awards in the Academy Awards for her performance today in trying to defend her position on this question.

As the member from the New Democratic Party mentioned, this province spends the lowest share of any province in this country on the arts, and our figures show that the arts have decreased their spending by more than 20 per cent since the 1978-79 levels. To quote a comment made in this report:

"We believe that unless there are increases in the provincial subsidy to the arts, in part to correct the erosion caused by inflation, we could lose some of our most exciting talent and we will have squandered much of our sizeable investment in the arts."

What does the minister propose to do to improve this position that has been illustrated by this commission?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the report dealt with a number of complementary recommendations that, as I understand them, cannot be dealt with in isolation. To do justice to three very dedicated people who did not take their chore lightly, either in examining the relationship of government and the arts or in charting recommendations for the future course, it would be inappropriate in the extreme to simply move upon a particular finding without an analysis of how that fits with others.

In so far as the basic thrust is concerned, it is clear there has been strong support for the arts and expensive, extensive growth. It is my wish to examine the findings in detail and to respond in accordance with those.

I know the honourable member would also welcome an opportunity to consider, among other things, the recommendations there which put before us a considerable dilemma. Does one concentrate on excellence or does one distribute resources broadly in the community? The very question the member has put was in the discussions on previous estimates. Those are the kinds of things that cannot be taken in isolation because they are integrated recommendations.

ALLOCATION OF HOUSING UNITS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing concerning the nonprofit housing allocations, which have no rhyme or reason. He will be aware that the Metropolitan Toronto area has demonstrated the greatest need for nonprofit housing, given a vacancy rate of less than one per cent and the fact that 5,000 families are on the waiting list for municipal nonprofit housing. That list is growing by some 70 families per week.

Given the fact that Metro Toronto's waiting list for seniors is close to 3,000, why is it that Metro got no units on the basis of the last allocation? What kind of priorities does the minister have when he ignores the area of greatest need in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, at the time I made the announcement on the allocation of municipal nonprofit units, which was in the latter part of February, it was in direct relationship to the fact that in its initial allocation for nonprofit units for municipalities or a province, the federal government through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. had given 1,400 units to Ontario.

The 1,400 units, down from 2,200 last year and from 2,800 the year before, left us with a very limited opportunity to allocate to communities. I said very clearly in my announcement we were giving them to the city of Ottawa and to various other communities across Ontario where there had been commitments, both federally and provincially, to provide for municipal nonprofit housing.

I went on to say I was looking at the second allocation that would come from the federal government. Clearly, they said that was the initial allocation and they wanted us to indicate how we could use additional units. We did just as the federal minister asked. We indicated that with the first allocation of 1,400 units and spelled it out community by community.

We then went to whether we were going to be on rent geared to income or rent supplement on those 1,400 units. We clearly spelled that out to them. That was to respond to the fact that the federal government said the province was not paying a sufficient portion of cost relating to providing rent-geared-to-income housing. We thought the rent supplement program responded positively to the federal minister's request.

We wrote to the federal minister, saying the additional federal allocation would be principally for Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto. We asked for 1,400 additional units. We said 1,100 of those would go to Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto. We clearly understood there would be a second allocation and I trust the Leader of the Opposition is aware there was an announcement this morning.

Mr. Peterson: I ask the minister again, because as he knows the second allocation depends upon the first allocation and its perceived success, why Metro has been ignored, when by any standard he wants to mention it represents at least 36 per cent of the need in Ontario. The minister is not responding to those needs.

He talks about Ottawa. Ottawa got 25 units even though there is a need for some 1,600 at present. There is no rhyme or reason to his allocations. How does he expect the federal government to respond to a program that is so cockeyed in most people's judgement?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it might be cockeyed in the Liberal leader's opinion -- he has exclusive rights to that particular field -- but let me suggest, clearly and honestly, he extrapolates figures to his own benefit. To correct the record and make it very clear and easily understood, Ottawa was given 225 units, 25 of which were for municipal nonprofit organizations to construct and 200 of which were in the rent supplement program. One hundred per cent of the 200 units will be used for people who require them now and these units are being provided through the private sector.

If we look back a year, one of the criticisms of this minister and ministry was that we did not take up the rent supplement units in Ottawa. The opposition cannot have it both ways. We are working on one allocation from the federal government, which can be used either for construction or for rent supplement programs.

Last year we used it in the construction field in Ottawa. This year we put the principal sum into the rent supplement program, which brings the units on stream relatively quickly. One hundred per cent of the allocation is for rent-geared-to- income housing, not 25 or 35 per cent as it would be if units were constructed.

I realize the pressure in the city of Toronto. I felt that by showing the situation in Metropolitan Toronto to the federal government it would be easier for them to understand the pressures and the needs in the second allocation. The strategy was very clear. We could spell it out to the federal government. It is much more visible than in some of the other communities and we felt we had gone through it.

This morning, in this community, Mr. LeBlanc announced an allocation factor of 500 units for Metropolitan Toronto and said he was doing that on his assessment of need. They had gone through an analysis and their people, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., felt 500 would meet the requirement. That is the implication in his letter and his press release this morning. The other 80 units they gave to the province went to the city of Ottawa.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to approve, as he is required to, the allocation of 80 units for the Gloucester-Nepean project in the central part of Ottawa which was announced by the federal authorities today?

Can the minister explain why he is apparently trying to kill municipal nonprofit housing in Ottawa by allocating only 25 units the last time around and by asking for almost none in the most recent allocation? Why has the minister not been prepared to ensure that publicly provided nonprofit housing is there in addition to private enterprise housing?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first, the allocation of 80 units was made directly by the federal minister to a municipal nonprofit corporation in the city of Ottawa for a project in which there is, I understand, some association between CMHC and the municipal nonprofit in the construction of that project, on land ownership and few of the other things.

I take it Mr. LeBlanc felt it was a project he wanted to move ahead at this time. I doubt very much whether there will be a further allocation, but I am going to see any further allocation from CMHC for Ottawa, Metropolitan Toronto, Toronto itself or other jurisdictions in this province. There was, as the member likely knows, a fairly substantial allocation from the federal minister this morning to both the private nonprofit and the co-operatives in various communities across the province, something like 1,300 or 1,400 in the Toronto and Metro Toronto area. A fairly substantial number of units was also allocated under those two programs in Ottawa.

Let me come to the second part of the question, which relates to whether we are trying to kill the municipal nonprofit. That is not our intention at all. I repeat, last year when we allocated the construction program to the Ottawa nonprofit housing corporation, it accepted it. The criticism from local politicians and others was that under the Ontario rental construction loan program we had not taken up the units we could get from the private sector under what we call a rent supplement program. We were criticized because we had not taken them up and we should have.

2:50 p.m.

I emphasize that an allocation from CMHC can be used for one of two purposes. I have explained this in my estimates report and I will do it again today. It can be used in one of two ways: either for a rent supplement program, renting from the private sector or from other organizations, or in the construction of municipal nonprofit units. Last year, as I said already, we used it for construction in Ottawa. This year, because of some of the criticism that came our way a year ago, we decided to take up the units that were available from the private sector on a virtually immediate basis to respond to those people who were on our waiting list. We can do that now without waiting 12 or 18 months for construction.

The member cannot have it both ways. Either we are going to use the allocation --

Mr. O'Neil: Subsidizing $900-a-month rents in some cases.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member's friends in Ottawa designed that program, not me. Is the member saying we should not take up those units?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: We do not want it both ways. We just want some action. The response to real needs has been so dismal.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: What is the minister going to do for Barrie with a zero per cent vacancy rate, or Kingston with a 0.01 per cent vacancy rate, or Sudbury and Guelph with 0.04 per cent vacancy rates? The minister knows there is a crisis in almost every metropolitan area in this province at present. Surely it cries out for greater action. Would the minister not agree? What is he going to do to make sure we move forward to meet this need?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is always interesting to hear people talk about the dismal program in Ontario responding to the needs of the public, those in the lower-income groups. Dismal? In the 20-year period of the Ontario Housing Corp. we now have in place in this province more than 120,000 units for the less fortunate, both families and seniors, costing the taxpayers of Ontario and Canada over $1 million per day. One out of every 10 rental units in this province is either under lease to the government or we own it as taxpayers. In metropolitan areas, it is one in seven.

We have moved aggressively and positively over that period of time to respond to the social requirements of this community of Ontario. Indeed, we have done it without the taxpayers throwing any kind of abuse at politicians on all sides of the House for having provided those units.

I have said to this House before and I repeat it today, if we are to deliver this program in the various jurisdictions of Ontario, we will not be doing it singularly as a provincial government. For a long time, we have agreed that the response to this program is provincial and federal. It is a co-operative program.

For some weeks now I have asked the federal minister, Mr. LeBlanc, for a meeting to go through it with him point by point to see if we can amend some of the federal and provincial programs to try to bring a greater number of units on stream. At this point, I have not had the opportunity to meet with him. Indeed, I could not meet with him this weekend although I did have the opportunity of meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, did the minister get to shake hands or did he curtsy?

The minister said in February that according to his own calculations Metro Toronto alone needed 1,100 units. Mr. LeBlanc announced this morning there would be 500 units allocated to Metro. What does the minister intend to do about that 600-unit shortfall this year?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think I concluded my last comments by saying I had asked to meet with the federal minister to review some of these programs. I want to draw the attention of the leader of the third party to the press release and to some of the other information Mr. LeBlanc gave out. He indicates clearly in his telegram to me this morning that the reason for the 500 units is because of his or CMHC's analysis of the need of the Metropolitan Toronto area.

He did not relate to the need we had expressed as a ministry, which was very clearly spelled out in letters to him on several occasions and in meetings between CMHC and people representing the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing over the last number of weeks.

He says in the telegram that according to his analysis, this is what he believes is required in the marketplace. I will say, in fairness to him, he does follow up by saying there will be a further 1,372 units going into private nonprofit and co-op housing. I guess with the combination of figures, he believes he has responded positively to the need.

Mr. Rae: The fact of the matter, as the minister knows, is there are 18,000 people still on the waiting list for Ontario Housing. There are thousands more who are on the waiting list for nonprofit and co-op housing. There is a tremendous need which the federal announcements have done nothing to meet.

The minister has been out of the housing business since 1978. How can he justify continuing to refuse to get into the business of providing housing when the need is so great? The minister should stop blaming Ottawa and start acting himself. Is the minister prepared to introduce a program himself to deal with the tremendous shortfall that clearly still exists?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The leader of the third party knows very well we have not been out of the housing business. It is correct that we have been out of direct construction, as has the federal government and every province in this country.

Very clearly, we have all been involved in an agreement we signed back in 1978 with the federal government, which said we would participate in the delivery of a municipal nonprofit program and we would cover the cost or a portion of the cost.

I acknowledge the fact that the percentage we as a province are meeting in relation to the rent-geared-to-income housing in the nonprofit sector is relatively small, but I want to emphasize to this House that it was in keeping with the agreement with the federal government. One of the points I have made to Mr. LeBlanc is that we are prepared to negotiate some changes in that agreement if he would like to sit down and go through it with us.

We appreciate that the waiting list is lengthy and we have tried to respond through the various programs. The Canada rental supply program will bring 1,200 additional units on stream in this province this year. One of the things Mr. LeBlanc had to say this morning, and I was delighted to see it, comes back to the co-ops and the private nonprofits.

On the allocation agreements for Metro Toronto, he said he wanted to see the major cities move the rent-geared-to-income portion of their units to 35 per cent plus five per cent, which is the very offer I made last August to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in trying to resolve some of the problems of the municipal nonprofits in the various jurisdictions of Ontario. Few of them have taken up the opportunity, because they do not like to work from a common waiting list.

This morning Mr. LeBlanc said, and I thank him for it, that he wants the municipalities to move that 35 per cent and five per cent. Indeed, I hope he is also taking under consideration, maybe as a result of his being the federal minister responsible for the private nonprofit and co-op housing, that he might suggest that 35 per cent and five per cent of those allocated units also become available to the people on the waiting lists established by the local housing authorities. That will respond more positively to the waiting list than anything I can think of at the moment.

Mr. Peterson: Is it not true that in these negotiations the minister has bargained using Metro as a pawn, and indeed he has lost in the bargaining and now Metro has lost?

I understand the Premier (Mr. Davis) is meeting with the mayor tomorrow. What is he going to offer the city of Toronto in order to meet the great need?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not believe we lost in the bargaining. If I listened to some of the remarks coming from that party going back to the end of February, they said there would be no second allocation. The province obviously had a second allocation of 580 units. The opposition did not believe we would ever get a thing. It figured we were at the end of the road at that time. I had greater belief in the member's Liberal friends in Ottawa than he had and we got 580 units.

Regarding the meeting tomorrow, the request for the meeting came from the mayor of Toronto. We were not asked to present any program, but it was he who asked for the meeting with the Premier and myself. Indeed, we are going to meet with him and we will review whatever he has to say.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister just said he acknowledged that Ontario's contribution to nonprofit housing construction programs since 1978 is relatively small. Does he remember the figures he gave to the estimates committee last year? Since 1979 the federal contribution to nonprofit housing construction in Ontario has been $93.5 million and Ontario's contribution has been $1.8 million. That is to say, Ontario has contributed less than two cents on the dollar since 1978 towards the construction of nonprofit housing.

Does the minister intend to continue this idiotic policy which has resulted in critical housing shortages for low-income people all across the province? When will the minister commit this government to return to the cooperative spirit of housing in evidence before 1978, when Ontario contributed at least 50 cents on the dollar? Why does the government not set up its own loan guarantee programs and its own Ontario house construction programs and get back into the house-building programs it abandoned in 1978?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First, Mr. Speaker, we did not abandon the program. It was the result of an agreement with the federal government which wanted to get out of the mortgaging business. That was very clearly spelled out and the member knows it. If not, he should go back and read some of the reports of that date.

3 p.m.

We have gone along with the agreement; we have participated fully in it and have tried to satisfy the market. Because we made a good agreement, all of a sudden it becomes a detriment to us. If we had not made a good agreement I would hear the third party criticizing us for spending more money than the federal government. I have offered to sit down with Mr. LeBlanc and review with him the costing of these programs and how we might expand them into new programs by the province participating more fully.

Let me suggest that we overlook one very simple fact. In all units that were built before 1978, we do pay 50 cents on the dollar for their operation. Indeed, not so many years ago 7.5 per cent of the cost was unloaded from the municipalities on to the provincial government. While we are not participating beyond five per cent in municipal nonprofit housing at the moment, in the long term our commitment is there because, as the cost of operation goes up, the commitment by the province will become greater.

The members opposite do not like to hear that obviously, but that is the position in which we find ourselves -- a long-term one. Once again I want to suggest to this House today that, as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I am prepared to meet Mr. LeBlanc to see if we cannot expand the program to cover even a greater portion of the field that is our responsibility, with a greater participation by the province. I make that offer in this public forum this afternoon. Maybe now I will get a positive response from him and we can sit down and do something in a productive way.

SURVEY ON ARTS FUNDING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Culture if she can explain the following circumstance.

Chapter 3 of the report of the committee describes a survey which apparently was put out by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and was shown to the committee. One slide of the survey showed that 61 per cent of the public allegedly recommended that if reductions were necessary in the Ontario budget, the arts should be the first to be cut.

Upon request to see this survey in order to see what the questions were, the government refused to allow the committee to have access to that information; it refused to allow the survey to go to the committee. As a result, the committee had to fund its own survey with respect to public attitudes towards arts funding.

Can the minister explain why there was a coverup of that survey and the questions asked in it? Can she explain how the results of the survey carried out by the Macaulay committee are so dramatically different from the results that have been circulated within government and which resulted in the initial statement made by her predecessor, the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey), when he referred to the need for a change in circumstance?

He said: "The availability for government funding for the arts has reached the point of maximum expansion in the past two years." That statement clearly reflects that attitude towards cutbacks which led to the establishment of the Macaulay committee.

Can the minister explain why there was a coverup with respect to the initial survey and why the results of the two surveys are so dramatically different?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, first, let me say I am not aware of any coverup whatsoever. The first I had heard of an approach by the committee members in regard to some information on a budget consultation was when I was perusing parts of the report, having received it, as I did, late on Friday.

I have no further information about that piece of information, nor do I know upon what it was based. As I said, I think the report does accurately reflect that the information was part and parcel of what might be described as a prebudget consultation designed specifically for a large number of agencies and clients of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

Some possible confusion might be left to someone listening to the juxtaposition of points in the question of the leader of the third party and in the suggestion that information on the one matter led to a survey on attitudes towards the arts being undertaken by the committee that might otherwise not have been undertaken.

That examination of attitudes towards the arts was viewed as an important component in the committee's research and in its efforts to try to reach out to a population beyond that which was coming in and presenting briefs. Allowance for that was provided in the budget of the committee, and I was pleased to ensure that was the case. The results of that survey, the questions asked and the findings, as the member knows, are now public.

If there are further questions with respect to some information, I would suggest the chairman of the committee or committee members might choose to ask them directly. I was not made aware of any problem, save and except a passing reference in the report, and that was not drawn to my attention until this weekend.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the report states: "We realize...how damaging this particular statistic or survey could be to any argument put forward for equitable funding for the arts." It is intriguing that a damaging statistic and the background to that damaging information were not made available to the committee but were obviously circulated widely within the government and were part of an official presentation to the committee itself by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

The Treasurer's (Mr. Grossman) own advisers were clearly trying to tell the committee what kind of direction they thought the committee should go in; that is clearly the way the government is operating. Then, having told the committee which way it wanted them to go with respect to cutbacks, it refused even to give them the question, which would have allowed the committee to come up with an independent answer.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Luckily, the committee did take its own survey. Can the minister simply confirm the survey, which showed that Ontario spends 22 cents out of every $100 on the arts and on arts funding and that when people heard this information their attitude with respect to arts funding changed dramatically? Can she explain why so few people know how much or how little money Ontario really spends on arts in the province?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Let me repeat that the presentation in question was a prebudget briefing. It was not closed; it was not specially for the committee. It was for a broad range of agencies and clients of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and it included a wide range of questions and opportunities for response that were available.

I repeat that the purpose of undertaking the survey in question was entirely positive.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Fish: It was for the committee charged with reviewing where we have been with the arts in the past 20 years and considering the future to examine this question in clear form. This survey has now been made entirely public; indeed, the contents of the survey as well as the questions asked are available to anyone who is interested in them, and they are published. I wish to make clear that the committee indicated, quite properly, that responses to questions clearly depend on the question that is asked.

With respect to the question about how many people in this province know precisely the amount of money that is spent on the arts, how can I deal with that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Fish: When increases in the communications budget are put forward, we are pilloried. We are told we cannot provide information, that such activity is inappropriate. How, then, can I deal with a suggestion that inadequate information is before the public?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot possibly believe what she has just said because it is a bunch of hogwash. If the minister has been told this by some of her ministry officials, it is wrong. When Mr. Macaulay started out, he went out thinking the same thing she has just said. I think he has changed his mind. The arts are underfunded in Ontario, and we need to have some changes made.

What is the minister going to do to give increased funding to the arts throughout this province?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, we already have. I announced it last week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I think if the minister would care to turn to 8.9 in the report, she would see there a table that lists the various proportions of support for the arts in Ontario from the various government bodies. We find the municipalities support it at a level of five per cent, the federal government supports it at a level of 24 per cent and the province supports it at a level of nine per cent.

I would submit it appears to us that the province, in giving the razzmatazz to the public about the level of provincial support that is offered, is hiding behind federal moneys which go to agencies which ought to be much more substantially supported in this province than they are.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Allen: May I ask the minister if she will abandon the grandiloquence and the gesticulation? Will she please stand up and simply tell us whether she is going to turn around the pattern of her ministry's behaviour and funding in the past? Will she indicate that the public support that exists for the arts will be followed by substantial action by this ministry?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I look forward to a very careful review of the report, with an opportunity to respond in detail over the next few weeks. The general position taken by that particular report and its conclusions are clear.

I say again there have been very strong commitment and support to culture and the arts in this province in the last 20 years and that commitment continues in the strongest possible way. I would be pleased to engage in a more detailed response when we have had an opportunity to consider all the interrelated recommendations over the next few weeks.

OSAP APPLICATIONS

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) asked whether the rumour he had heard was correct. I would like to know whether the rumour I have heard is correct, and that is that his erstwhile federal leader is going to appoint himself Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

None the less, the rumour the member had heard was that the Ontario student assistance program application forms were going to be delayed until mid-May. I must tell the member that, beginning the week of April 2, the initial run of 100,000 forms in both English and French were distributed to all colleges and universities. The remainder, 375,000 in English and 25,000 in French, completed on Friday, has been delivered today. We will begin distributing them to all the high schools tomorrow; so the distribution certainly will not be in May.

TESTING OF BACKUP BATFERIES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy regarding the class 1 emergency power supply at the Bruce nuclear generating station. The minister is certainly aware that each plant has a dual backup system. One is the large diesel generators and the other is huge banks of batteries that are expected in the first instance, as we draw on the batteries in the event of a breakdown of any kind, to be used to supply power for the relay switches, valve maintenance and reactor cooling system.

We have some concern about the testing of those battery banks. The Bruce B safety report describes their capabilities; so I will not go into that in detail. Having looked into the question, does the minister feel confident the class 1 emergency battery system has been properly maintained and would be in appropriate working order in the event of some kind of a breakdown?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Niagara Falls, it is my understanding that two out of the three banks of the Bruce generating station common service batteries have been recently tested. The results of these tests indicate the actual performance exceeds the requirements of the batteries. The third bank was due to be tested on April 6, 1984.

Mr. Kerrio: We have received a reply to a request for an Ontario Hydro report on that system. One can point out in the report that inspection readings of battery voltages were not recorded as required, that full load tests were not conducted after five years of installation and that, if I could read one line from a report from Ontario Hydro, "Further load testing of the batteries should be carried out as a priority item to determine the loss in capacity with time."

The minister can appreciate that unless Ontario Hydro determines the life expectancy of that very critical area of backup at one of the nuclear stations, we could be in serious trouble if we call on those batteries to provide interim capacity for doing the very important functions in conducting an orderly shutdown of the reactor.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kerrio: Will the minister look into this matter and satisfy himself that we can put in place a kind of auditing or monitoring of the testing and, in particular, that there will be a report to him and to this House that it has been done in a way that will give us satisfactory reliance on the system?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: As I reported earlier, two out of the three banks of the common service batteries have been tested. I would like to elaborate a little further on the quality of those tests.

For bank 12, for instance, performance requirements are 310 amps for a duration time under a test of 40 minutes. The test results indicated the current amps at 715 for a duration time of 63 minutes, almost double those requirements. For bank 13, the performance requirements are 90 amps over a duration time of 40 minutes. The actual test verified 175 amps over 58 minutes. Those test results were obtained on April 1, 2 and 3.

I also want to tell the honourable member that further testing is scheduled on bank 4 for May 1984, bank 3 for the fall of 1984, bank 2 for the fall of 1985 and bank 1 for the spring of 1985.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. As the minister knows, grade 8 students in the education system have filled out their option sheets and those have now been analysed by a great many school boards across this province. I would like the minister to respond to the severe and alarming pattern of statistics that is building up, not least of all in my own city of Hamilton.

For example, the projected enrolments for grade 9 in the coming year from those grade 8 option sheets -- they are virtually complete and there will be relatively little change in them -- now indicate there will be a decline of 32 per cent in the technical courses chosen, a decline of eight per cent in the arts courses chosen, a decline of eight per cent in family studies and a decline of five per cent in music.

Now that this evidence is coming in, what is the minister's reaction to the criticisms that were made in the course of the development and the implementation of this program by concerned teachers and headmasters across this province who, to the very end in late October of last year, continued to be opposed to the implementation of Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions in 1984?

Are those statistics not alarming with respect to those options and the implications they bear for the programs of those students and the programs that will be affected in the coming year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is obviously privy to statistical information in Hamilton which, if it is factual, would be of some concern. I do not know that is so at this point, although I have heard from a number of representatives of the Ontario Teachers' Federation that it is their understanding there is a decline in applications for technical programs.

3:20 p.m.

The rationale for this seems somewhat obscure, since for the very first time in the history of the province the requirement is mandated for a credit in technical or business instruction for all students within the secondary school program.

Are the secondary school students declining to participate in that program in grade 9 because they think it would be better for them to do it in grade 10? I cannot tell the honourable member that.

It is also factual, and the member will agree, that for the very first time there is a mandated requirement for a credit in the arts. The student who was looking to develop an appropriate secondary program might well consider that those credits could be achieved in grade 9 within the secondary school program.

We will look at it very carefully when the factual information is provided to us by the boards in June. That is the time at which we do have recourse to that full set of facts, and we shall look to see what is happening.

I remind the member that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation expended the sum of approximately $100,000 in October to persuade the boards of this province not to participate in the implementation of OSIS in 1984. Because the boards have that option, they could simply request a delay for a year in that implementation. To my knowledge, not one board in this province has suggested that it would like to delay the implementation.

Mr. Allen: Of course, all boards want to get in on a new thing. The minister gave it such a fancy buildup that it looked as if it was a great thing to go with.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: The minister knows that selecting a technological option really did not make a great deal of difference. The way the compulsory credits were laid out, by the time you patterned out your four years of high school, there was almost no room to go anywhere with technology anyhow, except for that one part --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: What is the point? The minister is so downplaying the technological program that she is only giving it one shot in the whole of four years, and now she is telling us it is surprising that these students have not opted for it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: What does the minister propose to do, in the light of the fact that it is not just in grade 9 that those statistics will hold? In grade 10 there will be a 22 per cent drop in technical program options, in grade 11 an 11.6 per cent drop and in grade 12 a 10.6 per cent drop.

What does the minister propose to do now? June will be too late. What does she propose to do right now to forestall a major disaster in technical education in Ontario schools next year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not one of the prophets of gloom and doom, as the member for Hamilton West seems to be. I believe the member and others should understand there is no rule that says there are not 14 other credits available to all students in the secondary school program. There are additional credits that could be utilized by students in all of those four years -- or five years, if they choose to participate for five years.

In addition, there are possibilities for the acquisition of music credits outside the school system, a factor that has been a part of our program for some time and was demanded by a significant number of the members of that party at the time the secondary education review project was being examined in this province.

I believe encouragement will be given to a significant number of students at least to try their hands at technical or business education at all levels within the school system. I believe that will provide opportunities for all those children.

In spite of the leader of the third party's misnomer of the system as elitist, what we are attempting to do is provide educational programs relevant for all the students in the system.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education made reference to the possibility of avoiding this by not implementing it in 1984. In the light of that, will the minister not admit she indicated in the estimates that it would be mighty difficult for boards of education to opt out of the implementation of OSIS in the fall of 1984? Will she not admit that directors of education across the province naturally do not want to be left behind the rest of the province in the implementation of OSIS?

In view of that, does the minister not understand it is a pattern across the province that technical choices are not being made in grades 9 and 10? The technical teachers are not easily able to adapt to teaching English, history and things of that nature; at least, that is what they inform us.

Will the minister investigate some of the proposals being brought forward by individual teachers to alleviate this problem by setting up potential patterns for students taking subjects? Besides those who are expressing alarm, there are some who are coming up with some positive positions that may be helpful in overcoming this problem.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I was heartened by a response to what I guess one could call a bearpit session I had with teachers in the honourable member's own riding about three weeks ago. The leader of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in that area suggested what teachers really needed to do was to sit down and talk to their principals about scheduling within the school program that would make it more flexible and, therefore, more adaptable to the needs of students.

That is precisely what needs to happen, and I would be delighted if I could say this was happening across the province. I am sure it will. It is something that is being considered by thoughtful leaders, teachers and technical teachers right across the province.

There is technical capability within the school system, and we think all the students should avail themselves of it. We feel very strongly that students at all levels should have at least one opportunity to try a technical course to see whether their talents lie in that direction or to determine whether there is something else they might consider making their career pattern.

The member suggested I said it would be mighty difficult. I simply said the boards would have to give a compelling reason for doing it. With a compelling reason, I would most certainly consider it, and that has been my position all along. As for the opinions of directors of education, I never presume to judge what their opinions may be.

FUNDING FOR POLICE TRAINING

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General, who has just got up to stretch his prerogative. I will let him get back to his seat. The question concerns his intransigence on the issue of payment by municipalities of police officer candidates during their training.

In an effort to save many millions of taxpayers' dollars and to get in line with the training practices in the case of other professionals, the mayors of many municipalities have requested the minister's permission to allow candidates at the Ontario Police College to pay for their own tuition. The minister has continually refused to grant this permission.

We know the mayors' proposal works perfectly well without the slightest compromise in police standards in many other jurisdictions in this country. Why will the minister not allow the municipalities this significant saving?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on this matter the present policy and legislation is that individuals who are employed by the several municipalities and by the Ontario Provincial Police are sworn in as police officers. It is the mandate of this ministry, through the Ontario Police Commission and funded by the province, that when they are sworn in as police officers, they take a training course at the police college at Aylmer.

The police college at Aylmer is in two parts, part A and part B, consisting of nine weeks and six weeks respectively. When a police officer is in attendance at the police college, the province pays for the education by funding that college. The room and board, and in some instances transportation, of individual police officers is paid for by the province so they can maintain a standard. That has been the wish of this province over a period of time.

Each municipality hires its own police officers through the Ontario Police Commission. I cannot see how, although I have heard the suggestion many times, there would be a saving to an individual municipality if we were to charge tuition fees for its police officers to attend our police academy. I think the associations would assess the situation very quickly and bargain for that paid tuition.

3:30 p.m.

It is a decision by the commission of each local municipality to employ whom it wants to employ. One requirement, which is not compulsory, is that the police officers attend police college and receive their instruction. Whatever arrangement the individual municipality wants to make with its police officers -- whether it does not want to pay them during the time they are at the police college or whether it wants to make some other arrangement with them -- is entirely the concern of the individual local municipality and its board of commissioners of police. It has nothing to do with the province. If we were to charge for tuition, there would be an increased payment by those individuals.

There are other features too. These individuals are usually mature individuals. They have --

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a complete answer. Thank you very much.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: An exceedingly complete answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Van Horne: Such a complete answer could beg about a dozen supplementaries. Let me submit to the minister that this year the Sarnia police commission hired four new constables who were trained at their own expense in the Maritimes. The province -- or the Solicitor General, if you will -- 17 months ago refused admission to London's probationary recruits. The mayor of London has again written to the minister recently on this issue, looking for some positive direction. My understanding is that the minister has not responded directly to him. I also understand that another member of the London police commission, in the person of Robert Robarts, the brother of the late Premier of this province, has said, "It looks like we are going to have to force this issue."

Will the minister please reply directly to the mayor of London, who is seeking some very straightforward answers on this issue from him, not from a subaltern?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I have on more than one occasion, directly and indirectly, answered the mayor of London and police commissioner Mr. Robert Robarts. The reply to that is the same as I have given in this House, that they may do as they wish as long as they are sending to us police constables who are sworn in on the force of London or, indeed, of Sarnia.

I would like to add that Sarnia did go out of the province and obtain as employees people who had graduated from the police academy. When the member is carrying the message here to the mayor of London, if he studies the police college in the Maritimes, he will discover that in its arrangements with the federal government it is totally subsidized by the federal government for non-employed individuals who, between the province and the federal government, do not even pay for tuition at that college which Sarnia has so proudly said is superior to ours.

I disagree with the chief of Sarnia. We have a very admirable program at the police college here. Indeed, the program is an excellent one. We are looking at it at present to make some variations. When we get around to making those variations, we may see some changes, but until that time the policy still is that they do not pay for tuition.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to correct the record. On Friday morning during the throne speech debate, there was a brief interjection from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk asked whether there was a definitive answer to the bell-ringing problem. The member for Oshawa said, "Yes, we do have an answer designed by the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), who put together one of the most extraordinary" --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member please resume his seat. You can only correct your own record, not another member's record.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would like to rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It does not really matter. You can only correct your own record.

Mr. Rotenberg: I want to rise on a point of privilege. Can I do that?

Mr. Speaker: On another point?

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of privilege. I just want to point out that the member for Oshawa on this point did misquote me. I was not the father of this whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record too.

Mr. Speaker: I hope it is your own.

Mr. Breaugh: It is my own. I would certainly like to rise to correct the record. I did not mean to imply that the member for Wilson Heights did something useful. I would never make that allegation.

Mr. Speaker: So much for that.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), I would like to present the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

It is signed by three constituents of the minister's riding.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 31 school teachers who come from various schools in the riding of Kent-Elgin:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 percent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

USE OF FORMER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by 258 people that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are petitioning the Lieutenant Governor against the possible plans of construction for what used to be the old Ministry of Transportation and Communications area in Downsview.

"Many people have heard different stories of possible low-rental high-rise apartments being built in the area. Residents of this area are not in favour of any of these buildings being constructed. The area has always been a very quiet, respectable one, and the above would cause quite a change.

"Please let us know as soon as possible how this situation stands. The above may all be rumours, so please confirm it with any facts that you may have."

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We the people of Ophir Lake, Poplar Dale, Leeburn and surrounding districts do hereby request of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications that the 13 kilometres between the two paved sections of Highway 638 be upgraded and surfaced because of the promise that it would be completed in 1980, increased tourist traffic during the entire year requires upgraded road surface, people commuting daily to work, the possibility of work for the unemployed in the area, several dangerous hills and curves of this highway need to be upgraded and the road surface has deteriorated appreciably in 1982-83."

This petition is signed by 414 people from Rock Lake, Patton Lake, Echo Bay, Desbarats, Bruce Mines, Bar River, Sault Ste. Marie, Thessalon, Iron Bridge, Heyden and various other communities in other regions of the province and Canada, including Vancouver.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made on the following standing committees: on the standing committee on general government, Mr. Eakins for Mr. Epp; on the standing committee on members' services, Mr. Boudria for Mr. Wrye.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate it has been agreed that we will split the time for the remaining three speakers in the throne speech debate and that the vote will be called at 5:45. I wonder whether we could have consent that the table keep time for the speakers.

Mr. Speaker: That shall be done.

3:40 p.m.

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. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the speech from the throne, I will be calling on Isaiah and John Yaremko to try to convince all members of the House that the two motions in opposition to this throne speech and its vacuousness are in order and should be supported by all members.

It is surely an inappropriate throne speech in this year. In rising to speak about the throne speech of 1984, one has all sorts of images of Big Brother, a government in absolute control, peeping into all our lives, knowing exactly what it is doing and making sure we do not have any access to what it is doing. Part of this is true. I think it is true the government does not share its information. I think it is true it peers too much into the lives of many of us. I myself am on a number of lists I am sure other members of the House are not on at this point.

The only point where I disagree is that I think the government seems to be totally out of control. It does not know what it is doing, has no vision of the future and is relying on past Conservative views of how life is ordained for those who "have" in Ontario. That will not lead us well. The speech from the throne was one of business as usual. It was brought to us by the people who did not bring us the auto sector's decline but who took credit for the auto sector's recovery. The people who had nothing to do with the rape of our natural resources are telling us they brought us Hemlo and the recovery of the natural resources base of northern Ontario.

In my view, we have a government that is amoral, bankrupt of ideas and is trying to quiet the deep, fundamental insecurity of the times that many people are feeling with soothing words of yesteryear, harking back to things such as a notion of the family, which may never have existed and certainly does not exist today, instead of confronting the future with new ideas, new solutions, new approaches, and admitting that all it has done has not worked.

The government masks a recovery-dependent analysis with a notion of some things it may want to do. Everything it is saying is based on some recovery taking place that we can all tag onto. It is saying very little about where it will lead us and what it thinks are some of the major questions of the day, including what I consider to be the major moral question of the day: Will we continue in this province and country with the politics of abandonment? Will we continue with the politics of alienation and with the disfranchisement of a certain sector of our population as long as the rest of us continue to benefit?

Will this moral base or immoral base --

Mr. Sargent: Which is it?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is immoral, but it is an ethical question. That is why I am raising it.

Will we change and consider that we have to have a different ethos, or will we continue along the same lines? This government has decided we will continue along the same lines. By doing so, it is drawing lines between us as a people, it is dealing with class politics, it is dealing with the politics of greed, and it is dealing with politics that have nothing to do with the basic ethics our society is based on, ethics of social responsibility and some idea of egalitarian mobility that we all thought was part of the Canadian way of life.

It is not only this government. There are many governments in the country that have fallen into this vacuum of ideas and allow some people to suffer greatly while the rest of us get by. The politics of abandonment say that structuralized poverty -- that is, maintaining a certain number of poor people in our society -- is acceptable. In today's age, adding even more people to that group is still acceptable as long as the rest of us get by.

This policy comes from a government that continually tries to pacify the majority, continually responds to polls and never considers the minority at all and the devastation that can take place for the majority if the rights of the minority in this situation, those who are being abandoned, are not taken into consideration.

Our elections and this whole notion of politics in this province is one of a 38-day period where we go out and try to sell ourselves to people so they make a choice saying: "Who serves me best? Who is going to look after me best?" There is no concept of looking at major social issues and at directions of our time. Between elections, we also deal with the power of the lobby and the power of the poll. If people do not have power in our society, we do not listen to them. That is particularly true of this government. If one does not have to listen to them, then one can ignore them.

Until the Catholic bishops stood up a couple of years ago and said the fact we would decide to have high interest rate policies and allow high unemployment is unconscionable in human terms, we as legislators did not take it seriously. I suggest the government is still not taking it seriously.

There is a group in Nipissing known as Isaiah 58. I had no idea what this was until I read a little story about it the other day. This is a group of people who have decided they are fundamentally offended by the ethics of our society as embodied by our governments which keep people in poverty. They are going to take the words of the prophet, take direction from our Judaeo-Christian structure and ethos in this society and take responsibility themselves for poor people in their society and among their neighbours. They have drawn on this particular saying, and if I might quote from Isaiah:

"And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday.

"And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not."

As members know, I am not the kind of person who quotes Isaiah, the prophets or religious tracts very much, but it seems to me there is a message there for government. There is a presumption by government that if it looks after the poor, somehow there will be retaliation against it. There is a presumption that if it finally brings in equitable social welfare programs for people, somehow people will respond negatively to it; because the politics of greed are so imbued, people will respond against that and say, "We are being overtaxed."

There is a presumption that by doing that somehow the government is throwing away money that it cannot get back to help us. The message from that prophecy is that we will all benefit if we look after the poorest among us. If we open ourselves and make our major priority those who are disadvantaged, instead of abandoning them and looking after ourselves, we will be protected, our society will grow and we will have wealth for all of us.

I would suggest if we do not act now, the seeds for our own destruction as a society are among us. Our destruction will either come because of the fundamental immorality of what we are doing as we glean the profits and riches of our society while others suffer, or those people who have been held down and the new people who are among them, and I suggest to the government there is an anger growing, will take it out on all of us. Our society will no longer be the safe place it is. We will have the guard-dog society of those who have been protecting themselves in real hard terms with dogs and their gates closed, instead of an open society. We will all suffer a great deal.

I think there is some resonance to this call at the moment. That is why groups like Isaiah 58 have been established and the church is speaking out more. The reason is there are more poor people now, not fewer poor than in the past. In hard terms, more than 300,000 children in this province are in poverty. The latest statistics show that 500,000 more people last year were added to the ranks of the poor in terms of any of the various poverty lines one wants to choose.

3:50 p.m.

The other reason is there is a new poor and it is a poor we all know and see. These are people who never expected to be poor in their lives. They did all the right things, went to the right schools, thought they had good jobs, belonged to unions, and thought they were protected from layoffs. Those people are the new poor. What they have done is bring a whole new vulnerability into our society. There is a whole new sense it is not just the predictable groups that are poor and that we can just take for granted, but it could be any of us or our sons and daughters. That is why there is a new resonance and a new acceptability for government to move in this area.

Who are the new poor? First, they are invisible in our society because we have developed a structuralized welfare state keeping people in perpetual poverty, but with just enough. We do not have kids with distended stomachs. We do not have people who dress so differently, except for very marginal people such as the bag ladies and bag men on the streets of Toronto. Except for those people, one does not see them.

At a meeting I was at, the member of Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) said he did not think the problem of the homeless was as serious as people thought it was, because he did not see them. It is true; one does not see them.

When I leave my home and drive through the Beaches, I do not see them. I see them when I am on Dundas Street around Sherbourne or Parliament streets. This is where I see the very poor, the only visible poor in our society. The rest are living in Ontario Housing Corp. housing and therefore are out of our way; or they are living piled up with neighbours, in homes with families who do not have the resources to look after them but who have to look after them because there is no housing for those people. Then we do not see them.

Because of the stigma we place on people who are poor in our society, they do not make themselves evident. They want to hide, because what they believe, and everything they are told in our society, is that if you do not succeed here you will succeed nowhere and therefore you are a failure. They are told this is the land of milk and honey and if they would show some gumption they would do fine. Therefore, they do not show themselves.

They are the same poor they have always been. They are women. They are disabled. They are people on welfare. They are ex-psychiatric patients. Now, as well, they are older workers who have worked for many years, never expecting to be laid off. They are young people who have never had a job in the three years since they have been out of the education system and who now do not believe the beer ads they see on TV that tell us we all can and should have homes away from home in the Muskokas with every kind of gizmo imaginable to rely on.

They are also the new vulnerable people. The new vulnerable people are linked to the new poor. They are steel workers who do not know what is going to happen to their plants. We have seen plants shut down that no one ever suspected would be shut down. They wonder if they are next.

The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America wonder the same thing. There are the machinists. They are highly skilled people who thought getting that skilled trade would provide them with some kind of security, and they no longer have it. They are public servants who, when they see what has happened in other provinces, wonder when it is going to happen here.

I want to talk about two phenomena. One is the government's abandonment and the other is the government's permissive allowing of parasites in the system, parasites on the poor, taking no action to stop them victimizing the poor in our society.

The first major thing I want to talk about is housing. I will not go into it in much detail because of what the members have already heard today; a small number of new housing starts announced. We have no way to meet the incredible waiting lists of people who are suffering around this province. They are living in intolerable conditions.

The waiting lists for public housing are so long now that just to get those people who are on them into the present spaces would take three years to clear the lists. This government should have announced a major move in construction of public housing in the throne speech. There is no reason why it could not have done so.

Let us look at government abandonment of these people in terms of their incomes. I raised with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) a couple of days ago the ludicrous situation of having people who look after children who are not being cared for by their own families given more money than families in economic difficulties who look after their own children.

I pointed to the fact that in Ontario a mother with three children at the maximum shelter allowance would receive $699 a month if she were on general welfare and $800 a month if she were on family benefits. Yet, if her child were taken from her for a number of reasons, many of which, as children's aid societies will tell us, are founded on money and the incapacity to find other options, and she gave those children over to a foster parent and they had no other exceptional problems, that foster parent would receive $1,239 a month to look after those kids. The difference in a year is $5,268.

Think of what that mother could have provided for her children. Think of how the home could have been stabilized. Think of the services she might have purchased in order to be able to keep those children with her in the natural home, and yet we do not have that kind of an emphasis in our policy.

I also want to mention the whole anomaly of the handicapped and the single elderly in what we give them in pensions. How is it that at this stage in 1984 we can still find it acceptable for the handicapped single to receive $150 to $160 a month less than the single senior citizen to live on? They are going to be handicapped for the rest of their lives, just as senior citizens will be old for the rest of their lives.

They are in need of more money because they have special kinds of problems. We provide prosthetic devices for some but not for others, and then we pay only three quarters of that amount.

I have a case handed to me by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) of a person who was working with the March of Dimes in a work program. She was injured on the job. She fought for and got compensation payments. Those compensation payments are only three quarters of the earnings she had while she was working with the March of Dimes and she had an income there that was so low it was supplemented by family benefits. Because she is now on Workers' Compensation Board benefits at three quarters of what she received, she is not eligible for that family benefit. She has been cut off from it now. It is an absolutely ludicrous kind of anomaly in terms of basic income support needs.

We have the case of a welfare system that needs a total overhaul, where a welfare administrator in one community can provide the first and last month's rent to help people with housing, yet in the next community a few miles away an administrator will not give either the first or last month's rent but will put all sorts of impediments in the way of an applicant.

When I was in London, there was a debate in city council of the notion that if we were to increase our welfare rates and discretionary powers to aid the people who were there, people would flock to us from other areas and we would have all the poor to look after who were not our poor there in London, the home of millionaires. This kind of ethic develops at the municipal level.

We have a welfare rate system based on the property tax, which is ludicrous and which keeps it low at all times. We have the question of support services being cut back to the point of abandonment. Not only do we leave these people with less money than they should have, we also do not provide them with proper services.

I am thinking of the takeover of the Family and Children's Services of the District of Kenora under the ruse of children being at risk -- very much the ruse of them being at risk. We had the government move in because the two parties were in financial disagreement. All the work done since then by the minister's people has been to investigate financial problems. They are doing very little to investigate quality of care. The same kind of threat is being put to the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton. The Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto cut back programs it did not wish to cut. Just at a time when we need more programs for the people these societies are servicing, we are having cutbacks.

Who is it we are cutting back from? I refer again to the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto analysis of whom it works for: gross annual family income under $8,000, 66 per cent; more than $20,000 a year, 0.34 per cent of its clientele. We are taking away money from the poor when we take away money from these kinds of support services. We continue our process of abandonment.

I see the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is gone. We have now taken away Ontario student assistance for people with grade 9, grade 10 or grade 11 education who want to go to community colleges to get upgrading, to take courses that will equip them for life in the modem world. As a result, the following is the situation in London. Because of these cutbacks, they now must depend only on the Canada Manpower capacity to get into these programs. The waiting list is 16 months to 18 months long for these people, who are probably the least equipped educationally in terms of participating in our modern society. It is the least equipped we take money away from.

4 p.m.

I would like to refer to our abandonment of the older workers. SKF Canada is a very hard thing for me to deal with because I deal with it on a regular and personal basis in regard to people in my riding who come into my office on a regular basis. The latest information on those people who lost their jobs two and a half years ago is as follows:

Thirty-six per cent of the employees are still without full-time work. Their average age is now 53. Sixty-three per cent of the women are without full-time work after two and a half years. We have abandoned them. Sixty-four per cent of these unemployed workers are receiving no assistance at all from government. They are eating up their family savings and digging into their registered retirement savings plans. One welfare administrator told me recently that to get welfare one of these older workers would have to give up his RRSP, which is his future.

These people are going through incredible stress. It is not only the ones who are unemployed, but also the ones who are employed because they have no job security, which they thought they had before. They have gone through an incredible deskilling. Fifty-five per cent of those who are working are using fewer skills than they used to use at SKF. Only 21 per cent are at the higher skill level.

What does that mean in terms of families? It means 36 per cent of those people are without any kind of hope for the future. They have now been almost three years without anything, and there is no sign that government gives a damn about them. They are now being sloughed off like the rest of them. They are eating up everything they have worked for in those years because they are not eligible for any kind of government assistance. They are expected to be happy and they are not. Their families are disintegrating, their health problems are increasing at a very frightening rate and we have abandoned them.

If one looks at the working poor and how we have abandoned them, one has to go no further than the people my leader the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and I have pointed out. They are the people who are already relatively lowly paid, the nursing home workers in Ontario who now, through contracting-out processes, are perhaps being asked to come back to jobs at $4.50 an hour because the nursing home owners do not want to pay the $7 or $8 an hour they finally earned after many years when they became unionized.

The government is doing nothing to help those women. It wants to wait for the Ontario Labour Relations Board to make decisions rather than understanding that the situation is totally unjust and that we should amend the Employment Standards Act immediately to stop it. Again, the most vulnerable worker is being left with nothing.

What are we doing in terms of the working poor with regard to their access to a better tax system to help them, to give them some incentive to work, if we think the work ethic is so important? What are we doing in terms of premium assistance? Many of them are not eligible for it. Many others who are eligible are not told about it and are left to languish.

We have the ludicrous situation now in many municipalities across the province of unemployed workers and people on welfare going to their local transportation committees and corporations and asking to travel half-fare or with passes for the unemployed because they cannot afford to go out and look for work. They cannot afford to buy the tickets. Does this government do anything for them? No, it does not. It allows them to be left without protection.

It is not only a passive government we have here in terms of not providing for the poor, but also a government that allows people to victimize and prey upon the very poorest in our society. If there is one thing this government should be ashamed of and should be acting immediately to try to redress, it is what it has allowed to take place over the past years, namely, the development of a whole network of parasites in our society who are feeding off those who are most disadvantaged.

The other day I raised in the House the question of National Money Mart for people who cannot afford to wait two or three days to cash their cheques or who do not have very much identification because of the transient nature of their existence. These people have to go to places to get their cheques cashed and it costs them six per cent to do it. That should be illegal in our province. Why do we not have the Peel example of social assistance cheques deposited directly being used systematically across Ontario? The basic problem here, of course, is why we do not give them enough money so that, like us here in this chamber, they can make the choice without pressure and without coercion from the financial stress they are feeling to go to one of these places to cash their cheques.

The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) raised the question of what is happening with this illegal rent rebate system, in which a company has actually set itself up and is allowed to operate in Ontario by charging 50 per cent of what people are legally entitled to get back because they have been overcharged by some landlord who knew exactly what he was doing.

How can we think this is just? I believe the figure the member raised was $150,000 that this person has already made from these people. I do not know how many of those people are poor; I do not know how many of them are among the majority of the poor who are struggling to get by in private housing because they cannot get into public housing, but a number of them must be. Yet we allow it to continue.

Mr. Philip: It shows how many illegal rents there are.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As the member for Etobicoke says, it also shows how many illegal rents there are.

There is Jobmart. Jobmart is now finding itself to be relatively unsuccessful. This is a job location firm that has been operating around Ontario that charges people a fee for finding them a job.

This government has done nothing to try to put them out of business. What put them out of business is the fact that word of mouth got around that they were not any better at getting them jobs than Employment and Immigration Canada was, so why go and spend the extra money? Or it may have been because workers in London went and picketed in front of those offices on a regular basis and then said they would set up a free service for people, and that put them out of business.

But the government allowed it to take place. The government did not see anything wrong with developing this kind of profiteering system in Ontario, with this kind of parasite coming to leech off those people who were feeling most vulnerable, who were most desperate to try to get themselves some work and who were not being properly assisted by government programs, federal or provincial.

We have the situation where Workers' Compensation Board victims go to people for assistance and find out, as they do if they go to the Disabled Workers of Ontario, that there is a membership fee of $20 to be paid and then there is an initial consultation of $50 to be paid; then they will take the person's case and charge him 10 per cent of what he gets back, of what he deserved in the first place. It is not happening just with that group; there is a group in Hamilton as well, the Independent Workers' Consultants, that uses a similar kind of system.

Why is this happening? It is because we are not giving enough money to the community legal clinics to provide them with enough staff to help these people. These people should not have to pay anything; they should not have to pay for what they rightfully will be getting back. These parasites should not be able to feed on them.

I learned just recently of three cases in Ottawa, of which the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) is well aware in that he received letters from the social planning council there many months ago about a blacklisting operation which promises to tell landlords who are the bad tenants and who are the bad risks. They do it on a computerized list and mail it out to everybody. It operates in Vancouver now, it is in Montreal and now it is coming into Ontario as well.

A great ad was placed in one of the local papers, which stated: "Landlords, before you let, protect against renting to tenants who might pass bad cheques, create excessive cleaning costs, harbour unauthorized tenants, cause you lost rent, damage the building, leave the building without giving the traditional 30 days' notice." This kind of service, this kind of blacklist that is available to landlords in Ottawa is a notion of what this service would be, and it will no doubt spread around the rest of the province without anyone having access to the list to know if his name is on it and with no expungement process even if there is something about it that is unfair and inequitable.

The government has not moved. The government allows these kinds of parasites to continue to exist and to proliferate in Ontario. Why do we not have laws to protect workers who, as I found out in Thunder Bay when I was there, applied for a full-time job at a restaurant, but because there were 250 applicants, the owner decided to change the full-time job to a couple of part-time positions with no benefits? How is it that we allow this to take place in Ontario?

Victimization is taking place and is happening to women on a systematic basis across this province at the moment.

4:10 p.m.

We allow sheltered workshops to exist where people are paid a pittance, even if they are capable of earning much more than the minimum wage, in order to subsidize private enterprise. Companies go there to get things packaged for very minimal cost so they can make a profit in the novelties' field or something around the province.

The government is in league with businesses that pay young people terrible amounts of money -- $100 of provincial money a week on the Ontario career action program. It has not changed that for years. It pays young people $100 a week to work for somebody for a limited length of time. After that time the employer gets rid of that person and then becomes eligible to hire students again. We support that kind of process, as does the federal government with its program of supposedly helping people with affirmative action.

Once it is no longer economically viable totally or partially to rip off that system, the employer stops. Often the employer goes back to the head of the list of those who can employ again. Our government supports that kind of thing.

The other thing I would raise with the minister, who has just entered, is the whole question of what is usury in real terms? What are we going to do to counteract the use of credit cards and the push for those who cannot afford it to use credit cards that is being promoted in our consumer society? We heard cases from credit counsellors across the province where department stores like Woolco were charging people 32 per cent interest. That is not usury in the definition in the law books, but by god, it is total victimization of people who cannot afford that sort of thing.

We have credit counselling agencies for the new poor who are on social assistance. If the new poor come in with debts, the agencies throw up their hands and say: "There is nothing we can do. All we can do is write your creditors and tell them you cannot afford to pay anything." There are credit counselling agencies funded by this government that do not even allow people on social assistance in the door because they do not believe they can help them when they have been victimized and caught in the system of the economic disasters that have been brought on us.

The government will argue there is no money there. We have heard it any number of times. They argue they cannot afford to continue to dump money into poverty programs. The percentage amount we put into poverty programs has not changed over the last decade; it has not changed one iota. This government can talk about building a domed stadium at the same time that it does not continue to dump money into poverty programs. The percentage amount we put into poverty programs has not changed over the last decade; it has not changed one iota. This government can talk about building a domed stadium at the same time that it does not give money to the poor. This government can actually talk about its one major housing project, fallout shelters, so we can all incinerate ourselves together if there is a nuclear war, but it does not have money for the poor.

We have money for the salaries of members, to protect ourselves from the cost of inflation. We have money for doctors, who have the most powerful union in this province, but we do not have enough money for the poor. We have money to put into family time capsules. That is probably a good thing because if we do not provide real family support services to families around the province, all we will have is a memory of what families were by the year 2010 or whenever it is those are supposed to be dug up. We can remember the year of the Loyalists and spend money on that, but we cannot redress the basic inequality in our system.

I would suggest the trickle-up system is as good as the trickle-down system. We are not going to have people who are being given this money spending it in Florida on condominiums or outside the country in other kinds of investments, as we see when we give breaks to big business. I would suggest it is time we had a major redress of that situation.

In my research I pulled out an interesting document, thanks to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) who keeps these things on the public file longer than most. This is the last thing I ever saw the government do on poverty in any major way, without some of the fiddling it did later. It was a presentation to the Senate committee on poverty made by the Honourable John Yaremko and his deputy minister. Although a lot of it was a cover-your-posterior kind of approach to why, at that point, the government was not doing as much as it could on poverty, there were some incredible lines in it.

This is a definition of poverty. "A social assistance payment based on need is also a definition of a minimal acceptable standard of living or a poverty line." In other words, the government decides on an appropriate social assistance level. Anybody below that is in poverty, but anybody above that is fine. That means we would have no poor. I think that policy has obviously been followed up.

It is fascinating as well in that he talked about education as being the means of getting kids out of the cyclical poverty line, We know that has not happened. Children from the same families are the same poor, and education by itself has not done that.

One major thing he talked about, which I thought was useful and which was never acted upon, was the need to have a greater interaction between the working poor and the taxation and social assistance system. He also said it was time for "a re-evaluation of the existing income maintenance structure."

I say to the minister it is now time to do that. It is time to get rid of all the anomalies and anachronisms in our social assistance structure. It is time for us to look at some real ways of providing incentives to the working poor, so they will want to continue to work and continue to persist in the hope of gaining what the rest of us have, and to help those who are on public assistance to fare better.

It is time to start talking about a new balance of a fair share and a fair chance in global terms. We have not been doing that; we have not addressed that. We have got by through throwing money at groups and not re-evaluating our systems and why they have not worked.

It is time we should have seen in the speech from the throne a challenge to society to set up a new social contract and to get back to a sense of social responsibility. We should not just look after our own best interests. We should understand we have this role and need to look after those who are less fortunate in our society.

Besides a total revamping of the social assistance system -- and I have called for a public review of that in the past -- I again call upon the minister to have that initiated at the earliest opportunity. It should not be a private one done in the ministry. It should be something that is done publicly where we can all look at why the system has not worked and why there are so many who are poor and who are left disadvantaged and abandoned.

We need to have a major increase in our family support programs. We need to bring in flexible retirement ages, as my leader has said. If we brought in that, it would open up all sorts of job opportunities. It would be a new kind of sharing that would take place so that those who wish to retire would be able to afford to.

We need to bring in fully portable pensions, not as something we are going to re-examine for another couple of years, but as something we should be looking at right now. We need to look at some special programs immediately to protect older workers. How can we sit here two and a half years after the SKF workers were laid off, productive members of our society who for 25 and 26 years paid their taxes, knowing they are unemployed, that their families are going through breakups, and that they are in the position of writing me or coming in and saying, "Should I sell my home, the one thing I have been able to put forward for my kids in the future?"

Children are having to give up post-secondary education opportunities because they do not want to be a drain on the family. It is not just SKF but plants across this province. How can we sit here and allow that to continue without bringing in something that makes those people feel we give a damn about them, that we want to reintegrate them into society, and that we do not want them hiding in shame in their homes as valueless parts of our society, people who did not make it in Ontari-ari-ari-o?

We need major tax reform and we cannot wait for that. We need a budget brought down that will be aimed at the working poor, that will be aimed at low- and mid-income people, to give them some means of feeling less insecure than they do at the moment in our society, and showing we value their role.

4:20 p.m.

We need an end to overtime. As my leader has addressed it, we need a shorter work week with a concept of sharing. We need a whole revamping of our education and training system, not the kind of stuff we have been hearing from the Minister of Education, but a real revamping. It needs a major overhaul. This is not a time to be complacent. We need major construction programs.

To wrap this up, it struck me as I read the speech from the throne that its language was tired and complacent; it did not even deal with the division of rich and poor we are seeing in our society or with the disadvantaged out there we are not doing anything for. It is all based on "If the recovery comes along, we will be able to do this and this and this, but if it does not, we cannot. We do not have the capacity right now, with the enormous wealth in this province, to make sure we are all sharing more equitably and we all have a better chance in our society." The only political group in this province I have heard talking about this has been this caucus and its leader.

If the 1984 throne speech had been written by the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, we would have had a speech of vision, one that was forward-looking and wanted to talk about and challenge some of the concepts out there, and not one that slavishly followed old, pat answers, which were nonanswers in 1970 when Mr. Yaremko was talking about them and still are in 1984 when the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Community and Social Services talk about them.

I suggest to the House that this speech from the throne is unacceptable. It is an affront to the people of Ontario. I ask all members to support this party's motion to defeat the throne speech motion.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I deem it a pleasure to be given an opportunity to wind up the Liberal Party response to the throne speech. Believe me, it is no small task to try to match the excellent speeches my colleagues orated so well in their responses to the throne speech. However, I will give it the old college boy try.

As I sat in the Legislature on opening day listening to the Lieutenant Governor outline the government's legislative agenda for this session, I could not help but think of the parable in the Bible of the farmer planting grain. Some of the seed fell on rocky soil, and after germination, the plants soon withered and died.

As with many previous throne speeches and other government pronouncements, such as the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, it became very obvious to me that the government has once again reached into a bag of mixed grain, grabbed a handful and scattered it over rocky soil. Unlike the parable, much of the seed will never germinate, but in keeping with the parable, the plants arising from the seed that does germinate will soon wither and die.

Youth employment programs, skills training, women's issues, nursing homes, environmental board procedures, financial community task forces, workers' compensation reforms, an advisory council on agriculture and province-wide testing in Ontario schools are some of the seeds that will be scattered over the Ontario terrain this year. Unless these seeds are well watered by the budget, they are doomed to a long life of dormancy.

If we were to dig up some of those dormant seeds that have been lying in the ground over the past few years, we would find anything from freedom of information to youth employment, job training, assistance to business, energy sources, labour-management relations, women in the work force, workers' compensation, housing, the health care system and education.

I have selected excerpts from Ontario Conservative throne speeches dating back to the beginning of the Davis years. If time permitted, I could give many examples of this government's failure to produce. Time however, does not permit, so I will confine my remarks to that part of the stony area where the seeds of education, provincial grants for municipalities and agriculture fell.

So much needs to be said about other areas of major concern that my colleagues and I share, such as the unemployment problem in this province. I could devote an entire speech to this most serious matter, but I will not take the limited time available to me to repeat what other members of this Legislature have said so well about the unemployment situation in Ontario.

Before I get into the meat of my speech, I want to forewarn the government that we in the official opposition will be strenuously opposing the section of Bill 17, formerly Bill 153, which limits the campaign process to 30 days.

The move to shorten the campaign process is so typical of this ageing Conservative government. It represents an assault on the democratic process and an insult to the citizens of Ontario. It is not designed to make the democratic process more open and accessible. It is designed solely to help the Tories cling to the power they are now so badly abusing after 40 years. Manipulation is the intent, nothing more and nothing less.

Such a short election campaign would enable the government to maximize its pre-election preparations and propaganda at the expense of the opposition parties, which do not have the luxury of timing the date of the writ. The opposition parties would be placed at an enormous disadvantage in attempting to gain the public attention necessary for the citizens of Ontario to weigh properly the merits of issues that come before them. We have no intention of allowing this to happen. We will go on record now as voting against that section of the bill.

I want to deal briefly with the seeds of education which were scattered over stony soil by this government. In June 1966, the then minister of Education, now the Premier (Mr. Davis), addressed the issue of grade 13 in Ontario. He said:

"The recommendation for reorganization of the 13-year program to a 12-year program was made by the grade 13 study committee in 1964 as part of its ideal solution for the problems of grade 13. Later, the university matriculation board urged that this change could be made more speedily than was envisaged by the study committee."

Then the Minister of Education said:

"I should like to sound a note of caution. The timing of a change of this magnitude is most important. In any change it is important that curriculum builders should be able to make ample provision for individual differences and varying rates of growth in students."

At the time the then Minister of Education made these comments on the grade 13 problem, he was still awaiting the report of the Hall-Dennis committee on education.

In the most recent speech from the throne we were promised province-wide assessment. This measure was obviously considered to rectify the disaster created by the former Minister of Education. In 1966, to save $2 million, he scrapped the grade 13 departmental examinations. He hoped user-paid scholastic aptitude and achievement tests would take the place of the grade 13 exams, but they did not.

A decade of vague curriculum guidelines brought in by that same Minister of Education guaranteed no standards of competence would exist in the province. It would not have mattered, however, in so far as no Ministry of Education review was ever established to find out whether curriculum guidelines were being followed.

Now, having sown the wind, this government reaps the whirlwind. Employers do not believe grade 12 graduates are sufficiently literate. Universities know large numbers of grade 13 students in their first year cannot write the language at a minimum university level. Boards of education across the province, such as Ottawa-Carleton, Lincoln county and Peterborough, were going to establish their own standard school-leaving exam. Since 1966 there has been a 300 per cent inflation of high school marks as evidenced by the percentage of Ontario grade 13 honours graduates who are awarded honours scholarships. All this can be laid at the feet of the Premier, the former Minister of Education.

The Hall-Dennis report did not appear for another two years. But when it was submitted --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Did you ever read it?

Mr. Riddell: -- the former minister was not so cautious about implementation of the Living and Learning report.

Mr. Nixon: See? He got the title right.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is all he knows.

Mr. Riddell: The resulting free-wheeling curriculum that he so quickly incorporated had profound and unfortunate consequences for hundreds of thousands of students in Ontario.

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He did not ever read the report.

Mr. Riddell: I hope Hansard gets the minister's interjections, because this is what she really wants. She came into the House so she could interject and get her name in Hansard. I hope Hansard will be sure to pick up the interjections. However, I consider it a bit of a rude insult.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Please ignore the interjections and continue with your remarks.

Mr. Riddell: Am I getting some flak from the chair too?

Twenty years later, the present Minister of Education has to devote herself to undoing the damage. The former Minister of Education, now the Premier, was experimenting with a generation of our children but, unfortunately, the experiment failed miserably.

Strangely, the one step urged on the then Minister of Education, the phasing out of grade 13, has taken 20 years to accomplish. In 1967, the Ontario Liberals were on record as advocating an overhaul of the secondary school system so the average student would complete primary and secondary studies in 12 years.

It is interesting to note the caution sounded by the then Minister of Education, the Ontario Liberal Party's awareness that phasing in was essential and the secondary education review project's recommendation that the switch to 12 years of school proceed gradually from grade 7 and over five years.

All these wise words have been completely ignored by the present Minister of Education, who is dumping the new curriculum holus-bolus on schools. No phasing in whatsoever is going on, and high schools are now in chaos as, in September 1985, grade 13 will disappear.

The promise of province-wide assessment in the speech from the throne was a sham and was quickly withdrawn. The headline story of the Ontario Citizen on March 27, 1984, sums up the humming and hawing that went on after the throne speech. The headline reads, "Stephenson Backs Down on Mandatory School Tests."

The former Minister of Education's commitment to our school system evaporated almost overnight upon his elevation to Premier. In his last annual report as Minister of Education, published in 1970, the member for Brampton asserted this promise: "The grant plan for 1970 was designed to increase the proportion of the total cost of education borne by the province in accordance with the announced policy of the government to increase its grant support to 60 per cent of the overall cost of education by 1972."

From information given by today's Minister of Education to the Liberal Education critic, the promise may once have been achieved: in 1975, the province paid 61.3 per cent of school expenditures. However, by 1983 this government's share had dropped to 48.5 per cent of the cost of education.

An hon. member: They made poor investments.

Mr. Nixon: They sank all their money in Suncor.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: The shambles left by the education experiment of the former Minister of Education must still be addressed. Sadly, the efforts of the present Minister of Education are focused almost entirely on taking money out of the system: cuts to school boards, shrinking the university system and freezing the community college system. All this comes at a time when, as the Treasurer points out, "well-trained personnel are essential for innovation and economic transformation."

It is imperative that this government do more than right the wrongs of the former Minister of Education. It must restore a high priority to education at all levels. It must enthusiastically support innovation in education and free our schools, colleges and universities from stifling bureaucracy.

This government must encourage co-operation within the education system, and the first step must be taken within government by abandoning the confrontational posture taken towards all members of the education community. The phrase "consultation with the minister" must have real and genuine meaning restored to it.

Time is moving on, so I would like to move to the next piece of stony ground that received the seeds -- provincial grants to municipalities.

Just over a year ago, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) released a proposal to change the formula for calculating unconditional grants from a per capita method to one based upon households. The discussion paper noted, "With a household grant, the municipalities with a high ratio of residents per household would tend to lose, while municipalities with a low ratio would tend to win."

The government has now announced that it is in effect moving to such a system, despite its many denials in recent months, particularly during the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry by-election. While the minister maintained the municipalities never really complained, many of them felt the government was attempting to push through changes well in advance of a provincial election. Suspicions about the government's intentions were exacerbated by the fact that the municipal finance branch's printout of the financial impact analysis of the government's proposal was not distributed to municipalities but kept confidential.

In June 1983, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario issued a counterproposal, which stated that a grant system based solely on a household formula was unacceptable. Many municipalities and the Ontario Liberal caucus urged that no municipality should be a loser. August 1983 saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing agreeing to meet with Kirkland Lake council to discuss the government's proposal in the light of increasing concerns in the province. He also stated in a letter to the mayor, "I appreciate that you recognize the difficulties of implementing any changes without having some winners and losers in the process."

During the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry by-election campaign, Liberals warned that municipalities across the province would be compelled to raise taxes or reduce essential services as a result of a Tory plan to move to the household system. The minister categorically denied there was a government policy to change the present method of determining provincial funding to municipalities and said, "Such statements are completely incorrect."

Campaigning in the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry by-election, the Premier stated that Liberal claims about a plan to cut grants were a fabrication. Let me quote the Premier: "Categorically, unequivocally, without hesitation, any adjective you want, it is just not true." The Minister of Education, also campaigning in the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry by-election, said the Liberal statements were "plainly false, quite untrue. It is unfortunate that he" -- meaning the Liberal candidate -- "has sunk to that level this early in the campaign."

Just two months after the by-election, in which Liberal charges were categorically denied, the province announced that it is indeed moving to a household grant system. However, in an attempt to hide the impact of the inevitable losses, a so-called revenue guarantee is being provided. This one-year guarantee means that while now under the household formula every municipality in 1984 will be guaranteed an increase of at least 2.5 per cent, the true impact of the new system will be felt in 1985, probably after a provincial election.

Many municipalities, particularly in Huron- Middlesex, were under the impression they would receive an increase of at least five per cent. Under the Treasurer's new mathematics, it appears that five per cent will only get one 2.5 per cent, and the fact is that at least 50 per cent of Ontario municipalities will not even receive an amount equivalent to the anticipated increase in the rate of inflation for fiscal 1984.

More important, the government, which maintained that our concerns about the impact of the household formula were unfounded because they were based on a discussion paper or an academic exercise, is now implementing a policy it disowned four months ago during the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry by-election. What does one call that if it is not government by deception?

4:40 p.m.

As a consequence of the formula change, as we pointed outlast fall, there will be significant losses to many municipalities in Ontario. This will result in reduced services or higher property taxes, unless the minister is prepared to extend further revenue guarantees. The minister owes the municipalities and property taxpayers a clear explanation of his intentions. Instead, with the revenue guarantee, he has given them what amounts to nothing more than a stay of execution. Once again we have a typical provincial government shell game with the taxpayers' money in which the people of Ontario will be the losers.

Finally, I want to move to that tremendously large area of stony ground which receives the seeds of agriculture. I listened to some very interesting comments about this industry from the various members of the Legislature in their responses to the throne speech, and I must hasten to give credit to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) who obviously went back through Hansard to familiarize himself with Liberal agricultural policy.

The report submitted by the New Democratic Party task force was fundamentally a regurgitation of policies and programs the Liberal Party has laid before the government over the past number of years. We are most pleased to see the NDP will now be supporting us in our endeavours to get agriculture back on its feet here in Ontario.

In my response to the throne speech, dealing with agriculture, I am not going to shout criticism at the government for its past failures to the rural people of this province, nor am I going to rehash Liberal policy as obviously supported by the NDP, but I do want to tell it as it is in rural Ontario by addressing two major issues --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That will be a switch.

Mr. Riddell: -- the erosion of the family farm and, by association, the erosion of rural communities in Ontario.

Perhaps I can best get my message across to the members of this assembly by speaking as one who has lived and worked in rural Ontario for most of my life, unlike the Minister of Education who chooses to make some rather caustic remarks in her interjections.

Travelling with the Liberal task force on rural municipalities across this province and meeting people working and living in rural Ontario, I have often visualized myself sitting as a member of a farm organization or even as an individual farmer making a presentation to the task force. In the same sense, I would like the members to visualize me as a farmer rather than as a member of Parliament making this presentation to the Ontario government.

Mr. Speaker, with your infinite wisdom, perhaps you can tell me how we, as farmers, can stop or perhaps reverse the potential disaster to which I alluded earlier, the erosion of the family farm and, by association, the erosion of the rural community in Ontario. It is not an easy task, but in my view we must begin by convincing the urban majority and the politicians elected by that same urban majority that there is a problem.

How do we communicate when the cities control the media and the rural press is rarely read outside its local sphere? What chance do we have when the cities formulate the ideas, opinions and policies which affect rural people and the urban population places an ever-growing demand on the public purse for services? Only by supreme efforts by rural leaders will this trend be changed.

The evidence of rural erosion is everywhere: the empty barns and fields, the dilapidated fences, the farm newspapers full of advertisements for forced machinery auctions and discounted farms, the for sale signs up and down the concession roads springing up like weeds in a sad testimony to failure, the tax arrears, the family stress as farmers are forced to subsidize their farm returns with off-farm income, and the troubled farm supply industry, from the local dealers to the Massey-Fergusons and the United Co-Operatives of Ontario. The list is virtually without end.

Too many once profitable farms can no longer support a family after farm expenses have been paid. Proud farmers can find jobs because they are not afraid of hard work, but that hardly helps the unemployment situation. Nor can farmers afford to hire young people, those hardest hit and looking desperately for that first job.

Instead, the whole farm family, man, woman and child, must go to the barn daily. What for? For the privilege of providing the Canadian public with the cheapest food in the western world. Little wonder there is frustration and stress on the farm. Little wonder we have groups springing up with names such as the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association, Women for the Survival of Agriculture and Concerned Farm Women. No wonder we have films called Plenty of Nothing, and Ready for Slaughter. The facts are there. The studies have been made. No further investigation is merited. The time for remedies is now.

There is an invisible transfer of wealth from the farm to the city. Ontario farmers pay about $500 million each year to the banks in interest. That money ends up on Bay Street and precious little comes back to the rural areas. Instead, it often ends up in all manner of shaky loans ranging from South America to Poland and from the proposed dome to Maislin Transport Ltd.

In the Middle Ages farmers paid a 10 per cent tithe to their landlords. That was considered oppressive, but 500 years later in our supposedly just society many farmers pay 100 per cent of their residual income to the banks. For years we, as farmers, have substituted credit for earned income and for years we got away with it, living in ignorant bliss while inflation boosted our equity.

However, over the past few years returns in the beef, hog and grain sectors have been so minimal that Ontario farms now carry in excess of $5 billion of debt. According to a 1983 study, Ontario farm land has dropped in value by a further $3.25 billion with the result that the banks are securing ownership of rural Ontario by default while offshore investment capital is stepping in to buy our family farms as a speculative hedge.

With every tick of the clock the interest charges mount and the equity erodes. Until the Ontario government gets serious about agriculture, the danger exists that our cherished family farm will cease to exist in its present number and style. That ticking clock is a time bomb and if it explodes Ontario agriculture will be in the hands of the corporate giants and consumers in the city, who have yet to understand our plight, will learn the hard way when they have to pay 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their disposable income for food, as is the case in many parts of the western world.

Farmers are not a greedy group. They simply want more respect from both government and the public. They are determined to convince both government and the public of their contribution to society and of their need and right to a bigger slice of the economic pie. Farmers are not asking for much, just their fair share or enough to ensure security for themselves and for the farmers of tomorrow.

At approximately $9,000, farming has the lowest net income of all major industries in Canada, yet agriculture does and can play a major role in the economic fabric of the country, given a chance. While a person on unemployment insurance can draw more than an average farmer, the farmer is denied any use of this fund. Farmers pay 30 per cent more for their hydro than do their urban cousins. While this sprawling utility is virtually unaccountable to the Legislature, farmers under supply-managed commodities have to justify every penny increase they get.

While the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is running on a shoestring of $290 million, or about one per cent of the budget, the government spends about $150 million to subsidize the Toronto Transit Commission. When it comes to property taxes, farmers have to battle with a complicated, inequitable and unjust system of factors. In short, rural Ontario is playing against a stacked deck. Like all gamblers playing those odds, it is bleeding them to death.

Right now farmers are losing the capital base that was built up from pioneer days through to the 1970s. Agriculture must have new investment to take advantage of the new technology available. Without this, Ontario will lose its competitive advantage as the country's major farming province; but any investment has to be at low, affordable long-term rates or food will cost the consumer a lot more. We cannot produce cheap food with expensive loans and it does not take an economist, a government study, or an advisory council of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to realize this.

In order to recapitalize our industry, we need help. Ideally, our products should command a profitable return from the marketplace and then we could reinvest those profits. Unfortunately, the marketplace does not always yield those profits and the consumer demands cheap food while accepting increases for everything else.

4:50 p.m.

If this is favourable to the politician, they will have to put some dollars on the table. They cannot have it both ways. As farmers, we take no pride at all in the low price of food and it is time the public realized who is subsidizing whom.

Briefly, farmers need affordable long-term credit, and since the banks have proven to be fair-weather lenders the province must revive its role along the lines of that of the Alberta government. We need a reinstatement of the old junior farmer credit program or something similar to it. We need an agency like the former agricultural and rural development agreement to buy up farm land and lease it back to bona fide farmers to keep the family farm intact.

Farmers need immediate stabilization in the red meat industry; we need more guarantees on short-term money such as the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, and we want committed funds to be spent, unlike OFAAP, where only $25 million of the much-touted $80 million has been used.

We applaud the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's lead in educating farmers in better financial management, but for many it is too late. However, we must have the funding at the agricultural representative level so these front-line people have more time and resources available to work directly with the grass-roots farmers.

Building layers of middle management is not acceptable. Farmers need more provincial pressures on the federal politicians to revamp the Farm Credit Corp. and to bring in the agri-bond, as conceived by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

What we as farmers do not want is a host of studies, we do not want more political ping-pong and we do not want further delays. Farmers are getting restless, as is illustrated by the many resolutions that are being submitted by the various farm organizations to government at all three levels.

I have discussed briefly the erosion of the family farm in Ontario. At the beginning of my comments on the agriculture industry I said that, by association, small-town Ontario hinged its fate on that of our industry. Each time a farmer quits or is forced off the land, one more limb on the tree dies. Eventually a small business in town closes and a few more people join the $12 billion unemployment queue. Taxes and spending power are lost at all levels and the noose tightens. Ironically, some people drift off to the big cities and the rural Ontario problem compounds. This is the tragedy of rural Ontario today.

Finally, we as farmers would suggest that rural leaders take care not to surrender their local autonomy to urban planners. This is a great threat to rural Ontario. For instance, the proposed electoral boundary changes, which would effectively wipe some rural Ontario ridings off the map, must be opposed.

Country people have a hard time getting their point across to government as it is now, and to reduce the number of rural ridings while increasing that of the urban ridings further compounds the problems outlined previously. What does it matter if an Ontario riding that is huge in terms of distance does not have 70,000 constituents? Surely minority groups must be taken into consideration.

Some of the policies of this province, conceived right here in Toronto, are contrary to the best interests of our rural communities. Toronto-trained planners can lock rural Ontario into plans that deny those of us living and working in rural Ontario the right to use our country-bred common sense over matters vital to our local destiny.

Our numbers in rural Ontario are declining and our base is eroding. Farm leaders must work with governments and our governments must come to us with benevolent leadership. There is too much suffering on the concession roads. It is an absolute disgrace to this province and to this country.

We as farmers are angry and frustrated, but we shall survive to rebuild our farms and our communities. We can overcome hard times, but we cannot overcome a broken soul.

If I may now return to my role as a politician, I would remind this government that we in the Liberal Party have said for some time now that the agricultural budget of this government should be doubled. Surely this is not asking too much for an industry that is so important to the economy of this province.

To make room for an increase in the agricultural budget, the people of Ontario can do without shares in Suncor, they can do without a nuclear plant at Darlington, they can do without Minaki Lodge, and they certainly do not need the policy secretariats of this government. They find absolutely nothing of value in the land owned by this government which, to all intents and purposes. is sitting idle. The one thing the people of this province cannot do without is food. Furthermore, the economy of this province cannot do without a strong agricultural industry, considering one out of every five people is employed by that industry.

By 1990 the world's current population of 4.3 billion is expected to reach five billion. By 1998, only 14 years away, it is estimated our numbers will grow to six billion. One of the commodities it is estimated will be in short supply by that time is food. The tragedy is the current government seems to have absolutely no idea of how crucial farming is to the future health and wealth of this province.

It is time we reversed the priorities of this government. Rural Ontario can be a major partner, indeed, a leading force, in economic recovery. It can produce exports, profits and jobs. This government has forgotten that Ontario was founded by farmers and that they are still among the most enterprising and productive groups in our society. Agriculture can continue to be the backbone of our economic development.

That is the course to which my colleagues and I are committed. We will continue to enunciate policies we want to see included in the provincial budget and in future government programs. We want this province to be prepared for the food challenge that lies ahead of us. That means action now to provide long-term, stable financing for farmers and measures to bolster the conditions under which production can expand. We need an agricultural strategy for this province and a far greater commitment to the agricultural industry than this province has given over the last several years.

I see my time is expiring. In closing, I would like to say there is plenty of fertile ground in this country and it is time this government scattered the seeds most beneficial to the economy of this province and to the real needs of its people over that fertile ground. Returning to the parable to which I alluded at the beginning of my speech, I would like to remind the government of the day of the words that were used at the end of that parable, "If you have ears, listen."

I have touched on only some of the concerns we in the Liberal Party share regarding this government's legislative agenda for this session. My colleagues and I have offered alternative programs in areas where we feel this government has failed and we have amended the throne speech accordingly. We feel our amendment is certainly supportable by members on all sides and we urge this august assembly to give the Liberal amendment serious consideration.

Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party has not been able to differentiate between provincial responsibilities and those of the federal government, as reflected in its amendments to the throne speech, so we in the Liberal Party will find it very difficult to support such utter confusion.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a few remarks about the throne speech and to urge all members of this assembly to vote for the Liberal amendment. Such alternatives, if incorporated by this government, will go a long way towards getting this province on the move once again.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? The member for Brampton, the Premier.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where were all of your members during Jack's speech?

Mr. Nixon: I should not use that phrase.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean? Certainly we are thin over here.

5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) for not being here during his speech. I was, I hope, productively involved. I did get a few notes and I heard a few things. I understand he started out with some biblical references. The member summing up for the Liberal Party was dealing in parables. I would quote another scripture: "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first." We are last in this debate; so we will be first in other areas.

Mr. Cooke: Where are all your troops?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have news about them. They are all around and none of them are reluctant to tell people in their home constituencies they are still Progressive Conservatives. I understand the member's constituency literature is neglecting the fact that the member theoretically belongs to the New Democratic Party.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have some relatives in Windsor; so I know what the member is doing. I get verbal reports. They said to me, "Did something happen to the printing presses in the office of the New Democratic Party?"

I am sure the logo will be back on the member's next newsletter. Why does the member do those things? It confuses the constituents. Some of them thought the member was perhaps going to become a Liberal. I said, "No, he has a greater respect for himself than that." Then they said, "Maybe he is not going to run again." Maybe that is the case; I do not know.

I just want the member to know that everything he does comes to the attention of the Premier. I keep an eye on all parts of Ontario. I am interested in every constituency. When did the member start leaving it off?

Mr. Martel: Tell us about the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) running without a PC logo last time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know. Whatever he did he was eminently successful. His success last time should strike terror in the members' hearts the next time. It starts in Sudbury and it just sort of spreads out -- that goodwill, that enthusiasm. Is that not right, Brother Gordon? Is that not correct?

Mr. Martel: I am frightened. Tell us about it.

Mr. Foulds: We are not going to heckle. We are going to let the Premier speak.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Since when does the honourable member who just interjected worry about substance?

Mr. Grande: We worry about the Premier's substance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am interested in what the member describes as substance because I read what he says. The member and I will have to debate some time in another place what he means by "substance."

Mr. Nixon: Get to the point.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I will get to some of it. I want to get around to the nonprovocative remarks by the member for -- I will get these -- Huron- Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) on one or two issues. I will get it right. Not only will I get it right --

Mr. Nixon: Oh, no, you will not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, yes, I will. I never get your seat right; I confess that.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier might as well forget the names of those seats because they are changing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have news for the member. Do not take anything for granted, I would say to him.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would compliment you for the very excellent and judicious way you handle the affairs of this totally disciplined Legislature. I wish to express to you, on behalf of our caucus, our respect and feelings as to how well you manage the affairs of this House. I know the members opposite feel exactly the same way, but sometimes they are more reluctant to express that point of view.

It is traditional in speeches from the throne to refer to our own constituencies; so the bulk of my remarks will relate to those things that I, as the local member for Brampton, would like to see the government accomplish. I will refer to that constituency only another half dozen times during the course of my remarks.

Mr. Nixon: I see there is a new strip joint opening there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, or wherever he is from, I am always intrigued --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. He seems to have such a fetish about those cultural developments in the city of Brampton. Whether that says something about --

Mr. Nixon: It is the sin capital of the world.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is lacking in St. George? What is wrong with that community?

Mr. Nixon: It is right up the street from the Premier. Is that where he goes for lunch?

Mr. Martel: Is the Premier the drawing card?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, as a matter of fact, it is on Queen Street. I am on Main Street. That is the difference between me and John Turner. I am from Main Street like Chrétien.

Mr. Nixon: Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I knew you would say that. I will get around to my observations on that during the course of my remarks.

Mr. Martel: Is the Premier the drawing card for those things?

Mr. Foulds: The imagination boggles.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I probably would be better at it than the member would be. There is no question about it. I will not refer to that particular matter in my own home community. The local council is addressing it constructively and, I am sure, to a successful conclusion.

Going back to the remarks at the introduction of this debate, I would like to compliment the two honourable members who moved and seconded the excellent address by His Honour. It was carefully thought out and well delivered. I would like to express my appreciation to the new member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and to the member for Sudbury for the excellent way they presented His Honour's throne speech to the House.

I listened to a good portion of the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) on the speech from the throne. I regret I listened to a lesser portion -- in percentage of time, not in content -- of that of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I am always careful in what I say. Some members opposite should exercise that same caution. I have checked them very carefully.

I was somewhat intrigued by the references of the Leader of the Opposition in his throne speech contribution to his perception of the economic situation in our province. I will not deal with the latter part of his remarks, which I did not hear and which became moderately personal and related to other situations.

As to his perception of and his ideas for the economic life of this province, I sense they were born of frustration, of a certain realistic assessment that as a political party in this province in terms of economic strategy or economic objectives the Liberal Party -- if that is what it is today -- has not defined its alternatives or its suggestions for the public of this province.

I do not say they have not had a policy with respect to youth employment. I remember discussions on the paper the Liberal Party -- if that is its name -- circulated some months ago. But as to coming to grips with some of the economic problems of today and of five and 10 years from now, I listened to some platitudes, a fair amount of generalities and a high degree of criticism of the activities of this government.

One of the things that afflicts me is that I have a memory. Some will say it is not great, but I happen to remember other speeches. I can remember the Leader of the Opposition, when he was finance critic for the Liberal Party, saying things that appear to be somewhat contradictory to what he says today. I can recall his urging upon the government many things in those days that he has altered today in his approach.

I listened to him sort of saying we had to take a totally new look at economic growth in the province. I do not quarrel with some of that, but I always have to caution people that it is great to talk about rationalization, about all the new ideas and about high technology. It is relevant, but I think we sometimes make a mistake in that we do not understand there are certain basic industries in this province, certain ongoing industries that need the help of government, the support of government and the encouragement of government on occasion.

I will not isolate things, but I can recall and I will take the auto sector as an example. I listened to rhetoric from both opposition parties. I listened to rhetoric from the members from Windsor. I listened to a little from the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), but he is more of a pragmatist and has a better sense of where the industry is going, so he said less.

Politicians never get into trouble until they open their mouths.

Mr. Breaugh: You are demonstrating that this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not open mine.

I just said the member said a shade less than some of the others who have a vital interest as members from constituencies that have the auto sector. I remember the doom and gloom being forecast by the Leader of the Opposition and some of the critics. I remember it from the New Democrats. I can hear them still saying to me:

"The auto industry is going down the tubes. We are out of business and we are facing a calamity."

I just talked to somebody from Oshawa not more than one hour and 20 minutes ago roughly, who said General Motors has never had more people employed than at five o'clock this afternoon.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is what they say and their figures support it. I have been talking to people in the parts sector within the last seven or eight days. The parts industry has not been busier.

It is also true of Ford. Remember how they were saying that Chrysler was going down the tubes, Chrysler was done? Where is Chrysler today? They are thinking of expanding their activities at the van plant those members so enthusiastically opposed. Remember the opposition to what we were doing at the van plant, how they said it should not happen, it would not work? The fact is they are back-ordered for six months at this moment in history, and we are delighted. I do not see them telling their constituents just how farsighted we were when we sat down with Chrysler to sort out some of their economic problems. They give us no credit for that. We are not seeking it, but the people understand it.

Mr. Cooke: Your recollection of history is quite different.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, my recollection of history is fairly good. I can recall when we were discussing the involvement of this government -- which we never had to produce, incidentally -- and how the members opposite said it would never work. They were so negative about the future of Chrysler we might as well have had a funeral service right here in the Legislative Assembly. It shows how wrong they were and how wrong they continue to be. That is why they changed the name on the letterhead, I am sure.

Mr. Martel: Oh, you did it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I just said we did it without giving them anything. Does the member want me to tell him what we did for them? Does he want me to relive a little history for him? What did we do for Chrysler? We were very involved in putting the deal together.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We did it in my office. It was signed in my office.

Mr. Rae: Oh, yeah, yeah.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have news for him. I recall a small-town lawyer from Brampton talking to the Secretary of Commerce in Washington. We got to be on a first-name basis, never having met one another. He said: "Mr. Premier," and it became Bill after 30 seconds on the phone, "it is important to this arrangement that Ontario participate because Michigan is participating. Without that, we doubt whether or not the Congress will approve and the administration can move ahead with it."

My minister sat down with him, and they did. They guaranteed them if called upon to produce -- I think it was $20 million in terms of $10 million and $10 million.

Mr. Sweeney: Where is it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We did not have to do it, but the fact is that Ontario's involvement made the deal work. Not only did it work, it has been successful. It has been so successful --

Mr. Nixon: Both ways.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You said it was all smoke and mirrors. You knew far more about the academic world than you do about business and industry, I say respectfully.

Mr. Nixon: No, I am right on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: Throw that in.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Throw what in?

Mr. Breaugh: The Lada speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not going to talk about the Lada. If he wants to go out and buy a Lada, go out and buy a Lada; be my guest. I can see the headlines in Oshawa now, "Local Member Buys Lada." I have a dollar here that says he does not do it.

I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition as he was so critical and so negative about our economic wellbeing. I see the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) sitting quietly over there as he usually does. He knows what great things have been happening in Windsor. He gets down to the van plant. He takes some credit for what has been done.

Mr. Nixon: Because the Liberals put some money in it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly. The Liberals have put money in a lot of places. In fact, John Roberts has put money in every constituency where he thinks he is going to get some delegates by the looks of it. The member is not supporting him anyway, so that should not upset him. Why can he not get more of his colleagues to help him in this crusade?

Mr. Nixon: It is a matter of time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a matter of time. I am looking for some hard news for the press. The former leader of the Liberal Party says it is only a matter of time before three quarters of the Liberal caucus in Ontario agree with him to support Mr. Chrétien -- except his leader has said very recently, as of a day ago, he does not want to carry the can for any of them. Does the member understand what he said? He said, "I do not want to carry the can for any of them." That was after saying to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record he was a Turner man. I know he changes his position as often has the moon has phases, but I --

Mr. Nixon: I assure you he is not.

Mr. Sweeney: I think the Premier had better re-read that quote.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, I will re-read it. I quite honestly do not care whom he supports. That will come as a great shock to members. I was intrigued by the fact that he does not want to carry the can for any of them. That is certainly party loyalty and enthusiasm to the nth degree.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Joe Clark lost. Whoever it is, the Liberals will be going through a frustrating exercise in June. It will be a 65-day or 45-day period.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What did he call Trudeau? The albatross?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do not interrupt me. I will get around to the millstone before we are finished.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As head of this government, I do not for a moment minimize the difficulties that continue in the economy of this province, but those concerns do not relate so much to our own capacity within the province to perform and be productive. I will give members an example. Although it may not be true of every plant, in the auto sector our plants are every bit as productive as they are in the United States. When I read statements suggesting we are less productive than our American neighbours in that sector, that is not true. It is not true in steel either.

What I am concerned about is the ability of this country to compete on an international basis. I read a lot about freer trade or free trade. I hear some discussions emanating from the United States and elsewhere saying we may be a shade parochial in this province. I can only remind members there are various factors in international trade. I do not purport to be an expert, but I know what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides. I know what the formal statements require of us as Ontarians or Canadians. The one thing that has not emerged in a lot of these discussions is the nontariff barriers or government procurement policies existing in some countries of the world.

I am concerned, as well, about the growing feeling within Congress, if not the US administration, about protectionism. I was in Washington very briefly not too many weeks ago and met with members of both the administration and Congress. It is fair to state the American administration is not protectionist in its attitude.

When talking to members of Congress, I recall going in to see Senator Heinz, who by his very name has had a modest interest, or his family has, in the economic life of this province. He made speeches on a number of occasions in support of greater economic freedom. Yet he showed me a picture in his office of the three rivers that merge in Pittsburgh and said, "This is my constituency." Senator Heinz has introduced, or was in the process of introducing, legislation related to the steel industry.

I talked to somebody from one of the southern states who is introducing a bill that would restrict certain downstream activities in the resource sector. He said: "We think Canadians are great. My bill does not relate to Canada." I said, "Senator, how can you introduce a bill in Congress that excludes Canada from whatever that legislation encompasses?" He said, "We cannot, but I want you to know it is not directed at Canada."

I talked to the administration about steel and copper. There is no question there is a concern about the importation of copper. I relate this to those from the mining resource communities of this province. There is a concern about copper, not from Canada but from Chile. I was told: "This is not directed at Canada, but we have to do something about the other. We are caught up in that."

I kept reminding some of the administration people who talked about greater access to markets that their Surface Transportation Assistance Act, for example, had a direct inhibiting factor in our economic wellbeing in this province. The buy-American program, in the attitude of some members of Congress, is a concern of our economic wellbeing.

5:20 p.m.

I think it is fair to state that very few Ontarians really have an awareness of how dependent we are as a province -- and this affects the rest of the country -- on our ability to export. We are more dependent per capita on our ability to export than Japan is. Everybody looks at Japan and its great success in the export field, and it has had tremendous success; but you have to look at the percentage they export in relation to their domestic market to understand that on a per capita or percentage basis, we as Ontarians are more dependent on our capacity to export than Japan is as a nation.

This is not a sobering fact; it is a fact of life that confronts the private sector and governments and has a tremendous impact in terms of its potential on all of us. That is why this government has been directing a great deal of its efforts -- and the House will hear more about this from the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) -- to our export potential and export possibilities.

I do not say this in any critical sense, but part of the problem has always been the reluctance of Canadian businessmen to venture into offshore opportunities. I am no expert. I have travelled somewhat very modestly, but I have visited some of these potential markets and I know what they say to me. They say: "Mr. Premier, why does your business community not come here more often? Why do they not come more than once?"

Mr. Nixon: Is that Adrienne?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, we have not had quite that same problem; there are other problems there.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member wants to go to the places in Brampton and he wants to visit Adrienne. Where is his mind functioning today?

Mr. Nixon: Very healthy; that is where it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It just proves he is healthy. I know.

One objective of this government, one objective of the business sector in this province, has to be related to a desire to devote greater efforts and initiatives to our export potential. At the same time, despite the potential that exists in the Far East and in western Europe, we should never lose sight of the fact that no matter how much success we have, our prime customer is today, will be tomorrow and will be, I predict, five, 10, 20 years from now, the United States.

I think it is fundamental for this country to maintain an excellent relationship with the United States. Obviously we are going to differ with them on issues, we are going to differ with them on environmental matters; but anyone who suggests that any sort of controversial relationship with our neighbour would help us in economic terms is making a fundamental error.

As I say, the government is not satisfied with the economic performance of this province, but we do feel we have made some progress. With respect to actual numbers of people employed in April 1984, we are well beyond where we were in April 1983.

I do not expect the members opposite to give government any credit. I do not expect them to acknowledge the fact that Ontario has led the recovery in Canada or that in the auto sector we have far surpassed the most optimistic expectations of a lot of people. I do not expect them to give us credit for anything.

However, I think the people of this province do understand that we have moved out of the recession. There are still problems. We have to continue to be concerned about inflation; we have to continue to work with labour and management to provide the co-operative sort of environment that gives us the competitive edge to compete in the international marketplace.

I have so many things I want to talk about. The member for Scarborough West gave by and large, as I sense, a relatively thoughtful presentation. I do not think the member, whose interests lie in a certain direction of which I am not critical, understands that we on this side of the House have the same sensitivity and the same concern.

I think if one looks at the record in this province and at what we have done for the elderly, our senior citizens, at what we have done for the handicapped, at the progress we have made in housing in spite of what the member said, we can stand up in this province and say that, compared to any comparable jurisdiction in North America, we have demonstrated not as much but more sensitivity, more understanding and more encouragement for the people the member has been talking about; and I say that very objectively.

I do not say for a moment that it is totally equitable. I do not say for a moment that we have achieved perfection --

Mr. Renwick: We would agree on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) would agree we have not achieved perfection. But I would say to the senior statesman in that party, with great respect, that none of us has achieved perfection, either as parties, governments or individuals, except perhaps the member himself, but I think he is honest enough to acknowledge that he too has the odd imperfection. I cannot think of any, but he may have one or two. I have several. I am honest; I will admit them. I cannot think of them, but I have several.

I want the member for Scarborough West to understand something else. While we will acknowledge there is work yet to be done, and perhaps some rationalization -- again, I do not purport to be an expert -- I say to the member not to say to us that we are less sensitive than he is. He should not think the constituents of Scarborough West are any different from my constituents in Brampton or that he sees more of the disadvantaged than I may see. I live in my town; I have lived there for 54 years, eight months and whatever number of days. I know some of them have the same problems the member referred to. They also know that, as a government, we have made progress and are making a genuine effort to rectify those problems.

I should remind the member and his party of something else. I take some pride in what we have done in social services. I take some pride in what we have accomplished in education -- and I will get around to the rhetoric from the member for Huron-Middlesex. I take some pride in what we have done in health. However, the only way we can maintain and improve these programs is through the economic growth of this province.

If one were to listen to the leader of the New Democratic Party and adopt his party's philosophy, one would be inhibiting the very programs the member for Scarborough West spent 45 minutes talking about today. That happens to be a fact of life, and I hope the member is beginning to understand it. The member at the far end of the member's row is beginning to understand it; he is almost becoming a pragmatist in terms of his communication to his constituency.

I say to the member for Scarborough West not to say to me that he is more sensitive than I am. He may be smarter, he may be many things, but he should not suggest to the world that he represents a higher degree of sensitivity. He may think we have not done enough, and I will never argue that. He may think we can do more, and I will never argue that either. But he should not suggest to us that we do not care as much as he does, because we do.

The member for Huron-Middlesex touched upon a number of issues. I have always tried to restrain myself from commenting on educational matters. I made that determination in March 1971. I guess I have trespassed on occasion, but I have tried to refrain from public comment on that because it is a subject that is still very near and dear to my heart. However, I have had such excellent ministers that there has been no need for me to comment.

I do not know who researched the member's speech. He may have done his own research on the agricultural part of his speech, but he certainly does not want to take credit for what he read about education. I know it is great fun to say we had certain studies in 1964 and 1966 and certain things happened. I have lived with that; I will continue to live with that. I take some pride in it. The member may like to be critical of it; he may like to knock it. I say to him, be my guest. I have been criticized by the member's intellectual equals in that field and I live with it.

However, I suggest the researcher who made those constructive observations about the former Minister of Education ought to go back and see what the Liberal Party was saying on education at the same time. The member should go back and read what Tim Reid, as the Liberal Education critic, representing the then Liberal Party of Ontario, said it would do in the field of education. If the member does not come away trembling and saying to himself, "Thank heavens there was a Minister of Education with a certain stability, a certain sense of conservatism, a certain desire to proceed with caution," then either he or his researchers do not read the same material I do.

5:30 p.m.

I was here and I heard it. I listened to it. That is when Tim Reid used to say: "The Liberal Party is for reform. We want to reform the educational system." Even the former leader of the Liberal Party was for reform once. He wanted to have county school boards, he wanted to have regional governments -- all those great things which the reactionary Liberal Party of today has decided are no longer part of reform. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is here, because I will have a few words of advice for him later in my remarks.

I remind the member that when it comes to grade 13, I remember the debate. I remember the discussion. The decision to eliminate the externally set, externally marked grade 13 examinations was reached by consensus of the total educational community for very valid reasons, both administratively and educationally. His party was totally in support of it at the time. I recall so vividly because we knew what was going on.

I have to tell the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), who is quoted in his -- oh, this is a dilly; it is a dandy. I do not know whether I can even find it. He was giving lectures and saying what I would say today and how my remarks would be partisan and how we would be condescending, unlike the opposition critics. I have to tell the member, this is a legislature. It will come as a shock to him that on occasion it gets partisan, but if he wants to know what being partisan is like, let him just speak to his own leader. I say to the member for St. Catharines not to come in here and say that I am partisan. We are so far behind the members opposite when it comes to partisan politics, we are rank amateurs.

Mr. Sweeney: It is the only thing the Conservative Party is better at.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is it? Does the member know something --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let him just ask the member who is now his party's expert in industry -- no, that is his shadow position; I like that terminology, although I never understood what it meant -- would he ask him whether the bulk of the academic community, when he was one of the leaders of that academic community, supported the elimination of the grade 13 examinations? The member knows it, I know it, and will he tell that to the member for Huron-Middlesex?

Did the member have his teaching certificate then?

Mr. Riddell: Yes, I did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He did. Then he should know that the group he belonged to then -- maybe still, too -- the Ontario Teachers' Federation, was ultimately in support of that initiative. When the member comes in here with the rhetoric about the elimination of grade 13 and what we are not doing within the educational system, he should go back and see the positions of his party and his spokesmen at the time some of these changes were introduced. He will find, in point after point and situation after situation, that the then reform party of Ontario said to the Minister of Education, "You are not going far enough, you are not spending enough and you should be doing more of the Hall-Dennis report."

That happens to be factually correct. Let the member get his researchers to go back and he will come in and perhaps make a different kind of speech.

I am not going to deal with education at great length.

Mr. Sweeney: That is not what we were saying in 1976, eight years ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member know something about education?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could read his speech. I will read the member's speech. I will read some of my own speeches. What we are saying today was said, perhaps with even better rhetoric, in the 1960s, some of it was said in the 1950s, some of it was said in the 1970s and, I will make a prediction, the Education critic for the Liberal Party, the shadow cabinet Education minister in 1989, will be saying some of the same things that were said in the 1960s.

Mr. Bradley: We will be in power by then.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. I am just telling the member where he is going to be.

Even the member for York South was nasty to me. He certainly was. He asked what I was doing going to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to deliver a lecture in the Bob Jackson series. He asked what books I had written. He has not read my publications, because there are not any.

I refer him to my lecture at York University, which was printed. It did not sell many copies -- it probably did not sell any -- but it was an excellent lecture. He should read it. It is really on the concept of the involvement of the university with the community. It is as relevant today as when I delivered it some years ago.

Mr. Renwick: Who wrote it for the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will come as a great shock to the member that the main thoughts behind it were my own. But I am going up to the institute to deliver that lecture.

It will come as a great shock to the members opposite that I have been invited to some internationally reputable institutions to talk about education. I have declined because I do not pretend to be an expert, but I have news for the member for York South: neither is he.

I have a great quote here from 1964 in the Varsity. I will get back to that a little later.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Have you? I would love to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. I will get to it.

Mr. Martel: You had better get there soon. You only have six minutes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Seriously, we only have six minutes. I know the member for St. Catharines. He is so bankrupt of ideas he wants to come back to the jet. We sold the jet.

Mr. Bradley: I applaud you for it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know. He has told all his constituents he is solely responsible. I am delighted to hear it. I understand. Everywhere I go in Ontario they say to me: "What is the name of the member for St. Catharines? Is he the one in that Kitchener-Waterloo Record newspaper article, or is he the one who talked about the jet?" I have difficulty in saying whether he is one of the three mousquetaires or whatever way his leader described him, or whether his real interest was the jet. I could not really sort it out.

Mr. Bradley: It is the jet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Has the member taken that up with his leader yet? Is he really one of the three hit men of the Liberal Party? I do not believe it.

I wanted to get on to the question of pension funds etc., but I will leave that to the Treasurer because he will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition with respect to how we plan to repay, and have started repaying, some of those pension funds.

I want to go to one other matter mentioned by the member for Huron-Middlesex -- I have not checked the record, but perhaps I should -- where he suggested there is something ulterior about the Election Act before the House. I do not quite understand that. My recollection, and I am going solely by recollection, is that after the 1975 election, I think, a number of people spoke personally and for political parties -- I know Stephen Lewis was one of them -- about the length and duration of the election period, saying a reduction would make far greater sense in terms of advertising and so much of the activity. We are talking about a three- or four-week period in any event.

I may be wrong in this, but in the United Kingdom it is three weeks.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is 22 days.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is 22 days. They have a permanent voters' list, so that makes a difference. If the members opposite want to oppose the reduction of the writ period, fine and dandy, but would they please go back and see what some of their own party members said when they were perhaps a little more objective and had done a shade more homework. They should not lay it on us that we are trying to reduce the election period for the sake of some party motive on our part. That is totally wrong. It is silly. I hate to use that terminology, but it is silly.

One of the most difficult tasks I have in winding this up is that I have such a plethora of material -- if that is the correct phrase -- that I can only get to parts of it. I have so much here I wanted to put on the record for the advice of the members opposite.

The toughest responsibility I have -- I felt tremendously encouraged after this weekend's press; I might have more success. I have tried in I cannot think how many throne speech debates to persuade the members opposite to change their minds and vote in support of the government.

On Friday when somebody said, "I guess you will wind up the throne debate," I said to myself. "I guess I will; there is no way I will convince the Leader of the Opposition." Then I read what he said on the weekend. I do not know where these rumours come from, but according to the headlines he is now speculating that I will call a snap election and saying that it would be irresponsible, would waste money, would be cynical, would be manipulative and would be totally wrong.

If he believes that, and that is what he is saying to the public of this province, then to prove his bona fides and his integrity he should vote with the government in support of the throne speech as a consistent way of doing it. Come on, I say to him. Join us.

5:40 p.m.

I want to leave him with one final quotation, because he has been saying some very kind things about the Premier of this province on CITY-TV and some other stations. My wife almost took exception. I do not take exception, because I will not say anything unkind about him. I will use his own words and try to convince him. On February 9, 1982, in the Toronto Star, he put the good Lord as leader of the New Democratic Party and a donkey as leader of ours, and we are still going to have more support. He could be quite right on both counts

Mr. Speaker: On Thursday, March 22, Mr. Gordon moved, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, that an humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

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

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

On Monday, March 26, Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words:

"This House, however, regrets that the speech from the throne fails to recognize and adequately respond to the fundamental changes in Ontario society and the problems currently facing it, and condemns the government for the following:

"A total lack of government initiative and leadership and policy necessary to vigorously attack the concerns of youth unemployment in Ontario;

"Continuing a dismal, decade-long policy of neglect in the areas of education and of skills training as a means of providing jobs for today and tomorrow;

"Permitting the erosion of universal access to quality health care, post-secondary education and public housing as a result of ongoing provincial underfunding of these systems;

"Failing to enact legislation guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value, and failing to provide an overall day care strategy for Ontario;

"Responding too slowly to the urgent needs of Ontario's pensioners and for the lack of appropriate care in administering the pension funds of this province;

"Pursuing a shameful policy of ignoring the continuing crisis in the agricultural community, preferring to study the problem rather than take any direct initiative;

"Failing to make Ontario Hydro adequately accountable for its actions and decisions;

"Ignoring on a routine and regular basis its own rules to safeguard the administration of public funds;

"Allowing the ongoing deterioration in the capital infrastructure of this province, including roads;

"Failing to adequately protect the public interest in monitoring the affairs of provincially regulated companies and not ensuring adequate and equitable compensation for people affected as a result of the government's regulatory failures;

"The continuing neglect of the needs of northern Ontario, particularly the failure to provide adequate education and health care services and to safeguard adequately our natural resources, in particular, our forests;

"Ignoring the legitimate aspirations of Ontario's multicultural communities to participate in the decision-making process.

"Therefore, this House declares its total lack of confidence in this government."

On Tuesday, March 27, Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, that the amendment to the motion be amended by adding immediately before the last line:

"And further condemns the government for:

"Following the example of the Liberal government in Ottawa in cutting back on funding for social housing, education and health care programs;

"The inadequacy of its efforts in affirmative action and, in particular, its failure to require affirmative action programs for all employers of 20 or more people;

"Continuing to ignore the need for strong legislation on plant closures requiring full disclosure and public justification of closure decisions and protecting fully all workers affected;

"The continued failure of the government to provide for early retirement for older workers;

"Its failure to begin the major reform of the social security system that is needed to cope with the devastating economic changes taking place in the province, and in particular its failure to advocate a major expansion of the public pension system in Ontario and in Canada, including the Canada pension plan;

"Its total neglect of the problem of poverty and of the need for tax reform, causing extreme hardship for growing numbers of families and individuals;

"The lack of any commitment on the part of the government to community economic development and to generating new forms of social capital for investment in job creation;

"Producing a plan for the Niagara Escarpment which completely retreats from the principle of protecting this unique resource in areas like the Beaver Valley;

"Failing to follow the example of other provinces in introducing a red meat stabilization program;

"Its failure to eliminate extra billing by doctors;

"Its failure to shift resources to a not-for-profit model in the provision of nursing home care and its refusal to require any genuine accountability on the part of private nursing home operators for either the quality of care or the expenditure of public funds;

"Its refusal to provide for lifetime indexed pensions for nonoccupational losses such as pain and suffering resulting from compensable injuries under workers' compensation."

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Would you read that again?

Mr. Speaker: No.

The first question to be decided is the amendment to the amendment to the motion.

5:56 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Rae's amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Renwick, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Conway, Copps, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M.;

Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Peterson, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston;

Sargent, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.

Ayes 22; nays 95.

The House divided on Mr. Peterson's amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo;

Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Mr. Sweeney;

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson J. M.;

Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson.

Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 53; nays 64.

The House divided on Mr. Gordon's main motion, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Resolved: That an humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable John Black Aird, an officer of the Order of Canada, one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, bachelor of arts, doctor of laws, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

The House adjourned at 6:08 p.m.

April 9, 1984